You and your parents must also now be experts in the staggering cost of tuition, books, and living expenses.

It used to be that going to a state school was inexpensive, and if you lived at home and/or had a part-time job you could emerge from college without much debt. That must seem amazing to current students.

Something isn’t right when students who can perform at a college level, have an interest in learning more, and need a college degree to obtain a decent job face so many obstacles.

It’s not good for our whole society, since an educated work force is key to our future prosperity.

I’ve heard some older people complaining that today’s young people have it too easy. They question how teenagers can afford expensive coffee lattes, cell phones, MP3 players, laptop computers, and their own cars.

But every youthful generation has its own pleasures and legitimate needs. Many of us older folks spent plenty of our teenage allowances or summer wages at the record store for Elvis or Beatles songs or at the soda fountain counter for raspberry cokes that gave us a mouthful of cavities.

But we didn’t have to mortgage our future in order to attend college. It was expensive, but nothing like what it is today.

A couple of weeks ago, as part of the new health care and education reform legislation, President Obama signed into law major improvements in financial aid for college students.

Here’s how the President described it:

“You see, for almost two decades, we’ve been trying to fix a sweetheart deal in federal law that essentially gave billions of dollars to banks to act as unnecessary middlemen in administering student loans. So those are billions of dollars that could have been spent helping more of our students attend and complete college; that could have been spent advancing the dreams of our children; that could have been spent easing the burden of tuition on middle-class families. Instead, that money was spent padding student lenders’ profits.

“… I didn’t stand with the banks and the financial industries in this fight. That’s not why I came to Washington. And neither did any of the members of Congress who are here today. We stood with you. We stood with America’s students…

“In the 21st century, when the success of every American hinges more than ever on the quality of their education, and when America’s success as a nation rests more than ever on an educated workforce that is second to none, we can’t afford to waste billions of dollars on giveaways to banks.

“We need to invest that money in our students. We need to invest in our community colleges. We need to invest in the future of this country. We need to meet the goal I set last year and graduate more of our students than any other nation by the year 2020…

“By cutting out the middleman, we’ll save American taxpayers $68 billion in the coming years — $68 billion. That’s real money – real savings that we’ll reinvest to help improve the quality of higher education and make it more affordable.”

The new financial aid legislation isn’t as big an improvement as many of us would like, but it’s a major step in the right direction.

All Senate Republicans, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, voted against this legislation.

Luckily for the future of our country, there were enough brave Democrats in the House and Senate to lead the country forward on health care and financial aid.

Most of us have forgotten – if we ever knew – the big fights that had to be waged for almost every major program that benefits Americans who aren’t rich. Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, are all examples of improvements in Americans’ lives that our country was able to bring about when a Democrat was President and Democrats were in the majority in the House and Senate.

Democrats have a record of helping young people afford college in ways that our whole society benefited from. If you doubt that, check out the history of financial aid in this country.

As Democratic President Lyndon Johnson said, “We believe, that is, you and I, that education is not an expense. We believe it is an investment.”

Or, as John Kenneth Galbraith said, “Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.”

We can probably agree that politics is not the art of perfection.  It’s not for purists.

But it’s the only way that citizens of a democracy can bring about a better future.

The untiring efforts – over decades of service — of people of good will are occasionally rewarded by an inching forward of progressive legislation.  It has been painful to follow the developments, but the health care legislation passed first in the House of Representatives, and then in the Senate on Christmas Eve, may become law early this year, if difficult compromises can be made between the House and Senate versions.

If it is does become law, once all the provisions are implemented (which will occur over several years) it will provide a significant relief for millions of Americans who now can barely pay their health insurance premiums, or can’t afford any insurance, or are denied insurance because of ill health, or who must stay in a terrible job just to maintain insurance for their families.  It will also mean that the rest of us don’t fall into those categories in the future. Many lives will be happier, healthier, and longer.

The disastrous choice is what we have today for a health insurance “system” for those not old enough for Medicare. Without the new legislation, in the coming years our health and our country’s economic well-being would be further threatened.

In future it may be possible to pass laws that do more to improve access to appropriate health care. (Other advanced countries have done it, with far less political turmoil.) Historians point out that when Social Security was first enacted, many Americans were not entitled to its benefits. In later years, as the public became more conscious of its positive effects, Social Security was expanded.

One of the clear lessons of the present health care debate is that political parties do matter. 

Republicans in Congress are doing everything they can to block progress on health care. This isn’t new. Republicans have traditionally voted in large numbers against legislation that would improve the lives of millions–such as Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, and Medicare–when it was first introduced.  After programs become popular with voters, Republican opposition is less vocal, but it’s always lurking (remember that our last Republican President tried to “privatize” Social Security).

Another lesson is how hard it is to get progressive legislation through the Senate even after it has passed in the House.

It takes 60 votes in the Senate to prevent a Republican filibuster. Currently the Senate has 58 Democrats and 2 independents. One independent is Sanders of Vermont, always a progressive voice; the other is Lieberman of Connecticut, who left the Democratic Party during the last election but whose vote was desperately sought in order to prevent Senate Republicans from blocking the legislation.

Another staggering fact about the Senate is that every single state has two senators and therefore gets two of the hundred possible votes.

Rural states get two votes. Industrial states get two votes. Heavily populated states get two votes (for example California, with almost 37 million residents). States with almost no one living there get two votes (for example Wyoming, with half a million people). Southern states get two votes. Northern states get two votes. States with more Republicans get two votes. States with more Democrats get two votes.  And so on.

Massachusetts has two precious votes. We must keep our two Senators in the Democratic column, working and voting – like Kennedy and Kerry –for the common good, for improving the lives of people, for a more just and compassionate society.

Don’t forget to go to your polling location on January 19 to vote for Martha Coakley, Democratic candidate for Senate in the special election to fill the seat formerly held by Kennedy. Polls are open from 7am to 8pm.

If you know that you won’t be able to get there on January 19, call or visit your town /city hall today to make arrangements for an absentee ballot:

Gloucester City Clerk, Dale Avenue, 978-281-9720

Manchester Town Clerk, 10 Central Street, 978-526-2040

Rockport Town Clerk, 34 Broadway, 978-546-6894

Your vote affects what gets done – or not done – in Washington. Many close elections have been lost because a few supporters stayed home.  Circle Tuesday, January 19, on your new calendar now!

On December 8 you can vote in the primary for the special election to fill the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. The result of the primary election determines who will represent each party on the general election ballot in January. In Massachusetts, you may vote in the primary of your party, or, if you are “unenrolled” (registered but not enrolled in a party), in any party’s primary.

You’d be shocked at how few people participate in the selection of the parties’ candidates. If you’re concerned about the quality of your representation, please participate in this critical winnowing process and vote on December 8.

The Senate has enormous power to help our country make progress on all fronts – or to block progress.

Ted Kennedy used his influence on Senate subcommittees to help millions of people in Massachusetts and many more millions across the country and the globe. Kennedy led and sponsored hundreds of bills that were enacted into law – a list far too long to include here.

Kennedy’s work in the Senate benefited—in various ways– the lives of everyone among your circle of family and friends…and also of those with no family and few friends.

Kennedy helped low-paid workers, workers who lose their jobs, people who work in unsafe conditions; children needing health care, better nutrition, an earlier start to learning; seniors receiving “meals on wheels” or dependent upon Social Security; the disabled; those needing assistance improving their home’s energy efficiency. He led the fight to end discrimination in voting, housing, education, and the workplace. He helped millions of students afford college. His efforts led to national community service programs.

But all of us are better protected by Kennedy’s persistent fight against an array of ills, including –to name a few–unsafe food, drugs, medical devices, guns; bioterrorism threats; and money in politics.

You probably wish we were further along when it comes to our country’s overall economic and social well-being.

But remember what Kennedy said in 1980 at the Democratic convention and take heart:

“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

It’s up to us, We the People, to make sure that the work goes on.

Step 1: If you’re not registered to vote, register soon. Fill out a voter registration form (available at city/town clerk offices, by mail or Internet – see Voter Information below). In order to register, you’ll need to be 18 or older on election day, a US citizen, and a state resident. You can vote in the primary if you’re registered to vote by Wednesday, November 18.

Step 2: Register as a Democrat. If you appreciate what Senator Kennedy did for our state, our country, and our world, register to vote as a Democrat. Although Kennedy is famous for “reaching across the aisle,” he never gave up trying to achieve his Democratic goals. He also knew when to compromise — when otherwise he wouldn’t get enough votes to transform his ideas into action.

You’ll send a message to all politicians if you register as a Democrat and thus make clear your preference for the fundamental Democratic Party philosophy –so well exemplified in Kennedy’s achievements– of working for the common good.

Step 3: Vote in the Democratic Primary. On December 8, go to your polling place and vote in the Democratic primary. Help decide who becomes the Democratic candidate for Senator in the general election.

Step 4: Vote for the Democrat in January. If you’re registered to vote as of December 30, vote for the Democratic candidate on Tuesday, January 19.

Only a Democrat will carry on Kennedy’s work for the common good, ensuring that the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream – of a world healthier and safer for all –doesn’t die.

Information for All Voters
• Election day: All Massachusetts polling locations are open 7 am – 8 pm for state elections.
• Locations: Call the city/town clerk if you don’t know where to vote – or check out http://www.wheredoivotema.com.
• Absentee ballots: If you can’t be in town during voting hours, make arrangements in advance to cast an absentee ballot. Ask your city/town clerk or see the rules at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ELE/eleifv/howabs.htm.
• Registration forms. The US Elections Assistance Commission http://www.eac.gov/voter links to a national voter registration form, which can be printed out and mailed. Or contact:
Gloucester City Clerk, 9 Dale Avenue, 978- 281-9720, hours (through Nov. 1): 8:30 am – 4 pm, Tues-Wed 10:30 am – 4 pm, Thurs 10:30 am – 6:30 pm, Fri 8:30 am – 12:30 pm
Manchester Town Clerk, 10 Central Street, 978-526-2040, hours: Mon-Wed 8:30 am- 5 pm, Thurs 8:30 am – 8 pm
Rockport Town Clerk, 34 Broadway, 978-546-6894, hours: Mon 8 am – 4 pm, Tues 8 am-6 pm, Wed-Thurs 8 am – 4 pm, Fri 8 am – 1 pm
Secretary of State, 617-727-2828 or 1-800-462-VOTE

Kennedy was defending traditional Medicare, not the type called “Medicare Advantage,” which is offered by private insurers, usually for-profit corporations.

Medicare Advantage is the result of the “Medicare Modernization Act of 2003,” enacted by President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress of Bush’s first term.

This is the legislation that led to the Medicare prescription drug program with its infamous “doughnut hole.”

You may recall that the 2003 law prohibits the government from negotiating drug prices. (Why would Republicans, who rail about the cost of government programs, want to avoid the best deal for taxpayers?)

The 2003 law also increased the privatization of Medicare by paying insurers to offer health plans.

Medicare Advantage has been an extremely expensive program, costing far more than the Bush administration had forecast to Congress. (The administration threatened an official with termination if he revealed the true estimate before Congress voted. A month later, the cost estimate was revealed to be $100 billion more than the administration had told Congress.)

Medicare Advantage offers managed-care plans in which Medicare pays private insurance companies to provide care rather than paying doctors and hospitals directly.

The private-sector plans cost the government an average of 12 percent more than traditional Medicare for the same services, and they have been taking up a larger and larger slice of Medicare funding.

Senator Obama has expressed concern about “the exploitation of senior citizens by private insurers participating in the Medicare Advantage program. According to an analysis by the New York Times, tens of thousands of Medicare recipients have been the victims of deceptive sales practices by these private insurance companies, had claims improperly denied or denied without explanation, and received poor customer service in trying to get their questions answered. In some cases, the practices of these companies were found to have affected the health of patients by delaying access to urgently needed health care services and medications.”

(Obama has said that as president, “I will reduce costs in the Medicare program by enacting reforms to lower the price of prescription drugs, ending the subsidies for private insurers in the Medicare Advantage program and focusing resources on prevention and effective chronic disease management.”)

One of the biggest companies in the business is UnitedHealth, whose shares are traded on Wall Street. The firm’s president had total compensation in 2007 of $5 million and was recently charged in court as having had a role in the backdating of stock options. (His predecessor “stepped down” as a result of that scandal.)

One of UnitedHealth’s divisions offers the Evercare Special Needs Plan for People with Limited Income. The Boston Globe recently reported that Massachusetts officials have received numerous complaints about the plan’s marketing techniques.

The Globe quoted an attorney for Greater Boston Legal Services: “We’ve heard of cases where brokers have signed up people who don’t speak English … They didn’t tell seniors that there are networks, and they may not be able to see their own doctors. They promise that taxi rides to doctors’ offices and bingo games are part of the program. Some said they were from Medicare itself and that it was going under and they needed to sign up.”

As a result of the state’s review, UnitedHealth has decided to temporarily stop sales of the plan in Massachusetts. Will they now train brokers not to use misleading sales tactics?

The reason that Kennedy went to Washington while undergoing brain-cancer treatment was to prevent the private-sector plans from taking funding away from traditional Medicare.

When Medicare spending exceeds certain limits, automatic cuts are triggered. This year, the cuts could have meant a steep drop in payments to physicians.

The Democratic leadership proposed instead to reduce the excessive subsidies to private insurance companies. President Bush and Congressional Republicans wanted to protect the insurance companies.

At first Democrats couldn’t prevent a Republican filibuster because they needed one more vote — hence Kennedy’s selfless return to the Senate.

With our courageous lion in action, a few Republicans were persuaded to switch their position and voted with Democrats, ensuring passage of the bill.

This vote illustrates fundamental philosophical differences between the parties. Democratic plans usually emphasize the common good. Republican plans usually favor private profit, often at enormous cost to taxpayers.

That was the question asked by Congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat from California, at the start of a hearing last week on AEY, Inc.

A tiny Miami Beach munitions dealer, AEY is now under indictment. Awarded an Army contract in early 2007, it was paid over $60 million. It apparently sold the Army cartridges manufactured in China that were disguised as products from Albania. (It’s against the law for military contracts to deliver ammunition acquired, directly or indirectly, from a Communist Chinese military company.)

The indictment lists a devastating email to AEY’s president from his business advisor. A photograph attached to the message shows someone scraping the words “MADE IN CHINA” off a wooden crate!

It’s likely, according to Congressional investigators, that AEY got its product from stockpiles in Albania and other countries that have been trying to give away or destroy aging munitions.

It turns out that Pentagon procurement officials never consulted a list that the State Department maintains of individuals and companies suspected of illegal arms. The president of AEY was on that list.

This is only one of the smaller – but easier to describe — scandals of uncontrolled military contracting during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

In January of this year, Congress passed legislation creating an independent and bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting which is now beginning its work.

Our Congressman, John Tierney, was instrumental in establishing this commission. He credits the oversight work being done by the standing committees in Congress—now that Democrats, because of their majority, are finally permitted to initiate hearings—as follows:

“These good efforts have exposed the magnitude of waste, mismanagement, and abuse associated with wartime contracts and evidenced the need for this special commission … to ensure that taxpayer money is well-spent and contractors are held accountable.”

In May, the Department of Defense’s Inspector General issued a report on mismanagement of payments made in Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt. Among its findings:

“We estimated that the Army made $1.4 billion in commercial payments that lacked the minimum supporting documentation and information for a valid payment, such as certified vouchers, proper receiving reports, and invoices. Payments that are not properly supported do not provide the necessary assurance that funds were used as intended.”

During a hearing on “Accountability Lapses in Multiple Funds for Iraq,” Congressman Waxman acknowledged that “normal accounting standards aren’t always possible in war zones…but some actions—like our government’s decision to hand out $12 billion in cash at the beginning of the war—defy logic…nearly $9 billion of that money was distributed with no accounting standards at all.”

Waxman went on to say: “There is something very wrong when our wounded troops have to fill out forms in triplicate for meal money while billions of dollars in cash are handed out in Iraq with no accountability.”

You can learn more, and even watch a video of the hearing, at http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1980. Copies of unitemized vouchers can be seen at at http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1965, including the July 2003 authorization of $320,800.000.00 in cash with the three-word description “Iraqi Salary Payment.”

Because of such grossly inadequate accounting, we will probably never learn the full scope of waste or outright fraud.

The central Government Accountability Office recently issued a report on the Department of Defense (DOD) noting its “concerns about DOD’s reliance on contractors to perform roles that have in the past been performed by government employees. Without the right-sized workforce, with the right skills, we believe this could place greater risk on the government for fraud, waste, and abuse. In part, this increased reliance has occurred because DOD is experiencing a critical shortage of certain acquisition professionals with technical skills as it has downsized its workforce over the last decade.”

When Republicans held the chairmanships of Congressional committees, they refused to investigate military procurement and accounting disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they represent the party that boasts its superiority in frugal management of taxpayers’ money! And they’re quick to use the phrase “waste, fraud, and abuse” when it comes to vital budgets for ordinary public services.

Is it time to give the Republican Party an F on financial management and military procurement—as well as on war planning, health care, education, the environment, and the economy?

Others believe the opposite — that Democrats and Republicans are too far apart and need to work more cooperatively.

Yet  others believe that Democrats compromise too readily and shouldn’t cave in to Republican demands.

Now that Democrats have “controlled” Congress for seven months, what does the record show?

The House has a fairly strong Democratic majority (231 Democrats to 202 Republicans). Since January – when Democrats began leading the committees where legislation moves or stalls — the House has passed bills to improve the lives of millions of Americans and invest government funds more productively. Bills passed so far would:

• Increase the minimum wage
• Increase college grants for low- and middle-income students
• Broaden  federal support for stem cell research
• Require the federal government to negotiate with drug companies to get better prices for Medicare recipients
• Reduce tax breaks for oil companies

The legislation on the minimum wage was long overdue. Because of inflation, the value of the minimum wage had reached its lowest level in fifty years – scandalous in a country that believes in equality.
This legislation may not seem momentous in Massachusetts, because our minimum wage has been higher than the federal minimum of $5.15 an hour.

But think of the impact in states like Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee, which don’t have their own minimum wage law, and Kansas, Oklahoma and West Virginia, which have very low minimums. Nationally, more than twelve million low-paid workers will benefit.

All Democrats in the House voted for passage of this most fundamental expression of economic justice. Eighty-two Republicans joined them. But a majority of Republicans – 116 – voted “nay.”

Remember that for a bill to become law, it has to be passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by the President.

There’s the rub.

The Senate has 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, one independent, and one Democrat who ran as an independent (Lieberman). (Remember that the Democratic Senator from South Dakota is recovering from illness and hasn’t yet voted this year.)

Because the two independents are grouped with the Democrats, the Senate committees are chaired by Democrats and usually have one more member on committees than the Republicans do.

It’s an excruciatingly tight “majority,” and compromises are of necessity made even at the committee level. Amendments by both parties are offered when the bill comes before the full Senate.

With sixty votes required to move legislation in the Senate, any bill that makes it to the President’s desk has to be bipartisan.

In January, right after the House approved the minimum wage hike, the Democratic majority in the Senate tried to pass the same legislation. Five Republicans joined Democrats and the independents in voting for the minimum wage with no strings attached, but the other Republicans would not budge, and the sixty votes needed to proceed could not be obtained.

It took four more months for the minimum wage to pass and get signed into law by President Bush. Democrats had to agree to new tax cuts for business, even though five Republicans had thought they weren’t necessary. The President signed the bill because it included funding for the Iraq war.
Last month the House passed the College Cost Reduction Act with bipartisan support. The vote was 273 to 149.  Of those voting, two-thirds of Republicans said “nay”; all Democrats said “yea.”

Again, a measure on which Democrats and quite a few Republicans agreed, but a majority of Republicans were opposed.

A  couple of weeks ago, the College Cost Reduction Act passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support. But still – on an issue that is causing havoc in the lives of millions of parents and their children — about a third of Republican senators voted “nay.” The bill is now in a conference committee with the House.

There’s not space today to delve into the details of other legislation that passed fairly easily in the Democratic House but has been stalled in the Senate, where Democrats and Republicans are basically tied.
If you like the bills that the House passed this year, you have a lot in common with what the Democratic Party stands for: working for the Common Good.

What we need next is a strong Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and Democratic leadership in the Presidency.  If that happens (thanks to voters in states across the country), you’ll see faster progress on domestic legislation — and a much wiser foreign policy.

Unless a senator in the Democratic majority dies or switches parties, the leadership of the powerful Senate committees will be in Democratic hands for the next two years, with the result that Democrats will determine which matters are brought up for investigation, debate, and action.

To enact laws, both the House and the Senate must agree. In the Senate especially, with its excruciatingly thin Democratic majority, the bills that become law will likely be those that “conservative” Democrats and “moderate” Republicans can vote for. If they are to pass, bills must be crafted to overcome Republican filibusters and presidential vetoes.

But even without ground-breaking legislation, a Democratic-led Senate will be a positive change from the institution controlled by Republicans for almost all of the past decade.

The new Senate will not provide cover for an extraordinarily secretive, incompetent, and prevaricating administration led by President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

It will be possible to conduct public hearings on matters that have been ignored or hushed up.

Even though past mistakes, bad judgment, and deceit may seem to be water under the bridge, it’s essential that We the People evaluate what our government has been doing in our name…and learn what it has refused to make public.

For how can we make decisions about the future without a clear-eyed assessment of where we are now, how money is being spent, and whose priorities our government has adopted?

Our own Senator Kennedy is now chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The Democratic composition of this crucial committee includes Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, along with eight other respected men and women. These eleven will be working with nine Republicans (most from states that voted enthusiastically for President Bush).

We in Massachusetts know how forcefully Kennedy has fought for civil rights, universal health care, and economic justice, a courageous and steady voice for compassion throughout the churlish and cynical years of Republican power.

Kennedy has announced his committee’s goals for the coming year: increasing the federal minimum wage, removing barriers to stem cell research, making college more affordable, and addressing the crisis in health care. He believes that bipartisan support can be found for progress in these areas.

Another dramatic change in leadership is in the Environment and Public Works Committee. Under the Republican majority, the chair of that committee was Inhofe of Oklahoma, who once said that global warming is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer will now chair the environmental committee. She is the California senator who has led the fight to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Boxer will personally oversee its subcommittee Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, Children’s Health Protection and Nuclear Safety. Now it will be possible for vigorous Senate hearings on global warming, with scientists and government officials testifying under oath. Let’s hope that these hearings will galvanize the United States to act forcefully on this issue which threatens our future.
One of the exciting characteristics of the new Senate leaders is the knowledge, broad perspectives, and unselfish values they bring to bear in dealing with complex, intertwined issues facing us, including environment, energy, economic prosperity, and international relations.

Take our Senators Kennedy and Kerry, for example. Kennedy may be better known for his work in education, health care, and civil rights, but he also has a stellar record on protecting natural resources, improving public transportation, and defending our judiciary, to name just a few of the areas in which he has been a leader during his extensive Senate career.

Kerry, now chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship committee, has expertise in not only business issues but also environmental protection, children’s health care, national security, veterans affairs, and affordable housing, among others.

Our Democratic leaders, working together and with Republicans, can take the United States forward in the next two years – or at least protect us from the backwards slide we’ve experienced recently – and earn the respect of Americans across the country, and perhaps the world.

Then in 2008, we have the chance to elect additional Democrats to Congress and improve the prospects of progressive legislation. And a White House devoted to working for the common good.

Happy new year!

Test your knowledge of our country’s “Upper Chamber.”

1. What is the number of U.S. senators? (a) 100, (b) 102, (c) 104.
2. How many senators will be Democrats, beginning in January? (a) 52, (b) 50, (c) 49.
3. What is the length of a senator’s term? (a) 2 years, (b) 4 years, (c) 6 years.
4. The Senate is composed of 2 members from each state, regardless of population size. In what state is the number of people per senate seat below 250,000? (a) Wyoming, (b) Delaware, (c) Vermont.
5. California has more than 16,000,000 people per senate seat. What is the party affiliation of the two senators from California?  (a) they are both Democrats, (b) they are both Republicans, (c) it’s a tie.
6. Which Massachusetts senator was reelected in November? (a) Ted Kennedy, (b) John Kerry.
7. The new Senate Majority Leader will be a Democrat who has indicated that his top three priorities are bipartisanship, open government, and results. What is his name, and where is he from?
8. What is one of the Majority Leader’s most important official duties? (a) writing bills, (b) scheduling debates and votes, (c) overseeing the Senate’s clerks.
9. If one of the Democratic or Independent senators decided to switch sides, which party would have the majority in the Senate and why?
10. Which senator will be chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee?
11. Who is the Ranking Member of a Senate committee?
12. Which important responsibility does the Constitution give the Senate but not the House of Representatives? (a) national budget, (b) investigations of the executive branch, (c) approval of judicial nominations.
13. Which New England senators serve on the judiciary committee?
14. Can a bill passed by the House of Representatives become a law without approval by the Senate? (a) yes, in a few cases, (b) no.
15. Which of the following Democratic Presidents was previously a U.S. Senator: (a) Lyndon Johnson, (b) Jimmy Carter, (c) Bill Clinton.
Answers
1. (a) 100. Each of the 50 states has two senators. The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories are not allocated seats.
2. (c). The new Senate will have 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 men elected as Independents. Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, a registered Democrat who ran for election as an Independent, and Senator Sanders of Vermont have indicated that they will caucus with Democrats, giving the Democratic Party the Majority Leader position and the chairmanship of the powerful Senate committees.
3. (c) Senators have six-year terms.
4. (a) Wyoming. The two Republican Senators from Wyoming represent a state population (per 2000 census) of 495,304.
5.  (a) California Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein are both Democrats.
6.  (a) Ted Kennedy was elected to his eighth full term in November. He is the second most senior member of the Senate, having been elected in 1962 to fill out the term of Senator John Kennedy when he left the Senate to become President.
7. Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada will be the new Majority Leader.
8. (b) Scheduling debates and votes.
9. The Senate would have 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats and Independents who caucus with Democrats. As Vice President, Republican Dick Cheney would be the tiebreaker; the Majority Leader and all committee heads would be Republican.
10. Massachusetts Senator Kennedy is expected to be the new chair of the committee overseeing legislation regarding health care, education, labor, and pensions.
11. The Ranking Member of a committee is the spokesperson for the minority party. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been the Ranking Member of the Senate’s Small Business Committee. He will become the committee’s chair in January when the Democrats have the majority.
12. (c) The Senate is given the responsibility for “advice and consent” of presidential nominations. The House of Representatives has no role in approving appointments.
13. Democrats Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy.
14. Both houses must pass exactly the same version of a bill if it is to become law.
15. (a) Lyndon Johnson won election to the Senate in 1948 (by only 87 votes!). Senator Johnson became Majority Leader in 1955, when one senator switched parties and gave the Democrats a one-vote majority.

“I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

Those are the words of Grover Norquist, a leading voice of the Republican Party.

A generation earlier, during the administration of Republican President Reagan, the goal was “starve the beast.” Budget director David Stockman admitted that supply-side economics was a “trojan horse” to cut taxes on the wealthy. He confessed in his memoirs that Reagan ran up the budget deficit on purpose, as an excuse to cut domestic spending.

Now that the Republican Party is in full swing – controlling Congress as well as the Presidency and a majority of state governorships – we are seeing the results of starving, or drowning, the “beast.” 

Tax cuts passed during the last few years have been a windfall for the very wealthiest Americans. Their taxes have been reduced by tens of thousands of dollars.

These huge cuts are starving government at all levels.

The rest of us may have had as much as a few hundred dollars in income tax reductions, but they’ve been offset by property tax increases, fee hikes (for school activities, college tuition, professional licenses), and the higher personal expenses we incur because states and cities can’t afford to maintain basic services.

You’d think that when we’re in the midst of a staggeringly expensive war, we wouldn’t decrease the taxes of those who have plenty of cash left over after buying everything that interests them.

Yet that’s what has happened, even as our country is digging itself into deeper and deeper debt.

But now that the billionaires are saving so much money on taxes, the rest of us must “tighten our belts” in order to reduce the deficit!

That’s the reason the Republican Congress gives for slashing spending on services valued by most Americans.

President Bush greeted proposed legislation during Christmas week with the words “”The Senate vote to reduce entitlement spending is a victory for taxpayers, fiscal restraint and responsible budgeting,” What he meant was, “We’re making great progress in starving the beast!”

Who will be affected by this “victory,” which aims to cut Medicare and Medicaid, student loan programs, and home heating assistance? It’s the elderly and disabled needing home health care, kids trying to pay for college, families providing foster care, people who can’t afford to heat their houses.

You can be sure that the federal government will be passing even more costs down to the state and local level, meaning that services everyone depends on, including public safety, will be cut further.
This is at a time when it’s crystal-clear that private charity cannot meet the basic needs of our people. Most food pantries are experiencing an increase in customers and a reduction in contributions.

Meanwhile, executive pay has skyrocketed, corporate profits are up, and the US is the richest country in the world. Exxon-Mobil is the most profitable company on the planet, the polar icecaps are melting, and Congress refuses to take sensible steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

When you wonder why our country’s priorities are topsy-turvy, keep in mind where the power is. Republicans outnumber Democrats in the US Senate by 55 to 44, they outnumber Democrats in the US House 231 to 202, and Republican President George Bush controls all the regulatory agencies.

You don’t even hear about the legislation that Democrats propose because it’s usually killed in committee, before it can get to a floor vote.

When the Republican Party votes to “starve the beast” or drown public services in a bathtub, remember what carrying out this philosophy means in real life: more people going to bed hungry, more low-wage jobs, bridges and dams in disrepair, extra minutes for firefighters to arrive in your neighborhood, reduced scientific research, our young people graduating with mountains of debt, longer commute times, slower delivery of mail, fewer textbooks for kids to study at home, more seriously ill people diagnosed too late, more threats to one’s retirement security. 

None of this is healthy for the economic future of our nation, which demands sound infrastructure and an educated workforce.

In 2006 let’s return to power the party that works for the common good.