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?

1. During the current Congress, Republican John McCain voted with the Republican Party position how much of the time? (a) 50.1%, (b) 76.5%, (c) 88.3%.
2. Republican John McCain recently was the beneficiary of a big fundraiser in Utah. Who was there who didn’t want to be photographed by the press? (a) Republicans George Bush and Mitt Romney, (b) Oprah Winfrey, (c) Tom Hanks.
3. Which party’s Presidential candidate thinks the solution to the national health care crisis is to “harness competition”: (a) Democratic, (b) Republican.
4. Which candidate says that the Bush tax cuts for the rich should be preserved? (a) Democrat, (b) Republican.
5. Since 1981—a generation ago—how many Democrats have been President? (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3.
6. One political party is responsible for the creation of Medicare—the other fought against it. Which party brought about a radical improvement in health for seniors? (a) Democratic, (b) Republican.
7. Which Presidents were the youngest in American history? (a) Alexander Hamilton, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, (b) Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, (c) Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, John Kennedy.
8. Which President led the country during its longest peace-time economic expansion? (a) Republican George H. W. Bush, (b) Democrat Bill Clinton, (c) Republican George W. Bush.
9. Which party’s President led the formation of the United Nations? (a) Democratic, (b) Republican.
10. Under which administration has the Environmental Protection Agency prevented California from enforcing tougher emissions limits on vehicles? (a) Democratic, (b) Republican.
11. Two states near Massachusetts are considered “battleground states” in this year’s Presidential election. Which are they? (a) Maine and New Jersey, (b) New Hampshire and Maine, (c) New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.
12. Which state voted for the Republican nominee in the last four Presidential elections but is considered a battleground state this year? (a) South Carolina, (b) Kentucky, (c) Virginia, (d) Wyoming.
13. Who, first elected to the Senate in 1962, has worked steadfastly for the whole nation’s Common Good?

Answers:

1. (c) Republican McCain voted with the Republican Party 88.3% of the time (not counting occasions he didn’t vote).
2. (a) Republicans Bush and Romney are helping McCain raise money, because they know that he agrees with them on the core values of the Republican Party.
3. (b) Republican McCain says that private-sector “competition” is the solution to the country’s health care crisis and, in true Republican fashion, professes to believe that the involvement of the federal government would increase “bureaucracy” and costs. The truth is that Medicare, a federal program, has very low administrative costs and imposes less “bureaucracy” than private-sector health plans.
4. (b) Republican McCain is in favor of continuing Bush’s tax cuts for the very rich. Democrats Clinton and Obama are on record for repealing tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000.
5. (a) There has been one Democratic President since 1981. Bill Clinton was in office from 1993 to 2001. All the other Presidents since 1981 have been Republicans: Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.
6. (a) Medicare is the result of the Democratic Party’s efforts. It was enacted in 1965, when Democrat Lyndon Johnson was elected President in a landslide and the Senate and House of Representatives had a Democratic majority. Most Republican Senators argued against Medicare, calling it “socialized medicine.”
7. (b) Age at the beginning of first term: 42, Teddy Roosevelt; 43, John Kennedy; 46, Bill Clinton.
8. (b) Democrat Bill Clinton presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history. He also balanced the federal budget and left office with a federal surplus.
9. (a) Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt and his successor, Democratic President Harry Truman, were instrumental in the creation of the United Nations.
10. (b) Under Republican President George W. Bush, the EPA has ordered California not to tighten its vehicle emissions limits.
11. (c) Pennsylvania and New Hampshire both voted Democratic in 2004 but are considered battleground in 2008—that is, they might vote Republican for President this year.
12. (c) Virginia. Although it has a long history of voting for Republicans as President, many analysts believe that the Democratic nominee has a chance this year. Virginia has had a Democratic governor since 2002, and the Democratic candidate for Senate, Mark Warner, is currently leading in the polls.
13. Democrat Ted Kennedy.

Republican policies overwhelmingly benefit the rich. Tax cuts based on a percentage of earnings usually reduce taxes of the rich by many thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, not the tens or hundreds the rest of us get.

On second thought, it’s not accurate to say that Republican tax cuts “benefit” the rich.

All Americans (including the rich) suffer in the long term—though in varying degrees of pain—from the kind of tax cuts Republicans have been giving out.

How? Because not enough revenue is coming into the federal, state, or municipal levels of government to provide basic services or to invest in projects that will contribute to our country’s long-term prosperity. (The budgetary situation is made far worse by the reckless planning and poor management of the current wars.)

Wherever you look, there’s not enough investment to protect the public.

It took the bridge collapse in Minneapolis to make us acutely conscious of the fragile state of public infrastructure. We now notice rusted girders and netting on the underside of a bridge as we pass below and realize that some engineer must be worried about the potential of falling objects.

The inspection and maintenance of bridges and highways are vital public functions that require adequate public funding and public supervision.

The well-publicized incidents about e.coli contamination of spinach have made us more aware of the need for food-safety inspection and regulation.

But between 2003 and 2006, the major government agency responsible for food safety (Food and Drug Administration) conducted 47 percent fewer inspections, according to an analysis of federal records by the Associated Press.

Even the very richest Americans would find it impractical to set up their own private food inspections.
Public health programs have been cut. Flu and other communicable diseases don’t ask how much you earn when they invade your body (though you’ll likely have access to better medical treatment if you’re rich).
All Americans benefit from clean air and clean water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs adequate funding to do its job, but under Republican management its resources (as well as diligence) have shrunk. The Bush Administration proposed a budget for 2009 that would mean a 26% decline in overall EPA funding since the administration’s first budget was enacted, when adjusted for inflation.

Infrastructure maintenance, food safety, public health, and clean air and water are just four of the many ways our government should be protecting us, whatever our income.

Remember Republican guru Grover Norquist (who grew up in Weston, Massachusetts)?

He said he wanted to shrink government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” This influential Republican also reportedly said: “My ideal citizen is the self-employed, homeschooling, IRA-owning guy with a concealed-carry permit. Because that person doesn’t need the goddamn government for anything.”

When you hear Republican John McCain talking about all the good things he wants to do for us, keep in mind that he believes in the Republican philosophy of government. But he’s not going to straight-talk like Norquist during his campaign.

McCain has taken Grover Norquist’s “no new taxes” pledge, which states, “ I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

McCain’s website says “John McCain believes taxes should be low, simple, and fair.” It sounds good, but it’s the typical Republican Trojan horse. The reality is the rich getting richer, the middle class shrinking, the poor neglected, and public services deteriorating.

Let’s not get taken in again by Republican campaign promises about jobs, health care, education, or the environment. If McCain is elected in November this year, expect further cuts in public services and further deterioration in the quality of all Americans’ lives.

Is it because those with good health insurance haven’t been worried about anyone else? Is it because voters have been scared by the myth of “socialized medicine”? Is it because of the political power of the for-profit insurance industry?

Many Americans have excellent health care because they get good insurance through their employers. Some very rich Americans have excellent care because they pay for it privately.

But the number of uninsured Americans is shocking, and it continues to grow. According to a report by the respected Kaiser Foundation, “Nearly 47 million Americans under the age of 65 lacked health insurance coverage in 2006, an increase of 2.1 million from the year before.” (The reason the report uses statistics for those under 65 is that Medicare—even though it doesn’t pay for preventive care—makes such a difference to the health of those it covers.)

It will be painful to learn how many more Americans lost health insurance in 2007 and 2008.

Many who do have insurance discover it’s inadequate. The numbers are hard to come by, but over time—until we finally adopt a health care system—more of us will likely fall into this category, postponing preventive care and recommended procedures because of out-of-pocket costs.

One measure of a nation’s health is the number of infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Our ranking is shameful – of 221 countries, we are in 42nd place.

Our non-system of health care has a devastating impact on the lives of uninsured children.

According to the Kaiser report, 26% of uninsured children have no usual place of care; 17% postponed seeking care because of cost; 12% had their last contact with a health care professional more than two years ago; 23% had unmet dental needs, and a whopping 37% hadn’t visited the dentist for more than two years. Since most are in families that can’t afford insurance, those kids who do manage to get better medical care are probably benefiting from painful sacrifices in other important areas of their family’s life.

Recently President Bush vetoed an expansion of Medicaid insurance for children (S-Chip). Congress couldn’t override the veto because most Republicans supported the President, even though Democrats had worked with a number of Republicans to make the legislation more palatable to Republican philosophy. Meanwhile, Bush’s budget for 2008—while touting an increase in dollars—would not cover all of the children already enrolled.

If we had a real system of health care, all Americans could receive good health care as a basic right.

The system could emphasize prevention, both because we want to improve the health of all Americans and because we need to reduce the long-term expense of preventable disease.

The system could replace the inefficiencies in billing that add billions to the cost of American health care.

The president of Johns Hopkins University, who gave an informative speech last fall, reported that at “the Johns Hopkins Hospital we have to bill more than 700 different payers and insurers. These are HMOs, PPOs, MCOs, IPAs and an alphabet soup of other organizations. Each one has their own set of rules regarding what services are covered, the level of reimbursement and what kind of documentation and pre-approval is required. It is an administrative nightmare.”

The patchwork quilt of health care in our country has become so tattered—more full of holes and yet more costly to provide every year—that there is pressure from powerful forces, including big business, to do something about it.

The devil will be in the details.

If a Democrat is elected President this fall with a strong Democratic majority in the House and Senate, the solution won’t be modeled on the confusing and expensive Medicare prescription drug program designed by President Bush and the Republican Congress. If you’re a senior, you’ve probably been baffled by differences among the private-sector plans and shocked at the increased premiums. If you’re a senior whose health depends on costly drugs, you know how unfair and painful that “doughnut hole” is.

If working for the common good becomes a priority for the White House and Congress as a result of Democrats gaining power this fall, let’s adopt a real system of health care which will promote the “general Welfare.”

Consider one dictionary definition of the word system: “the state or condition of harmonious, orderly interaction.”

The captain proudly takes you on tours of spacious, light-filled cabins and sparkling recreational facilities. You join him and his officers for delicious meals, spend afternoons by the pool and relax with fellow passengers over cocktails. The service is excellent, and everyone is in a good mood.

As you sit down to write your review, you realize you haven’t seen the whole ship, so you shut down the computer and begin a long hike through the various decks, nooks, and crannies of the huge ship.

You soon realize that the cabins you first saw aren’t representative — on the lower levels they are cramped, with tiny portholes. Even farther down, there is no natural light, and the air smells bad.

You finally make your way into the very bowels of the ship and, in the stifling heat, you see sweaty men operating pumping machines. They tell you the hull is leaking but the officers have decided not to stop for repairs.

The exhausted men are working extra shifts to keep the ship from sinking. The pumps are old and haven’t been well maintained so the men worry what will happen if there’s a major storm.

Passengers on the upper decks aren’t concerned about what’s happening lower down. Most have never given thought to what the rest of the ship is like, or whether the hull is seaworthy. They are enjoying the amenities and the attentive service.

The seamen at the pumps wonder why the captain doesn’t send officers down to inspect what’s happening and take action.

They wonder why the hull wasn’t adequately repaired when the ship was last in port, and why the aging machinery hasn’t been replaced.

Those on the lower levels will probably be the first to drown if there’s a hurricane, or if the ship hits one of the icebergs floating off from the polar icecap. Those on the upper decks will likely not survive either, and in any case their vacation will certainly be ruined.

Our country, under this Republican administration, is a lot like this ocean liner. It brags about the views from the upper decks and the first-class service.

Meanwhile, the nation is operating under dangerous debt; we’re cutting investment in infrastructure and giving enormous tax breaks to those who have everything.

Those closer to the hull are working longer hours just to survive, and most don’t even have time to be outraged at the unfairness.

An objective travel writer would never give this ocean liner a good review. The dangers to everyone — from the first-class cabin dwellers to the workers in the engine room — are apparent if one looks at the whole ship carefully.

It’s risky for everyone aboard if the infrastructure, including the men operating the pumps, are neglected. How can the company justify devoting so much staff time to fine dining and attentive service while the hull is in disrepair, the pumps are aging and the men are becoming too tired to work them effectively?

Realists see through the exaggerated statements of our nation’s prosperity. They believe we should take steps now to prevent or at least minimize the effects of likely hurricanes ahead, storms that threaten everyone’s future standard of living: flu pandemics, terrorism, the nation’s debt, international conflicts over oil and water and food, global warming.

And yet our Republican administration cuts investment in public health, does little to protect our infrastructure from sabotage, increases the national debt even further by giving more tax breaks to the wealthy, is reckless in its international policies, and refuses to take real steps to conserve energy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Unfortunately we have Republican administrations not only in Washington but also in a majority of state capitols.

Our Massachusetts ship’s captain and his officers paint rosy pictures of progress while infrastructure deteriorates and many who have full-time jobs can’t afford to live here, get preventive medical care or send their kids to public colleges. In some neighborhoods we can’t even depend on prompt assistance in case of fire or other emergency.

Because the Democratic Party works for the common good, if we were in charge we’d instruct the ocean liner’s captain to stop at the nearest port and make the ship seaworthy, not run the risk of drowning passengers and crew.

That would be the moral course of action, as well as the sensible way to proceed for all concerned, including the corporate owners.

Polls will be open from 7 am to 8 pm. If you don’t know your polling place, visit www.wheredoivotema.com or call your city or town hall. You must have been registered as of January 16 in order to vote in the primary.

If you’ve never voted in a primary before, you’ll find that it’s easy. Just give your name and address at the check-in table. If you’re a registered Democrat, you’ll be given a Democratic ballot. If you’re registered to vote but not enrolled in a party, you may request a Democratic ballot; your party status will remain Unenrolled after you vote.

If you’ve been a regular voter, you won’t need identification. However, if you registered to vote by mail in 2003 or later, you may be required to show identification, which must include your name and the address at which you’re registered to vote, for example, a current driver’s license, photo identification, current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document showing your name and address.

If you’re not listed on the voter list, you may cast a “provisional ballot.” To do this, you declare that you’re registered in the precinct and provide suitable identification. Later, the election officials will search for records to confirm your voter registration. If your eligibility is confirmed, your ballot will be counted.

The primary ballot – printed before several candidates dropped out – will list the Democratic candidates in the following order:

JOHN R. EDWARDS
HILLARY CLINTON
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
MIKE GRAVEL
BARACK OBAMA
DENNIS J. KUCINICH
BILL RICHARDSON

Please note that Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Richardson have ended their campaigns – so vote for a candidate who is still running: Edwards, Clinton, Gravel, or Obama.

(You may be surprised to see some local names on the ballot as well. The presidential primary is the means by which your ward or town Democratic committee members are elected to a four-year term. Please vote for them. In a city, ward committee members automatically become members of the city committee.)

The number of votes each candidate receives in the primary election determines the number of pledged delegates the candidate will have at the Democratic National Convention, to be held in late August.

Massachusetts has a total of 121 delegates and 16 alternates. Of those, sixty-one are district-level delegates and ten are district-level alternates, elected at a caucus (i.e. meeting) on April 5. The caucus In the Sixth Congressional District (Congressman John Tierney’s) will elect three men and three women as delegates and one man as alternate.

Our presidential primary is “binding”, which means that delegate and alternate positions are allocated based on the presidential preference of the primary voters in each district. Delegates and alternates selected at the district level are allocated in proportion to the percentage of the primary vote won in that district by each candidate, except that any candidate who does not receive 15% of the primary vote is not awarded any delegates or alternates.

In addition to delegates elected at the district caucuses, Massachusetts will have unpledged delegates who receive a seat at the National Democratic Convention by virtue of their office. These are our ten Democratic National Committee members, ten Democratic U.S. Representatives, two Democratic U.S. Senators, our Democratic Governor, and three “Distinguished Party Leaders”. In addition, we get two unpledged “add-on” delegates and twelve “pledged Party Leader and Elected Official” delegates, twenty at-large delegates and six at-large alternates.

If you’d like to learn how these delegates and alternates are chosen, please see the detailed rules at http://massdems.org/docs/DelegateSelectionPlanRevised.pdf.

Although you’ll hear Democrats passionately arguing now about which Democrat would make the best President, the differences among the Democrats are minuscule compared to the differences between any Democratic candidate and any Republican candidate for President.

The Democratic and Republican parties have very different political philosophies, and the best way to predict a candidate’s deepest values, goals, and future accomplishments is to look at his or her party affiliation. You can be sure that the Democratic nominee – whoever that may be – will be committed to working for the common good.

Peter is an executive at an engineering company. Mary is a high school teacher. Peter’s father, Bill, an energetic seventy-year-old, works part-time as a cashier. Bill’s sixty-two-year-old sister, Isabelle, is confined to a wheelchair and no longer works. The children attend public school.

The cost of running their seven-person household is considerable. Although the mortgage is paid off, insurance and local property taxes are very high.

The Sensibles keep the house in good working order. The old furnace was replaced recently, and the roof will be re-shingled this summer.

Although the family eats together at home most nights, the food bill keeps going up (and two of the children are teenagers with big appetites).

The Sensibles’ budget calls for $140,000 a year to maintain the house, cover regular expenses, and save for household emergencies.

Peter’s take-home pay is about $200,000 a year. Mary, who has spent her entire career teaching, brings home about $35,000. Grandpa Bill’s part-time job at minimum wage has a net pay of $4,000. Great Aunt Isabelle receives a monthly Social Security disability payment.

How would you allocate the responsibility for contributing to household expenses? Clearly there are numerous options.

Let’s consider three very different scenarios.

Scenario A. Should the $140,000 be spread equally across the four adults, meaning that each would be asked to contribute $35,000 a year? Peter could easily cover his share. His wife could barely manage it. It clearly wouldn’t work for minimum-wage Grandpa or his sister.

Scenario B. How about a percentage based on take-home pay? What if Peter contributed 30% of his pay, Mary 20% of hers, and Grandpa 3% of his? Those percentages initially sound reasonable. But look at the actual results. Peter would be responsible for $60,000, Mary $7,000, and Grandpa $120. That would total only $67,120 –-not enough to maintain the house properly, but they could get through the next few years by postponing maintenance, reducing insurance coverage, cutting back on food and utilities, using their credit cards, and not planning for emergencies.

Scenario C. Most families without hesitation would pool their resources based on ability to pay. As the primary income earners, Peter and Mary would both contribute heavily to household expenses, but Peter far more than Mary because the household can’t maintain itself properly without the much bigger contribution that his salary allows. Even after setting money aside for their children’s college years and their own retirement, they would still have money left over for personal investments, vacations, and charitable donations.

***

When it comes to budgeting for our country, we face choices similar to these, and political parties have very different answers.

Democrats believe that all Americans –- regardless of earning power –- are entitled to food, shelter, health care, and education, and that public funds are needed to maintain public infrastructure and public services, including schools, transportation, scientific research, water, safety, etc.

Our philosophy is that those who have much more money than they need must contribute substantially more in taxes, because otherwise there are simply not enough funds to bring about the kind of society we all want to live in.

Just as Peter Sensible benefits from a house that’s in good repair, so –- with a more sensible tax policy -–this country’s richest would benefit from improved infrastructure, proper maintenance of public assets, better public health and safety, a better educated workforce, and a reduction in crime that is possible with better opportunities for all.

Over the past generation, the richest Americans’ contribution to public services has been greatly reduced as a result of huge tax cuts for those with very high incomes.

The constant complaining about taxes has been a smokescreen, allowing income to shift from the middle class to the rich and causing sensible public investment to be neglected.

The “safety net” is in shreds, infrastructure is crumbling, and the economic well-being of most Americans is diminished.

The next time you hear Republicans talk about “no new taxes” or a “simplified tax structure,” consider the implications for our whole society.

• The cost of food, transportation, and heat has risen dramatically. Most Americans are struggling to balance their budgets. Many are in debt. Those on fixed incomes are hit especially hard.
• Wages have not kept pace with the cost of living. More workers have low-paid jobs without benefits. Many workers with good jobs are receiving reduced benefits.
• The middle-aged are finding it harder to save for retirement while conserving money for their children’s continuing education.
• Rents and mortgages are high. Homelessness has continued to rise. Shelters don’t have enough room for all the families in need. The subprime mortgage disaster is compounding the problem.
• Food banks report increased numbers of applicants. Charities can meet only a fraction of truly desperate calls for help. Programs like federal home fuel assistance have been cut to the bone.
• Many are suffering needlessly from illness because they couldn’t obtain timely preventive health and dental care.
• In many schools, there are too few teachers for optimal learning. Schools (except in wealthy communities) have been forced to cut academic, athletic, and cultural programs, impose new fees, or both. Many are crumbling from age or postponed maintenance.
• Higher education has become too expensive. Student grants have declined.
• Graduate programs – especially in science and math - have fewer and fewer American students. Many medical students graduate with such debt they can’t practice in poor communities. There’s a shortage of primary care physicians because too many doctors need the higher incomes of specialists.
• Public health and safety programs have been reduced or eliminated.
• Food and drug safety has deteriorated because of a political ideology that opposes almost all regulation.
• The richest Americans are even richer. Their taxes have been reduced beyond all reason.
• Many municipalities have been forced to cut basic services. Bridges, highways, and public buildings are in disrepair.
• The national credit card is dependent on foreign investors. We’re transferring the burden of repaying the debt onto young Americans.
• The purchasing power of the dollar has declined abroad.
• Federal agencies charged with protecting the public are increasingly administered by people with much more concern for short-term corporate profits than for what our Constitution calls the “general Welfare.”
• Rapid climate change has begun, and our national government takes no serious action.
• An avoidable and badly planned war continues to take a tragic toll on American and foreign families. Returning soldiers suffer from inadequate government support.
• America’s reputation around the world for fairness and moral leadership has been reversed.

Some voters who agree with Democrats on domestic issues such as health care and education have traditionally given Republicans the benefit of the doubt on economics, managerial competence, and national security. But after unfettered Republican government for almost seven years, how can anyone credit its claim to superiority in any of these public functions?

Don’t make the mistake of believing that our unfortunate situation is just the result of one bad President. Remember that he had enthusiastic support from Republican Senators, Representatives, and Governors until recently, when a very few – especially those facing reelection – have distanced themselves because of his personal unpopularity. If you vote
for any of them you are empowering all of them.

The hardships faced by many Americans today are not caused by an unavoidable act of nature like an earthquake. The paltry investment in public education, infrastructure, and sustainable energy is not forced upon us by outsiders or just bad luck.

We the People, through our voices and votes, can change our future by changing the country’s priorities. Let’s move away from the Republican philosophy: “You’re on your own.”

If you look at our country’s progress during recent Democratic Presidencies (Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt), you’ll see an entirely different philosophy at work: “We’re all in this together.”

Given the enormous debt run up by Republican leaders (remember that Democrats’ precarious majority in Congress didn’t begin until this year), it will take time to get our country moving forward on all fronts even if Democrats win the Presidency and pick up seats in Congress.

But if we elect a Democratic President and more Democratic Senators and
Representatives, we’ll start to reverse the damage. Even if Democrats don’t always agree on relative priorities and tactics, you can be sure that a Democratic administration will work for the common good.

From day one of a Democratic Presidency, America will begin rebuilding its reputation for fairness, tolerance, and liberty.

In Massachusetts, the Presidential Primary is scheduled for March 4, 2008, less than six months from now. By then it may even be possible to predict who will have enough votes at the parties’ national conventions to be on the Presidential ballot. The Democratic convention is scheduled for late August in Denver; the Republican convention, a few days later in St. Paul.

Next November voters will choose a President and all members of the House of Representatives. Thirty-four  Senators will be elected.

Let’s get ready for the 2008 election year with a political quiz.

1. Is the candidate with the most votes the person who gets elected President?
2. How many electoral votes does Massachusetts have?
3. What are some similarities in how Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming affect national politics?
4. What do Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico and Virginia have in common?
5. How many votes are needed in the Senate to override a presidential veto?
6. How many seats are in the House of Representatives?
7. How many votes does it take to override a Presidential veto in the House?
8. How many states have an all-Democratic delegation in the House? (a) six, (b) ten, (c) fifteen.
9. How many seats will Democrats have in the House after the 2008 election?
10. Extra credit: List ten reasons why the next President should  be a Democrat and why Democrats should gain seats in the House and Senate.

Answers:
1. Not necessarily. The president is chosen through electoral college votes.  Remember that in 2000 Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote. Whether he should have been declared the winner of the electoral vote depends on how Florida voted and whether the Supreme Court made a fair decision about Florida’s ballots.
2. Twelve. The number of electoral votes allocated to each state is determined by adding the number of Representative and Senate seats. Massachusetts has ten Representatives and, like all other states, two Senators.
3. Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming are relatively small states by population. They voted Republican in the 2004 Presidential election. They will have a Senate election next year and will almost certainly fill the Senate seat with a Republican. Because of the way the electoral college is configured, they influence the election of President more than their population counts would suggest.  To take a glaring example, Wyoming, with a half a million people, receives three electoral votes. Massachusetts, with twelve times the population (roughly six million), has only four times the number of electoral votes.
4. Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, and Virginia each have a Republican Senator who is not running again. Therefore none of their 2008 Senate candidates will have the advantage of incumbency. Democrats are considered to have some chance of winning a Senate seat in Colorado, New Mexico, or Virginia.
5. A two-thirds vote of those voting can override a presidential veto. If all hundred Senators vote, 67 votes are needed for an override. Currently there are 49 Democrats in the Senate, plus two who ran as independents but are grouped with Democrats. There are 49 Republicans.
6. The House has 435 seats.
7. It takes a two-thirds vote of those voting to override a veto. If all 435 House members cast votes, 290 are needed for an override. Currently there are 233 Democrats. Even though 43 Republicans joined almost all the Democrats to pass legislation to extend health insurance to uninsured children, the votes were not sufficient to override President Bush’s recent veto.
8. (a) Six states currently have an all-Democratic delegation to the House, but except for Massachusetts (with 10 seats) because of their states’ tiny populations they have tiny delegations: Maine (2), New Hampshire (2), North Dakota (1), South Dakota (1), and Vermont (1). Most states have a mixture of Republican and Democratic Representatives.
9. Even experts find It hard to predict which party will gain House seats. One analysis lists six currently Republican seats as a complete toss-up and estimates that 29 others have a slight Democratic or Republican edge (about evenly split).
10. Take a few minutes to list why you believe the country would (or wouldn’t) benefit from electing a Democrat as President and gaining additional Democratic Senate and House seats in 2008. (Keep in mind that the Democratic Party works for the Common Good.)