We will get out 300 wooden cubes, each representing about a million people, and lay them out on the floor, where the map of the U.S. is already outlined.

Squatting in the cold Atlantic, we begin near home, stacking six blocks somewhere along the Mass. Turnpike (we have a population of about six million). Turning north, we lay down one block each for New Hampshire and Maine.

We get up, walk around the top of Maine, and sit on Lake Erie. There we fill in Vermont (1), New York (carefully building a tower of 19 blocks), Pennsylvania (12), Ohio (11), and Michigan (10).

Leaning out, we place blocks on Indiana (6) and Illinois (13).

Crawling west to the chilly waters of Lake Superior, we set up Wisconsin and Minnesota (5 each). Stretching, we can just reach North Dakota (1).

So far we’ve used only 91 blocks — still 209 to go! Most Americans live elsewhere.

To get more done faster, we step west across Canada and stand in the powerful surf of the Pacific. It’s a challenge to stack up 36 blocks on California without them toppling over. Amazing how many Californians there are!

Jumping from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, we create of tower of 23 blocks on Texas, take care of Mississippi (3) and Alabama (5), move on to Georgia (10). Relaxing in warm coastal waters, we put 18 blocks on Florida.

We’ve now used almost two-thirds of our blocks and haven’t even needed to set foot on U.S. land.

We stop now for lack of time (and patience), but we’ve built a fairly good model of the population of our country.

It’s clear at a glance that the four states with far greater numbers of people are California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

No wonder they have so much political clout. Whereas Massachusetts has 10 U.S. Representatives, California has a whopping 53, Texas 32, New York 29, and Florida 25.

But our Founding Fathers devised a radical solution to give power to small-population states. The Constitution specifies exactly two senators for each state, regardless of how many people live there.

In Massachusetts, we have as much voting power in the Senate as California, with its far greater population. California currently has two Democratic senators representing 36 million people, while Kennedy and Kerry represent only 6 million.

Though fewer than half a million live in Wyoming, it has two (Republican) senators. A Republican stronghold, Wyoming voted two-to-one for McCain/Palin last month.

When it comes to legislation needed to take action on urgent matters—such as global warming, the economic meltdown, and the health care crisis, to name just three—those
Wyoming voters who were two-to-one against Obama will inevitably play some role (through their senators) in legislation affecting the whole country’s three hundred million people.

U.S. actions profoundly affect the rest of the world, and thus those Wyoming senators — representing only half a million people — have an undue influence over the global population of almost seven thousand million people (that is, seven billion).

I mention Wyoming because it happens to be the smallest state by population. But many other states with fairly small populations—through their pair of senators— play an outsized role in the health of our country and planet.

Take Oklahoma. With a population under 4 million, it would get four blocks.

Two-thirds of Oklahomans voted against Obama last month, and Republican Senator Inhofe easily won reelection with almost 60 percent of the vote. He’s the senator who called global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” while chairing the Senate environmental committee. Though the committee is now led by a Democrat, Inhofe as the ranking Republican still can have some effect.

The number of Democrats in the Senate will increase in January, but Republicans—when unified—can mount filibusters, delaying action on any bill they wish.

To avoid filibusters, Senate Democrats will of necessity compromise with some Republicans on certain details even at the subcommittee stage. (Democrats with differing priorities have to compromise with each other too.)

It will be interesting to assess Senate votes by state in 2009 and compare them to the views of the American population as a whole.

Fortunately, our new President was elected in many states with good margins. We hope that fact will influence many senators when they vote on legislation that Obama makes top priority.

Will it be the economy? Health care? What about global warming? Will he take bold steps on one or two big issues in his first months in office, or will he proceed cautiously on many fronts? Will he concentrate on short-term needs, long-term strategies, or both?

In some ways, President Obama will face problems that are similar to that of a family suffering from a devastating drop in income.

The struggling family needs to buy groceries, pay the mortgage, get medical care when sick. The family car may need to be replaced to allow commuting to a job farther away. A host of problematic details present themselves daily, such as coming up with money for after-school programs, getting new sneakers for growing feet, paying the oil bill, fixing a leaking sink, paying the vet for mandatory shots for the cat.

The family also must decide whether to continue its monthly savings plan for the children’s college education and the parents’ retirement.

It’s clearly impossible for the struggling family to craft a list of priorities in neat numerical order. It’s a balancing act.

Like many parents these days, Barack Obama will confront compelling priorities competing for constrained resources.

What would Barack Obama’s presidency be like if he had followed Bill Clinton rather than George Bush?

He would not be inheriting the devastation caused by eight years of Republican government (”We’re all on our own”), the astronomical deficit, the economic crisis caused to a large degree by greed and the ideological bias against common-sense regulation.

He would not be inheriting the tragedy of a reckless and ill-planned war. He would not be inheriting federal agencies which many conscientious and hard-working public servants left when science was suppressed by political hacks.

Alas, Obama comes after eight years of reckless and, in fact, immoral leadership.

President Obama, Congress, and “we the people” must deal with our country and our world as we find them today.

In spite of the deep, deep hole that Obama has volunteered to get us out of, here’s what we can expect: Barack Obama — with the help of our Democratic Congress — will work for the common good.

Like the loving and pragmatic parents of a family struggling financially, he may ask us to hold back on some of our requests so that other needs can be handled first. He will talk with us honestly about what needs to be done. He will work on immediate problems and also watch out for the needs of the next generation. He will urge cooperation, understanding, and hard work.

Obama will keep up our spirits during a difficult time and, I hope, we will help him lift up our good country — with a Democratic emphasis on the common good.

He was the governor who seemed to have done good things in Texas and claimed a “bipartisan” approach to governing. He looked genial and good-humored—the folksy candidate most voters preferred to have a beer with.

Now that we have experienced the Bush Presidency, it’s interesting to reexamine what the Republican candidate said during an October 2000 debate with Democrat Al Gore:

“Spending money is one thing, but spending money without a strategic plan can often times be wasted…”

“I want to rebuild the military to keep the peace. I want to make sure the public school system in America fulfills its promise so that no child, not one child, is left behind. And after setting priorities, I want to give some of the — some of your money back. See, I don’t think the surplus is the government’s money. I think it’s the people’s money. I don’t think the surplus exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the federal government. I think it exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the American people, and you ought to have some of the surplus so you can save and dream and build.”

The contrast between Bush’s words and his actual “leadership” is painful—

Lives lost and many irreversibly damaged as a result of a reckless “war on terror.” Extreme mismanagement of the Defense Department. Soldiers sent off without adequate equipment while military contractors making millions were inadequately supervised. The budget surplus left behind by Democrat Bill Clinton squandered, leaving our next President with a deficit as far as the eye can see. Enormous tax cuts for the richest. Millions of children left behind. Many more Americans without adequate health care. Transportation systems crumbling. Tainted food supplies. “Home ownership” replaced with home foreclosure.

An even more colossal deficit than was anticipated just a month ago.

Now we see the results of out-of-control deregulation and the consequences of fixating on private-sector solutions to public services, as well as the Republican Party’s perennial hostility to the United Nations.

But make no mistake. The conditions our country is suffering from now are not the result of one misguided, reckless, and incompetent leader.

For most of Bush’s Presidency, Republicans held all the reins of power, since they also had a majority in both houses of Congress. They appointed thousands of people sharing their ideology, including judges who will rule on the bench for years to come.

It has taken time for the gross mismanagement, suppression of scientific knowledge, and myriad falsehoods to come to light.

It was only when Democrats gained a slim majority in Congress that many basic questions could be raised there. At best the questions are now being partially answered (Republicans can still filibuster in the Senate).

This fall, as in every election, the essential choice is not between the candidates’ personalities or styles. It’s a choice between the Republican and Democratic political philosophy.

A President and his party may occasionally be at odds, but that is the exception to the rule.

Republicans stick together. Remember—after McCain lost the Republican primary in 2000, he campaigned for the Republican nominee, saying Bush was ”fully prepared to restore integrity and respect to the White House.”

But when Bush entered the White House, he brought back to Washington shiploads of former Republican officials, including Dick Cheney, and newcomers like the Republican lawyer for the International Arabian Horse Association who did a “heck of a job” in New Orleans.

If McCain should win the Presidency, expect more of the same.

Consider a candidate who would select as the person next-in-line to lead our country someone as inexperienced as Palin.

What does that show about the kind of appointments McCain would make to the Supreme Court, Environmental Protection Agency, FEMA, heads of Social Security and Medicare, IRS, Food and Drug Administration, Secretaries of State and Defense, Ambassador to the United Nations…the list goes on.

The Republican philosophy in a nutshell is “You’re on your own” — unless you’re rich and powerful and suddenly feel a need for government’s helping hand.

The Democratic philosophy is to work for the common good, and Democrats have a record of concrete steps toward economic fairness and prosperity for all.

Be sure to review the actual accomplishments of each party before you vote on November 4.

… he’ll revitalize our economy, defend the working people of America, and meet the global challenges of our time.

Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, President Clinton and the Democrats did it before.

Claire McCaskill
John McCain is running for four more years of the same old politics and exact same failed policies that we had under George Bush. They did tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, they’re doing everything Big Oil asks for, and look where we are.

Jean Shaheen
No more country-club economics at the expense of working families and no more tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

Lydia Sanchez
There are people listening to me right now who think that the outcome of this election won’t affect them. It will. It will determine whether you have a champion on your side, … or whether you get more of the same failed leadership that has given hard-working families the shaft.

Katherine Marcano
I am tired and overwhelmed, stuck in a system that tells me there is not enough funding for disabled kids like my sister. I am told we have to wait, we have to be patient. But I am running out of patience. And I am done waiting.

Al Gore
Eight years ago, some said there was not much difference between the nominees of the two major parties and it didn’t really matter who became president. … here we all are in 2008, and I doubt anyone would argue now that election didn’t matter.

…John McCain … is now openly endorsing the policies of the Bush-Cheney White House and promising to actually continue them. The same policies all over again? Hey, I believe in recycling, but that’s ridiculous.

Bill Clinton
They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more.  Let’s send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: Thanks, but no thanks.  In this case, the third time is not the charm.

Barbara Boxer
Instead of a president with an Exxon policy, we’ll have a president with an energy policy. … Let’s elect Barack Obama so that the world’s economic and environmental leader will clearly be our nation—the United States of America.

Bob Casey Jr
… he’ll pursue the common good by seeking common ground, rather than trying to divide us. … John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That’s not a maverick. That’s a sidekick.

Barbara Mikulski
You know how we women are. We make our to-do lists. We check off our accomplishments. We get things done! And that’s exactly what we Democrats are going to do when we take back the White House!

Ted Kennedy
Yes, we are Americans. … We reach the moon. We scale the heights.  I know it.  I’ve seen it.  I’ve lived it. And we can do it again. … if we set our compass true, we will reach our destination-not merely victory for our party, but renewal for our nation.

The Reverend Leah Daughtry
It is our sacred responsibility to advocate for all the people, most especially the least, the last, and the lost, the discouraged and the despondent, the disenfranchised and the dispossessed. For them and for ourselves, for the work that must be done, for the bridges that must be built, for the children who must be saved, for the sick who must be healed, for the last who must be first.

Joe Biden
Millions of Americans have been knocked down. And this is the time as Americans, together, we get back up. Our people are too good, our debt to our parents and grandparents too great, our obligation to our children is too sacred.

Barack Obama
Our government should work for us, not against us.  It should help us, not hurt us.  It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who’s willing to work.

That’s the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper.

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.