A Political Rant from an Apolitical American Woman

Paula Roberts - May 2005 - Commentary

I can most often be described as apolitical, but I do have a set of core values that I believe in strongly, and I also have strong opinions on issues affecting the lives of the human community and our home, earth. The polarity of views put forth by political parties and the disgusting trail of promises unaccomplished, ethics unpracticed, wars unsubstantiated, healthcare unavailable and children unfed is just more mental garbage than I can bear most days. I am most certainly not a Republican; however, being registered as a Democrat is not always a badge of honor. There is no safe harbor in this arena.

All of this said I am also a Christian, patriot, believe in the underlying values of American living and do not take lightly the responsibility of being born in such a privileged and blessed country. Because of this, I am unable to escape the realities of how politics influence every niche of our existence. Nothing is sacred or untouched by congress, including the original rights guaranteed American Citizens by the Constitution. If you take a walk in your garden and look at the flowers, you can bet that there is a federal regulation somewhere on the books that regulates the flower seed, the water and the fertilizer. The point is, politics are never out of sight and no matter what our feelings may be about the practice of politics, we better make damn sure that they are never far out of mind either. Your future and your present circumstances are dependent on the policies and practices of your government.

Not a Republican, it follows that I am not enamored by Bush and Bushites either. Look at the record. Weapons of mass destruction? Where? Yet we are fully engaged militarily in a war that kills American Citizens and Iraqi nationals every single day. What is the real story about what happened to change our focus from Afghanistan and the global war on terror to sending thousands of troops into Iraq? I have no doubt that the American Troops are doing their best to assure a democratic system is continued in Iraq now that Sadam Hussein is captured and out of power. Is the price worth the result? Will Iraq embrace democracy when Americans withdraw or run out of money to support this war? When so much is being spent on Iraq, what about the American governments responsibility to Americans? What about the American responsibility to global politics and environmental issues? Focusing back to the core issue of our government, what about the governments fiscal responsibility to the citizens of the United States of America? I think that one of the unfortunate purposes engagement in a foreign war serves for politicians is to take the focus off of their domestic policies. God bless and keep our American Forces and their families while the politicians work this out.

My ongoing argument with the Republicans has always been their flagrant disregard for the human aspect of politics. Admittedly, Democrats can go overboard with funding of some pretty questionable small programs, but when Republicans get into office, you can bet there will be a wholesale beheading of federal programs for the disadvantaged. Their high-minded blather about family values seems to only apply to families above the poverty level. What viable set of political values turns a blind eye to the social ills of its own country while promoting laws to allow excessive profits for the wealthy and spending billions of dollars on wars with substantially unfounded motives and questionable outcomes for the global community? Is it possible that some of this money could be spent more appropriately to feed and clothe victims of this war and participate in global solutions to relieve their suffering? I'd like to know.

Since they are already on the table, let's look at some of the domestic issues for a moment. Healthcare is a long disputed and unresolved domestic issue. There is nothing democratic or fair about the healthcare system as it stands today. Our country should be shamed by the statistics of families without healthcare, seniors who are suffering or dying for lack of or inadequate care and all American citizens who are the victims of poor nutrition and the lack of facilities, medical practitioners and resources for adequate preventative care.

How about the Social Security contribution distribution issue? That is a political hot potato. Say you are a young mother and you have 2 children. You are divorced and living in a trailer park, you rent your parents basement or maybe you live in a rent by the week motel. You have 2 jobs and work 16 hours a day, none of which is overtime because it's two employers. You spend very little time with your children because theres not much time left after work. You make minimum wage. That is $4.85 an hour x 16 = $77.60 a day, which is $388.00 a week. You work 51 weeks out of the year and your greatest potential for income, if you are not sick and if your children are never sick and have no need for you to stay home from work with them, is $19, 788.00 for the year. You are very lucky and you find a neighbor/babysitter that will take $100 a week to take care of your children while you are at work. That leaves you $288 a week. You have a great deal on rent and you are only paying $150.00 a week. Your cash flow is down to $138.00. You are a very careful shopper and always cook at home, so you can feed your family for about $75.00 a week. Now you have $63.00 a week for utilities, phone, clothing, entertainment, healthcare (remember that at this level of employment, few employers provide health insurance). Wait a minute; you did not get all of that $388! About 12% was taken out for taxes and social security;l ets see 388 x .12 = $46.56. Gee, that leaves you with $16.44 a week for all of the necessities of life after rent and food. I guess we will have to forego the entertainment, healthcare, insurance and planning for the future, duh? And oops, the baby needs Pampers.

I will tell you what this young mother thinks about: she worries about how her children will get an education if they are not basketball wizards or a physics dynamo. She is terrified that someone will get sick or have an accident and the hospital will ask her for an insurance card. She wishes she could pay for insurance on her broken down car that her parents gave her so that she could drive legally. She's worried about coats and shoes when winter comes. She also wonders about the care her children are getting and how their values are being formed. Her angst is in the present.

In your wildest dreams, do you think that this young mother, while she is applying for ADA and taking the bus to pick up government rationed cheese, will think to herself; I am so relieved that I now have the privilege to invest ½ of my 6.2% payroll contribution (3.1% of $19,788.00=$613.43) in the stock market? Do you think that she believes that Social Security will save her in her retirement and that she will finally be able to take up golf and attend political dinners at $125 to thousands of dollars per plate? The premise is ridiculous, and the promise is an unethical tactic of epic proportion. Even with dollar cost averaging, $50 a month over 30 years will not ensure this womans retirement income, or the retirement income of most other Americans.

We hold out hope that this woman will see a brighter future. That she will be promoted and educated. That she will remain healthy and have the ability to provide adequately for her children and their future. However, we have the moral responsibility to see that things get better for her and the hundreds of thousands of people in our country who are in situations as desperate as or worse than hers. She is employed. What about the 6%+ of our employable adults who have no work? They do not even have the privilege of being taxed for social security. What about the percentage of our elderly population who have no savings, inadequate health care and nutrition, whose retirement consists of waiting in various government lines for the scant help we provide to the indigent in our country. What is the level of our moral responsibility to provide adequate care and proper respect for this aging population of the generations who cared for us in our youth?

If congress is going to fix social security, all of the options should be considered.

• Maybe we should go to a sliding scale for social security deductions.
• Maybe we should spend less on war and make a significant contribution to the welfare of future generations by committing to a government purchase of stocks using dollar cost averaging over the next 100 years and pay the profits back into the social security system with no loopholes for government spending of excess profits. The gains could be redistributed proportionally to social security recipients. This would boost our stock market, contribute to stabilizing our economy and leave the current contributions in the social security fund where they belong.
• Maybe our government should pay back the loans they have taken from social security funds over the years to fund other programs, with interest.
• Maybe the government should reconsider the impact a collapsed social security system would have on the economy.
• Maybe lawmakers should be required to take a five year retreat where they are forced to live on minimum wage and provide for a family of 3 or more as a requirement for their job.

The math may not be perfect, but it's close enough to this woman's reality. With cutbacks that are currently being put into place, she doesn't have great prospects for collecting social security at the level that seniors do today, and even they are having a very hard time when Social Security is their only fall back income for retirement. She also will need a great deal of help deciding where to put her money into the stock market. Will the Republicans provide her with this help? Not likely.

Who do the politicians and investors think the shoppers are who keep Wal-Mart stock alive?

That is it for today.