I Would Make a Better President Than Donald Trump

Man, that guy in the White House is quite the amateur, isn’t he? What a screw-up! Hire professionals, I always say, especially when the job is the absolute highest in the whole damn land.

But if you just can’t bring yourself to trust a seasoned, professional politician, next time try me.

First off, if I came to the White House through some fluke (which is how it would have to be), I would know, without anyone having to tell me, that I was an amateur. I would be looking to the experts even before I went out into the Rose Garden to congratulate myself for getting to that place women hardly ever even dream of anymore.

I would admit that, at 82, I may be missing a few marbles, but not to worry — my BS-Meter is still working overtime. I would take a few questions, and if I didn’t know the answer, I would say, truthfully, “I don’t know.”

I’m not good at small talk or bullshitting but I would make a few jokes, just to get the press corps laughing again. (Because, lord knows…) They would be self -deprecating, but not so awful that I look really bad. Then, when someone gave me the secret signal to wrap things up, I would toddle off, waving, promising it’s a new dawn, it’s a new day, it’s a new life…

Right after lunch (in the White House!!!) I would call my cabinet together and we would get to work. My cabinet would be mostly made up of experts in their field, but might include both Jon Stewart and George Takei. That’s still up in the air, but I feel like I’ll need them.

I would take my cue from FDR and hire people who wouldn’t shrink from the words “constitution” or “common good” as if they were inscribed on wooden stakes aimed directly at their hearts.

If I didn’t understand them, I would say, “I don’t understand. Can you talk down to me, please?”, and they would, because, as I’ve said, I know nothing.

I would leave the big money talk to the experts, and if they couldn’t agree among themselves, I would call in Robert Reich to settle the matter.

I would ask Rachel Maddow to become my Chief of Staff, and anything else she wanted to be.

I would hire Lawrence O’Donnell to be my speech writer.

Dan Rather would be in charge of Communications.

We would reinstate the press briefings and Connie Schultz would be Press Secretary. Jim Acosta and April Ryan would get reserved front row seats.

I would make Chelsea Clinton our Good Will Ambassador.

I would ask Christiane Amanpour to be my Secretary of State.

Merrick Garland would be Attorney General.

The Secretary of Education would be a public school educator.

The Secretary of the Interior would be an environmentalist.

The Secretary of Commerce would send shivers through big business.

I would beg Dolores Huerta to be my Secretary of Labor.

Malcolm Nance would head Homeland Security.

I would put Beto O’Rourke in charge of gun control.

I would reopen every closed Planned Parenthood clinic and make plans to open more.

Jacob Soboroff would take over the investigation into the refugee crisis on the border. Heads would roll down there until those families are reunited.

I would create a Citizen’s Committee on Congressional Oversight and put Maya Wiley in charge of it.

I would make few demands, but one of them would be that Ruth Bader Ginsburg must live forever.

And lastly, I would never, ever do anything to make Nancy Pelosi mad at me.

(Did I forget to say Maxine Waters would be my Vice President?)

So now that you’ve seen my hypotheticals, I hope you’ll think about them. Think hard. But don’t, whatever you do, write me in as a candidate! I mean it! Don’t do it! Don’t you dare write in R-a-m-o-n-a G-r-i-g-g.


(Cross-posted at Medium/Indelible Ink.)

_____________________________

Please Note: There is no comment section until I can figure out what went wrong. If you would like to comment, you can do it at the cross-posted link or write me at ramonasvoices@gmail.com. Thanks.

Our Employees are Revolting, In More Ways Than One

Here's the thing about those occupants of the White House, the Capitol complex, and all other elected taxpayer-paid tenants of taxpayer-built edifices all across the country. Once they're in office they tend to forget their place on the organizational chart, so here's a reminder: 

We, the people, are on top.  We are the employers and they are the employees.  We pay their wages and their benefits, give them cushy offices and take care of their every need.  We pay it all, knowing that to do so is, ipso facto, giving them serious control over our lives.

Freshman members of the 112th Congress pose for a class photo on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

(Photo by: Jeff Malet. Photography/Newscom)

In Congress,  if the electeds are still employed by us after five years in office, we are required to pay every solitary cent that goes into their retirements.  Consider that:  They only have to work for us for five years to get a guaranteed lifetime retirement based on an average of the best three years of employment.  That means a House member would have to be re-elected twice to qualify, but a first-timer serving a full six-year term in the Senate will thereafter be eligible for retirement at our expense until death or until the coffers run bone-dry, whichever comes first.

There's no chance that their employers -- that's us -- can arbitrarily decide that we don't feel like paying it anymore.  We can't say we want more of our money to go to us and not to them.  When it comes to shared sacrifice, we seem to have exempted them.  We're locked in.  We will pay their retirements, no matter what we might have to let slide in order to do it. 

This one crucial fact sometimes gets forgotten in the day to day back-and-forth about whether or not our elected officials are doing their jobs in a way that the majority of the employers -- that's us -- will find acceptable:  They don't have to do their jobs well.  Once they're in, they're in.  We can't fire them for laziness, carelessness or insubordination.   There's no such thing as chronic tardiness or too many sick days.   They can even vote to strip jobs and take away retirements from the very people who have put them in office, all the while knowing they're safe from the same kind of unfair action.  Once they're there, sitting comfortably in their catbird seats, they can, in fact, make and/or enforce laws that will actually damage and/or destroy a good segment of the very people who pay their way

It's as if they have the best damned labor union in the country (that's us) looking out for them.  Ironic, isn't it,  considering how little use most of them have for labor representation?

Under both CSRS [Civil Service Retirement System] and FERS [Federal Employees Retirement System], Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.
As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

Like most of us, they now pay into Social Security and will be eligible to collect on it after age 62 -- unless that changes, too.  (The young'uns might want to remember that before they get too hasty about killing it.)

Today regular members of the House and Senate each make $174,000 per year, with additional funding going toward staff and office wages, travel and other incidentals. (The leaders, of course, make more.)  Their staffers can make almost as much as they do, and they're entitled to anywhere from 20 to 60 support staffers.  We pay to keep all of them working.

• Representatives' staff allowances can be used to hire up to 18 permanent and four non-permanent aides divided between the members' Washington and district offices. Up to $75,000 of a representative's staff funds can be transferred to his or her official expense account for use in other categories, such as computer and related services. The maximum salary allowed House personal staffers in 2005 was $156,848 (2001: $140,451)..

• Senators' personal staff allowances vary with the size of the members' states. Senators may hire as many aides as they wish within their allowance; typically this ranges between 26 and 60, depending on the size of the state and the salary levels offered to the staffers.
  • The maximum salary allowed to Senate personal staffers in 2003 was $150,159 (1999: $132,159); for Senate legislative staffers the maximum salary in 2005 was $153,599.

Capitol.net, has a full compilation and history of wages and perks going back to 1789, when Congressional salaries were six dollars a day, with no limit on honoraria.  They could accept all the booty and swag they wanted in those days.  Now they have to choose between booty or swag.   (No, I'm kidding.  Actually, it says they cannot accept honoraria these days.  Absolutely verboten.  No can do, people.  Forget about it. Got it?   But corn dogs are okay.)

As employers go, we're really lousy at this.  Knowing how committed we're going to have to be toward ensuring a lifetime of benefits to our electeds, we really ought to do a better job of hiring them in the first place. It's not like we haven't studied their resumes.  It's not like we’ve neglected the interview process.  It costs us millions of dollars and requires a multitude of days bringing us interminable boot-licking, back-slapping, chest-thumping speeches to get us to the point of hiring these people.

Could we just try and remember these four magic words before we give any of them the honor of a job with lifetime benefits?   

For the common good. 

FRIDAY FOLLIES: The Arresting truth about Orlando Cops, Vegetables, Bachmann, and the Sublime Ruby Bridges

I guess you've heard that the Orlando police have been busy arresting people from Orlando Food, not Bombs who have been busy feeding the hungry and the homeless in the city's public parks.  That was a big story in itself, but the even bigger story was that, among the protesters, there was one lone supporter of the police.  He prefers to remain anonymous, but he's pretty clear about why he's supporting them (watch the video from Rawstory):

“The Orlando Police Department has demonstrated that you can count on them to enforce the law,” the protester explained stoutly. “If it was against the law for women to vote, I think they would would be there to arrest women who tried to vote. And if it was still against the law for African-Americans to use the same restroom facilities as Caucasian-Americans, Orlando Police Department would be right there to arrest them. Because they will enforce the law no matter what it is, so we have to support them for that.
“Because in America,” he went on, “the last thing you need is liberty, justice, conscience getting in the way of the law. We don’t want that. So we need to have officers who will just blindly obey and follow anything that they’re told. Because this country was founded on bootlicking. … I’m a tax-paying American. I want to see my tax dollars put to use. I like to see people getting arrested. … So I think they’re doing a great job, and as long as they continue to arrest people for feeding the homeless, I’ll continue to support them, because they’re doing their job. ... I think anybody should be arrested for feeding the homeless because it's a vicious, vicious problem."

So here's "the rest of the story".  On Monday, while police were waiting in Eola Park to arrest more feeders of the hungry, Food not Bombs were in front of City Hall setting up their tables and serving up the food.  They were invited by the mayor, Buddy Dyer, who even offered to give them peppers from his roof garden.  It was an open invitation to set up "any time they wanted".  From the mayor. 

Which brings me to my next question:  Who do the police answer to, if not the mayor?  Can't he just tell the police to go find some real crime to stop?  And if he's not in charge there, how does he have the authority to let them set up in front of City Hall?  Is he in danger of getting arrested, too?  So many questions, but the point is, the guy with the sign supporting the police got OFNB much more attention than their own protests did.  Fine job, guy, whoever you are.

I think what I read was that Buddy, the Orlando mayor, has a vegetable garden on the roof of city hall.  They can't feed the homeless in public parks but they can grow veggies on the roofs of public buildings.  That's different.   Go tell that to the people in power in Oak Park, Michigan, where there's a battle going on because Julie and Jason Bass dared to tear up their front yard and put in a vegetable garden.  A nice vegetable garden.  Well kept.  No weeds.  But nonetheless they're vegetables and according to the interpretation of their poorly-written ordinance, they're not allowed in front yards.

 Julie Bass says she called city hall and didn't get a "no", so they went ahead and planted their veggies.  Well, one thing led to another and so far no jail time, but a fair amount of harassment in the form of citations, etc.  Julie took it to Facebook, where it went viral and now Oak Park officials are getting hate mail and phone calls and it's even gone international.  I think it's going to be all right, though.  The officials really want to back down.  They're just trying to figure out how to save face while doing it.
(Breaking news:  No jail time for Julie.  Charges dropped.  Still the matter of the dogs, though...)

And speaking of vegetables, did you hear the latest about Michele Bachmann?  (No, not the chutzpah thing.  But that was funny, wasn't it?  Is she the only person in the world who doesn't know that you have to hack up the "ch" like you would a loogie?)  No, this is a new revelation of an old story (2005), where Ms. Bachmann claimed she was terrorized and practically kidnapped by a lesbian and an ex-nun in a public bathroom.  As Mike Mullen wrote in City Pages, "Michele Bachmann, an ex-nun, and a lesbian walk into a bathroom sounds like the first line of a joke..."  She has a history of calling the police over rather silly incidents, but this one is one of the more hilarious.  Really.

 

A moment of Sublime:   The famous Norman Rockwell painting of little Ruby Bridges being walked by U.S Marshals into her newly integrated school is going to the White House.  Rockwell called his 1964 painting "The Problem we all live with", and it was among the first of his paintings depicting real, unadulterated problems in what had formerly been perceived as "Norman Rockwell country".  It caused a sensation when it appeared on the cover of Look Magazine, and is still a vivid icon of the civil rights movement.  It's a painting that brings tears to my eyes every time I look at it, and now it'll be hanging in a prominent place in the White House, at least while Barack Obama is president.

Ruby Bridges went on to become a civil rights activist, concentrating on the children who are in danger of being left behind.  She founded the Ruby Bridges Foundation "to promote the values of tolerance, respect and appreciation of all differences through educational programs".  That scared but brave little girl became the woman we cherish for her caring soul.  Sublime.

The Problem we all Live With - Norman Rockwell, 1964

Cartoon of the week

"Let that one go.  He says he don't wanna be mah equal."
Bill Mauldin - St. Louis Dispatch 1960

*

*

In America: The Sick and Dying have to go Begging--in America

"Most of the people I met [at the Kansas City Free Health Clinic] were working people. Eighty-three percent of the people who come to these clinics are employed. But over and over and over, I heard about unaffordable junk insurance, unaffordable premiums, obscene co-pays. During these very difficult economic times, the choice always comes down to food, clothing, and heat or insurance and health care. I also repeatedly heard people say that when they had insurance, they still got stuck with the bills, so what's the point of having insurance? Yes, we all know about that scam."

Eve "nyceve" Gittelson, Huffington Post, 12/12/09

 There is something horribly wrong when a country claiming to be the Leader of Democracy in the Free World turns its back, shuts its eyes, blocks its ears, and cries "Poor" when  it is faced with a shameful, outrageous truth:  That there are citizens of this country--working citizens--who can't afford health care and are turned away from free health clinics held in venues as large as 120,000 sq. ft. because the volunteer staffers are overwhelmed with unbelievable numbers of people seeking medical help.

SHAME on the White House, SHAME on Congress, and SHAME on any person with the ability to do something about it who hasn't.

Read this, please.  Watch Gittelson's videos.  Then take an hour or so to bombard the White House, every member of Congress, the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and every other media outlet that could do something about this abominable health care debacle and hasn't.

You'll note I've left MSNBC off of this list.  That's because they've done remarkable work promoting the efforts of the National Association of Free Clinics.  Ed Schultz has actually gone to the clinics and if you click on the link, you'll see the kind of outrage I'm feeling right now.  It's the admirable truth, but who is listening?  Apparently nobody.)

Keith Olbermann has raised well over a million dollars for them, and literally got the ball rolling enough so that they could rent larger buildings and care for more patients in more cities.  But no matter how large the operation, they inevitably have to turn people away.  They do it with heavy hearts, with tears in their eyes.

Meanwhile the Obama administration and the Congress of the United States bog themselves down in speechifying and face-saving pissing matches.  They've made closed door promises to the perpetrators of all that misery, the so-called Health Care "providers", and now have the nerve to mask their perfidy as sudden concern for our economic well-being.  I've heard enough of their unctuous speeches, their phony concern, their whistling Dixie off-key.

I'm off now to give 'em hell.  I hope I'm not alone.

Ramona

(Cross-posted at Talking Points Memo here)

Health Care - A Condition, not a Commodity

Let's get on with it, Mr. President. We're up the proverbial creek with spaghetti as our paddle. This health care thing could have been the crossing of the Delaware, the turning point in the next American Revolution — the moment we put the mercenaries to rout, as General Washington did the Hessians at Trenton. We could have stamped our victory "Made in the USA." We could have said to the world, "Look what we did!" And we could have turned to each other and said, "Thank you."
As it is, we're about to get health care reform that measures human beings only in corporate terms of a cost-benefit analysis. I mean this is topsy-turvy — we should be treating health as a condition, not a commodity.
 Bill Moyers, September 5, 2009

This is Saturday night on the Labor Day weekend, and I have no illusions about anybody stopping whatever they're doing to read this, so I won't take long.

Bill Moyers has been tireless in his efforts to get through to the President the importance of universal, equitable health care.  This isn't something he--or we--can afford to put off.  Millions are without health care, millions are without jobs, millions are without homes, millions are without money.  If this isn't the time to push for health care as an inalienable right for all Americans, I don't know when that will be.

I wrote a letter to President Obama asking him to read the transcript and/or watch Bill Moyers' clip:

I have talked about labor issues and health care on my own blog, as have thousands of others, but I'm writing this today to beg you to watch and read what Bill Moyers said on his program last night.


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/09/bill_moyers_on_obamas_moment.html#c259311

President Obama, we need at LEAST a public option. Please stop letting the insurance providers set our health care policy. They've bamboozled and defrauded us long enough. Why on earth would you even think of rewarding them yet again?


You made promises about health care that encouraged millions of us to trust you, to vote for you, to work for you. With so many millions underpaid or out of work, we cannot afford to make weak compromises on the health issue. You need to be strong now, and you need to know that we're with you. People are suffering and you can make it right. Remember that when you give your speech on Wednesday night.

Not exactly Moyers quality, but I figure if each of us lets him know in our own words how we feel about the coming health care compromises he'll know it's not all teabaggers and townhallers out there letting their voices be heard.

Write him here and do it before Wednesday:  (I know it's a holiday, but it's a holiday commemorating and celebrating the American work force, past and present.  Do this for them  Please)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Ramona

(Cross-posted at Talking Points Memo here.)

Obama, It's Krugman. Please Pick Up

I'm usually the last one to panic when things go from haywire to havoc. I'm the one who's out there directing traffic, shushing, patting shoulders, plumping pillows, digging in my pockets for chocolate--whatever it takes.

I don't see the tunnel, I see the light at the end. If there's a rainbow in the sky, I'll look past the dark clouds and find it. Pollyanna and I are almost BFFs, for God's sake. But when I see a Nobel-laureate in Economics practically self-immolating on the White House lawn in order to be heard, I'm not just scared, I'm petrified.

I don't know if Paul Krugman is right when he says the White House is going about this banking debacle all wrong, and that we're near the edge of the Cliff of Doom. One misstep, he seems to be saying, and it's all over. He's not the only one saying it, of course. If he were, I might go back to singing my comfort songs and handing out bonbons.

There are two camps now, each of them filled with "experts", each of them plucking ideas out of thin air and calling them "solutions". Their voices are ringing across a battleground, over our heads. We hear them shouting in a strange, incomprehensible language: "TARP bailout" "Zombie banks", "toxic assets", "Cash for Trash". . .

We want at least one of them to come over to our side and give us a heads up. What the hell is going on? What's going to happen? Are we or aren't we doomed?

This was the week it all hit the fan. Lots of voices out there shouting messages to Obama, and Obama, strangely, answers back with his version of "Heck of a job, Brownie". On "60 Minutes" last Sunday there was this exchange with Steve Kroft:

Kroft:Your Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, has been under a lot of pressure this week, and there have been people in Congress calling for his head. Have there been discussions in the White House about replacing him?
President Obama: No.
Kroft: Has he volunteered to or come to you and said, “Do you think I should step down?”
President Obama: No, and he shouldn’t. And if he were to come to me, I’d say, “Sorry, buddy, you still got the job.” But look, he’s got a lot of stuff on his plate, and he is doing a terrific job. And I take responsibility for not, I think, having given him as much help as he needs.

That was wince-worthy and I was wincing. One of those could-come-back-to haunt sound bite traps that Obama should know better than to fall into .

On Monday Paul Krugman wrote a piece in the NYT called "Financial Policy Despair" He said, " If the reports are correct, Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, has persuaded President Obama to recycle Bush administration policy — specifically, the “cash for trash” plan proposed, then abandoned, six months ago by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. This is more than disappointing. In fact, it fills me with a sense of despair. "

That can't be good.

Non-economist Frank Rich wrote a column this week called "Has a 'Katrina Moment' arrived?". He said, "Bob Schieffer of CBS [asked Larry Summers] the simple question that has haunted the American public since the bailouts began last fall: “Do you know, Dr. Summers, what the banks have done with all of this money that has been funneled to them through these bailouts?” What followed was a monologue of evasion that, translated into English, amounted to: Not really, but you little folk needn’t worry about it. Yet even as Summers spoke, A.I.G. was belatedly confirming what he would not. "It has, in essence, been laundering its $170 billion in taxpayers’ money by paying off its reckless partners in gambling and greed, from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup on Wall Street to Société Générale and Deutsche Bank abroad."

(Money-laundering? Isn't that illegal?)

Even-handed Eugene Robinson--no economist, either, it must be said--doesn't think we've quite reached the cliff edge yet, but he's not ruling out the possibility. In the Washington Post today he wrote a column called, "The Repairman's Burden". He said, "Geithner's plan offers private investors the opportunity to reap relatively big gains by taking relatively small risks. Some of the risk is assumed by taxpayers. Christina Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisers, said over the weekend that these private firms will be doing the government a favor by participating in the program. But that's wrong. Investors will participate because they think they can make money. The only entity that's doing anyone a favor -- make that doing everyone a favor -- is the government of the United States. "

Romer: "private firms doing the Government a favor". Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

When they're talking about billions and trillions they're talking way over my head. I barely understand the concept of millions. I don't understand economics, or banking, or bailouts, or almost anything to do with Big Money. But what I'm hearing these days is panic and frustration among the cognoscenti. They see things that we don't see, and we're counting on them to make sure we get this right.

Somebody has to have a handle on this crisis. So far, nobody does. I don't know about you, but I would feel a whole lot better if I knew that President Obama was at least willing to listen to those whose opinions differ from his chosen few. His Washington insider choices for top cabinet positions made little old me nervous right from the start. When the new "Change" president puts former Big Business people in charge of regulating Big Business, even the dumbest among us sees trouble ahead.

So give a little listen, Mr. President. It can't hurt. These are your friends, remember. They're all talking about you, anyway. Better to have them in front of you than behind your back.

Ramona