The Gang of Six and Its Game of Tricks

At first, the deficit reduction proposal by the Gang of Six seemed a bit heartless and cruel. But then I read that we must urgently address our 10- year-old debt, or else SADDLE untold generations to come with CRUSHING DEBT. I was surprised to note that so many elected leaders, pundits, and activists diagnosed the exact same emergency and identified the exact same reason for the urgent problem, using the exact same language. Clearly, I was wrong. I see now, that the Gang's proposal doesn’t go far enough. Some examples:

The Gang's plan calls for reductions in cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits.

If ever there was a public policy issue that demanded immediate and drastic action, it is a program that will be financially strong for the next 25 years if we do absolutely nothing. Like Social Security. We can do more than merely reduce COLA adjustments. Why not also raise the retirement age? What’s so special about 67? Let’s raise it to 97. Then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that we have saved this crucial piece of the social safety net for decades to come.

The Gang's plan calls for cuts to health care programs.

Again, what else can we do to rescue our unborn grandchildren from unfairly being saddled with crushing debt? We can generate revenue by promoting personal responsibility. Some examples:

• We can impose fines on people who visit the emergency room.  After all, an apple a day keeps the doctor away. If you don’t eat your apple, why should I have to pay?
• We can create a “Pound of Flesh Penalty”: Police officers can issue tickets to people they decide are overweight; the amount of the fine would depend on the number of excess pounds, as determined by the officer. 

The Gang's plan calls for slashing Medicare.

That’s all?

We must do more. Here too, we can raise the eligibility age to 97.  And we can come up with alternatives to Medicare for seniors not old enough to qualify. The people at Fox and Friends have suggested that pap smears, mammograms, etc. are available at Walgreen’s. Yes, I know they were confused; but still, why not have people between 65 and 97 get their pap smears at Walgreen’s? And pay with chickens (as former Nevada candidate for U.S. Senate, Sue Lowden, has proposed)?   

The Gang's plan calls for cuts to military spending.

Rather than cutting military spending, we should increase it. It’s only a matter of time before our leaders will decide that we need to wage war on another country. And that’s going to require more troops, which will cost more money.

Yes, it seems like we’re adding to the deficit, but we’re not! We are reducing it... just like we are :

• Saving Social Security by attacking what makes it helpful to seniors and people with disabilities,
• Protecting the integrity of our election process by making it harder to vote for people who: are not white, don’t have a driver’s license, attend an out-of-state college, can’t take time off of work to register to vote or get an official ID,...
• Helping our children to learn by gutting public education, and 
• Enhancing our national security via military campaigns targeting 6 different countries.

No, we won’t need to re-institute the draft. Instead, we can raise military enlistment age limits to, say, 97 years. Think of all the people who would enlist for the health care. 

Austerity Parity

Isn’t it a bit unseemly for our elected leaders to suggest that low-income people, seniors and low-birthweight babies should give up yet more food, shelter, and medical care so that we can reduce the deficit?

If you ask me, it’s poor form … even if you use Father-Knows-Best phrases like  "everybody's gotta take a haircut" to refer to budgets that take food out of the mouths of hungry children.

And if you’re one of 250-plus members of Congress who is a millionaire or spends a lot of time at the golf course, maybe you should try a haircut or two yourself before asking  hungry people to stop eating so much.

When I hear news of proposed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food assistance programs, etc., my mind wanders. I like to imagine that by some twist of fate, I get to administer some austerity to our elected leaders who don't understand the "shared" part of "shared sacrifice." So far, I have come up with a program divided into four parts, ordered from easiest to hardest. They are: I) Taking A Haircut, II) Belt Tightening, III) Taking Tough Steps, and IV) Change We Can Believe In. 

Below are examples of areas in which members of Congress would take a haircut:

House and Senate Gyms: The House and Senate each has its own gym, with discounted memberships (subsidized by taxpayers).  

The way I see it, we taxpayers could get more for our money by making these gyms multifunctional - for instance, by making not only the gyms, but also the related shower and laundry facilities available to D.C.'s many homeless residents. I am sure that Mitch McConnell wouldn't mind sharing his Zumba class. And there's an added benefit for the 30+representatives getting flack for using their government offices as free, tax-free personal housing; they could get leads about other places to spend the night for free in D.C. 

The recent brouhaha over the tweeting Congressman who photographed himself at the gym got me to thinking... about photo IDs. I would use part of the gyms to offer services related to civic participation: Gym guests who are waiting for their clothes to dry could get a government-issued ID, which would make it easier for them to vote. But why stop there? Our new civic participation center could also train people to be election judges, advocate for people harassed at polling places, and offer other services that became less available with ACORN's demise.  

On-Site Medical Care for Congress:  In addition to care through personal insurance policies and at military medical facilities, members of Congress can opt into a third source of health care - primary care through the Office of the Attending Physician (OAP). Fun facts about OAP care:

• It's "the best medical care on the planet," according to a former OAP employee.
• OAP physicians, according to Representative Steve Kagen (D-WI) "will see you on the spot, on the beck and call."
• Congressional members get referrals to the best specialists in their fields, often brought to the Capitol to provide treatment at no charge to the patient.
• The total cost per member, per year: $503.

I would make the clinic and its six satellite offices into a community health center. Members of Congress could use it for essential services only, relying on one of their two other sources of health care for nonessential services. The rest of the taxpayer-subsidized health care would go to guests of the gym/civic engagement center. This arrangement would be very handy for the majority of them, who lack access to planes, limos, or bus passes.

Congressional members who oppose universal health care would be eligible for only one plan, which I would design (with help from Fox and Friends and Nevada's former U.S. Senatorial Candidate Sue Lowden). Under my plan, they would get their preventive care, like mammograms or pap smears, at Walgreens, and pay for it with chickens.   

Legislative Dining Rooms and Parking Lots: Congress might have to go elsewhere for fine food and free parking. As has been said many times, this country is broke!! Why are we spending taxpayer dollars on tastefully appointed dining rooms for our members of Congress who would almost certainly prefer thrift to ambience? 

Think about it: Spacious venues. Elegant atmosphere. Historic significance. Free parking. Now consider this:  Thousands and thousands of same-sex couples in New York, eagerly starting to plan their history-making weddings, receptions, rehearsal dinners, and showers. Cha-Ching! I would use the revenue generated to fund the creation of food banks in each of the gyms/day shelters. 

I could go on and on about Part One, but you get the idea.

Coming soon: Part Two of Four