The K.F. Stone Weekly

Dealing With Dysfunction

   It takes precious little experience, insight or intellect to recognize that the American political system is somewhere between dysfunctional and broken. Capitol hill is awash in cash and cowardice.  Steely partisanship stands athwart principle to such an extent that the nation's most pressing and systemic problems -- jobs, the economy, education and gross inequality to name but four -- are all being held hostage.  Tens of dozens of crucial positions in both the executive and judicial branches of government remain vacant because one party thinks it more important to deny the president of the opposing party a "victory" than to do what is right. Where once the filibuster was a rare and theatrically exhausting exercise in political brinksmanship, today, it is as commonplace as sushi in San Francisco.  Once upon a time, when a senator or representative cosponsored a piece of legislation they could be counted on to support and vote for that legislation.  Believe it or not, this is no longer a given.  Today, cosponsors frequently conspire to kill their own creations.  Why? For fear that said bill's passage might gain the president some political credit.

   Nowadays, just about the only solution one party offers -- after blaming every ill from aging to zero population growth on the other party -- is to vote the culprits and miscreants out of the White House and off of Capitol Hill.  As a result of such political puerility nothing gets done; Congress's popularity is lower than the Dead Sea; an entire nation suffers.

   Without question, the utter dysfunctionality of the American political system did not begin with the election of Barack Obama -- or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton for that matter.  It has been building for more than a generation.   In an important new work, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism veteran congressional scholars Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann point back to 1978, the year Republican Newt Gingrich was first elected to Congress. At the time of his election, Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for 44 of the past 48 years -- and would continue to do so for the next 16.  Gingrich's strategy to overcome his party's historic minority status, as noted by Ornstein and Mann was, for the time, utterly unique: ". . . so intensify public hatred of Congress that voters would buy into the notion of the need for sweeping change and throw the majority bums out.  His method? To unite his Republicans in refusing to cooperate with Democrats in committee and on the floor, while publicly attacking them as a permanent majority presiding over and benefiting from a thoroughly corrupt institution."

    Gingrich's strategy eventually paid off; by 1994, he was Speaker of the House.  With the election of 2010, his method had become akin to divine law: Where once "compromise" and "bipartisanship" for the sake of the greater good were a politician's or legislator's stock-in-trade, today those concepts languish on the political "disabled list."  Taking their place in the starting lineup are such tactics as "opposing," "obstructing" "discrediting" and "nullifying." 

  To be certain, both Republicans and Democrats stridently accuse each another of being the real obstructionists and discrediting nullifiers. "It's because of those socialistic ultra-left, deficit-loving Democrats that we're in such abysmal fiscal shape," Republicans cry.  "Our economic crisis is the fault all of those plutocratic, intransigent right-wing, tax-avoiding Republicans," their Democratic counterparts respond.   And how does the American public respond?  By saying "A pox on both your houses." This attitude is born out by the lastest Politico/GWU/Battleground Poll; Congress's approval rating is a mere 13%.

   Should it be any surprise then that fewer and fewer people of quality are running for office? I mean, what truly sane man or woman would devote a year -- or two or four or more -- to raising vast sums of money in order to run for a position that will require them to spend the lion's share of their time raising even more money for the right to keep the other side from getting anything done and making them look bad in the process?

  Scholars Ornstein and Mann, neither of whom is particularly partisan, conclude that far more of the dysfunction can be laid at the feet of one party than the other:

   ". . . However awkward it may be for the traditional press and nonpartisan analysts to acknowledge, one of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier -- ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

   Over the past several years, Republicans have become so obsessed with not offending or going against the will of those on their far-right that they have been transformed from that flank's leader to its creature.  So much so that were he alive in 2012, Ronald Reagan would never be able to capture his party's nomination; he would undoubtedly be called a RINO -- a "Republican in Name Only."  It is unsettling to the max when one realises that today, the most moderate Republican in either house of Congress (likely Maine's outgoing Senator Olympia Snowe) is still to the right of that institution's most conservative Democrat (likely Pennsylvania Representative Jason Altmire). 

  Despite the extraordinary ideological chasm between the two parties, Americans themselves have never been all that extreme; we have a long and -- for the most part -- successful history of sticking to what one wag called "the sensible center."  So where are all the centrists in 2012?  Have they moved to the fringes; have they all morphed into left-winged socialists and right-wing flat-taxers?  According to Ornstein and Mann, the answer is no; those occupying the sensible center are have become so cynical and turned off to what now passes for politics as usual, that they simply stay the hell away from the polls on election day.  When a large majority of the American people favor higher taxes for the extremely wealthy and Republicans say "absolutely, categorically no"; when poll after poll shows that most Americans place job creation ahead of deficit reduction yet Republicans say "If you don't cut spending we'll destroy America's credit rating"; when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet then hear that the Republicans' plan for creating prosperity begins with catering to the wealthy and ends with cutting entitlements for the poor -- is it any wonder that so many opt out of participating?

   So how do we deal with the dysfunction we call a political system? In truth, I do not know.  I wish I had a simple, sure-fire answer to what ails us.  What I do know is that throughout our history as a nation, no problem was ever solved, no issue ever addressed, no wrong ever righted without the people standing firm.  It is our function to stand up against dysfunction.   

    The critic/essayist George Jean Nathan once wrote that "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." 

    How true it is . . . how true it is.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

The Sky is Not Falling -- The Horizon is Rising

  This past Thursday (April 19, 2012), House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference -- an event that rarely rates more than a line or two in either the New York or Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, or even the San Francisco Chronicle. At one point during the press session -- which focused mainly on taxes, the so-called "Buffett Rule," and the Secret Service scandal in Columbia -- The former House Speaker made reference to Senate Bill 2219, the DISCLOSE Act.  This act, introduced by Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in the senate and Representative Chris Van Hollen in the House would " . . . amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities."  In speaking of the Whitehouse/Van Hollen proposal (which has 40 cosponsors in the Senate and more than 100 in the House), the former Speaker said:

On another subject, but related, yesterday House Administration Democrats held a forum on the need to create a new politics free of special interest money. I call it a forum because we were not allowed to call it a hearing because the Republicans will not allow a hearing on DISCLOSE. They did not allow the camera system of the room to be used to transmit the proceedings from the forum to the rest of the world. We think that this is about transparency, DISCLOSE. Stand by your ads. If you are so proud of what you are doing with your effective political action, then let the world know who is paying for this ad; not by the end of the year, or the end of the month, but by the end of the ad, in real time. We have to do it as candidates. They should have to do it as contributors.

   We have a clear agenda in this regard. DISCLOSE, reform the system, reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to let secret, unlimited huge amounts of money flow into campaigns. I think one of the presenters yesterday said it was – that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that indeed is not an exaggeration. Our founders had an idea. It was called democracy. [They] said the elections are determined by the people, the voice, and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. The Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our founders' vision, and we want to reverse it.

   As noted above, Pelosi's comments went unreported by the nation's major media outlets.  Nonetheless, her 280-word comment was picked up by chatterboxes at Fox, who then proceeded to dice, slice and skewer.  So far as they -- and virtually all of their colleagues in the conservative media -- were concerned, Pelosi's support of the DISCLOSE Act was and is nothing short of a declaration of war on both the First Amendment and the United States of America.  "How dare Nancy Pelosi stand there and blatantly admit that she and her fellow Democrats are going to amend Constitution in order to overturn a Supreme Court decision?" the likes of Sean Hannaty, Dana Perino and Bob Beckel asked in mock abhorrence -- as if they haven't at one time or another pushed for overturning of the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.   (These amendments, in order, guaranteed "Due Process," gave Congress the legal right to collect income taxes and permitted the direct election of U.S. Senators.)

   Call it an act of collective, selective amnesia.  When the right seeks to repeal the entire 20th century, it is an act of sheer patriotism -- a strengthening of liberty's beneficent embrace.  When Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues call for the repeal Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission  it is a sure sign that the sky is falling and a reborn Soviet Union is on the brink of swallowing America whole.

   Truth to tell, the SCOTUS Citizens United decision -- which declared that corporations, like people are guaranteed the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" --  has made it likely that America will one day be swallowed whole . . . but not by Communists, by Corporatists.  As a result of Citizens United, the wealthiest Americans can dump hundreds of millions of anonymous dollars into committees that will then back those office holders or candidates who will do their bidding -- regardless of how reckless or retrogressive their wishes may be. (See my October 29, 2010 article "Worse Than Dred Scott," which was published a few days after the Supreme Court's decision.)

   As a result of Citizens United, the will of the people has been replaced by "Gold's Law" -- namely, "He (or she) that's got the gold will make the law." 

   Don't believe that the will of the people is being buried?  A bit of anecdotal evidence:

• According to an ABCNEWS/Washington Post Poll, 57% of the American public say abortion should be legal "in all or most cases," and 54% continue to support the court's 1973 Roe v Wade decision.  And yet, legislatures in nearly every state have enacted draconian anti-abortion measures up to ans including a recently passed Arizona law which states that life begins two weeks BEFORE CONCEPTION.
• The Gallup Poll reports that for the first time in its tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe ". . . same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid with the same rights as traditional marriages."  And yet, both Congress and a majority of state legislatures are pushing for a "Defense of Marriage Act," which would declare that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
• According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, a whopping 65% of those polled are in favor of an overhaul of the U.S. health care system.  Of that 65%, nearly one-in-four did not believe that so-called "Obama Care" went far enough. And yet, everywhere one looks or listens, there are demands for a repeal of the president's "socialist" program.
• A recent CBS/New York Times poll reveals that 56% say they oppose cutting the pay or benefits of (largely unionized) public employees to reduce state budget deficits, and 60% percent oppose eliminating some collective bargaining rights for public employee unions, while just one in three Americans supports that idea.  Despite this, several state legislatures have voted to curb union rights, claiming that in large measure, the nation's economic doldrums are caused by unions.
• A poll conducted by Hart Research Associates found that nearly 8 ouf ot every ten voters (79%) support passage of a Constitutional amendment to overturn the
  Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people. This figure includes 42% who would definitely support it. Just 21% are opposed. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment. 
  

   And yet, there are those who are warning that the sky is falling.

   Well, I'm here to tell you that the sky is not falling; rather, the horizon is rising.  We are beginning to see the largely ignored majority band together and make their/our voices and desires heard.  Just ask Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is spending nearly every waking hour trying to keep from being recalled.  Just ask the folks of ALEC (see my July 30, 2011 article) who are underwriting so many of these issues; within the past two weeks, they have lost the financial backing of Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and MacDonalds.  Lastly, ask state legislators in Hawaii, Vermont, New Mexico and shortly Montana, as well as members of city councils across the country, who have all passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. 

   Finally, people are saying "Enough's enough! America is a nation built on the will of the people, not the wealth of the plutocrats."  For those interested in adding their voice to the "Overturn Citizens United" campaign, check out Free Speech For People.

  Let the Foxifiers warn that the sky is falling.  It will keep them too busy to realize that for the rest of us, the horizon is rising . . .

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Where Has All the Propofol Gone?

Propofol -- one of the drugs that led to Michael Jackson's untimely death -- is a short-acting, intravenously administered hypnotic agent. Known in some circles as "Milk of Amnesia," its uses include the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia, sedation for mechanically-ventilated patients, and procedural sedation. Propofol -- and its generic equivalents -- has been widely and successfully administered in hospital operating rooms around the world for nearly 30 years. And, as of June 4, 2010, Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Israeli-based firm that was the major supplier of Propofol, no longer manufactures it. Today, it is almost impossible to find.

Where has all the Propofol gone?

And while we're at it, where has all the Doxil, Adderall, Mitomycin, Morphine Sulphate, Avalide, Ondansetron, Succinylcholine, Dextrose, B-12 and more than 200 other important meds gone? Shockingly, between 2006 and 2010, drug shortages increased by more than 200% according to a Government Accountability Office Report released late last month. Many of the drugs declared "MIA" are critical chemotherapeutics; intravenously infused medicaments and "cocktails" that can often mean the difference between remission and metastasis -- between life and death. Some of the shorted meds -- though far less exotic -- are just as critical to the health and well-being of patients in need: things as basic as injectable cobalamin (vitamin B-12) and Tylenol 1 (the 325 mg version). Although a lack of injectable B-12 might not seem as critical as a dearth of Propofol or Doxil (a chemotherapeutic drug used in the treatment of breast cancer), it can be for the patient in need; severe B-12 deficiency can lead to irreversible damage, especially to the brain and nervous system. I know; I'm supposed to receive a weekly injection . . .

When and if a supply of these drugs can be located, it is at a cost; there are reports of drugs which distributors sold just two years ago for $25.00 per dose, now going for as much as $1,200 per dose on the "Grey Market." And this phenomenon is not confined to certain states or regions; it's happening all over the United States. Large, well-heeled establishments like the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic and Vanderbilt University Medical Center at least have the possibility of purchasing critical medications -- at monstrously inflated prices -- because they have both the ability and the resources to order in great quantity. But one should keep in mind that there are just as many -- if not more -- patients whose lives depend on receiving chemotherapeutic drug protocols who live in small towns and are served by small hospitals that don't buy in quantity and thus cannot afford to pay hyper-inflated prices. Sometimes, when a drug that a patient tolerates well can't be readily located, the physician will prescribe an alternative -- which frequently the patient cannot tolerate. With some medical conditions, an interruption in treatment of a month, even a week, can be disastrous . . . even deadly.

The question is not only "Where has all the Propofol gone?" but "What has led to its scarcity?"

It all depends on who you ask, what ones starting point might be . . . even what axe they may be grinding. Make no mistake about it: the scarcity of pharmaceuticals is an issue and a problem for both Democrats and Republicans, ultra-conservatives and ultra-progressives. Anyone, regardless of his or her political philosophy, can contract cancer or Crohn's Disease, require surgery or suffer from a thousand-and-one life-threatening ailments. And yet, when it comes to analyzing the current situation, politics and point of view do count for something.

At base, market forces have a lot to do with the scarcity of drugs. The prices we pay for pharmaceuticals in the United States are far higher than those paid by the citizens of any other country in the world. In large measure this is why the pharmaceutical industry has for years been the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S. According to the annual Forbes 500 survey, the American pharmaceutical industry tops the list of all industries with a return of 17% on investment. And although the cost of manufacturing a new drug is relatively low, the cost of inventing and then patenting a new drug is relatively high. Drug manufacturers have always claimed that the high cost of pharmaceuticals is due to this latter issue. Then too, a hefty part of the price for bringing a new drug to market can be found in advertising costs; ever notice all those commercials urging us -- the patient -- to tell our physician that we want them to prescribe drug "x" or "y" for condition "a" or "b?" Silly me; I thought it worked the other way around; that the doctor did the suggesting and prescribing to me, and not I to her . . .

Many, many pharmaceutical giants have seen their patents lapse and other companies manufacture, then market, generic versions of their creations. Generally speaking, when a drug goes off patent and becomes generic, the price drops precipitously; the companies making them are in the business of gaining as much market share as possible. This is a no-brainer. But then, the generic manufacturers cry, the price remains both low and flat; profits are minimal -- too minimual, many say, to warrent continued manufacturing of generic "a" or "b." Some place blame on the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act (H.R. 1) which Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law on December 8, 2003. This act limits Medicare payment for physician-administered drugs to the average sales price plus a 6% administrative fee, which manufacturers claim has limited profit margins and thus their ability to maintain and upgrade their facilities. And despite the fact that H.R. 1 provides for an analysis of average sales prices twice a year, it still means that the profit to be made on these generics is going to rise at a pretty slow pace. Many companies have concluded that if drug "a" or "b" can't bring in more than 6% profit above cost, they simply will discontinue its manufacture.

Another factor is the drug distribution system itself. Physicians face pressure from health insurers to obtain the best prices for prescription drugs through multiple distributors. However, as noted above, distributors tend to provide the best prices and most stable supply to high-volume purchasers. Then too, according to information provided by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, most of the nearly 170 prescription drugs in a shortage status as of October 2011 were offered by a single supplier or a small number (under 4) of firms.

Some claim the problem has been exacerbated by tighter Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement of drug manufacturing standards. (According to public records, over the past 2 years the FDA expedited more than 300 industry applications for new or updated manufacturing facilities. So much for the It's-the-fault-of-too-many-damned-regulatory-hoops-to-jump-through argument.) This past October, President Obama signed an executive order requiring the FDA to expedite regulatory review of drug manufacturers and investigate price gouging. At the same time, the White House announced that they would immediately begin requiring some drug manufacturers to report production interruptions to the FDA. The manufacturers that have to report to the FDA are those drug manufacturers that have no generic equivalent and are critical to maintaining life. There are currently two pieces of legislation making their way through Congress calling for advanced warning of impending drug shortages and more FDA action. But passage is both uncertain and a long way off. For now, drug distributors would appear to be in the driver's seat.

Today, a majority of the shorted meds are being manufactured overseas -- in China, South America, Eastern Europe and Israel. The FDA simply does not have the budget or the manpower to inspect these foreign manufacturing plants. As a result, there are a lot of pharmaceuticals on the market that do not meet American safety standards -- another cause of shortages.

That the country which prides itself on having "the best healthcare on the planet" should have these problems -- drugs shortages, an unscrupulous "grey market" charging sky-high prices for life-saving meds, and a fast-declining manufacturing base -- is unconscionable. That no other industrialized country suffers from a similar set of problems likely shows that we do not, in fact have "the best healthcare on the planet." To my way of thinking, many of these problems would be alleviated by going to a single-payer system; one that recognizes that although industries -- especially those that employ more lobbyists than any other on the planet -- have a constitutional right to make a reasonable profit, human beings have a God-given right to live.

If Michael Jackson's doctor could get his hands on Propofol why can't my doctor at the Cleveland Clinic?

And while we're at it, where in the hell is my B-12?

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

You Say You Want a Revolution?

    These are the days that give pessimists the courage to proclaim, "You see?  We are right; the world is going to hell in a hand basket!"  And tho I'm far from being a member of this depressive fraternity, I cannot in all good conscience completely dismiss their claim.  Things truly have gotten out of hand.  Whether it be:

• Our war-without-end in Iraq,
• The use of fear as a political tool,
• Assaults on civil liberties,
• The sub-prime debacle and its attendant capital "R" Recession,
• Ever-increasing gas prices,
• Ever decreasing wages,
• The alarming rise in the medically uninsured or
• The unconscionable widening of the gap between the haves and have-nots,

  There is sure a lot to feel despairing, depressed, or just plain downhearted about.

    Where do we go, what do we have to do in order to put things right? 

• Elect a president who is both literate and a Democrat? 
• Vote in a veto-proof Congress?
• Put a halt to all the deregulation that's made fraud, thievery, and willful mismanagement the newest and greatest sacrament for the power gods of Wall Street? 
• Find a crystal ball to rub?

    How's about a revolution?

    "How's that?" you ask.  "A revolution?  You mean like 1776, Les Miserables or Ten Days That Shook the World?" 

    No, no, a thousand times no. I'm not in any way, shape or form urging that we dump tea into Boston Harbor, storm the Bastille or launch an assault on the Winter Palace.  No, none of those would work.  As the great American wit Ambrose Bierce once noted, "In politics, revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment."

    The only weapons we will need for this revolution are words, votes, and a dollar or three.

    What in the name of T. Jefferson am I talking about?

    Think about it.  What is at the root of so many of this nation's problems?  Its not so much who's in charge or which party they represent, as how they get put in charge and whom they are representing.  After thinking the matter through pretty thoroughly, I've concluded that the one revolutionary change that might -- just might -- put the pessimists out of business is . . .

                                 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!

  Before you think I've gone off my rocker, permit me to share a couple of statistics.

  In 2006, Senator Hillary Clinton spent a grand total of $39,833,526 to win reelection.  A six-year term consists of 2,190 days [6 years X 365 days].  That means that for each of those 2,190 days, Senator Clinton had to raise an average of $18,188.22 a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year for six years.  OK, lets give her the benefit of the doubt and say she took weekends off.,   That would reduce her fund-raising days to 1,560.  On this "easier" schedule she would have had to raise $25,534.31 a day, five days a week, fifty-two weeks a year for six years.  And what did she get for her nearly $40,000,000? Why 3,008,428 votes, which works out to $11.42 per vote!  One good thing to report is that a mere 4% of Senator Clinton's "take" came from PACs.   Senator Obama, by comparison raised $15,098,157 dollars for which he received precisely 3,597,456 votes -- a paltry $4.04 a vote. 

   On the House side, let's take two representatives at random.  The first is   Debbie Wasserman Schultz  of Florida's 20th District.  Despite not having had a challenger in her last election, Rep. Wasserman Schultz raised $1,036,924.00, which works out to $1,994.10 per day five days a week, fifty-two weeks a year for two years. 

   The second representative is Vern Buchanan of Florida's 13th District.   Buchanan, who was running for an open seat  raised an astounding $8,123,186.00 -- of which nearly $5.5 million came out of his own pocket.  Buchanan, who beat his Democratic opponent Christine Jennings by a mere 369 votes [out of more than 238,000 cast], wound up spending the princely sum of $229.44 for each vote he received.

  Is it any wonder that our political system is in the pits?

  A huge percentage of all the money donated to political campaigns comes from the very well heeled.  And believe me, they don't just make their contributions out of a sense of civic duty.  If you were to ask them what they expect in return, the answer would generally be "access."  By this they mean the ability to have their voice, their point of view, their personal concerns on matters of policy, heard.

   It is because of the political money pit that certain firms get contracts while others do not.  Is it any wonder that in the current sub-prime meltdown, the only ones being protected are the very folks who pushed the sub-prime loans in the fist place?   After all, its the merchant bankers and hedge-fund managers who make the contributions, not the little fellow hoping against hope to finally purchase a home.

   Political money has a lot to do with why America is the only industrialized country without National Health Insurance.  The health care industry donates tens of millions of dollars to candidates who will do their darnedest to keep the profits rolling in.

And to be sure, all the cash that the oil industry donates insures higher prices at the pump, a laissez-faire attitude toward global warming, and a steady flow of corporate profits.

  There are those who argue that to put limits or strictures on political money is tantamount to gutting the First Amendment.  "Money is speech," the magnates claim.  And in a sense, they are correct.  It's what's known as "Gold's Law": He [or she] who has the gold, makes the law.

   

If our revolution is to work, if our elected officials are ever going to become attentive to little ole' us, three doable changes will have to be made and then enforced:

1. Both Presidential and Congressional will be funded -- ONLY FUNDED -- by the public via a $3.00 tax appended to every federal return.
2. In order to qualify for federal dollars -- that means in order to run -- candidates will be required to file petitions with qualified signatures of qualified voters; the precise number to be worked out by a formula that varies by state and/or district.
3. No one leaving elected or executive-appointment posts will be permitted to engage in any form of lobbying for a minimum of two years dating from their last day in their former position.

    This "revolution" will likely cost somewhere between $2.5 and $5 billion a year, which at first gasp, seems rather pricey.  However, when one takes into account the hundreds of billions being being doled out in the form of deregulation, tax cuts, tax rebates and no-bid contracts to those who are greasing the political pole, even the $5.0 billion price tag is mere chump change.

   

Classically, the optimist is defined as one who sees the glass being half full, the pessimist, half-empty.  Me, I'm a realist: so long as there's something  in the glass, its OK.

      

The time has come that we the people take back our country from those who have been using the government as their personal feeding trough.

     This is one revolution that can change the course of American history.
 
©2008 Kurt F. Stone

 

Climbing the Alps Together

   Like many who spend an immense amount of time immersed in books, I am an inveterate collector and cataloger of pity quotes and maxims. Currently, I am using two of my favorites as alternating Screen Savers:

• "Learn as if you're going to live forever; live as if you're going to die tomorrow," and
• "Growing old is mandatory; growing up is purely optional."

 Truth to tell, I don't have the slightest idea who first penned these gems.  What I do know is that they are both demonstrably true.  As Adjunct Professor in three different university "Lifelong Learning" departments, I am in almost daily contact with a marvelously unique subculture:  perpetually young senior citizens.  The courses I teach -- everything from Current Events and "Great Decisions" to Biography and Foreign Cinema -- are attended by hundreds of men and women in their 60's, 70's, 80's and even 90's.  That they continue to attend university classes even in their advanced years is testament to their vitality; that they have such intriguing insights and ask such searching questions is testament to their eternal youthfulness.   In my experience, they are as bright, questing and fully engaged -- perhaps even more so -- as any undergraduates I have ever known or taught.

   These "Lifelong Learners" bring with them thirsting minds, vast experience and indomitable spirits. Indeed, it is often impossible to figure out who is learning the most -- the students or their professor.  In matter of fact, the seeds for many of my Blog articles have been planted by my students through class discussions.

   I also come from a family which, fortuitously, "suffers" from" what I like to call "terminal longevity."  My father Henry enjoyed life until his latter 80s. My mother Alice, now proudly in her eighties, is just about the youngest most engaged, political savvy person I know.  She is the still the embodiment of Dylan Thomas' elder who "rage[s] against the dying of the light."  Our cousin Mitzi, a year older than Mom, is another family member who won't sit back and watch others idly bleed.

    In reality, these are the fortunate minority; folks who have the physical, financial and psychic freedom that enables them to continue living independent lives.   For far too many however, the so-called "golden years" are tarnished with poverty, loneliness, abuse and victimization. 

    According to the most recent figures, nearly 5 million senior citizens are abused in this country every single year.  Reported abuses range from assault, battery and fraud, to identity theft and even rape.  Many of these abuses occur in nursing homes, assisted living facilities and hospitals.  Even more shockingly, many of these abuses occur at home. 

   Frequently the most dangerous and demeaning abuses are perpetrated by nursing home workers who were never properly screened before being hired.  Amazingly, few states have laws on the books that mandate background checks on those who care for the elderly.  Then too, there are no federal laws that make the abuse of elderly Americans a crime.  We have laws that make animal abuse a crime; why not the abuse of our revered seniors?

    Why indeed!

    Crimes against the elderly are epidemic in America. Not only are our senior citizens being robbed, raped and ripped off; they are being ignored, humiliated and debased.  And where most people find both compassion and revulsion when our dogs, cats or horses are abused, few find the strength to do anything about crimes against the elderly.

    Its about time for a change.

    For the past five years, there have been two bills wafting through the halls of Congress that would make abuse of the elderly a Federal crime with severe federal penalties.  The Senate version is S. 1070; in the House, it is H.R. 1783.  Sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch [R-UT], Blanche Lincoln [D-AK], Herb Kohl [D-WI] and Gordon Smith [R-OR], and Representatives, Rahm Emanuel [D-IL] and Peter King [R-NY], the Elder Justice Act would:

• Amend the Social Security Act to enhance the social security of the Nation by ensuring adequate public-private infrastructure and to resolve to prevent, detect, treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. . ."

   

Specifically, the Elder Justice Act would:

• Create an  Office of Elder Justice within the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services,
• Secure funding for adult protective services at the federal level,
• Create an "Elder Justice Coordinating Council" to assure cooperation  of efforts at all levels, and
• To fund and assist such entities at the state and local levels.

    

   Most importantly perhaps, the Elder Justice Act would increase the capacity of prosecutors throughout the country to bring elder abuse charges.

    Not surprisingly, both bills have the overwhelming bi-partisan support of both houses of Congress.  Not surprisingly, there are no known opponents of this legislation.  Shockingly however, neither bill has yet to make it out of committee and come to the floor for debate, much less passage.   

    The question is "why?"

    Interestingly, the answer is not what one might expect. 

    It is not that "the enactment of this legislation will cost too much."  In fact, the Elder Justice Act calls for the allocation of a mere $650 million a year for the seven years of the bill.  Currently, the federal government funds child abuse programs to the tune of $7 billion a year.

    It is not because nursing home and assisted living facility owners are balking at the added cost of screening all prospective employees.  An amendment by Senator Kohl provides that criminal background checks may be included in a facility's federal reimbursement.  Another proposal -- by Delaware Senator Joseph Biden -- would create a background check center for volunteers with a "dedicated stream of funding."

   It is not even the fact that more conservative legislators are grousing about adding "another level of needless bureaucracy."

   So what is the problem?  Who is to blame?

   The simple answer is "we are all to blame."  Specifically, members of Congress can be blamed for spending too much time in front of cameras and microphones holding forth on such "hot" topics as  as Terri Schiavo, Media Matters for America, Rush Limbaugh and Senator Hillary Clinton.

    Then too, Congress is to blame because it does not understand that those who prey on the elderly are also terrorists.

    We, the citizens are to blame for not lobbying or exerting sufficient pressure on our elected representatives.  Seniors represent one of the most powerful voting blocs in this country.  The most recent statistics show that approximately 65% of all people over the age of 60 voted in the last presidential election.   Compared to an overall national average of not more than 50%, and you have one powerful faction.

    One of the great lessons many of us learned back in the sixties was about the power and efficacy of community involvement. Many of the most epochal events of the past 40 years came about through the concerted efforts of we the people: think the end of the Vietnam War, the eighteen-year old vote, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.  In each case --and dozens of others -- change occurred because enough citizens saw that they had both a vested interest and power.

    Might I suggest that if each of us would make the adoption of the Elder Justice Act a cause for ourselves, our organizations and our communities, we could see it enacted?  Every senator and representative has an elder constituency.  Every senator and representative is painfully aware of how many votes they cast.  No senator or representative is so tone-deaf as to ignore the voice of the public.

     For anyone interested in joining this crusade, might I suggest that a good starting point would be  the "Elder Justice Coalition"  website.  You can log on at www.elderjusticecoalition.com    It is the single-best source for information and tips on how we can help to insure passage of this vital legislation.

    130 years ago, poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow noted in a letter to a friend that "To be seventy is like climbing the Alps.  You reach a snow-crowned summit, and see behind you the deep valley stretching miles and miles away, and before you other summits higher and whiter, which you may have the strength to climb, or may not.  Then you sit down and meditate and wonder which it will be."

    I may not be seventy, but I too have "meditated" and wondered, "which it will be."  And I have concluded that passage of the Elder Justice Act is essential. 

   Now.

   Let's climb the Alps together. . .

 

©2007 Kurt F. Stone