LEFTOVER TURKEY

Killer Bees
 

I believed, and so did most Americans, this question was settled some 70 years ago by the New Deal. In 1935, the Social Security Act was instituted, promising that the old, disabled and needy would be provided for by the Federal and State governments. Some of this assistance was means tested, like Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and some was a grant, like Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI). Whatever can be said about the amount and extent of assistance, the principle was that those within the purview of Social Security would be cared for, one way or another.
 

In the 2 decades beginning with Ronald Reagan's election, that social contract has been persistently attacked. The first serious breach occurred in 1995, when President Bill Clinton agreed with the Republicans to "end welfare as we have known it." "Welfare Reform" replaced the promise of Federal help in bad times, with the conditional, limited assistance of "Workfare." The Workfare concept is that each person may receive a one-time "helping hand" to employment and subsequent permanent self-reliance. The underlying assumptions are that there are always jobs for people, if only people know how to find and qualify for them, and that these jobs will pay enough to live on.
 

In the last few weeks, a second major blow was struck against the Social Security compact. This was "MEDICARE REFORM," which is the opening barrage on the coming third blow, and final assault: social security privatization. For the scoffers among us, widely reported rumor has it that privatization will be a major theme of George Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. (You have NOT heard it here first.)
 

What's so bad about the MEDICARE legislation? I say there's lots of things wrong with it, but for my immediate purpose, it is just a bribe. People are being "given" a prescription drug benefit to encourage the President's re-election. The trouble is, the benefit won't start until after the President is re-elected and no one can figure out exactly what the benefit is. Later on, people may have to leave MEDICARE and join a private HMO. Those who don't probably will have to pay higher MEDICARE premiums.
 

Eventually about 44% of all MEDICARE recipients will be forced off the rolls. Right away, about 1/4 of all MEDICARE recipients will have to pay MORE, NOT LESS, for their prescriptions - the lowest income quarter. About 50% of all MEDICARE recipients receive benefits under an employer pension plan, which the employer may now terminate.
 

There's no doubt those MEDICARE recipients in the top 50% of incomes will be no worse off, or even better off, than they are now. Those with catastrophic conditions (terminal cancer, AIDS) will also get more help, as MEDICARE will pay 95% of the annual cost of drugs above $5250.
 

So, they'll help you at the end, when you've got nothing left. Oh, I forgot to tell you: the big help only comes for those who have less than $6,000 in assets. "Assets" includes your car, savings, etc, but not your home. It's not clear how much home you are allowed to have, if any. The Republicans didn't forget a MEAN TEST.
 

The thing to note about Killer Bees is that, even though a minority, they are hostile and quick to gang up, attack and kill others. They kill neighboring civilized colonies. They are nomads, nesting in the wild only long enough to reproduce their kind; then they move on, leaving little or no honey behind.
 

They do have a weak spot: very few manage to last the Northern winter. They are a kind of warrior grasshopper. In Aesop's fable, the ants leave the grasshopper outside to freeze, and it dies in winter.
 

Those on the Left should learn Aesop well. It remains to apply the methods of the Welfare Reformers to themselves.
 

Body Snatchers
 

If you live in the Senate long enough, and associate with the wrong folks, you eventually undergo a metamorphosis and turn into a Killer Bee. For example, that's happened to Zell Miller (D-GA) who condemns the Democratic party, endorses George Bush, votes with the Republicans, but refuses to register Republican, so caucuses with Democrats.
 

It appears Max Baucus and Diane Feinstein are just in cocoons, beginning the transformation. Further along are Sen. Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Lincoln (D-AR) and Sen. Breaux (D_LA).
 

Little by little, the Senate Democrats are losing their wills, gradually being pushed into cocoons from which they will emerge as what: Killer Bees? Republicans? Aliens?
 

The important news is it is not only happening to Senators. It's happening to friends and boon buddies of old. People who used to be living Democrats are turning into creepy Republicans. They're still disguised (look like) Lefties, but they are not. It's only when they suddenly attack, and try to sting and bite, that you realize what they are. Hopefully, you can fend off the attack and not get poisoned. If you don't, you're headed for a cocoon.
 

I would like to write a manual about this, so we could know a little better who is who. Your suggestions, please.
 

What About the Old Folks?
 

I haven't forgotten this question.

Actually, I realized last week it is quite simple. You can PAY, ABANDON or KILL them; that's it, there are no other choices.
 

I assume people are born, grow up, reproduce and die. At least, that's the way it is in the world I know. People get older; I have no counter-examples. Along the way, after they grow up, they get sicker and less able, too. I don't know of any counter-examples to this observation, either.
 

So, barring accident or rare diseases, I believe most people eventually get old and disabled. Now, here I do speculate: it seems most younger people do not believe this will happen to them. In fact, when disbelief confronts reality, for example in 50 year old men, a common reaction is to run out and buy a young courtesan (whore, for the unsophisticated) to prove otherwise. I call this "Middle Age Myopia." It is not a dementia, even if it is a crisis, because the situation is corrected by wearing clear glasses and taking the scientific attitude of accepting the evidence of one's eyes..
 

I am sorry to spend such time on a trivial point. It is just that I have encountered a few people lately who don't know what to do about old age, or who believe it need not happen (certainly not to them).
 

Frightened by the prospect, one correspondent in the Wall St Journal's Forum (Question of the Day), wrote that old people should not be given any government help with medicine and doctors. The idea was, without medical care, the old and infirm would just die the sooner. Please recall that famous line in Dickens' Christmas Carol: "... let them die and decrease the surplus population ..."
 

It isn't just ultra-conservative Scrooges who say that; it's young Democrats, too. Or one, anyway, who wrote in DailyKos that he didn't want to pay for the old folks, and he had several sympathizers.
 

Those fellows fall into the class I call ABANDON. They don't want to pay for the old folks, and they don't know what else to do, so they abandon them. This fits naturally with denial, the fairly common view 'it won't happen to me.'
 

I haven't met any, but I am sure lurking out there are those who do know what else to do: KILL. Killing short-circuits a lingering, cruel death. It can be argued as more humane than abandonment. It solves the financial problem. It especially unloads the need for huge medical resources in later life. So, there's a lot of savings in killings. We all know the last, large scale experiments in this direction were the NAZI concentration camps and the Soviet Gulags. I had thought World War II and the Cold War ruled out this sort of thing, but maybe it is on the way back. Maybe it is a fad.
 

Anyway, if people just get older and older, then the old folks accumulate. In the end, they need money to live; otherwise they die. Without money, it is only a question of how fast death comes. The main difference between the abandon and kill strategies is the speed of extermination.
 

So, there's your choices. Remember, if you don't want to abandon the old derelicts, then you have to pay unless you can kill them.
 

Gray Arnold
 

The new Guv has only been in office a few weeks. Sooner than expected, he's doing almost everything the old Guv was going to do. I give Arnold credit, however, in keeping faith with his Republican supporters: right away, he abolished the car tax.
 

For those of you who do not live in California, the "car tax" is a property tax based on the market value of the car. The tax is paid with the car registration (license plate) renewal annually. This tax is highest in the first 3-5 years of a car's life, but declines rapidly thereafter (as does the value of the car). Many States impose similar taxes.
 

For example, if you own a 15-year old Nissan Sentra like ours, the car tax is under $50. If you own a new $23,000 Prius, it's about $500. If you own a Hummer, like Arnold's, the tax can be well over $1,000.
 

Lots of wealthy and upper middle class folks are really put out about paying $800 or so every year for their Lexus, Mercedes or Caddie, or the SUV. While living in Oregon, I met a few ex-Californians who moved to Oregon because they were incensed by this tax. That's right, some people will move, lock, stock and barrel, to another State to avoid an $800 tax, even when the cost of moving is measured in tens of thousands of dollars.
 

Most of California's car tax ends up in the hands of the Counties, where it pays for Sheriff's Deputies, roads and other County programs. Most of the people who don't want to pay the car tax, do want the Counties to pave the roads, send the emergency crews promptly and imprison other folks they feel are obnoxious criminals.
 

The car tax was reduced about 3 years ago, during a time of State budget surpluses. The law provided for the reduction only as long as tax collections created a surplus. The car tax was supposed to rise again, if there were budget deficits. As most people know, California is having really big budget deficits lately, so ex-Governor Davis signed an order to collect the increased tax. The car tax increase would net about $4 billion for the State.
 

Our new Governor Arnold found a way to void the car tax increase on Day One, thus increasing the State budget deficit to more than $12 billion.
 

What, only $12 billion, you say; what happened to the $30 billion? The recalled Governor had reduced the problem to just $8 billion. Now that the new Governor has increased the deficit, what does he propose to do about it? For starters, he proposes floating another $15 billion bond issue to cover it. Now, he and other Republicans had complained the State's indebtedness was wrecking the State's credit worthiness, so no more bonds should be issued. Anyway, that is what the evil Gov Davis proposed to do. The difference is, Schwarzenegger is going for $15 billion, whereas Davis was only asking for a $10 billion bond issue.
 

Next March, The Guv not only wants us to approve his $15 billion bond issue, but also an amendment that caps State spending. In addition, he wants to take away mandatory education budgeting. Guess who is going to pay for this Governor's budget reconciliation?
 

It is really hard to say Governor Schwarzenegger, not just because the name is long. "Arnold" slips out on the tongue so much more easily, reminding us of other historic figures; Benedict Arnold comes to mind.
 

Heavy Lifting
 

But, not all is said and done. The Governor wants to X out $1.9 billion more in spending that mostly benefits the mentally retarded, disabled and elderly. For example, he proposes to cut money to those receiving in-home care, meals and other services.
 

I'm just a totally self-serving SOB for being incensed by what the Guv is doing, because we - my household - are going to get hit hard. Shiow's 85 year old mother is one of those who will cease getting State aid for a home health aide. All she has to do is throw away her walker and other supports. and go shopping for herself.
 

I hope everyone listened carefully to what Arnold said, or didn't say, in the campaign, just a few months ago. I think he said he supported schools and children. He gave the impression he favored helping the poor, etc. He gave a lot of impressions.
 

Now we will find out who is in training to do what to or for whom.
 

... Did I forget to tell you Arnold owns a Hummer?