California: The Little Big Dog

When we met Moo, we thought she was 10 months old, and would top out at 45-50 lbs. This was about six months younger and 10 lbs. heavier than we'd intended, but once we met her, there was no question: this was (and is) our dog.

She'd had a kind of a tumultuous life up to that point. Rescued off the street at just three weeks, she was fostered out by the animal shelter, adopted by a family with not one, but two toddlers, and then re-fostered by a neighbor when they just couldn't keep up with a puppy. That neighbor worked at my mom's vet, so my mom saw the posting and knew we were looking to adopt a dog. The rest is Moo-story.

Perhaps because of that early life, or maybe it's just her personality, Moo is a paradoxically rambunctious but careful dog. We knew from her history that she was social with other big dogs, but didn't know about smaller ones. The first time we encountered a family with a couple of cocker spaniels out on a walk, we learned: she just ramped everything down. Her go-to move for small dogs was to roll over and let them conquer her. They've always been her best friends.

Presently, we examined her paperwork from the shelter more carefully, and learned she was SIX months, not 10, when we adopted her. She didn't stop at 50 lbs., or 60, or 65... her most recent weigh-in was 75.2 lbs. She is a BIG DOG.

Except, she's not.

I've come to realize that she is absolutely sure she's a small dog. She's never tried to jump on our bed, or take food off the table. She will sit on the couch... but just with her back legs, forepaws on the floor. She will do the same with a person's lap if it's on the couch. And when our little dog, a Shibahuahua weighing in at a scrappy 11.6 lbs., decides to lie down in the middle of Moo's crate, she just looks at us all sad, like, "Where do I go now? There's no more room for me. She took it all." It's not even in her repertoire to kick the dog that is literally 15% of her size out of her own crate.

Deep down, she just doesn't believe that she is the size she is, that she has the strength she does.

As a California native, I'm proud of our progressive environmental regulations and our diversity and inclusiveness and our thriving industries. I'm proud of being a world destination, and love showing off Los Angeles to anyone who visits me. I'd be proud of our awesome weather, but I guess that'd be a little weird, since no one does anything to make that happen.

But it baffles me that we seem to be a little big dog. Here we are, with an economy larger than France, with 12% of the US population, the two largest seaports in the country, and the busiest cargo airport in the country... but when someone gets in our crate, we just don't know what to DO about that.

It's time we realize how big we are, how strong we are, and how much we are worth... to the nation, and to the world. Only then do we have a shot at demonstrating that value to our allies or enemies. And that is what will let us stay strong, vibrant, and thriving.

Hard Work

American culture tends to assume that people who have a lot—of money, power, stuff, whatever—work hard for it. Maybe they didn't at first; maybe they started off with an advantage... but they have to work to keep it and grow it. And that people who have little must be lazy.

This assumption has deep roots in the Puritan ethic that played a huge role in founding our country. The Calvinists who believed that their fates were predestined and completely unaffected by their actions still saw success and prosperity as signs of their favor from God. And, although their fate after death was already written, they did not seek to anger God by frivolous activities and self-adornment; their asceticism meant that their hard-won profits were re-invested in their livelihood.

But today, while we have shed that asceticism and instead revel in pursuit of worldly signs of wealth—nice cars, big houses, designer clothes, or even less conspicuous consumption such as constantly climate-controlled houses or lights on in every room—we retain the notion that affluence is a sign that you are favored by God. Even if we don't consciously understand it this way, we still implicitly assume that those who have, worked for it; those who lack, deserve it.

We've entered a Bizarro world where, not only do we assume that wealth requires hard work, we actually rate the hardness of work based on the wealth it generates. We think of “flipping burgers” as easy, even as we watch people sweating over fryers, running back and forth to fill orders, and taking flak from abusive customers with a smile on their face. We think, “I would never want to do that.” and yet, we consider it “easy.” We don't think it's easy because we have any reason to think the work itself is not hard to do, but merely because it is low pay. And then in a strange tautology, we think the work should be low-paid because it is so easy.

Consider how hard is the work of a megacorp CEO sitting at a desk larger than my son's bed, in an office larger than the typical American living room, with an en-suite bathroom and multiple assistants for various tasks? To be sure, CEOs do work hard. They often work 60+ hours a week, evenings, weekends, travel away from their family, manage meetings with very powerful people and millions of dollars on the line. Their work is stressful. But when they are taking home millions of dollars per year, how do we compare that to the “hardness” of their work?

On the other hand, consider a man who wakes at 4 a.m. to get ready for his first job. He showers quickly, dresses in worn but rugged clothes, and reports to a shuttle point by 5:30 to go to a far-flung construction site. By 7 a.m., he's doing heavy lifting and working with tools that can maim or kill if used incorrectly. As the sun rises in the sky he starts sweating. The dust kicks up and sticks to his brow. He gets a half hour for lunch, and an occasional bathroom break; he knows they're supposed to give him two 15-minute breaks on the clock, and he knows of union jobs where that happens, but he's never been able to get one. Here, he's an “independent contractor,” hired as a temp with no benefits, no paid time off, no job security. Keep your head down and don't complain; you're lucky to even have a job.

He comes home at 5:30, showers, grabs a bite to eat, and leaves for his evening retail job. If he's lucky, it's in a tipped establishment and he can smile and accommodate his way to more money. If he's unlucky, it's again temp work, seasonal, could end at any moment... and an inconsistent number of hours stocking shelves, ringing up customers, and trying not to take it personally when people yell at him for not being able to meet their every unreasonable demand.

Meanwhile, he barely sees his spouse and children. That's who he's doing this for: working 60+ hours a week at low wages, so that his spouse can work a more flexible job and sometimes show up for the kids' holiday programs and school open houses. But 80 hours a week doesn't cut it anymore for a family of four. If they are compensated for 50 weeks a year (because in jobs at this tier, you don't get vacation time, and sometimes don't even get sick time), at 80 hours a week, at an average of $10/hour (nearly 40% higher than the Federal minimum wage), after payroll taxes they've got about $3,000/month to pay rent (that's not enough income to get a mortgage), buy groceries, put gas in a car or buy a bus pass, pay utilities, buy clothing and school supplies, pay for after-school care, and handle any other expenses that come up – such as a $2,000 emergency room visit or a $4,000 blown head gasket in their 12-year-old car. Health insurance? Savings? Laughable—every dime is spent the second it comes in.

Who works “harder”? That's a ridiculous question; the work isn't remotely comparable. They both work hard. But does the CEO's vastly higher compensation actually cause him to “work harder”? At some point, does more money actually get more product?

Now we've elected a President who definitely “has.” His home glitters, his name illuminates skylines. He travels in the rarefied circles of world leaders and business magnates. He's famous for being rich, and rich for being famous. He can lose $916 million in one year—enough to give every Pennsylvanian in poverty $550—and just keep on chugging.

Does he know what it means to work hard?

Many of us assumed he did. We assumed that it has to be hard work to maintain that empire. But the more we get to know him, the more it seems that he doesn't ever actually do that work himself. Intelligence briefings are boring—go meet with Kanye. Let's take a phone call from Taiwan; it's too complicated to understand why that pisses off China. Rather than finding people with impeccable qualifications and distinction in the relevant field, let's just pick our friends and colleagues, or their spouses, to fill our Cabinet. It would be too much work to do otherwise.

We need to change our understanding of work, and hard work, and how it relates to assets. We need to remember that farm work is hard. Caring for children is hard. Preparing safe and appetizing food is hard. Stopping fires is hard. Chasing down criminals is hard. Cleaning offices is hard. Constructing new buildings is hard. Mining coal is hard. Managing a store is hard. We ALL work hard. We ALL deserve to be able to come home after 40 hours a week, know that there's enough food, that our housing situation is stable, and spend time with our children and partners free of stress and worry. This isn't a rural issue or an urban issue. It's not a white issue or a black issue. It's not a coastal issue or a plains issue. It's not a Boomer issue or a Millennial issue. It is a human issue.

God bless the child that can pay his own way.

Mitt Romney, May 17, 2012: 

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Bill O'Reilly, November 6, 2012: 

“It’s a changing country, the demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.”

What I found most shocking about these two quotes... and most similar... is the lack of any sort of acknowledgment that people might actually deserve “stuff”. Might actually be “entitled.”

Is it possible that, if you work 60 hours a week, moving constantly, doing the things that other people don't want to do for themselves, stuff that requires lifting belts and work gloves, where you don't get paid vacations or sick days, that you have earned health care, food, and housing? Is that enough for Mitt Romney? Is it enough for Bill O'Reilly?

Here in California, the minimum wage is $8.00/hour. Plenty of really grueling jobs pay that wage. I'm not an accountant, and don't even do my own taxes... but I'll keep things simple. Here's the math for a family of four with one full-time, one part-time job at minimum wage:

60 hours per week x 52 weeks per year x $8.00/hour: $24,960 gross pay possible

...but let's say four days per year, on average, they're too sick to work. Because they're “contractors” instead of full-fledged employees, they don't get paid sick time (it's rampant all over the place... my mother-in-law has been a tech writer “on contract” for the last 13 years). So take off...

8 hours x 4 days x $8.00/hour: $256 so the gross is now $24,704. This assumes no vacation, no taking a morning off to go see their kid's holiday pageant at school, nothing.

But, these are still wages, so in spite of no paid vacation or sick time, they still pay payroll taxes. They're kind of complicated; there's several different ones. At least the $110,000 wage cap for social security deductions doesn't come into play. Here's what your hypothetical family will be paying:

FICA + Medicare: 7.65% of gross pay $24,704 = $1,889.86

Federal Unemployment Insurance: 0.9%* of the first $7,000 = $63

State Disability Insurance: 1.0% of gross pay $24,704 = $247.04

State Unemployment Insurance: 1.5% to 6.2% depending on employer's record; using average 3.85% of first $7,000 = $269.50

There's also an Employment and Training Tax, but it maxes out at $7 and isn't paid by all employers, so I'll just ignore it for now.

* Usually FUI is 0.6%, but California is paying its bills late, so we have to pay more into the Federal system.

The grand total of all wage taxes paid in a year by this family is now $2,469.40. But they haven't paid income taxes yet, so they're still in that 47%.

What do they have left at this point? $22,234.60 per year, for a family of four.

So do they pay income taxes? Well, let's take a look at the standard deductions, and the Child Tax Credit:

This family, assuming they're married, middle-aged, and not blind, qualifies for a standard deduction of $11,600, though there's the whole part about deducting the children and the tax credit. Some sources say such a family gets a total of $15,200 in deductions, which makes their taxable income $7,034.60.

According to the IRS tables for 2011, this family will owe $703 in Federal income taxes. However, since they have two children and make less than $110,000/year, they can claim $2,000 in child tax credits. These are now the tax-free folks who actually get money back from the government after a negative Federal tax bill. They can receive a credit of $1,297, to add to the $22,234.60 they take home.

We haven't even looked at what that $23,531.60 will pay for. This family has no health insurance, no 401(k) or IRA, and has to buy housing, food, transportation, clothing, and utilities. (But we're upset that they might get an Obamaphone.)

Why aren't they working more hours, though? Surely if they worked 80 hours a week, they'd be taxpaying citizens?

A family with two parents who work a total of 60 hours a week can get by without paying for childcare. Once you have two parents working full-time, though, you have to pay someone to care for the kids when they're not in school (if they're not under five and still not eligible for free education... another thing we don't think these people deserve). At minimum wage, the math just doesn't work out. Some families can rely on a grandparent or other relative for childcare, but if this person is not working, the wage-earning family likely is still somewhat responsible for the caregiver's expenses.

But let's say that their local school happens to offer some sort of free after school program, so they can both work 40 hours a week. Or one works 30 and the other works two jobs... somehow they get to 80 hours. They are still not paying taxes. With two children, you need a taxable income of $19,000 or more to exceed the tax credit, and the 80-hour a week minimum wage four-person family is at $14,634.92. Even if they get bumped up to $9/hour and 80 hours/week, they're in the 47%.

All they had to do was back-breaking, often humiliating, sometimes dangerous work, cleaning up after other people, 80 hours a week. And they think that this entitles them to health care, food, and housing? They think that they should have stuff?

In the Republican world, poverty is not just a moral failing. Your economic standing is a measure of your worth as a human being. If you do not already have something, that is sufficient to determine that you are not deserving of that thing. 

“Them that's got shall get, them that's not shall lose. So the Bible says, and it still is news.”

Talk is Cheap.

They say talk is cheap. They're right. There's no cheaper way to share information.

We went to the playground yesterday. D4S1* saw two people on the see-saw and said he wished he could teeter a totter. After noting that one of the people on it was a mom-looking person, I suggested he ask if he could join them, as he'd probably be successful. He did, and us parents followed R8S2 over to the track so he could ride his balance bike. We made visual contact every few minutes, but D4S1 is good at hollering if he doesn't think things are right, so he was pretty much on his own.

After a while, R8S2 asked to go play with his big brother. As we approached the zip line area, a woman who I belatedly figured out was the same one from the see saw came up to me and said "I just have to tell you how much fun my son is having playing with yours!" They'd been sticking together ever since the see saw, and having a ball.

We got to talking. I'll call her "Naomi." Her family was visiting from Springfield, Missouri, but she grew up in Orange County. She noted that she'd been homesick the whole last six years since they relocated, and they'd love to come back. We chatted about kids and their personalities, about home prices and their differences, and so on.

She asked about the Rose Parade... they were thinking of going. I couldn't help but share my fortune; I had two grandstand tickets, GREAT seats, and so D4S2 and I would be going. I was looking forward to seeing the Occupy the Rose Parade float.

Blank look. "You know... Occupy Wall Street? Occupy Los Angeles?" Shakes head.

"No... what is that?"

Now, I don't-- didn't, anyway-- consider myself completely disconnected from mainstream culture. Yeah, I make different choices; we don't have TV (we have a TV, which plays DVDs and console games), I don't read a newspaper... I get most of my news from links my friends post, and from my Google News Saved Search for things relevant to homelessness. But it really just floored me: there are still people who don't know that Zucotti Park on Wall Street in New York was occupied around the clock for nearly two full months; that the lawn around Los Angeles City Hall was similarly occupied for two months (starting and ending a couple of weeks later), and that similar protests have happened in cities across the nation.

So... I talked.

I knew little to nothing about this woman's political inclinations, history, background. I had no idea where here sympathies would lie, how her family earned money, what her gut reaction would be. I kept it simple, which is hard; it's complicated. I started with the what: thousands of people setting up camp in public places, in protest of corporate greed, the illegal actions taken by Wall Street firms that precipitated the financial crisis (with no charges filed), the people whose homes have been foreclosed illegally, the aggregation of wealth and political power with the 1%. I mentioned the pepper-sprayed UC Davis students (and even mimed the cop's casual stroll as he sprayed them), but didn't get into Scott Olsen.

Then I mentioned the evictions, the coordination services provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and the next phase, where some people are occupying foreclosed, bank-owned, vacant homes with families who have lost their homes in the financial crisis.

"Wow, I had no idea about any of that! I really need to start reading a newspaper."

And then I got to the really sad part: the newspaper probably wouldn't help much. Where mainstream media *does* cover Occupy, it tends to do so in a somewhat patronizing manner, focusing on things like littering or the homeless moving in, rather than the issues.

[Said in a perfectly reasonable, not at all self-righteous or dismissive, tone] "Well, maybe then these Occupy folks need to get better with the media..."

That's when I explained that they have a lot of people who are pretty good with media... but that there's no way to package this. I pointed out that it's leaderless; that you can't state in succinct, media-friendly soundbites what "the 99%" want. That it's a conglomeration of different ideas and goals and priorities. That it's about being heard, being represented; it's not about picking someone to be in charge and package the message. It's complex, and it has to stay that way, or it stops being what it is.

The boys stopped playing ball with a random family and got on the swings. As we pushed them (these swings are specially designed to be accessible; they're too big and heavy for the kids to swing themselves... which I suspect is why they like them so much), she asked me what I do, and I told her (grant writer for a homeless services agency). She asked me about feeding the homeless, and what I thought about whether it did any good (as a one-time thing). I told her I thought that, if done right, it could serve an important purpose in humanizing people who have felt dehumanized by their day-to-day experience. But on the other hand, hunger sometimes motivates people to connect to services, so isolating feeding people may prolong the time they spend on the street... so it could go either way.

As we headed back over toward the zip line behind our sons, I touched on NDAA and SOPA. She asked what I thought of Obama, and I told her. She confided that she finds herself consciously hiding her political beliefs; she fears what her community's reaction would be if they found out she voted for him. She mentioned religion in a positive light; I recommended The Christian Left, but she wondered what would happen if her neighbors saw she had "liked" it. I gave her some tips on double-talk for those situations ("Oh, I know, but they have some really good Christian messages...") and also mentioned that I have two Facebook accounts: one for work, and one for the rest of my life.

I was so uplifted by our conversation, the ability to share important information about the world with another person, the progress made in that hour... and dismayed by how isolated a person can be thanks to an intolerant community.

So I've decided: I need to talk more. I need to talk about what's going on. I don't need to lecture or advocate or evangelize... I just need to say "This is happening." Then people, like Naomi, at least have an opportunity to make up their own minds about it.

* For the sake of anonymity, I'm not using my children's actual names. I decided to give them codes, like they're Star Wars droids. The first letter is their first initial; the second is the last digit of their birth year; the third is their gender (S for son... it's the same for both, but would be D for any daughters I had in another universe) and the final digit is birth order.

Octopi Wall Street

Credit goes to my husband for the title.

So first of all, there's this thing going around like a bad cold:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/300992_2121412038332_1336751787_32024846_450161612_n.jpg

Don't get me wrong: I'm firmly on the side of the 99%. Things are, to put it simply, [bleep]ed, and we need to un[bleep] it pronto.

But here's what I posted to one friend in response to the above:

Item #1 means that people who aren't independently wealthy can't afford to run for Congress. They'd be giving up retirement plans in the private sector to do so.

The Congressional pension operates much like pensions in any other job, where you get credit for the time you were there; it's not a free ride for every Congresscritter ever. It's to ensure that people can afford to leave jobs with decent retirement plans to run for and hold Congressional seats.

Item #2: Congress pays into Social Security just like everyone else (which means that they only pay on their pay up to $106,800/year).

Item #3: Some jobs still have pension plans, but they're evaporating. There's also a lot of concern about the baby boomers, as they reach retirement age, often with inadequate savings for retirement. Also, Congress members DO pay into their pension plan, just like most public-sector employees. Also, there's some serious problems with suddenly going BACK on a system; what would we do to a private company that had a nice pension plan if they suddenly said "Um, we're changing it for EVERYONE from this point forward, no matter what we told you in the past (on which basis you made certain decisions about your financial planning)?

Great summary here: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcongress.htm

Item #4: 3% is too low a cap. 6% is more realistic. During the late 1970s, we had runaway inflation that got into double digits... a few years of that and Congressional pay would lose a ton of value with a 3% cap. Inflation has only dipped below 3% a handful of years in the last three decades.

Item #5: Congress DOES participate in the same health care system as The American People: a system of private insurance tied to employment, where the employer subsidizes the premium (if you're lucky). There is *no* public insurance plan for the general population.

Item #6: I'm perfectly fine with Congress getting parking tickets. Otherwise, not sure which laws they're categorically exempt from. They enjoy the same benefits with respect to law enforcement that ANY affluent white person does.

Item #7: Term limits encourage ambitious people who are always looking at their next campaign, rather than people who really want to do *this* job. They also create huge inefficiencies due to turnover; anyone who's ever been in management knows that you take a hit every time you have to get a new person up to speed on a job.

Now, some of those are fairly cut-and-dried; others are more nuanced, and perhaps simply opinion... but informed opinion. Still, you start right off with this being based on things that simply AREN'T TRUE (I mean, a quick Google of Congress Social Security gets you a Snopes link for crying out loud; are they even TRYING?), and you go to things that probably will have negative effects... hard to take any of it seriously.

And for all I know, that's the point. This was started by some troll who wants to embarrass or distract the progressives. It's working; people are passing this on without a single thought.

But the conversation continued. And I was asked my opinion on how we DO fix it. So I answered:

First: amend the Constitution to more strictly define a "person" as an organism. Corporations aren't people; they can't die, or be imprisoned, or be left destitute... they can be formed and dissolved at need, they can be immortal or ephemeral as their creators determine. They are shells, not people; they need no rights, because the people who created them have rights.

We also need to realize that money isn't speech, but that's secondary to taking personhood away from immortal legal entities. Maybe we need to define rights about how people use money, but equating it to free expression doesn't work.

And we need to remember that WE elected Congress. Not "They," WE THE PEOPLE. We can't divorce ourselves from the constituency we are part of. We need to talk to our friends, our neighbors, our community groups, churches, families... and teach them to really see it through; think about how various policies will affect them, personally, and the world they live in. We need to adopt a habit of long-term, big-picture thinking.

I happen to think that getting free of TV advertising would go a long way to helping with this last part; it affects *everyone* who sees it, even on fast-forward. If you don't believe me, go on a strict no-commercial diet for, say, six months. DVDs (or books and talking to friends ;-) only. You'll be AMAZED at what you thought was normal when you were exposed to it every day.

The advertising bit is something I'm trying to work on in a bigger way. First it was going to be a blog post, then I started realizing the scope was more like an article, and now it's kind of turned into a book. The impact of advertising on politics is its own chapter. But I digress.

I went to the rally on the International Day of Action, October 15th, here locally. It was stupendous. I took my kids; they were impressed (hey, we get to walk in the STREET!). I had intelligent conversations with random strangers all around me. I was amazed at the variety and creativity of the signs people were holding.

And most of all, I'm excited that it seems like we're finally doing something. I can't wait to see where it goes, and hopefully, to be a part of it.

Consent of the Governed

First, a Facebook Friend posted this link:
12 Facts That Will Blow Your Mind – Federal Employees And Members Of Congress Are Getting Rich While Those Of Us Who Pay Their Salaries Suffer

So I had a few responses. Here they are, as commented on the thread:

‎

#1: What's the source of her money? Just her salary as a Congresscritter?
#2: The Federal Government employs doctors, dual-PhDs, and people at CEO-level responsibility for government agencies. $150k a year is *low* for those types of jobs.... Do we want all the inmates in our Federal prisons to be seen by doctors who can't get a "real" job? Is that in the interest of public safety?
#3: ...which is why we need campaign reform. You can't become a member of Congress without your own war chest.
#4: there were 4,434,431 US government employees (including uniformed military personnel) as of 2009 (http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp). So that's an average of $100,000 in *total compensation*... which includes things like military pensions, health benefits, etc. The typical ratio for benefits to compensation in the non-profit sector is 25%; it's probably higher for government jobs, as our military members and many civil servants have excellent benefits (like fully-paid health care or actual pensions rather than just 401ks). So then we're talking about more like an average salary of $75,000... including 1.3 million active-duty military members, thousands of doctors, etc.
#5: ...because we want the "average American" crafting legislation and advising on foreign policy? the average American can't find Germany on a map. Let's instead talk about how many people are making *far* below "average".
#6: ...so? The right of labor to organize is protected by law, for good reason. Wal-Mart employees aren't. Who do we want in charge of spending our tax dollars?
#7: Again, we need campaign reform. These people were rich long before they became electeds.
#8: We're complaining because people got raises? How many people were making $140k in 2005? $140k in 2005 is $156k now, just due to inflation.
#9: Don't know much about this issue. How much insider trading do members of Congress do? Which members of Congress have had legislation put before them that would make it illegal and refused to vote for it? What about the current legislation in the works... does it address the issue?
#10: And what's the difference in responsibility? You can slip the matre'd a ten-spot and get a table faster... do we want that at the IRS? The airport? Our prisons?
#11: I'll agree that benefits in the private sector suck.
#12: I want to invest in what they did. How much of that was real estate, btw? And how much did they lose in the crash?

This is an incredibly biased, misleading, and destructive way of looking at isolated pieces of information context-free to try to just get people against government. Get the *whole* story; don't let the pundits make your opinions for you.

The OP then asked an insightful and useful question for such a dialogue, which was (paraphrased; I haven't solicited permission to quote anyone) "What does government mean to you?"

So, here it is... again, as posted:

Government is a social contract among the governed. In a hypothetical state of nature without government, there is only natural and acquired power. Natural power is attributes like strength, beauty, and intelligence, which can be used to ...acquire power. Acquired power consists of things like resources, loyalty, or fame.

In the state of nature, those with less natural and/or acquired power (usually highly correlated) are consistently at a disadvantage to those with more. As social creatures, we depend on each other for not just the "extras," but bare survival... people cannot be healthy and whole in isolation. But in the state of nature, there is little one can do to prevent antisocial behavior on the part of someone more powerful. An individual lacks second-strike capacity: if I kill you for your food, you are now dead and can't take action against me.

So we form alliances. Ten people with less power can create a social contract, and best one person who is more powerful than each of them individually. Eventually, even the powerful realize they are better off by engaging in and complying with the social contract.

Modern government has come a long way in developing methods of negotiating and re-negotiating that contract, but in the end, it's still the same thing. Government is made up of people. We agree. We don't all, individually, agree with everything "government" does, but we all agree to be bound by the decisions of government, because we are better off than if we "go it alone." As social creatures, we are infinitely healthier and better-off in alliance than isolated.

When "government" is misbehaving, it's our job, as those who imbue government with its power, to find out why and fix it. To me, an awful lot of the issues we face today can be addressed by reforming campaign finance, so that people, rather than money, elect our government. I also think we need to get back to truth-telling; we seem to have no power to stop those with the acquired power of fame from just flat-out lying to influence people's opinions on the job of government. This causes them to vote, again and again, against the interests of themselves and most people, to the advantage of a few.

The social contract is breaking down. We don't fix that by breaking it further, but by remembering that these people only have the power to damage us because WE GAVE IT TO THEM. We can choose to give that power elsehow, too

...Never mind that "elsehow" doesn't appear to be in my browser's spelling dictionary. I like it.

For anyone who wants to know more about the social contract and the state of nature, start with Hobbes's Leviathan. Rousseau also did a lot on this. I had to read this stuff for some Sociology class, you should too. ;-)

We interrupt this important message with mindless drivel.

I haven't finished the Prop 13 post yet. I've realized it needs more work; the basic idea is there, but there's math and stuff. Usually it's fun, but right now* I'm not in the mood.

But I want to write. So here's a little exercise in semi-automatic writing**... we'll see where it goes.

I'm optimistic about the incoming Congress. I have this hope, that doesn't seem entirely unrealistic to me, that one or both of the following things will happen:

1. The frosh Congresscritters, suddenly having this as their real *job* with staffers who, some of them, may actually have some experience and background in running a Congressional district, might learn a thing or two about how things work. Like waiting periods for health care, and why we thought it'd be a good idea to abolish them. Or why it's cheaper to provide a social safety net than to just let people languish on the street. Or any number of things.

2. Because the Tea Party is somewhat outside the scope of the mainstream Republican party, some of the veteran Republicans may find it makes sense for them to break ranks and side with the Democrats on any number of things. Which is a nice way of saying that they'll be afraid of looking like idiots by association.

Sure, it may just be a ridiculous deadlock. I can hope, at the very least, the the Democrats will have learned by now that "bipartisan cooperation" takes two to tango, and the conservatives didn't come to the dance. Then, at least, they can be doing things, passing things through the Senate, the tsk-tsking when the House turns them down over and over. If only they'd done that the first two years, we might not be in this position.

But overall, I have severe politics fatigue. I try to care. Really I do. But it's so disgusting what some of these people want to do to us, to me. Hell yes I take it personally. Knowing that my family would be in deep doo-doo with health care if my husband lost his job? That's personal. Knowing that there are homeless people picking through my trash cans because we can't seem to find it in our hearts to provide decent social services? That's personal. Knowing that my son's elementary school is about to lose their librarian and their plant manager, and while the school is raising huge noise of protest, nothing is going to change because there's no money because me and my neighbors all have nicely insulated property tax rates? That's VERY personal.

And sometimes I make the mistake of reading the comments on articles on the Los Angeles Times website. Wow that hurts. I'm surrounded by hateful, hurtful people who vote. How do I meet that without wanting to crawl into a hole?

But on the upside... it could be worse! That's the ticket. I should just go back to that optimism thing I was enjoying earlier.

* i.e., the last three weeks.
** Automatic writing is an exercise my mom used to have her English classes do. You set a timer for five minutes, and you don't stop writing the whole time. Even if you're not actually creating prose, you just keep the words flowing. You don't correct, you don't even really think... you just put words to paper. It's different on a computer, and I'm far too compulsive for not correcting things... hence, semi-automatic. But now it sounds like a weapon. "Words are better weapons... words are the way to break through without blood." Peter Dee, "...And Stuff."

If people treated grocery stores like government

“Greetings, ma’am, what seems to be the problem?”

“This grocery bill. Just LOOK at the total! That’s MUCH too high!”

“I’m sorry, was there an error with the register? What is the total supposed to be?”

“Well, it ought to be a LOT lower than that. I can’t afford to spend that much!”

“Okay, let’s get this taken care of… what do the prices add up to?”

“What? I don’t know. That’s YOUR job! I don’t have time to look at the individual items and total them up!”

“Okay…” [spends a moment with a pocket calculator] “The total seems to be correct, ma’am. Did we charge you for an item you didn’t select, perhaps?”

“I NEED all the items I bought! But they shouldn’t cost this much. Why does it cost so d*** much?!”

“Well, first – ”

“I mean, look at this: ‘Canteloupe, 2.1 lbs. @ $1.99/lb., $4.18!’ That’s highway robbery! I could grow 20 canteloupes in my backyard for that price!”

“Well, of course you could, ma’am. But there’s a lot of other costs that come into that price.”

“What kind of cr*p are you charging me for on top of my melon? All I asked for was a cantaloupe!”

“Right, but we also have to take into account the cost of picking it, packing it, transporting it to the market, the employees who work here, their benefits—”

“Did I SAY I wanted to give the employees benefits? No, I don’t think I DID. You’ll be taking THAT off the price now, won’t you?”

“I’m sorry, I can’t. Our company offers benefits to the employees as a matter of policy and is contractually obligated to continue.”

“Well, I don’t see why that’s MY problem. Why should I pay for it? I didn’t sign that contract!”

“No, of course not. And you’re free to shop elsewhere.”

“Oh, so that’s your answer, just go somewhere else! Well, I’ll tell you something, missy… I’ve been shopping here my whole life! My parents shopped here! My grandparents shopped here when it was a general store! So don’t you be telling me to just ‘shop somewhere else’ if I don’t like it! What, you probably just moved into this neighborhood to take advantage of our nice schools and pretty trees. You don’t know what this store means to me! Why, our family is so dedicated to this store, we bought stock in the company!”

“You… own stock in this store?”

“YES! So I guess that means I’m in charge, and you’ll be taking those “benefits” off my receipt now!”

“Well, as I said, I can’t do that. But YOU can vote in the next stockholder’s meeting, and might be able to change things, if enough of the other stockholders agree with you.”

“I vote in every stockholder’s meeting, but it never changes things! My uncle says ‘vote for this, it’s best for profits’ and then the value doesn’t go up. It’s ridiculous!”

“Well, you could look into the issues yourself and make your own decision…”

“I have a life of my own, you know. I don’t have time to be micromanaging everything for you.”

“So, ma’am, what would you like me to do today?”

“Give me everything I want. But make it cost less. And make it better, too. But don’t ask me to help.”