Representative Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, announced yesterday he was retiring from Congress. The 71-year old has served the 4th district of Massachusetts since 1980 (I’d forgotten – he won Father Robert Drinan’s seat after the Pope requested priests withdraw from political positions). Barney was quoted as saying, “It’s been a privilege to fight for the quality of people’s lives, but I’m ready to put a little more quality into my own life.” And why shouldn’t he? [Lest you forgot them, this epistle will be rife with italicized quotes by the Congressman.]

It is, of course, further indication that a fundamentalist right has really taken over much of the Republican Party; People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education.

Now, most of the time I’m going to agree with the Democrats and disagree with the Republicans.

The left and the right live in parallel universes. The right listens to talk radio; the left’s on the Internet and they just reinforce one another. They have no sense of reality. I have now one ambition: to retire before it becomes essential to tweet.

They appear to have become so attached to their outrage that they are even more outraged that they won’t be able to be outraged anymore.

This bill is the legislative equivalent of crack. It yields a short-term high but does long-term damage to the system and it’s expensive to boot.

Barney is the only politician of my generation who can generate a belly laugh with nothing more than wit. Congressional staff (from both parties) often voted him as the brainiest, funniest, and most eloquent member of Congress. In an era when you can predict what any given politician will say on any given topic, Barney can keep you from hitting the “mute” or “scan” button. While you’d probably be able to discern his position on the subject matter, you wouldn’t have a clue as to how he was going to articulate it. And that’s what makes you howl in appreciation.

A year ago, we were being told, you have to deregulate more. Now, we are going to have to save capitalism from the capitalists.

Gay people have a different role than other minority groups…Very few black kids have ever had to worry about telling their parents that they were black.

Conservatives believe that from the standpoint of the federal government, life begins at conception and ends at birth.

They’re (congressional opponents) saying that my ability to marry another man somehow jeopardizes heterosexual marriage. Then they go out and cheat on their wives. That doesn’t jeopardize heterosexual marriage? It’s nonsense.

The problem with the war in Iraq is not so much the intelligence as the stupidity.

Barney came “out of the closet” in 1987. He had to – his partner was accused of “promoting a gay life style,” a phrase that to this day sends the loyal opposition shuddering toward the storm shelters. He said he couldn’t complete review of The Starr Report about the Clinton-Lewinsky affair because it was “too much reading about heterosexual sex.” His sister, Ann Lewis, was a senior advisor to the Hillary Clinton campaign for president. As I recall, she was also instrumental in unfrumpitizing her Congressman brother. It was quite a makeover of the dumpy Barney into someone with a new haircut, new glasses, a few less pounds, and a total wardrobe change. I’ve often wondered if she could do that for me?

There is a correlation between people who attack same-sex marriage and have difficulty maintaining their own.

I don’t begrudge Ronald Reagan an occasional nap. We must understand it’s not the dozing off of Ronald Reagan that causes us problems. Its what he does on those moments when he’s awake.

If this is a Christian nation, how come some poor Jew has to get up at 5:30 in the morning to preside over the House of Representatives?

My mother says that in the 59 years since being married to my father, no one had ever called her Elsie Fag.

Rather than the boy who cried wolf, George Bush is the reverse. He claims that there is nothing wrong when there is. He’s the boy who cried, ‘Nice doggie.’

Asking the White House to support more government intervention was “like asking me to judge the Miss America contest — if your heart’s not in it, you don’t do a very good job.”

I have this fear that one days there’s going to be a fire in the Senate and there are only going to be 57 Senators there and they’ll all die because they won’t have the 60 votes to allow themselves to leave the building.

Which finally leads me to the title subject. I do not know Barney Frank – I have never met him. But sometime between 1998 (when Matthew Shepard was murdered) and 2001 (when I retired), the Congressman paid a lunchtime visit to the Department of Labor to talk about . . . as I recall discrimination against gays. [We had not yet reached the point of being able to even consider gay marriage. How far we have come (but a long way to go) in the last decade.] He talked, without notes, for about 45 minutes in the Department’s auditorium – before an unfortunately tiny audience. I went with Libby, who may have been my boss at the time – attending as a heterosexual couple for appearances sake? I can still picture where we sat – and where the Congressman was on the stage. He, not surprisingly, gave an informative and entertaining presentation. I was excited about seeing him – kind of like going to a much-anticipated concert or game. He left via the stage’s back entrance – so we never got a chance to visit with him. I would have been at loss as to what to say to him anyway. I should have at least taken some photos or notes in the guise of being a cub reporter?

[I can't seem to remember which one (or both) is Libby?]

We’re the only people I know who are expected to take large amounts of money from perfect strangers and have it have no effect on our behavior.

It is a measure of how reactionary Bush is that Jeffords could last eight years as a Republican with Reagan as president and couldn’t last six months with Bush.

I do not understand those who argue that the people who make up our stock markets are collectively very wise, but at the same time are somehow incapable of rendering a coherent opinion of what they should pay those they employ to run the corporations that they own.

Ronald Reagan believes in the free market like some people believe in unicorns.

The gentleman from Texas is proud that they passed a tax bill that excluded the poorest working people in America. He said he is proud of it, and I think we are proud on our side to be appalled by it.

There are right-wingers who denounce what they call the ‘gay agenda.’ And they are correct because there is an agenda. The agenda is a set of goals to make people free to pursue their own nature without suffering the legal discriminations. Nobody that I know is going to set laws that people shouldn’t dislike gay people. People are free to dislike gay people or not.

There are rules of excessive civility around here to which I generally subscribe. You do need a certain amount of courtliness in the system. But that, in itself, can become a form of abuse. There are limits to when you restrain yourself from calling a fool a fool.

Now we can only hope he goes on to provide entertaining commentary on life in these United States – unlike the current crop of TV talking heads. The New York Times quoted him as looking forward to leaving office so “I don’t even have to pretend to try to be nice to people I don’t like.” When asked, “Have you ever?” He replied, “I’ve been trying.” Haven’t we all?

It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved. ~ Galileo

We would not give any of it to government. Are you kidding? Grover Norquist rocks! No increase in taxes – ever! Unless, of course, you are talking about the 49% of Americans who pay NO federal income taxes because they are too poor (even though the “too poor” standards in all instances were established by Republicans, who have now seen the errors of their previous ways). We should raise taxes on them (anything above zero, for Pete’s sake) in the name of fairness and equality!

We end up subsidizing the very wealthy and not the ones who really need help. ~ Senator Tom Coburn, Republican, Oklahoma [Editor’s note: Of course, I have been saying this for years. The left does not use it because they are cowed by any reference to taxes. The right doesn’t believe it because it’s a fact contrary to their belief system.]

The nation that has schools has the future. ~ Otto von Bismarck

We would not give any of it for universal health care. If you can’t afford health insurance, we’ll cheer if you are denied health care for that reason! You should be delighted you have the opportunity in this country to not spend $12,000 a year for health insurance out of your $20,000 annual income. [Editor’s note: Alan Grayson was right! Republican health care plan: Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.]

You can’t run a government solely on a business basis. Government should be human, it should have a heart. ~ Herbert Henry Lehman

We would not give any of it to Planned Parenthood because we are Pro-Life! As such, we are vehemently opposed to pre- and post-natal care, STD testing and treatment, cervical cancer testing and treatment, childhood immunizations, early nutrition programs, birth control, anemia testing, cholesterol and diabetes screening, physical exams, flu vaccines, high blood pressure and thyroid screening, help quitting smoking, tetanus vaccines, testicular cancer screening, male infertility, urinary tract infections, breast and ovarian cancer screenings . . .well, all those icky things involved in reproduction. We do this, of course, in the name of family values and Christian morality.

. . . [H]e owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. ~ Thomas Paine

We would not give any of it for food stamps or child welfare. If you can’t afford to feed yourself and your kids, well, just starve. We also oppose Meals-On-Wheels and food shelves for the same reason. Other Commie programs that just encourage dependency – we don’t care if you are 94 and blind.

Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by [democratic] institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions. ~ Teddy Roosevelt

We would not give any of it for infrastructure. If a bridge falls down, no big deal – just drive on until you find one that’s still standing. All those extra miles you put on will also be good for our sponsor – Big Oil. EPA? Fuggeddaboudit! Remember our motto: Let’s Take Our Country Back (to the 50’s and 60’s)! Back to the good ole days when Big Oil was free to pollute the skies over all our major cities; when all our waterways were poisoned and/or flammable! We could catch up to those pesky Chinese – we too could wear surgical masks while traversing our metropolitan areas.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. ~ Elizabeth Warren

[g]overnment spending . . . prepares the way for new industries that thrive for generations. – GE’s Jeff Immelt

We would not give any of it for people to be able to carry signs or cameras into public buildings. Guns? Hey, no problem. We would give lots of it to the NRA. Concealed weapons legalization prevents crimes from being inflicted upon our persons. Unconcealed weapons legalization would be even better. In fact, if every American were armed-to-the-teeth in plain sight of all, crime would become non-existent. (Plus, a bandoleer makes a nice accessory for an evening gown.) In the absence of crime, there would no longer be any need for police, with their outrageous salaries and pension plans. A win-win situation! [Editor’s note: The police need to understand this. They are pepper spraying the wrong side!]

Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing. While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress like them and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts. ~ Bill Maher

We would not give any of it to “promote the gay life style.” Are you kidding? The more Defense of Marriage constitutional amendment ballot initiatives, the better! And what’s with these gay soldiers pretending to defend us in Iraq? Boo!!!

When I point out that Sarah Palin is a vainglorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a family of inbred weirdos straight out of “The Hills Have Eyes,” that’s not sexist. I’m saying it because it’s true, not because it’s true of a woman. ~ Bill Maher

We would not give any of it to feminist organizations. We reserve the right to sexually harass anyone within range, particularly if they are an underling or aspiring underling. We have discovered that the more we are accused of such, the more popular we become with our base.

It is time for them who have joined it… to recognize that the John Birch Society [today insert Tea Party] is rapidly losing whatever it had in common with patriotism or conservatism – and to do so before their own minds become warped by adherence to its unrolling psychosis of conspiracy. ~
William F. Buckley

We would not give any of it to create jobs – job creation is for the rich! We blame the President and government for not creating any jobs. We believe government can’t create jobs. We do not see any inherent inconsistencies in those two positions. We also blame the unemployed for not finding any of these non-existing jobs. We do not see the incongruity within that statement.

Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home–but not for housing. They are strong for labor–but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights. They favor minimum wage–the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all–but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine–for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing–but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing–so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. ~- Harry S Truman

We would willingly give some of it to build a wall around our glorious country, with moats, and alligators, and armed drones flying above, all to keep those pesky illegal aliens from coming in to harvest our crops and render our animals and tend our lawns and golf courses. The gall of such people! Oh, and we would build more jails – we love jails. The more of our fellow countrymen we can incarcerate, the better we like it. Oh (again), and we don’t mind if we occasionally execute an innocent person – we’re trying to send a message here.

When we are dead, we are dead. ~ Napoleon

I couldn’t think what else to call it. I recently saw a Guindon query (in the Strib?) – something to the effect that how come every small town in Minnesota is named after a watertower? I hadn’t thought about him in years – and, of course, during his heyday in Minnesota I was out East. But I always wondered why he never made it as big as Gary Larson (“The Far Side”). They were very similar and, I think, equally good – in fact, if you Google Guindon, you get a lot of Larson references. Guindon did very well, but he never achieved Larson’s nationwide notoriety. I ran across a short video of him when he was leaving Minnesota – leaving the cold and snow behind. So, he’s standing out on the interstate, in winter, holding a hitchhiker sign that read “Detroit.”

[This was labeled soft porn - the phallic aspects. I was taken by the Duncan Phyfe sofa - we have one in our basement, because it was Mom's.]

But enough of the frivolity. I was really fired up by the “Letter of the Day” in today’s StarTribune – it got my liberal elitism juices flowing. The pertinent sentences, allegedly from someone who titled himself “Dr.,” were:

These students chose to go to college and chose to take out loans, yet if their career of choice isn’t hiring or paying well enough to foot the bill, their loans will become our responsibility. So, once again, the federal government is stepping in to rescue them from the consequences of their choices at the expense of the taxpayers.

Well, I thought that about the stupidest “Letter of the Day” I have even seen – so I had to respond. But it came out tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic as hell, so I decided not to send it (someone responsible will send in a rebuttal). I can, however, stick it in my blog!

Sunday’s “letter of the day? Really? C’mon, you can tell us – that was like a Halloween joke, right? I know you folks in the Letters Department must throw things off the wall every once in a while for relief from all the incoming screed? So, here you had a “Dr.” writing that if people can’t afford to go to college, tough nuggies? This, from a “Dr.,” who had to have incurred financial debt to pay for the education required to become a “Dr.”

Maybe we could remind the good “Dr.” that right now we taxpayers finance all of k-12 education. We do that for the good of society. If only the parents of children in k-12 were required to pay for that education – well, they couldn’t afford it! Kinda like today’s college students, or those hoping to attend college. A lot of people believe taxpayers should totally finance k-16. Whaddya think of them apples? We would produce a whole lot more college graduates in the country, and their subsequent contributions to society would more than cover the cost of educating them.

I apologize. I couldn’t help myself.

As long as I’m here, may as well include the latest Strib rejection (October 23). The body of this may have been published in the Echo 8 years ago – I just don’t recall:

Sunday’s StarTribune had yet another letter claiming marriage has always been defined as the joining of one man and one woman.

The institution of marriage extends well past today’s romanticized ideal, and its 6,000-year history is anything but monolithic. Polygamy and polyandry are not just concepts – they exist in the world today. Incest has not always been illegal (and still isn’t in some places) – in fact, it was often encouraged or required amongst royalty. Marriage has often been arranged, required dowries, treated wives as property, and required the death of wives who committed adultery or were raped. Within the lifetimes of people living today, wives have not been able to own property or inherit the property of their husbands, and within the scope of our own generation it was illegal in this country to marry someone of a different race. The history of marriage is littered with many things we find unsavory today. And contrary to what many believe, marriage through most of its history was a secular event not connected with religion. But whether secular or religious, how can anyone believe, after watching the joy and happiness the thousands of people affirming their long-term relationships, that gay and lesbian marriage would harm the institution of marriage, which has been taking such a beating from heterosexuals?

The institution of marriage has evolved over time and has proved to be resilient. No one today would say we should return to the days of wives as property or bans on interracial marriage. Same-sex marriage will not harm the institution – it would probably lower the overall divorce rate!

Over 1,000 Federal laws apply to married couples – everything from tax laws, to inheritance laws, to family health insurance, to hospital visitation rights. If gays are not permitted to marry, is that not then discrimination?

Finally, today was the first Central Lakes Concert Association concert of the year. The group was Richie Lee & the Fabulous 50′s:

www.richieleeproductions.com

Kids in their early 20′s playing the music of the audience – average age at least 75. Accordingly, the Jefferson High gym was packed – the entire basketball floor was covered with folding chairs, and the south bleachers were full to the top. “Dr.” McCoy and I estimated the house to be 1,200. We do this to make sure the auditorium in the new high school can endure mass quantities? The group was a little sterile at first, but they got better the more they “got into it.” The Biddies were having a great time – I’m surprised not a single pair of support hose hit the stage during a Buddy Holly mass retrograde hallucination.

Yup, that’s the other blog where I tend to spend most of my time now. But there are events . . .

President Obama keeps winning Republican presidential candidate debates. Thus, there is always a mad scramble from GOP/Tea Party/wingnut factions to denounce any of the President’s successes. This past week has been exceedingly fun. Republicans couldn’t find microphones fast enough to thank the British and French (previously regarded sarcastically as “Old Europe”) for the forced “change of administration” in Libya. Bill Maher hit the nail (or wingnut) on the head when he noted Republicans are like Wall Street bankers – they refuse to give credit to a black man. The President then announced all troops would be brought home from Iraq before the end of the year. The Republicans were body checking each other on their attempts to reach the microphones first. “We’ve lost the war!!” “Obama has surrendered!!” Do these people have delusions of competence? How do you lose a war to any entity that never attacked your soil, that never overthrew your government, that never occupied your country and subjugated your citizens? [For all you historians out there, we never “lost” the war in Vietnam for the same reason. In both Vietnam and Iraq, we just never achieved our stated goals that were never clearly articulated anyway. In both, we did lose much in terms of lives, treasure, and international esteem and credibility – all would have been lost regardless of the alleged outcomes.]

In other news, the Minnesota Vikings, the incredibly mediocre Minnesota Vikings, continue to pester for a tax payer-financed new stadium. This runs contrary to everything we hear in the public debate these days – government bad, free enterprise (private unregulated cutthroat capitalism) good! We are loathe to raise taxes on these billionaires, yet consider coughing even more dollars out of our meager incomes to make sure their yachts don’t go into foreclosure. Yes, it is class warfare – and every statistic for the last 30 years show the rich have been winning at the expense of the middle and the poor. And yet the wingnut class continues to buy into wealthy, with their access to government and media, storyline that taxes of hardworking people are used exclusively to fund the highlife of the purposely poor and unemployed!

“Defense of Marriage” (a/k/a, “Hey, gay people, you can be treated!”) constitutional amendments are trending ominously toward public votes under new and restrictive voting rights laws requiring retinal scans as proof of you are who you say you are. One of my favorite wingnut columnists, Katherine Kersten, drooled on the topic in today’s Minneapolis StarTribune. I had a one-sentence response – “In Katherine Kersten’s world, anecdotal inconveniences are appropriate excuses for maintaining discriminatory laws against millions of gay people who want to get married.”

To the Minneapolis StarTribune:

October 20, 2011

Dear Wall Street (and other streets) Occupiers: Based on recent letters to the Strib, you are really starting to irk some people. Hey, it’s working. So you just continue on exercising those Constitutional rights!

p.s. Have you heard Goldman Sachs has started a Rage Fund, to “capitalize” on your activities?

October 2, 2011

There is hope! Just when I was beginning to despair that we, as a society, were willing to let the bridges fall down rather than expend any public resources to fix them, the Alexandria school district passed a $65 million high school bond referendum last week. And by a 57 – 43% margin! That hopey-changey thing may still be alive, if on life support.

The current high school is over 50 years old and was designed for 700 students (10-12). The school has had 1,100 students for probably 25 years and tried to compensate with temporary outbuildings designed for 10 years that are still in operation 35 years later. Science classrooms have two wall outlets; the city auditorium is the high school gym. There was an obvious need – yet a new school referendum failed by the same margin in 2004.

So, what made the difference this time? There was a longer and more effective promotion campaign, of course. But most likely it was just . . . time. Now is the time – construction and finance costs are low. And Alex has long had a deserved reputation as a vibrant and attractive micropolis. The voters recognized that if that reputation was to continue, a new high school was an absolute necessity. If you want to attract new businesses, if you want to attract good teachers, if you want to attract doctors, the physical plant that is the high school, more than any other local feature, displays to all community pride and says . . . come join us.

August 20, 2011

If Warren Buffett has been reading the letters section of the Tribune over the last several days, I wonder if he giggled at the advice he has received regarding his lack of knowledge about the tax code and that he is free to donate as much money as he wants to the federal treasury. The former needs no further discussion; the latter reflects a long-time misunderstanding of what Buffett (and many previously) is saying about tax rates for the rich.

It is not a matter of self-aggrandizement or to assuage guilt that Buffett wants to pay more taxes. Even at his income level, a voluntary increase in his tax payments will do nothing for the purpose of his proposal – a resolution of the country’s debt crisis. However, if everyone in Buffett’s income bracket were taxed at levels he proposes, it would certainly help. Our family’s state income taxes are less than they were eight years ago – and our income has increased. If, like Buffett, we were asked to voluntarily send in extra money to the state, it would be meaningless to the state budget. Again, however, if everyone in our income bracket were taxed at the rates in existence 10 years ago, the state would not have a debt crisis today. In fact, if both federal and state income tax rates had remained as they were 10 years ago (and, as I recall, we were all doing pretty well then), we likely would not be in the economic kerfuffle we’re in – and the Tea Party never would have been born.

Absent government there is no United States. Absent government there is no Minnesota. Absent government there is no Douglas County. Absent government there is no Alexandria.

Absent government there is no private property. Absent government there are no public schools. Absent government there are no libraries. Absent government there are no patent protections. Absent government there are no copyright protections. Absent government there are no weather reports. Absent government there are no national parks. Absent government there is no space program. Absent government there is no military. Absent government there is no National Institutes of Health. Absent government there are no Centers for Disease Control. Absent government there are no food or drug testing or inspections. Absent government there are no water or sewage treatment plants. Absent government there is no postal service.

Absent government there are no airports. Absent government there are no ports. Absent government there are no roads. Absent government there are no police or fire departments. Absent government there are no prisons. Absent government you could throw your garbage in a lake or river. Absent government you could empty your sewage into a lake or river. Absent government a slaughterhouse could be constructed next to your home.

Absent government there is no Golden Gate Bridge. Absent government this is no Hoover Dam. Absent government there is no Social Security. Absent government there is no Medicare. Absent government there is no rural electrification. Absent government there is no Tennessee Valley Authority.

Absent government there is no prohibition against the use of marijuana. Absent government there are no illegal drugs. Absent government there is no prohibition against gay marriage. Absent government there are no prohibitions against family planning. Absent government there is no exorbitant pay and benefits for bureaucrats such as me!

Absent government there are no unemployment statistics. Absent government there are no birth certificates to check to see if a president was elected legally. Well, absent government there are no elections. Absent government there is no Constitution. Absent government there is no . . . Tea Party!

April 7, 2011

Jason Lewis’s (Tribune, April 17), and the Tea Party’s, idolatry of Ayn Rand seems not unlike that of Scientologists with L. Ron Hubbard. It feels like a cult (which begs the question: why does this guy always get so much column space in your paper?). The idea that individuals should only be governed by the laws of chaos theory (i.e., only themselves) does not currently seem to be working all that well in Somalia. Mr. Lewis and the Tea Party need to be reminded that this is the United States of America – and “united,” at least according to my dictionary, means “joined together for a common purpose or action.”

May 12, 2011

The front page of the May 12 Minneapolis Tribune contained the following headline stories: “Big show of support for voter ID” and “Marriage amendment moves closer to the ballot.” It’s heartening to know our elected representatives are spending all their time living up to their campaign pledges – “We Vow to Discriminate!”

In a nifty juxtaposition, the Tribune also contained another front-page story entitled, “Saying no to marriage.” One has to wonder if you will now leap into action and propose a constitutional amendment prohibiting unmarried co-habitation because it offends “your” core religious beliefs. And putting it to a vote is the democratic thing to do. Of course, such would only apply to heterosexual couples because gay couples, by forthcoming constitutional amendment, will be legally required to cohabitate sans marriage license.

Until then, we wouldn’t mind if you looked into such trivial matters as education, health care, and infrastructure – but, mind you, only if you can find the time. By the way, if I find a photo of myself and write, “This is me” on it, would that satisfy voter ID requirements? All after, as we all know, such things as ID’s and birth certificates can be Photoshopped.

May 22, 2011

“Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” Dylan Thomas was right; Katherine Kersten is wrong [Tribune, May 22, 2011]. Kersten is upset that victims of the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage are not quietly accepting their assignment to second-class citizenship. Would she?

The Republican Party won legislative majorities in the 2010 elections on pledges to create jobs and balance the budget. Aside from their non-sensical bumper sticker pledge to not raise taxes, they have done nothing about either. Instead they have put all their time and effort into two solutions looking for non-existent problems: Voter ID and gay marriage. Under their aegis, the only citizen worthy of the title is one who has a driver’s license and is only sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.

A Month in the Life of a Bureaucrat

A large Federal government office building receives a letter from John Q. Public requesting certain information. After processing by the large Federal office building’s mail room, Mr. Public’s correspondence goes to the first of several log-in stations where unknown people with green eyeshades and sleeve protectors note the time, date, temperature, and humidity when Mr. Public’s letter was in their purview and assign a specific due date for the response. Mr. Public’s letter then goes to the next log-in station where similar functions are performed. The letter next arrives in the general office area that deals with the subject matter involved and is, once again, logged in. The letter is then reviewed at various levels within the general office area to determine which specific office will be assigned the task of responding to Mr. Public. The letter is, surprisingly, logged in again at the specific office level before it is assigned to Ms. Career Bureaucrat for response.

We must pause at this point to reflect upon what has happened to Mr. Public’s letter to date. First, it has been “logged” within an inch of its life. The reason for this, as best as can be ascertained, is that a solid paper trail makes it easier to assess blame in case something blows up! Secondly, Mr. Public’s letter has now been in the building for two weeks, but no substantive actions have yet been taken to address his concerns. Thirdly, by the time the letter arrives at Ms. Bureaucrat’s desk the due date assigned at the first log-in station two weeks ago is either one day away or has passed so Ms. Bureaucrat is now on-the-bubble regarding overdue correspondence! As an aside, log-in procedures are used regardless of whether or not responses are possible or necessary, i.e., anonymous letters or thank you letters, but because of the log-in system (“it’s in the computer”) it requires an Act of Congress to not provide some kind of written response to such correspondence.

We now return to our story. Ms. Bureaucrat drafts a response to Mr. Public’s letter and presents it to her supervisor for review. The supervisor suggests certain changes to which Ms. Bureaucrat agrees and the response is typed in final (more on that later). The second level supervisor then reviews the response and may make certain changes, as is her management prerogative. The letter is again re-typed in final for review at the general office level. Now the fun really begins! For it is at this level that an instrument euphemistically referred to as “rules of correspondence” comes into play. Up to this point, the response has basically been reviewed for accuracy (correct interpretation of law or regulation), style, grammar, spelling and/or typos – standard measures for correct communication in the English language. The “rules of correspondence,” however, is strictly a bureaucratic invention that changes almost daily and varies from reviewing official to reviewing official. The “rules of correspondence” comprise a tome that is far greater in volume than the laws and regulations under Ms. Bureaucrat’s charge. The “rules of correspondence” lead to many aggravating rounds of “letter tennis.”

As previously promised, we now pause to discuss a letter typed in final, which means not only the original response to Mr. Public, but also numerous copies of the response – in various colors and several with copies of Mr. Public’s incoming letter. These include copies to everyone in the review and log-in chain of command. Therefore, a one-page incoming letter that receives a one-page response must still be moved from office to office by forklift. And every change made to the response letter requires that another tree must die for all the re-Xeroxing required and another tanker load of taconite tailings must be converted to staples for all the re-bundling required. Of course, these procedures are also quite time consuming for Ms. Bureaucrat.

We again return to our story to discuss the real meat of this issue – the interplay between “typed in final” and the “rules of correspondence.” A letter typed in final may languish in the system for weeks at a time – there are many reasons for this, some of them are even valid! The chain of review moves toward the small end of the funnel – the further up the chain, the smaller the funnel, i.e., a person at the top has a lot more stuff to review! (Does the phrase “delegation of authority” mean anything here?) People in the small end of the funnel, by the nature of their positions, spend a lot of time in meetings and out of town on business. Unfortunately for Ms. Bureaucrat, these constraints on the reviewers’ time plays right into the hands of the overseers of the “rules of correspondence,” even though in some instances the reviewer and the overseer are one and the same! A change in the “rules of correspondence” before the response letter has finished running its gauntlet means, of course, that the letter will again, and again, and again have to be re-typed in final.

In the meantime, Mr. Public is patiently awaiting a response to his inquiry. He may even have called to check on the status of his letter. Chances are he received a response something like this: “Yes, we received your letter and a response has been ‘typed in final.’ It’s currently in the signature review process and may go out next week.”

Now, what exactly is the “rules of correspondence?” Nobody seems to know, actually! There are certain people in the chain of review whose sole function appears to be applying these rules and sending letters back for further typing in final actions. These rules include many things of great import; things without which any response would be totally incomprehensible to Mr. Public, e.g.: 1) whether or not there is proper spacing between various parts of the letter, both vertically and horizontally; 2) whether or not reference to his incoming letter is dated; 3) whether or not reference to a calendar year is followed by a comma (“your June 6, 1988, letter,” which makes as much sense as “your red, white, and blue, car”); 4) whether or not certain internal copies are the right color and have the correct attachments in the correct order; 5) whether or not these numerous copies are arranged properly in the file; 6) whether or not a proper name or regulation cite can rightfully exist over two lines of text; 7) whether or not Ms. Bureaucrat can take it any longer!

Ultimately, of course, Mr. Public receives a response to his letter [well, in those days, because we were good! ]. Little does he know the machinations certain people had to go through to see that he did! Now . . . what was that old line about building a better mousetrap?

Addendum

No sooner had the previous missive leapt from the smoldering platen (excuse the literary license) than “unfortunately, it’s the rule, rather than the exception” once again reared its ugly head. In this instance, a response to a congressional inquiry was required under the Secretary of Labor’s signature. We’re talking mega copies and review levels here!

The matter involves a fairly standard reply – no interpretations or policy decisions – that managed to traverse the division review level in a matter of only two weeks. Since I was not the original author, I have no idea how many attempts that took. So, the letter did make it to the Office of the Secretary, “the second floor,” and style changes, for whatever reason, were made twice at that level. As you recall, these changes necessitated re-typing in final, and correspondence for the Secretary’s signature involves making copies in quantities comparable in size to the Manhattan telephone directory [this was in the days before cell phones]. These copies must also be prepared in different colors – and in more colors than Baskin-Robbins has flavors – with, as we will learn later, a tissue copy of the original letter. Are you getting the idea?

Now the original author, to her credit, has left the continent on vacation. Thus the second set of changes submitted from the second floor landed at my feet for correction. It should be noted at this point that the response letter “made it” to the second floor twice with bond copies (no tissue) of the original response letter to the congressman, two yellow grid copies, and one copy of a yellow grid copy among the numerous others. So, the changes were made as requested, with the number and arrangement of copies resubmitted as had been returned. Aha, you say! This is too simple – when is the dreaded “rules of correspondence” going to enter the field of play? Well, right now, actually! The letter, submitted for division level review for a third time, faced a different set of obstacles, i.e., different reviewers applying their interpretation of the “rules of correspondence.”

Needless to say, my corrections did not pass muster at the division review level. “How could that be,” I asked, “when the letter as currently typed, arranged, assembled, et al. cleared this office on two previous occasions?” “Well,” came the response, “so-and-so was not here that day, and she won’t let this go this way.” (Makes you realize just how important this “rules of correspondence” is (?).) The problem, as initially presented to me, was that I needed two more copies of the yellow grid copy, with attachments, and a tissue copy of the original. Well, I made the copies of the yellow grid, but the tissue copy required some acrobatics. The word processor [gives you an idea how long ago this was written] used by our section has a laserjet printer – tissue paper will not go through it. Therefore, I had to copy the letter from our word processor onto a floppy disc [really], take it to a word processor whose printer could handle tissue, and type it there. Now all was peaches and cream – right? Not on your life! The two copies of the yellow grid copy are not supposed to be copies, but two more yellow grids. Since etiquette prevents the use of appropriate hyperbole here, I can only respond thusly: “AAACCKKK!!” (Acknowledgements to the comic strip “Cathy.”)

Unfortunately, it isn’t over. I ran a reverse around the yellow grids only to be blindsided later by some changes recommended by the Office of the Solicitor – I have no idea why such routine correspondence, twice reviewed by the second floor, required legal opinion? Excuse me while I go take two more aspirins.

The Letter (OK, I made this up (well, some of it))

The Honorable Augustus F. Hawkins
Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Service Contract Act requirements and the failure of the General Services Administration to include price adjustment clauses in certain facility management contracts. [Which begs the question, if it was a "failure" by GSA, why wasn't the issue raised with . . . GSA?] Unfortunately, we do not have any record of having received your September 6, 1988, (why is there a comma there?) letter addressed to former Secretary McLaughlin (why can’t a name be on two lines like this [as it was in the original]?)

Your letter was answered one month ago! This was not a matter of policy or interpretation. It was a simple matter, succinctly and accurately answered in the first draft. Price adjustment clauses are a procurement matter outside the purview of the labor standards statutes administered and enforced by the Wage and Hour Division [you would know this if you had any staffers over the age of 21!]. Unfortunately, however, a final response to your inquiry is still bouncing back and forth between a bunch of bureaucrats and political appointees – and there appears to be no end in sight for this exercise in futility.

When, oh when, will the bureaucracy ever realize that it is not, repeat not, possible for 20 people to answer/write one letter?? If you have an answer to this question, please advise me immediately before we are embarrassed by an Inspector General waste, fraud, and abuse review of the correspondence review system.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Dole

Do we really believe that within the last three years, government employees have been given such astronomical salary and pensions increases that where there were once no budget deficits at the federal, state or local levels that they are now in the billions of dollars everywhere? Of course not! Public employee pay had nothing to do with the current budget crises – and it should not be considered for a cure.

The entire demise of government budgets can be laid at the feet of the financial wizards on Wall Street. And yet we still hesitate to tax them. The wizards handed out almost $16 billion dollars in bonuses last year to the very people who created nationwide financial ruin. The government, as partial reparation for the damage done, should have commandeered that money. That money could have been used to fund the construction of 270 high schools across the country. It still seems inconceivable that there has not been a single arrest, a single trial, a single jailing as a result of the Wall Street meltdown. What these people did is no different than Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

There has been a considerable misunderstanding of tax law in this country since the Reagan-era. The right, taken to the “nth” degree by the Tea Party, thinks tax law takes money from them, “the hard-working middle class,” and gives it to the ne’er-do-well poor. Despite tax rates being at 70-year lows, a large plurality of the electorate still believe tax rates are increasing. Despite wealth redistribution from the poor and middle classes to the upper class under the current tax system, a large plurality of the country believe their tax dollars are going to support welfare queens. These facts should be self-evident. The poor do not write tax law; the wealthy do – often literally. The poor have no political constituency; the wealthy finance political campaigns with an obvious expectation of access. This inequity will ultimately only be resolved through public financing of campaigns. But the wealthy have the largest megaphones, and thus, control the message.

Total taxes in this country have hovered around 20 percent of total income – swinging a couple of percentage points occasionally in either direction – for a hundred years. The perpetual hue and cry about them then is always a tad disingenuous. People forget that in Ike’s day, the top marginal income tax rate was 95% – that’s how he was able to finance the interstate highway system. The top marginal tax under Reagan was still at 70%. Now it is 35 percent. And yet the people who whine and moan most about taxes always yearn for a return to the good ole days – the 50′s and the 70’s. Huh? Now they don’t even want to tax the Wall Streeters at 39%?

The Republican controlled House of Representatives, according to their own disillusions about the “will of the people” from the last election, believes the way to create job, jobs, jobs, is to remove one million government employees (direct and in-direct) from theirs. To paraphrase a famous Republican, that is voodoo economics cast askew into a different dimension. How adding one million people to the ranks of the unemployed in the name of job creation is beyond the creativity of Woody Allen. And to those who really think that’s what “the privileged class” (according to Newt Gingrich) deserves, how will the currently unemployed or under-employed feel about competing for all those non-existent private sector jobs with another million people – particularly since 50% of government workers have college degrees versus 25% for those in the private sector? Oh, and as Rachel Maddow would say, one more thing – the federal workforce in relation to total population (and almost in actual numbers) is already smaller than it was in 1967.

Arizona is considering legislation to allow everybody to carry guns everywhere, including into schools. Mississippi is considering putting the founder of the Ku Klux Klan on its license plates. Texas is always blustering about secession. If it’s good enough for God and Exxon, it’s good enough for me. It may be time to let the old Confederacy go. The rest of us can join up with Canada.

[The Republican Tea Party has at no time discussed what they think will happen to people in the social safety net when “they” decide “we” can’t afford it anymore. But that’s a major subject for another time.]

[December 25, 2010] Regarding E. Thomas McClanahan’s concern that health care is considered a right (Tribune, December 24), we can be sure that anyone whose first name is an initial has never been concerned about his health care. Merry Christmas, E.

[January 22, 2011] The Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision in December 2000 did more than decide a presidential election. It turned this country upside down.

Beginning with that decision, The United States made a decision it was going to cut its way to further greatness. Unfortunately, since that time we have cut our way from a world leader in educational rankings to the bottom of the pack of the industrialized world. Our response to that misadventure is now – to cut further!

It is beyond comprehension why our elected officials believe our educational system can only be enhanced by cutting teachers, closing schools, and lowering or freezing teacher pay. Do they really think that at some point in this process there is going to be a rebound to save us all from third-worldliness? Our colleges and universities, once the envy of the world, are scrambling for operating funds and have to raise tuition costs beyond the ability of most families to pay. Is that really a recipe for long-term economic success?

Even more unfathomable is a determination by government at all levels that the way to create jobs is . . . to fire or layoff public employees? There seems to be a general notion that snowplow operators and VA nurses are totally responsible for our current economic situation. So now you have even more unemployed people competing for all those non-existent private sector jobs.

Our family pays almost $500 LESS in state income taxes than we did 10 years ago. Do you think that may be the problem? What am I missing here?

Addendum: Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! That, we were told, was the message of the last election cycle. The winners continue to bray that the people have spoken! So, what have the “winners” done in that regard? Well, how about reading the Constitution on the hallowed floor of the House of Representatives. Surveys have yet to reveal how many jobs the reading created. Then, of course, came the “mandate” to repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law – which is fine, I guess, because there is no such statute entitled the “Job-Killing Health Care Law.” This action was known to be a total waste of time even before it began – it was never going to pass the Senate, or if it did, be signed by President, and there wouldn’t be enough votes to override a veto. But most importantly, the “mandate” according to all recent polling is that the American people like the new health care law. And finally, in their continuing efforts to prove they are listening to the “message” of the last election, job creation will begin with the repeal of non-existent federal funding for abortions! Uffda, thank goodness they’re listening!

After two terms of plurality victories, we happily say “thanks, but no thanks” to Governor Tim Pawlenty’s record-setting state budget deficit achieved through a nonsensical adherence to his bumper sticker policy of no new taxes. He now appears to be trying to sell his trickle down, a/k/a leaky pipes, policies on a national level.

Of course, the Governor chooses to blame government employees [Tribune, December 14], of which he was among the highest paid for the last eight years. Contrary to his misguided assertions, the number of federal employees had been declining for years until September 11, 2001. The federal workforce has increased slightly since then – mostly in security jobs – but is still at a level less than it was in 1967. Secondly, Office of Personnel Management studies have for years shown federal employees are underpaid compared to the private sector. The Governor chooses to list an average overall salary for federal employees, but the federal workforce has a larger percentage of professional jobs, i.e., attorneys, economists, scientists, doctors, than the private sector at large. Those in federal professional jobs are certainly paid much less than their private sector equivalents. Finally, the Governor cites a need to end defined-benefit retirement plans for government employees. Well, that happened already – in 1986 with the establishment of the Federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP*).

As with recent hues and cries about teachers’ unions, the right seems determined to rid the country of middle class jobs (having already sent union manufacturing jobs overseas). The rationale behind this is utterly baffling. Does the Governor really believe the way to attract excellence in government and education is with lower pay? And are we to be a country of only the very rich and the working poor?

[*The TSP is 401k defined contribution plan. Through the eight blockbuster economic years of the Bush administration, our TSP’s produced an average annual yield of 1.7%. In other words, in eight years our TSP pension plans produced less than half of what was either of our annual salaries. Somehow, that doesn’t seem like a positive selling point for retirement purposes.]

[Photos contained herein depict budget-busting government employees and projects.]