| My Letters to the Editor (including Guest Opinion Columns) that have been published (My bio: John Gelhaus works at West High in Iowa City as an educational associate for special ed & teaches elementary math enrichment for Iowa City Schools' summer program, as well as assisting elem. & jr. hi. Chess Masters. He's a graduate of Elmhurst College (Elmhurst, IL) & Iowa State Univ.) Nov., '00 Electoral reform ALMOST passed in Iowa legislature 20 years ago When I was in high school a couple of decades ago in a small town in the middle of Iowa, I was the chairperson of Students for Electoral Reform, whose goal was to educate ourselves about the electoral college & then to educate the Iowa legislature about the need for electoral reform. We met at the statehouse with our representative, who introduced a bill for us. It stated that Iowa's electoral votes will be divided among the candidates according to which candidate won in each congressional district, with the remaining 2 votes going to the candidate who won the state's popular vote. This system was divised by the late Sen. Mundt of South Dakota; Maine & Nebraska now use this system. We felt that it was more likely that states would pass electoral reform, which only takes a bill, than for Congress to do so, which requires a constitutional amendment. We were against direct popular vote because, in a very close election, contested votes would be nation-wide which could hold up in courts the confirmation of a winner for many months. With the proposed electoral reform, only those congressional districts where the vote was extremely close would have recounts. While in Des Moines, we were able to get the signatures of most legislators as co-sponsors of both this bill & an identical bill in the Senate. "Our" bill was attached with other bills in the House into an elections reform bill. It passed! Our little high school political group went back to the Iowa Capitol & registered as lobbyists, meeting with almost all of the senators. In talking to the governor at his invitation, he had concern that if Iowa alone were to do this, it would weaken Iowa's political power. We discussed with him that the bill provided that if neighboring states did not also pass a similar bill, Iowa could revert to the original electoral way, thus avoiding a possible weakening of Iowa's power among Midwestern states. We left predicting that the Republican governor would veto the bill for change if it reached his desk. After the elections reform bill reached the Senate, it lost by 3 votes. If 2 senators who voted "no" would have changed their votes to "yes," electoral reform in Iowa would have passed by 1 vote. The only item in the bill I would now change would be dividing the state's remaining two electoral votes to the two highest vote-getting candidates; if the highest vote-getting candidate received at least 33% more votes than the next highest, both electoral votes would go to the highest candidate. If contested votes were extremely rare & easy to resolve, such as if 80% or more of votes were cast online, then I would be for direct popular vote elections. Maybe now in 2000, Congress will see the time as ripe to amend the Constitution for electoral reform which will make it much more unlikely that a president will be elected without a plurality of votes. It's past time to change the "winner-take-all" system. It's not just wishful thinking but objective analysis that I predict that enough Florida counties will end up counting disputed votes to make Al Gore the clear winner. (Note: After further study of this issue, I'm now for dividing electoral votes proportionally [e.g. out of 7 electoral votes, 4 go to Candidate B who received 57% of the popular vote in the state, 2 go to Candidate A who received 28%, & 1 vote for Candidate C who received 15%,] rather than according to which candidate wins in each district.) June, '01 Death Penalty The death penalty doesn't solve any problems; it's a problem of itself. Proponents who think it stops future murders are only experiencing wishful thinking and may be disguising revenge as justice. All states that reinstated the penalty in the last few decades, without exception, had INCREASES in homicide rates after reinstatement. Violence begets violence. There have even been cases where people traveled to a state with the penalty to commit murder because they wanted the state to kill them. Government has no business in killing people who are locked up. It's a violent act even when done in a relatively calm manner. Instead of being bloodthirsty, we should love our neighbor, even when it's extremely difficult to do so. Aug., 01 Flag protection amendment The leader of a veteran's organization recently gave a favorable opinion of a U.S. flag protection amendment. I'm 1 of 10s of millions of Americans, including many veterans, who disagree. Numerous times, the U.S. House passed an amendment to ban desecration of U.S. flags. Luckily, Senate wisdom stopped the amendment. Encouragingly, the last House vote (July 17, 2001) showed fewer members voted for it than ever before. Amendments can't violate the Constitution, but this one clearly violates the 1st Amendment--freedom of expression. It's O.K. to dislike someone's desecrating of a flag, but it's not O.K. to take away their civil liberty right to do so. A flag shouldn't be an idol, nor other government symbols & documents. Part of the flag's symbolism is the right to criticize government. Ironically, being for an amendment that can make it a criminal act to express oneself with this form of criticism is itself a desecration of the flag. With a ratified amendment, how would it be determined what is a U.S. flag? Would it include a nearly U.S. flag with 11 stripes? 13 stripes but 1 is green? No stars? Triangular shaped? Drawing that looks 1/3 like the flag? In '89 & '90, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled state & fed. flag protection laws unconstitutional. It would almost surely rule an amendment likewise, as it ought--given our forefathers' gift of the 1st amendment. The editor of Slate magazine, M. Kinsley, wrote, "Flag worship is the emptiest form of patriotism. It has no direct connection to the values that really make America exceptional. If Congress feels the need for a patriotic gesture, a better one would be to replace the national anthem." Oct., 01 College tuition, state funding I'm glad the regents & state university presidents want larger tuition increases than the 12.5% 1st put on the table (lower state funding guided their thinking.) The state has better uses of money than subsidizing wealthy families' tuition. A 15% increase 5 years in a row would change tuition from extremely inexpensive to very, very inexpensive. A 20% increase would change it to very inexpensive. Consider % & actual dollars. The % shouldn't be unethical (e.g 100% in 1 year for returning students.) 20% is only $623; it'd be a tremendous bargain, & in-state tuition would STILL be subsidized 1000s of dollars. If tuition were already doubled, a very small increase would probably be readily accepted by students even though it'd be higher total tuition than it'll actually be. Students against the likely increase can be glad they've paid an incredibly low amount. Tuition is a bargain with increased wages a degree usually generates and an improved life. People without paid jobs have hobbies, children, interactions, volunteer work as chairs of committees... An educated understanding of the world is a great benefit for them & those they help. An increase should be welded to more financial aid, especially grants for low income people--higher tuition doesn't necessarily equate with less accessibility. If someone doesn't get their choice of a state university, there are excellent, less expensive community colleges. Students have access to a wide variety of scholarships; some businesses pay workers' tuitions; education IRA's have tax advantages; education expenses can be tax deductible; the legislature should reinstate work study. If taxes aren't raised because of lower funding, many students/families financially benefit; they benefit from a better Iowa when funding is shifted. Student loans are highly advantageous; what other loan doesn't begin to be paid back until you're out of school, payments are income adjusted (& no payments if income is too low,) the fed. gov't pays interest (which doesn't get paid back) during school years & if payments are deferred, interest doesn't accrue until 6-9 months after school, & rates are dirt cheap? If able to pay sooner, they could be better off investing it. Any student can get a deferred student loan--unsubsidized loans have different terms. Former students with high income can easily pay their undergrad & grad loans fairly shortly if they want to, & if they forego the Mercedes a few years. At last year's forum of Johnson Co. state legislators, I suggested tuition be doubled in 5-6 years--16.6-20% yearly based on the 1st year's tuition which wouldn’t end up being above U. of MI's CURRENT amount; there is nothing wrong, per se, with being at the top. Similar universities will probably have substantial increases, so Iowa's doubled tuition might still be below average. Another state recently increased tuition 30% for non-freshman, 40% for freshman. I hope legislators rethink being against large funding decreases & substantial % tuition increases. They may think they’re representing their constituency, but perhaps the consensus says otherwise. Even last year's U of I Student Gov't approved the 9.9% increase. Many university workers welcome a significant tuition increase to fund & increase salaries with an ample, fair, & reliable funding source (it's fair for those who benefit most from education--students--to pay more.) Many k-12 parents want more k-12 funding--lower tuition subsidies makes that less difficult. Many don't like high/increased taxes; university funding is a significant piece of the pie. 10s of 1000s of students will still frequent business people’s establishments. Legislators might pick up some election votes if they change their legislative votes. Feb., 2002 Mental health insurance coverage needs parity (Added to bio: During college, 1 of his majors was psychology; he had a Jan. Interim abnormal pysch class which included working in a mental hospital.) 1 in 4 families is affected by mental illness. Adding to the frustration are insurance problems, 1 of which is that treatments for mental disorders are often covered less than other medical problems. Unlike conditions related to smoking, accidents, lack of exercise..., mental illness is almost never the patient's fault. As more information is gleaned from DNA research, more causes will surely be discovered. No one chooses their DNA. Why choose to discriminate AGAINST them with insurance? It's ethical for substance abuse & brain based disorders to be covered equally (parity) with other physical medical problems. These patients often have low income; some struggle to pay ANY % for treatment or a prescription. Iowa hasn't reconciled this dilemma, but many states have. Encouragingly, some lawmakers are making parity a priority. From the governor's 2002 Condition of the State speech, "Mental illness ... should be fully covered ... the same as any other disease. ... Many studies have shown that the benefits of parity far outweigh the costs. ... parity will provide more Iowans with the healthcare they need to live healthy & productive lives. ... With Lt. Gov. Pederson's leadership, ... let us make this the year we achieve ... parity in Iowa. ... We can ask the private sector to do its fair share through ... parity. We can work within the realities of the budget challenges before us while protecting Iowans' priorities: a world-class education, quality health care..." House minority leader Dick Myers (Iowa City) emphasized parity. Getting help for a broken mind is covered less than getting help for a sore throat; the system is crazy! If someone recklessly jumps from one building to another & falls, caring for a repaired skull might cost just a 10% co-pay, but mental illness from the head injury might be covered with a deductible & 50% of an $80 bill. A neurology visit for epilepsy is fully covered, a psychiatric visit for bingeing & purging isn't. Dementia is fully covered, delusions & Tourette aren't. Parkinson's is, attention deficit & obsessive compulsive disorder aren't. Brain tumors & aneurisms are, sociopath, mania, phobias, & anorexia aren't. How long will people allow this to continue? Teeth cavities sometimes aren't covered. Choosing whether to grant full coverage of a condition caused by lack of brushing & a condition of faulty DNA causing hallucinations, which would you chose? Both? Neither? One? The stigma of hearing voices or being chronically sad or having anxiety or panicking or... name a mental illness... should be wiped out so better judgments can be made about parity. If you decide about parity by whether or not mental illness is a physical disease, listen to experts: it's physical. If you've had a physical science class, you know electricity & chemicals are physical. So are hormones, brain tissue, & DNA. The past US Surgeon General stated that mental illness is a physical disease. Cognitive & drug therapies are usually at least fairly successful. If people skip or don't seek treatment, sick days could go up which costs money. If a prescription drug abuser gets help, the policy might see lower drug payments. Even in the caring, liberal, educated, enlightened, sometimes too knee jerk bleeding heart community of Iowa City, parity is not very alive. It'd be far better if companies provided parity than wait for Iowa to require it. Opinions of health professionals in these fields are obvious. Sometimes people wonder what they can DO to change things for the better; here's a chance to get involved in a very important issue. Enough people working for change can change people's decisions. Some people with mental illness aren't able to organize very well to affect change. We must help them in their struggles for equality. Give opinions to your company's insurance committee & union representative; workers have lives outside their jobs, which affect the community. If you're against parity & for discrimination of people with brain based disorders, let the committee know, too. To get laws, you must communicate with those not for it--mainly people of the majority party. If you help get enough constituency to be for it, they can help get their legislators to see & vote their way. It's good to let legislators who are firmly for it know you agree, but concentrate on educating others & changing attitudes. Educate yourself to the reasons people don't vote for it. Besides schizophrenia, mental illnesses get relatively little research money from the National Institutes of Health, but that's another issue. Will Iowa be the next state to pass a parity law? And when? March, 2002 Donate your utility sales tax savings The phase-out of residential gas/electric sales tax in Iowa is good because the tax is regressive (lower income people pay a higher percent of income for the tax than higher income people.) The legislature passed the phase-out law during last year's especially cold winter in order to help lower income people. It applies, of course, to all gas/electric users regardless of income or means. I'd like to suggest to the economic upper class & the upper part of the middle class to donate their sales tax savings to programs that help the lower class. It'd be nice if others would also donate. MidAmerican Energy's ICARE program, for example, helps low income people pay utility bills. Some wealthy people won't donate, some happily will if asked, & some already have. I'd guess that upper income people waste a lot more energy than others. Lower income people are probably much more likely to switch lights off when not in use & turn down the heat to save money; they don't have flood lights in front of a 3-car garage. It's more difficult for them to reduce usage. There are Iowans who, if they had a $100,000 drop in their bank account, wouldn't notice--unless their accountant told them. A $100,000 drop in their portfolio wouldn't be felt; their lives would go on the same. If they'd donate their utility sales tax savings & a little more, the world would be a better place. May, 2002 Personal accounts for Social Security It sometimes seems Republicans are against Democrats' ideas just because they're Democrats' ideas. Voluntary, partial personal control of Social Security (SS) seems to be a vice-versa. Republicans are pushing the idea; Democrats are pushing it aside. I'd like to have some active control over my SS pay-in money, now totally gov't controlled. Their investments are virtually no risk (getting back principle & interest,) low returns, barely keeping up with inflation; investing 10% of my SS payroll tax into a diversified, established, mutual stock fund could earn several times more (stocks earned 11% over decades.) Prospects aren't good if fear of "losing it all" drives the law. It's unlikely to drop by half in 5 yrs., very likely to gain long term, & I'd have my remaining 90%. Annuities are regulated by insurance companies & states; the fed. gov't could regulate SS personal accounts--high risk investments wouldn't be an option. It'd be a conflict of interest for gov't to invest in stocks, and citizens might oppose the companies. Individual control of 5% of one's SS tax is reasonable. Some people don't have money for an IRA or annuity. Each person would choose whether to risk having or NOT having a personal account (when the gov't's investment return is below the inflation rate, the fund loses value.) Republicans advocate just 2% for personal accounts. During rare times when they have a better plan than other parties, let's take good advantage of it. People of all parties sometimes mindlessly follow leaders like sheep. Take a realistic, thoughtful approach; if your conclusion is against private accounts, fine. It's not impressive to be for or against something just because party leaders are for or against it & you want to be like they think the party should be. At the April 20 Iowa District 2 Democrat Convention in Iowa City, the platform stated that the district opposes privatization of SS funds. I proposed to the 214 delegates that it should be debated; 20 delegates needed to agree to debate. Not 1 person stood up. Expensive start up costs can be paid without reducing benefits to the needy especially with an extremely fair reform: a means test. If retired workers have high income or other means to pay for a very comfortable life, they shouldn't receive SS even if they paid into it. With car insurance, you might get some, all, or more back if NEED be. SS is literally insurance, a part of FICA--Federal Insurance Contributions Act; it's past time it be treated as such, as well as Medicare. SS provides a "floor of protection" to live independently with dignity, to relieve family financial burdens, & for disability/survivors. Why would people want a senior making $95,000, earned or unearned, to receive insurance money? If riches prevents receiving benefits, that won't make them an oppressed group. Maybe congress is afraid of losing election votes & campaign money; the wealthy have political clout. A '98 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation with Harvard School of Public Health shows attitudes about 7 possible Medicare reforms. Highest support--64% for, 32% against--was for a sliding scale (the more income seniors have, the more they pay in premiums.) Multimillionaires can also afford to pay higher deductibles & co-pays even without SS income. kff.org/content/archive/1442/reform_sur.pdf Some wealthy seniors don't apply for benefits. Maybe they don't want to bother, or have moral reasons. Without reform, these programs are unsustainable; SS is projected to have negative pay-in to pay-out in 10 yrs. or so, insolvent in 35 yrs. The Medicare hospital fund will start evaporating in 13 yrs. Even if insolvency isn't an issue, personal accounts & means tests for FICA programs are needed. Aug., 2002 ACT test scores & smart states voting The top 9 states with the highest ACT scores (used for college admissions) in order are Maine, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Hawaii, & Iowa. These "smart" states all voted for Democrat Al Gore over others. 10th place New Hampshire barely went for Bush 48-47% with Ralph Nader 4%. Be smart & work for campaigns of Democrats who have a heart & wisely care for ALL. Republicans personally do nice things, but politically fight to give more & more to those who already have more. Possessions possess them. Some vote for social aid not because they want to, but because they need to in order to be reelected. Maybe some year a Republican gene will be found & cured. Many figured out that the Republican tax plan is "trickle down economics" which didn't work in the 80s. Increased money of the wealthy is supposed to trickle down to the less wealthy from increased buying/hiring. But the wealthy can pay executives even more & hire more people at low wages. Some with quite high income ($100,000/yr) mistakenly think they will be big winners; the huge tax break goes mainly to those making over $900,000/yr. If given a test asking if the words "altruistic" & "Republican" are a match, the answer is no. Sept., 2002 Human reproductive cloning There are many human clones existing now; they're identical twins, triplets, etc. They have identical DNA, but that shouldn't be scary or unwanted. Some "identicals" don't even look exactly alike, & all have different finger prints. Cloned cats have looked quite different from the cats where the DNA came because color pigmentation isn't totally dependant upon DNA. Even if a cloned person were to look exactly like the person from whom the DNA came, that shouldn't be a reason to ban cloning. Iowa's law banning human reproductive cloning is O.K. for now, but there could be a good future for such cloning. Laws can be made to regulate it. The main use of this cloning will probably be for infertile couples; because of the cost, wealthy couples would be the main users. If they want a clone rather than adopting, that should be THEIR decision & legal option. If a couple's baby died shortly after birth & the couple wants the DNA cloned, is that wrong? I don't think so. The couple, especially with medical personnel guidance, will know that the clone isn't the same PERSON; they'll want a clone for a variety of personal reasons. Their clone will be as much of an individual with a separate soul as are each of identical twins. A clone & it's "original" will be even more unlike each other than identical twins. This is because the clone, for a time, will be an embryo with different cellular cytoplasm, & the clone will grow up in a different environment (pre/post natal.) A clone shouldn't be thought of as an exact later twin; the person should be thought of as what the person is: a child, possibly a brother or sister, a cousin if applicable, etc. Right now, it's too difficult to clone a dog. But some year it'll be done, & some year after that, humans will be cloned. Will the legislatures of the world ban human cloning resulting in it being done only "underground," or will they recognize it's importance & regulate it properly? Coming to a consensus won't be easy, but it can & should be done. If the populace doesn't want thousands of Michael Jordan clones, they can have that aspect regulated through law. If cloning oneself or one's ancestors to be their own newborn isn't wanted by society, that can also be regulated. Selling DNA & unauthorized use of another's DNA can be banned. Cloning a person with profound, incurable problems can be banned & defined. If the only type of human reproductive cloning wanted by a nation is to clone a child who has died, a nation can pass such a law when the time is right. To ban cloning just because cloning may seem unneeded, scary, or unnatural, aren't good enough reasons. Trying to find good enough reasons should focus on the societal implications, moral aspects, & legalities. The experimental phases of being able to successfully clone humans could be the biggest barrier--before success can regularly be accomplished, a lot of failures will probably exist. These failures may be in the form of abortions, both spontaneous & planned. The ethics of research, involving humans & animals, needs to be considered. Ending up with a healthy human clone is extraordinarily unlikely in the near future. But if experimentation with animals, especially primates, evolves well over the years, the leap to sanctioned human cloning won't have nearly the rate of failures as it surely would today. Likewise, the now sanctioned "in vitro" reproduction technique, used by thousands of people each year, had many early failures, but it has improved & will continue to improve. The debate on this issue has barely begun; a related issue of cloning human tissue to harvest stem cells for research into medical procedures (including treatments/cures) has had much more public debate. The pros & cons of the impact of reproductive cloning needs more discussion so people can formulate an educated opinion. Two of many experts for human cloning are Mark Eibert & R. Wicker (humancloning.org;) against cloning is Glenn McGee (bioethics.net.) Jan., 2004 John Kerry for President Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman would be a great president. They're proven leaders with wide knowledge of international relations & domestic issues. With more experience, Edwards could rank among them. I'm disappointed that Graham was the 1st to call it quits--I'd prefer it would've been Kucinich & Dean. It's with a sigh of relief that Gary Hart decided not to compete. The wisest seems to be John Kerry. He has many dozens of detailed plans for improvements of governmental programs--improvements that probably won't happen if a Republican is in the White House. His plans make sense; I'm impressed. No one can say that Kerry isn't patriotic. He can beat Bush; so can others, but Kerry has the best chance. Kerry wants to put income tax rates back up to the previous level only for the wealthy (after he's elected president, I hope he lowers his $200,000 level for where "wealthy" starts.) Most people who will end up supporting angry Dean probably already have committed. The current undecided voters will hopefully choose Kerry & close the gap to Dean's 1st place poll results. Jun., 2004 Reduce $12 million at University of Iowa A University of Iowa task force's job to cut $12 million wouldn't be so difficult if they had more people at a $9,000 income level than $90,000. Low-income people have lots of necessary experience with frugality; high-income people are frugal as a hobby. A high-income person might look at the many grass sod projects and think how great it looks and how it adds to the progress of building projects. A frugal person will think, "I wonder if sprinkling some grass seed would have worked well, saving tens of thousands of dollars." Someone frugal will want to know the differences in prices of different colors of paper then list the prices and encourage people to use the cheapest color that meets their needs. Dozens of other "small" examples would be found, and they'd ask department heads to commission frugal people to find dozens more to save hundreds of thousands of dollars with no harm to programs. I liked the task force's $20,000 reduction of bottled water. There have got to be numerous other bottled-water-type-expenses to reduce. A truly frugal person who has never hired a housecleaner would look at the number of night custodian hours to see if they could be cut more than half, saving millions of dollars each year. If custodians sweep main hallways, clean bathrooms and stay out of the many hundreds of classrooms (unless notified of a spill), buildings will be clean enough if teachers ask students now and then to take 20 seconds to pick up candy wrappers and scrap paper. Brooms can be available for sweeping when needed; students can straighten desk rows and clean chalkboards. It doesn't take long if 30 students help. After a few days, a different class in that room can get it done. You don't have to pay someone to empty pencil sharpeners and take trash to a designated place. If administrators think that not-as-clean classrooms make the university look bad, which in turn makes them look bad, they should focus on getting the word out that classrooms are student cleaned which saves money for more important purposes. If NCAA athletic scholarships were capped at $2,000, less money would go to those who aren't financially needy. Plenty of aid is available for financially needy athletes. Sports with large numbers of athletic scholarships could have numbers reduced significantly. When the band travels to a bowl game, just the juniors and seniors could go. That would save a huge pile of money. Curtail extra people (such as spouses) from going along. Limit the daily university-given expenses to $20 rather than $30 -- $6 at a grocery deli will fill most anyone (they would've had some food expense, anyway, if they weren't on the trip.) The worst money problem came from the regents who increased next year's tuition only 8.3 percent. With tuition ($4,342) and fees ($651) now $4,993, a 16.6 percent tuition increase would've brought the total to only $5,713 - well below the more than $15,000 it takes to educate each undergraduate. But the regents didn't want another double digit increase! Compare that to about $8,200 for next year's freshman and sophomores at the University of Michigan, and $9,200 for their juniors and seniors. Their tuition is a bargain. The ability to increase tuition midyear should be approved. The task force should ask the administration to ask the regents to ask the legislature for it with a 5 percent cap (would be $217 currently.) Increased financial aid can make school just as accessible. Reminding alumni that their in-state tuition was subsidized $11,000 each year (plus any scholarships) could help with alumni gifts. Reducing expenses by $12 million with no "harm" to programs isn't difficult for a team of frugal people. If I single handedly reduce $15 million in approved ways, I'd be willing to split the difference on that last $3 million as my fee. October, 2004 Billionaires for Bush Fellow plunderers, Billionaires for Bush continues Bush's effort to "leave no Billionaire behind," a lucrative investment as he's shown favoritism to the elite; taxes and good health care aren't for everyone (it's not our fault if simpletons get sick.) Buying your own president and rewriting environmental policies, not giving lazy people money from our fortunes, and taxing wages not wealth helps pay for another chalet. Gotta love the smell of fresh Benjamins. We've hit the streets in style--suits/tuxes, evening dresses, some trophy wives--sipping champagne and thanking ordinary tax payers for paying our share. We love saying our tax rate is highest, knowing that with deductions we pay a smaller percent than the middle class. Don't worry, we pay tax on our yachts. Illustrious cohorts arrive in style, dressed to the 9's, telling scruffy masses and tree huggers that we outsource because of our friends Dubya and Dick in the White House. Wealth and power are to be celebrated! Hostile takeovers are good! We rub elbows with the locals (audible gasp), encourage Block the Vote campaigns, chant "No minimum wage!" and pause in silence as another exec goes to prison. Our chauffeurs coordinate logistics. My colleagues of inordinate wealth, give a celebratory toast to a widening income gap (the wealthiest 1 percent got 1/3 of tax cuts). Taunt the unemployed (filthy commoners!) Leave your mansions, gold vaults, and platinum trimmed boardrooms; let anti war profit groups know their insidious democratic values threaten our enormous status. With unchecked affluence, upper crust plutocrats back class war; let trailer trash--making under $100,000 a year or wherever the lower class starts--know we're in charge; affluence and influence go hand in hand. Ensure four more years of putting profits before people. Without have-nots, you can't have the haves. Our cause is more for us and less for others. Investing in Bush already gave enormous payoffs, including a $1.1 trillion tax reduction--slicker than oil in pristine water. We're honor bound to stand up for our own. Georgie bestowed upon us corporate subsidies, tax abatements, no bid contracts, and public property giveaways. Organize to protect our bottom line. Forget job losses and skyrocketing health costs; my lunch costs more than a health premium. Are you on or off the limo? Get on the limo with your little heiresses to praise Bush's values. Upper class solidarity doesn't pander to special interests of ordinary, misguided citizens of all shapes and sizes who lack good taste and judgment; rally for the really rich, support agribusiness over family farms, pave prairies to fight pollen, have "Cheney is Innocent” vigils or union busting workshops, and shield Bush from press conferences. No matter how great things are, they can always be better. Take time out from the fox hunt to support our guardian of privilege. Our powerful arguments, not to mention elegant attire, swayed many who doubted the wisdom of our cause. Some are mysteriously amused. It's a pleasant relief from day-to-day toil of profit-making to present the truth: there is plenty of health care for anyone who wants to buy it (messing with it can have negative impacts on our pharmaceutical and insurance companies,) and throwing money at 2nd rate people for a 1st class education doesn't advance our cause; education isn't for everyone. Bush understands that free money is for those with corporate lobbyists. Beyond the velvet ropes lie our private schools. Great wealth comforts us by not having to associate with the improperly bred. Not only are we better, we're smarter and more attractive. The subversive, whiny equality theme is just grubby, etiquette-impaired freeloaders getting degrees with public funds. Our Bush under-funded his own "edjakation" reform--$9.4 billion in his last budget alone (who needs after school programs when you can hire a nanny?) Promising to increase Pell grants, his 2005 budget did the reverse. We're Bush's base: the have mores. Exploiting and schmoozing sound good? Join us in future efforts--we'd be so delighted. Pick up a primer "How to Rule the World for Fun and Profit." It's the best time ever to be a billionaire--we set the standard, whatever it takes (it's in our best interests, can you blame us?) Grow our numbers faster than the deficit; join minted billionaires Milly & Billy O'Nair, Pam Perd, and Phil T. Rich; yachts can be docked nearby. Go to BillionairesForBush.com; also, get the music CD. By the way, the Bush purchase warranty expires if the ice caps melt. And we'll back Kerry if he makes a better offer. Yours in opulence, John "E.Z. Street" Gelhaus |
|
 |
| This page revised 7-20-06 |