I heard more news on NPR that irritated me. Today, it was about health care for children and what income level is appropriate to qualify for that. Apparently, I make 3.5 times what the poverty level is for a family of three. Me, a single female with a professional degree. That makes the poverty level somewhere around $18k, for a family of three. In the bay area, rent is at least $15k for a one bedroom apartment.
Anyway, that doesn't get to my point. My point was inspired by a Georgia representative who said that the high income requirements were 'greedy', this after we heard a tearful mother of two who makes $30k explain that $200 to $300 a month for private health insurance would mean cutting other expenses. Sher mentioned that 2-300 was the equivalent of two weeks of groceries, and asked her elected officials, those responsible for helping everyone, why she, who moved from a maid to the manager of a condomiunum as a single mother, had to make such choices.
It got me thinking - we have representatives, but they aren't representative. I suggest that we pay representatives only the median income of their district - that is take-home pay, not campaign money or anything else. We only cover their health, dental, etc costs at the level of what is covered for everyone in their distrct. If 60% of the people in their district have health coverage, they have 60% of their gross bills covered. I don't think this would be excessive at all. There are 435 federal representatives and about 100 per state. It would be pretty easy to assess each district and impose the restrictions on the representatives. I'd say one person would need to be employed each year per 100 reps. So 5 at the federal level, assessing district stats and giving reports to payroll.
Thoughts?
2.25.2007
2.18.2007
I just had my gallbladder removed, which hurts like a bitch, and the pain pills make me feel weird and trippy, so I haven't been taking them...so I'm confined to the house, feeling really sorry for myself, but I've been reading some really good books that I recommend:
Promiscuities: The Secret Struggle for Womanhood. Super good. It's by Naomi Wolf, my favorite writer right now, about growing up a woman during and just after the sexual revolution...which wasn't much of a revolution...it's just been a new kind of enslavement in my opinion....
The Beauty Myth, also by Naomi Wolf. I haven't started this one yet, but it's about the way society uses images of beauty to control women. Thought I'd pass the titles along. I've got some Susan Brownmiller waiting for me, too.
I think I'll go read and whine about the fucking pain.
Promiscuities: The Secret Struggle for Womanhood. Super good. It's by Naomi Wolf, my favorite writer right now, about growing up a woman during and just after the sexual revolution...which wasn't much of a revolution...it's just been a new kind of enslavement in my opinion....
The Beauty Myth, also by Naomi Wolf. I haven't started this one yet, but it's about the way society uses images of beauty to control women. Thought I'd pass the titles along. I've got some Susan Brownmiller waiting for me, too.
I think I'll go read and whine about the fucking pain.
2.17.2007
2.12.2007
Do any of you ever still judge debates? If so, you may know if current debaters are actually using the following arguement to define the word 'significantly' with a very low number.
I remember that at least half of the resolutions that I debated in HS included the word 'significantly', a derivitive of the word 'significant'. According to the Department of Homeland Security, we are currently under 'Significant Risk of Terror Activities' - airlines are at an even higher risk.
Do you remember the kinds of definitions you used as an indication of significant? Was a common one 20%? I remember practically laughing off a definition of 2%. But what does significant risk mean in this instance? Does it mean that we will experience, first hand, a terrorist threat every five days? (that would be roughly 20%, I guess) And what constitutes terrorist threat? Is it a bomb at the grocery store* at least twice a week? Is it busting a terror cell in the UK that planned to attack the US? Because I think in the past year at least, there have been no bombs in American stores and only two busted terror cells - and both were busted early on in their planning.
But we're still at 'Significant Risk', not in Iraq, where bombs actually blow up several times a week and routinely kill multiple individuals, but here, in the United States. Here, my biggest daily risk is getting in an accident on the 680 Southbound, right before the 580 interchange - that or hitting some terrible traffic. The current terror level alert is watering down our language, but more importantly, it is reducing our ability to be prepared for actual threats. If we adjust to a level of Significant, or even High, how much more important will it be to us if the level goes up to Severe?
But, with that in mind, it seems like the same machine that took us to war with Iraq is gearing up for war with Iran. Believe it or not, I'd actually like to believe my government, especially since it is supposed to be by the people, of the people, and for the people. The problem is that everything I hear goes against my logic. When someone does ask a question, it is answered with the accusation that we don't trust the government. But it has become clear that we cannot. I think I will defer to Jefferson to figure out what might be necessary in that situation.
*I presume that we use grocery stores, or malls, in the same way Iraqis use marketplaces
I remember that at least half of the resolutions that I debated in HS included the word 'significantly', a derivitive of the word 'significant'. According to the Department of Homeland Security, we are currently under 'Significant Risk of Terror Activities' - airlines are at an even higher risk.
Do you remember the kinds of definitions you used as an indication of significant? Was a common one 20%? I remember practically laughing off a definition of 2%. But what does significant risk mean in this instance? Does it mean that we will experience, first hand, a terrorist threat every five days? (that would be roughly 20%, I guess) And what constitutes terrorist threat? Is it a bomb at the grocery store* at least twice a week? Is it busting a terror cell in the UK that planned to attack the US? Because I think in the past year at least, there have been no bombs in American stores and only two busted terror cells - and both were busted early on in their planning.
But we're still at 'Significant Risk', not in Iraq, where bombs actually blow up several times a week and routinely kill multiple individuals, but here, in the United States. Here, my biggest daily risk is getting in an accident on the 680 Southbound, right before the 580 interchange - that or hitting some terrible traffic. The current terror level alert is watering down our language, but more importantly, it is reducing our ability to be prepared for actual threats. If we adjust to a level of Significant, or even High, how much more important will it be to us if the level goes up to Severe?
But, with that in mind, it seems like the same machine that took us to war with Iraq is gearing up for war with Iran. Believe it or not, I'd actually like to believe my government, especially since it is supposed to be by the people, of the people, and for the people. The problem is that everything I hear goes against my logic. When someone does ask a question, it is answered with the accusation that we don't trust the government. But it has become clear that we cannot. I think I will defer to Jefferson to figure out what might be necessary in that situation.
*I presume that we use grocery stores, or malls, in the same way Iraqis use marketplaces
2.02.2007
I sewed a button onto one of my teacher shirts today, and I'm proud of myself beyond belief. The thread has been sitting on my desk for over a week, challenging me. Probably a 25-year-old woman should not consider this a major achievement. How is it possible that I am so domestically challenged? Especially when my mother is Susie Homemaker...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
