Our nonpartisan American runaway train

Art by Stephen Slade Tien
via Wikimedia Commons

I freely admit what you already know: I am a wonk. So when the book I'm reading, The Moral Measure of the Economy, laid out a bunch of fearsome statistics going up to 2005, I was compelled to update them. I'm not going to bore you with all the stats. I'd just like you to notice one thing that seemed odd to me. Maybe you can tell me what's going on.

We all know that the gap between rich and poor is getting wider. What I didn't know was that, whatever the forces may be that are driving rich and poor apart, they don't seem to be related to one party or the other.

Here's what the book says:

In 1985, the average income of the top 5 percent of families was 13.5 times as much as the average income of the bottom 20 percent. In 2004, the top 5 percent made almost 21 times as much as the bottom 20 percent.

So I looked up the Census Bureau table that gives this information (it's here; go to Table F-3 and click "All Races" for the Excel file), and I calculated the ratio for each year since 1966, and I made this chart. The short silver bars at the bottom represent the average income of the bottom 20%. The long green bars represent the average income of the top 5%. See the gap widen ...

Here's what seems odd to me:

• From 1966 to 1981, the ratio is pretty stable: seven years of stable Democrats, nine years of stable Republicans.
• In 1982 the gap starts to increase. It gets steadily larger through eleven Republican years.
• In 1993 the gap suddenly jumps from 1:16 to nearly 1:20. From then on, through ten Democratic years and eight Republican years, it never goes below 1:18. Since 2000, it has always been nearly 1:20 or higher.

Something is causing our nation to become more and more unequal (in opportunity as well as in income, as Joseph Stiglitz points out in The Price of Inequality: you can read an excerpt here). Whatever it is, neither Democrats nor Republicans have effectively dealt with it.

Economics is a complicated science: 

     - is our rising inequality a failure of understanding? 

Tax hikes, even for the rich, are hard to get through Congress: 

     - is it a failure of will?

The princes of Wall Street, Wal-Mart, and multinational corporations are doing just fine: 

     - is it a triumph for their lobbyists, who spend more and more every year?

And if we find it distressing, who are we supposed to vote for, anyway?

Good government, bad government--"everybody's confused"

Before beginning the next paragraph, please click here and listen to Mavis Staples and Jeff Tweedy performing "Only the Lord Knows." If you haven't already bought the whole album - it came out two years ago - you really should. Especially during this acrimonious election season. (I commented on it here.) Mavis and Jeff knew what was coming in 2012...

I pick up the paper, I put down the paper,

Turn on the TV, I get confused.

People on this side say the people on that side,

They lyin', say they lyin'--everybody's confused.

OK, now imagine taking a dozen or so suburban Catholics--some of them staunch conservatives, others committed liberals--and making them talk to one another about public policy for two and a half hours every Wednesday evening during the two months leading up to the election. Give the group a sexy name, like "Living Solidarity: Government, the Federal Budget and the Common Good" (such a name keeps a group's size manageable). Ask them what they think the government does well, and what it does badly. Try to keep them from killing each other.

Actually things went surprisingly smoothly at my parish's adult-ed group last week. The moderator told us repeatedly and in manifold ways that we must be polite to one another, and we were, even when talking about government successes and failures. And then we learned that one of our assignments would be to strike up a two-minute conversation with a stranger, each week on a different topic. This week's homework: "Ask someone you don't know: What is something you appreciate that government does? What is something you hate about what government does? Be specific."

Oh, right. If someone standing in line behind me at Trader Joe's tried that on me, I'd ask him to watch my cart while I dashed back to the produce department to pick up more broccoli rabe. No way am I going to let some political nut turn my peaceful shopping expedition into a shoot-out. And no way am I going to turn myself into an agent provocateur either.

So I put my questions on my Facebook page, Madame Neff's Salon, and discovered that some people hate speeding tickets while others appreciate them. Other than that, here are the answers I got:

What is something you appreciate that government (federal, state, or local) does?
Emergency services like fire, police, and ambulance. The Post Office, which--unlike FedEx, UPS, or the Pony Express--is required to serve all areas of the U.S. Schools. A good legal system. Enforcement of laws and rights: property rights, religious rights, right to protest, freedom of speech. OSHA. The FDA drug review. Health care. Programs that help poor people and those who experience disasters. Programs that guarantee clear air, water, safe food, safe buildings, etc. Roads, transportation,some communication. A state program for at-risk children that offered subsidized physical, occupational and speech therapy for our son. Medicare.

What is something you hate that government (federal, state, or local) does?
Picky laws: Prohibiting plastic bags. Outlawing marijuana. Banning large sugary drinks. Banning smoking outside. Subsidies to private enterprise (tax breaks, funding research and development, etc.) without demanding repayment or a share of profits. Unnecessary war. War without the approval of Congress. The salaries of elected or appointed government officials. Torture.

If I got back in line at Trader Joe's, broccoli rabe in hand, and still had to answer the questions, I'd probably tell the pushy stranger that I really like--or would like--excellent public education, universal health care, Social Security, interstate highways, food security programs, regulations to protect the environment, regulations to keep financial institutions honest, family health-care leave, paid maternity leave... well, by the time I got to that many points here in Republican DuPage County, I expect my interlocutor would have scooted into another check-out line, as far from me as possible.

But if he stayed to listen, I'd also tell him that I really hate the way our government--federal, state, and local--promises so many of these good things but then refuses to fund them. On a more personal level, I hate the way so many Americans think we should have more services but lower taxes. Read, for example, Greg Sargent's article in the August 2 Washington Post, "Americans hate government, but they love Medicare, Social Security, and environmental regulations."

I'm looking forward to hearing my classmates' opinions. I think we can manage not to throw overripe fruit at one another, especially if we keep in mind Mavis and Jeff's call to humility:

What to do, what to do now?--

Only the Lord knows, and he ain't you.

Listen to them!

MORTALITY by Christopher Hitchens

Before yesterday, I had read no books by Christopher Hitchens. I had read about him, to be sure. His name kept popping up everywhere.

 "I wouldn't walk around the block to hear Christopher Hitchens take cheap shots at Christians," writes Stephen Prothero in God Is Not One. Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, calls Hitchens one of the "'Four Horsemen' of the angry atheist apocalypse" (along with Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett)--fundamentalists all, but by another name.

And yet Hitchens's books are extremely popular, as are books by the other Horsemen. "If you want to know why the 'new atheists' ... sell so many books," says theologian and former bishop N.T. Wright in Simply Jesus, "the answer is that they're offering the modernist version of the good old-fashioned theological term 'assurance.' They are assuring anxious ex-believers that the nightmare of small-minded and stultifying 'religion' is gone forever." In other words, they offer to save us from fundamentalism.

Writing Hitchens's obituary in Christianity Today, an evangelical (though not fundamentalist) magazine, Douglas Wilson takes no offense:

This [propensity to attack sacred cows] was all part of Christopher's very public rhetorical strategy, not a function of an inability to domesticate a surly temperament. He was actually an affable and pleasant dinner companion, and fully capable of being the perfect gentleman.

Angry fundamentalist, savior from fundamentalism, nice guy... who was Christopher Hitchens really? In a New York Times review of Mortality, Hitchens's just-published posthumous book about his slow death from cancer, Christopher Buckley muses: "What discrepant parts were in him: the fierce tongue, the tender heart."

It was Buckley's review that prompted me to put Mortality on hold (now there's a great idea...). I won't sum up the book here; you'll do better to click this link and read Buckley's heartfelt appreciation. I'll just say that Mortality, like life, is short. It consists of a Foreword by Graydon Carter,who worked with Hitchens at Vanity Fair; seven essays that Hitchens wrote for that magazine; an eighth chapter of "fragmentary jottings" in the manner of Pascal's Pensées; and an Afterword by Hitchens's wife, Carol Blue. You can read the whole thing in an evening; if you're a fast reader, you can read it twice.

But why read a book about dying at all? Maybe because you're a Hitchens fan (I'm not), or because you love the way he writes (I do), or because you hope to gain wisdom (you may).  I guess I read it because mortality has been much on my mind of late. Stage four cancers, fatal strokes, hospital infections, dementia have attacked family members and friends, some in their 90s, some--like Hitchens, like me--in their 60s. I looked at mortality myself last year (and blogged about it here). I wanted to hear what Hitchens, the gentlemanly curmudgeon, had to say. I wanted to know how he felt, knowing his time was nearly up.

In chapter one, Hitchens reacts to learning he has stage four cancer (as he later notes, "the thing about Stage Four is that there is no such thing as Stage Five"):

I can't see myself smiting my brow with shock or hear myself whining about how it's all so unfair: I have been taunting the Reaper into taking a free scythe in my direction and have now succumbed to something so predictable and banal that it bores even me.

Hitchens never allows his dying, however predictable and banal, to bore his readers.

52 years later, is the church threatened or threatening?

In 1960 when John F. Kennedy became the Democratic candidate for President of the United States, a lot of people panicked. The ironically named "Citizens for Religious Freedom," a group of some 150 evangelical and mainline Protestant leaders, issued a manifesto declaring that, in the words of the Reverend Norman Vincent Peale, "Our American culture is at stake." With a Catholic at the helm, they feared, the pope would call the cards.

Fifty-two years ago today, Kennedy gave a memorable speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Telling the group of Protestant ministers that he believed in an America where "no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials," he promised that

whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with ... what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates.

The speech probably gave him the edge he needed to win the presidency.

Fifty-two years later, six of the nine Supreme Court justices, 28% of the members of Congress, and both vice-presidential candidates are Catholics. Not everyone is happy with recent Catholic-supported efforts to limit access to abortion and contraception, but nobody seriously suggests that the pope is ruling America. In fact, it's the Catholic bishops who are panicking. "Across America, our right to live out our faith is being threatened," they warned parishioners in a recent bulletin insert.

Church and state have had a rocky relationship at least since the fourth century CE, when the emperor Constantine legitimized Christianity and gave the keynote address at the Nicene Council. Should religious lobbying groups help to make public policy? Should public policy exempt religious groups from otherwise universal requirements? Yes, and yes, says the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. No, and no, says Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

The answers are not always clear. An enormous amount of spin (from all sides) has muddied the waters. If you are at all concerned that, in America today,

• the state has too much power over religion, or
• the church has too much influence on the state, or
• church and state are altogether too cozy with one another--

I recommend reading two short articles on this anniversary of the Houston speech.

First, read the speech itself. It is beautiful literature. Historically significant. As relevant today as in 1960. Still powerfully moving.

Then take Emily C. Health's perceptive quiz, "How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions."

Romney's plan covers preexisting conditions - for the rich and the lucky

"You shouldn't have let his health insurance lapse."

For just a moment I thought Romney was actually moving toward the middle. On Sunday's Meet the Press he said he wouldn't get rid of all health-care reform. One thing he planned to do, he said, "is to make sure that those with preexisting conditions can get coverage.”

And then later, of course, his campaign clarified: He would make sure that those with preexisting conditions would be covered if they had continuous insurance coverage. In other words, he would continue to enforce the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Well, whew.

Yesterday Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein asked, "Who would be left out of Romney’s preexisting conditions plan?" Answer: "About 89 million Americans."

If you have a pre-existing condition, are covered by a good insurance policy, and qualify for and can afford a COBRA policy, you'll be OK for 18 to 36 months. After that you're on your own.

But people buy COBRA policies because they are out of work, and COBRA's rates are steep for the unemployed: about $500/month for an individual and nearly $1400/month for a family.*

If you have a preexisting condition and can't  afford COBRA, you could lose or be unable to get health coverage under Romney's plan:

• if you're the nonemployed wife or child of a man who retires or dies or loses his job
• if you stop working for several months to care for an aging parent or an ill family member
• if you lose your job due to serious illness or injury
• if you are unemployable due to mental or physical disabilities
• if you take an unpaid maternity leave
• if you're looking for your first job and you are not covered by your parents' insurance
• if your company decides to stop offering a health-insurance benefit
• if the only company who will hire you does not offer a health-insurance benefit
• if your company goes out of business, and it takes you longer than 63 days to find a new job

I understand why preexisting conditions must be tied to continuous insurance coverage: you can't have people signing up for insurance only after they've had the diagnosis or the accident. And indeed, preexisting conditions are tied to continuous insurance coverage in Obamacare (to use the Republicans' preferred term), in socialized medicine (to use another term they favor, even though they usually use it erroneously), and in those developed nations who finance health care through private insurers.

The difference between Romneycare and all those other plans is this: With the other plans, everybody has continuous insurance coverage. With Romneycare, you can have continuous insurance coverage if you can personally afford it, if you are able to work, and if you're lucky.

_______________________________
*In 2010 an individual policy cost $429 a month and a family policy cost $1170. Those are the latest figures from the Kaiser Foundation; since health-care insurance rates have been rising between 8 and 9% a year for several years, it is reasonable to assume that the average Cobra policy now costs about $505 (individual) or $1377 (family) per month.

Gazpacho!

Photo by Elaine Armstrong

Twelve more days of summer. Produce abounding in farmers' market and backyard. Vacation days used up: no time for labor-intensive food prep. What to do?

Make gazpacho!

I fell in love with gazpacho on a trip to Spain. It's a chilled red vegetable soup that's available everywhere in that country--and everywhere I ate, I ordered some. 

Each restaurant had its own way of making it. Some gazpachos were smooth as cream. Some were full of chunky vegetables. Most came with optional toppings served on the side: chopped herbs, diced veggies, crumbled hard-boiled eggs, even sliced avocadoes. All were good.

You can Google gazpacho and find any number of recipes, or you can play with the principal ingredients and make up your own. The only thing you must do is use fresh, ripe (but not overripe) ingredients. You can sometimes get away with dumping tired old veggies into a hot soup, but that will not work with gazpacho. The flavor depends entirely on the quality of the ingredients.

Fortunately, this time of year everything you need is abundant and cheap. Or free, if you have a generous neighbor with a green thumb (those are her veggies in the photo).

Here's what you need, to start:

• A blender or a food processor
• One or two medium-to-large tomatoes for each serving (you don't need to peel them)
• A cucumber or two (you don't need to peel them either, though I usually do)
• A clove of garlic or two (don't go hog wild here; I've found the garlic's flavor is enhanced if I soften the cloves for about 5 seconds in the microwave before adding them)
• Olive oil (just a dollop--or drizzle it on top of the soup just before serving)
• Something tangy: sherry vinegar, red wine vinegar, or lemon juice (start with about a teaspoon per serving)
• Salt and pepper (I use a pinch of red [cayenne])

Whiz it all in your blender or food processor. If it's too thick, add water. If it's too thin, tear up a slice of bread and blend it in. Taste it until you like it. You can do this in 5 minutes, once you get the hang of it. Prepare the soup before you leave for work, refrigerate it, and enjoy it with--or for--dinner.

You can make a meal of gazpacho by serving it with chewy bread and manchego, a sheep's-milk cheese from central Spain (available at a reasonable price from Trader Joe's). In Spain, you'd probably have it with a small glass of cold, dry sherry (fino or manzanilla, not the syrupy stuff). Or you might try a dry rosé or crisp white wine.

Variations:

• Add a red (not green!) bell pepper to the mix, or top the soup with finely diced yellow bell pepper
• Add a little onion to the mix, or top the soup with chopped scallion or green onions
• Add your favorite herbs to the mix, or top the soup with chopped herbs or a small sprig of basil leaves
• Add other fresh vegetables and see what happens.
• Vary the consistency. Spin it smooth in the blender, leave it coarse in the food processor. Or try this: spin the tomatoes and garlic in the blender until very smooth; then add the other ingredients and pulse to chop.
• If you forget to make the soup in the morning, you can spin it in the blender with a few ice cubes and eat it instantly when you get home. Not quite as good, but good enough!

Two political conventions, two Catholic leaders

New York's Cardinal Dolan may have tried to offend everybody in just eight days, though the Republicans seem not to have noticed his blessing on recent immigrants who have come to America in search of jobs. Democrats, however, did not miss his call for protection of the unborn, his veiled allusion to gay marriage, and his call for "religious freedom in full," which to him means freedom for Catholic institutions to deny contraceptive coverage to employees. (You can read the full text of both benedictions here.)

It must be tricky, being a bishop-politician. The Republican position on abortion sounds very Catholic, but its approach to the economy goes counter to over a century of Catholic social teaching. The Democratic platform upholds Catholic social teaching, but it also affirms Roe v. Wade.

Faced with this split, Cardinal Dolan, a great admirer of Paul Ryan, did what the Catholic hierarchy has typically done, at least in recent years--he paid little attention to social justice and focused mainly on sex. No wonder Andrew Sullivan, in a blistering op-ed piece, dubbed him "The Republican Party Cardinal."

Enough about the Cardinal. Another Catholic speaker at the Democratic National Convention was much more inspiring. Here's Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a social-justice lobby criticized by the Vatican last spring for spending too much time fighting poverty and too little time fighting abortion and gay marriage. Like Cardinal Dolan, she offered to speak at both conventions. The Republicans did not get back to her.