Thomas J. Phillips

2001 To Start With A Bang At Fifth Annual Public Square Celebration

TOM BIGLER
 Sunday, December 24, 2000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Page: 5B 





POSSIBLE BANNER: Last acts of 46th Congress selfish and mean-spirited &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 OPINION THERE WAS A touch of the Hanukkah/Christmas holiday season in the
last of the official acts of the 106th Congress before it adjourned Dec. 15. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The members of the Congress passed the last of 13 money bills totaling
about $465 billion. It amounts to almost a third of the $1.8 trillion federal
budget for the fiscal year that began last Oct. 1. It contains sugar plums for
some, coal for others and a chunk of hard candy for most of us. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Because the makeup of Congress gave real power to a presidential veto,
President Clinton was able to win some funding for the hiring of additional
public school teachers, smaller classrooms and repairs to worn-out buildings
and facilities among other aids to public education. He also persuaded the
Congress to restore some of the funds for Medicare and Medicaid that had been
cut in the 1997 Budget Reform Act. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 At the same time, the leadership managed to include a number of favors for
constituents back home: a new highway there, an interchange someplace else, a
shipbuilding contract, a lease for mining minerals on public land, a dam
somewhere else, etc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Also Congress was able to again illustrate for the benefit of its incoming
president the virtues of incremental tax cuts. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Despite his assurances since his election that bipartisanship is the only
road, President-elect George W. Bush insisted he is absolutely determined -
unless dissuaded by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan - to seek
that $1.3 trillion tax cut over the next 10 years that he has advocated. ``It
is,'' he insists, ``the right size.'' &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 But Republican leaders in the Congress have been trying to tell him that
they can reach at least that amount, and perhaps more, simply by giving a tax
cut here and a tax cut there - their marriage-penalty tax proposal and their
proposal to eliminate the estate tax. And this money bill does include a
series of tax cuts that won't be fully effective until the year 2003. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Hidden among the goodies was something that the members cooked up for
themselves - the new Congress that convenes next month will pay its members an
extra $3,800 a year. The new salary for those who continue to serve will be in
excess of $145,000 a year. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Even as hard working as these darlings are, one can manage on that salary,
especially since there are benefits. There is the health plan they have which
most Americans would like to have for themselves, but which members of
Congress tell them they can't afford. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 And, of course, they enjoy other benefits such as life insurance, pension
plans, transportation costs and very handsome office expenses that fund staff,
offices, equipment and their endless stream of communications through all the
means available - phone, fax, the Internet and, yes, even mail. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Congressional generosity for its own members is in sharp contrast to its
adamant refusal to consider raising the minimum wage. There was some talk that
maybe they might be willing to increase it from $5.15 per hour to $5.65 in one
year, and then if the economy could bear it, to increase the minimum wage by
another 50 cents a year later. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 This example of congressional ``compassion'' is defended by its members on
the ground that to increase the minimum wage would be to touch off inflation.
It is a bit of a mystery why increases of millions of dollars for those at the
top income level are not inflationary, but a lousy $1 per hour increase for
those at the bottom would destroy the economy. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Of course there is a margin of truth in their claim. For those at the top
level of income, there is just so much food, clothing, shelter, and
entertainment that one can consume. Most of their income goes into investments
instead. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 At the bottom level, every nickel that comes in must go out to pay for the
heat, lights, shelter, food, medicine and other essentials to survival. And
since ours is a consumer economy, the pressure of spending would be on
consumer goods. However, the answer lies in that there is little to be gained
from investing in production if there isn't an ability to consume what is
produced. And it is dreadfully evident that neither $5.15 per hour nor even
$7.50 per hour is adequate for a minimum standard of living. But that is
another of the riddles of this Congress that will be left to the 107th
Congress to consider. Meanwhile, try to find joy in your holiday gift from the
Congress, whatever that may be. Seasons tidings to us all. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Tom Bigler is professor of communications at Wilkes University and a Times
Leader columnist. His column is available online at www.timesleader.com &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

106th Congress Was An Unattractive Cross Between Miss Piggy And Scrooge