This Week:

Quote of the Week

The Orwell Factor: Naming a Prison

International Election Monitors In the U.S.

National Health Care: People Support It, Candidates Don’t
Social Security E-Mail Propaganda, 2004 Version

Greetings,

The last thing I had in mind for this week was a double issue, but here it is. For all of you new readers, a “typical” Nygaard Notes is about 2,000 words long, and a “double” issue is about 3,500 words long. For you subscribers to the paper version of the Notes, that’s the difference between 4 pages and 6 pages. Neither of these are literally “double,” I am aware, but it’s a lot easier to say “Double issue” than it is to say “A good 75 percent longer than usual.” Don’t you agree?

Anyway, here it is, like I said, and the extra length is due to an article on a specific piece of email about Social Security that many of you may have seen. I think it’s worth a close look, and not only because Social Security is a big issue in the current presidential campaign. It’s worth thinking about at some length, in my opinion, because it’s such a wonderful case study in how propaganda can work.

The “How Not To Get Depressed” series is not over, but I’m not sure when the next installment will be, exactly. Whenever it is, it will likely talk about action, engagement, popular education, possibly some Buddhist philosophy, and who-knows-what else? It takes a little time to pull all these things together, y’know. Thanks for your patience, and thanks for all the feedback on the first two installments!

Thanks, also, to all of you who have sent in your financial pledges – or renewed your pledges – to Nygaard Notes this month. Your ongoing support makes possible not only the Notes, but also my recent foray into radio, my increasing presentations in area colleges and universities, and also the various community workshops and seminars that I seem to be doing. I couldn’t afford to do all of this without your support. Thank you!!

Until next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

In the current edition of the Minneapolis weekly paper City Pages, there is a remarkable article called “Dwindling Resources, Diminishing Expectations; Twin Cities Teachers Talk About How Their Schools and Classrooms Have Changed.” It’s not really an “article,” just a collection of comments by experienced teachers, school counselors, and so forth. One woman, who has been a social worker in the public schools since 1969, was speaking of a Montessori teacher who works with kids in the first through the third grades. One of her comments stuck out to me, so here it is:

“We all have to do professional development plans, and they all have to have ‘measurable objectives.’ And what that [Montessori] teacher said she’d like to have as a goal is that all her children love reading. But that isn’t really measurable, so instead they have to have, ‘Can they comprehend what is said at the end of a paragraph?’”

The Orwell Factor: Naming a Prison

The September 16th New York Times (“All The News That’s Fit To Print”) reports on page 13 that prisoners in the infamous Abu Ghraib prison have been moved out of those buildings and into a new prison, which is called “Camp Liberty.” (I’m not making this up. There’s also a second prison called “Camp Redemption.” Really.) It’s an amazing article; if you have access, you should go read it for yourself, online, at www.nytimes.com. For the rest of you, here are a couple of quotations from the piece:

Paragraph 5: “Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, led an overnight tour [of the new prisons] for journalists to showcase the changes, saying that the transformation was tantamount to ‘restoring the honor of America.’”

Paragraph 7: “A new interrogation system established in April contains several layers of oversight and focuses on establishing a rapport between interrogators and prisoners, instead of employing coercive tactics. ‘You would be surprised at how far a can of orange soda would go,’ said Lt. Col. Mark Costello, who oversees interrogations at Abu Ghraib.”

The headline above the story was: “Abu Ghraib: Transforming a Prison, With U.S. Image in Mind.”

Say no more.

International Election Monitors In the U.S.

You may have missed the fact that, for the first time ever, international election observers have been formally invited by the United States State Department to monitor the November 2nd presidential election. Here’s what happened, which I’ll tell you since it wasn’t reported in the nation’s press, as far as I can tell.

Back in July, 8 Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives wrote to UN secretary general Kofi Annan, asking him to send monitors to observe the November 2nd elections in the U.S. He declined, saying that the invitation had to come from the executive branch. That is, from the Bush administration. They wouldn’t do it but, much to my surprise, the State Department did agree to invite experts from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to do the task. That’s better than nothing.

[There’s a little lesson here for progressive types, by the way. If you go on the internet with a search engine, and punch in “State Department” and “election monitors” you will get a couple thousand “hits” and the great majority will be from groups like “Covenant News” and Fox News and “Christian Activities Online.” These groups not only “report” on the issue, but see it as a part of a vast, left-wing conspiracy. You’ll see headlines like “Our Election and Sovereignty at Risk Again?” and “Left Again Shows it Wants U.S. Under UN Rule” and “President Bush Continues To Surrender U.S. Sovereignty To International Entities.” These voices of the so-called “Christian” right and other Individualist and Competitive forces far outnumber any voices from the “other side.” How come?]

Anyhow, the OSCE observers will be here for the election, and they’re not the only ones. The U.S.-based human rights group Global Exchange has also invited in a group of international election monitors, as part of its “Fair Elections” initiative. Again, you wouldn’t know it because it was never reported in the U.S. press, but a team of 20 independent democracy experts from 15 countries and five continents arrived here just last week to research how the election preparations are being conducted in five U.S. states. They will return to the U.S. in time for the actual polling on November 2.

I learned about this stuff mostly by reading the foreign press, but you can learn a bit more by visiting the website of Global Exchange’s Fair Elections project at: http://www.fairelection.us/.

The Congressional initiative was led by Texas Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson. Read her press release at http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx30_johnson/EBJUnitedNationsMonitorPrezElections.html.
In addition to Ms. Johnson, the members of Congress who signed this request were: Raul Grijalva, Arizona; Danny K. Davis, Illinois; Michael M. Honda, California; Corrine Brown, Florida; and Joseph Crowley, Carolyn B. Maloney, and Jerrold Nadler from New York.

In case you doubt that election monitors are needed in the United States, read this Reuters news story from earlier this week, “Millions Blocked from Voting in U.S. Election,” on the CommonDreams website at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0922-03.htm.

National Health Care: People Support It, Candidates Don’t

George W. Bush has a “plan” that would extend health care coverage to an additional 2.4 million people, and Kerry’s plan promises to insure 27 million more. Of course, there are currently 45 million people without insurance. In this light, wouldn’t it seem like major national news if a national survey came out showing that “2 Out of 3 Americans Now Favor Government-Guaranteed Health Care Coverage?”

Well, there actually was such a survey, and the results were released earlier this month. But, unless you happened to read the September 16th issue of New York Newsday – the only newspaper in the country that reported it, as best I can tell – you wouldn’t know about it. The survey of people in the United States was released by the Civil Society Institute (CSI), and I just have to quote extensively from it here and now. The CSI report said:

“Two out of three (67 percent) feel that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to adopt the approach of other major [sic] nations and ‘guarantee … citizens health insurance on the job, through government programs, or via a nonprofit source.’ Labels that might be given to such a guarantee have only limited impact on the level of support. Support is strong enough to withstand the label of ‘socialized medicine’ or ‘Canadian-style health care’ among 61 percent of those who feel it is a good idea. Call it ‘National Health Insurance’ and 77 percent say they will still support it. The 77 percent support level among those who think a ‘guarantee’ would be a good idea – even when it is called ‘national health insurance’ translates to a majority (52 percent) of all U.S. adults.

“Three out of four American adults (78 percent) agree that health care is a necessity like water, gas and electricity and should be ‘regulated by government to ensure fair prices, accountability, access for everyone and quality services.’ A strong 78 percent of all American adults – including 71 percent of conservatives – support requiring state permission before health insurance companies can raise premiums.

“Eight out of ten (83 percent, including three out four conservatives) say that the U.S. should follow the lead of other nations and negotiate buying prescription drugs on a bulk basis in order to help control the costs of these medications. Six in ten Americans (and a surprising 50 percent of conservatives) favor limiting the profits of pharmaceutical companies, while 55 percent (including 47 percent of conservatives) would support restricting pharmaceutical companies’ spending on marketing.

“Substantial numbers of conservatives would favor sweeping health care reform. For example: Three out five conservatives (61 percent) agree that health care should be regulated like utilities. Another case in point: Half of conservatives, 62 percent of moderates and 72 percent of liberals would support government controls on hospital costs.

“Eight in ten agree that all Americans should have access to the kinds of comprehensive health insurance available to most federal employees. Liberals overwhelmingly (92 percent) agree that all Americans should get such coverage. They are joined in this view by two-thirds of conservatives and 81 percent of moderates.”

In recent speeches George W. Bush has cited ‘too many frivolous and junk lawsuits’ as a root cause of spiraling health care costs, and he has said that the solution is ‘medical liability reform,” by which he means that the ability of patients to sue their doctors or HMOs for poor care should be limited. On that subject, the CSI survey has some interesting results. They say:

“Restricting the legal rights of patients in order to control health care costs is supported by few Americans. Three quarters of American adults (including 71 percent of conservatives) disagree with the idea that patients who get HMO or other medical coverage on the job in the private sector should ‘have fewer legal rights than people who get their health care benefits from a government job or through Medicare or Medicaid.’ An even higher 83 percent (with 76 percent of conservatives) believe that patients should have the right to sue their HMOs for damages if the health-care maintenance organization denies coverage for ‘medically necessary’ care ordered by a doctor.”

To look at this important survey for yourself, go to http://www.resultsforamerica.org/.

Social Security E-Mail Propaganda, 2004 Version

This is sort of a reprint, just to warn you. I published the first version three years ago, in Nygaard Notes #123, at a time when an email was going around having to do with Social Security. Since I have received at least a half-dozen copies of (essentially) this same email in the past month, and since Social Security is such a big issue in the current presidential campaign, I think it is time to update what I said those many months ago.

You may very well have received this email, or will before this campaign is over. The recent version begins with “IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT! KEEP IT GOING!!!! 2004 Election Issue!! GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC. This must be an issue in "2004". Please! Keep it going.” (These email people like exclamation marks!) The fact is that “all politicians” are already in the Social Security program, and everything else in this email is false, too. Listen up.

First, the email itself. What follows is two different versions – 2000 and 2004 – of this propaganda that started going around sometime during the last presidential election campaign (I think that’s when it started). It’s been circulating ever since, and seems to have acquired new life in the current presidential election campaign. It has been sent to me, in various versions, by quite a number of readers. It’s fun to see how the 2004 version has been “updated” with NEW incorrect information, and has gotten somewhat more, er, colorful in its prose, as well. Read it yourself, and then check out my response, which appears afterwards.

The Bogus E-Mail

2004 version:
“This is worth reading. It is short and to the point. Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.”

2000 version:
“This is worth the read. It's short and to the point! Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions in this election year. Our Senators/Congressmen do not pay into Social Security, and, therefore they do not collect from it. Social Security benefits were not suitable for them. They felt they should have a special plan. Many years ago they voted in their benefit plan. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.”

2004 version:
For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries. [Note from Nygaard: There is no “Congressman White,” which is the type of error that is common in these bogus mailings.] Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives. Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....”

2000 version:
“For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire no matter how long they have been in office, they continue to draw their same pay until they die, except it may be increased from time to time by the cost of living adjustments. For example, former Senator Bradley and his wife may be expected to draw $7,900,000.00 over an average life span, with Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000.00 during the last year of her life. Their cost for this excellent plan is “0,” nada, zilch.

2004 version:
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds; “OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK”! >From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, – every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) – we can expect to get an average of$1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!

2000 version:
“This little perk they voted in for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. Retirement plan funds come directly from the General Funds. Our tax dollars at work! Social Security, which you and I pay into every payday for our own retirement, with an equal amount matched by our employer, we can expect to get an average of $1,000.00 per month. Or, we would have to collect our benefits for 68 years and 1 month to equal the Bradley's benefits. Imagine for a moment that you could structure a retirement plan so desirable, a retirement plan that worked so well, that Railroad Employees, Postal Workers, and others who were not in the plan would clamor to be included.

2004 version:
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to: Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us. then sit back..... and watch how fast they would fix it. If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve. How many people can YOU send this to? Better yet..... How many people WILL you send this to?? Keep this going clear up thru the 2004 election!! We need to be heard.”

2000 version:
“This is how good Social Security could be, if only one small change was made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan out from under the Senators/Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us. Watch how fast they fix it!!! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed will be planted, and maybe good changes will evolve. How many people can YOU send this to?”

Reality Check from Nygaard:

There are 3 main points in this email:

1) Senators do not pay into Social Security;
2) They have a “special plan;” and
3) They pay nothing for this plan.

All of these claims are false. Here are the facts:

First of all, all members of Congress actually are required to participate in Social Security, and have been since January 1st, 1984. They pay the same percentage in Social Security payroll taxes as everyone else. Prior to 1984, members of Congress and other federal employees were covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).

As with many workers in the private sector, members of Congress now have the option of getting, in addition to Social Security, a pension. For members of Congress, pensions come from CSRS. Since 1986, there is also a second optional plan available to any federal employee, including members of Congress, called the Federal Employees' Retirement System, or FERS. Like other pension plans (including Social Security) these two programs are funded by taxes on both the worker and the employer.

As to the huge pensions members of Congress supposedly get for free, let me quote Patrick Purcell, Specialist in Social Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division, at the Congressional Research Service: “As of October 1, 1998, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 367 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $50,616. Forty-six Members had retired either with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $46,908 in 1998.”

To put these numbers in perspective, members of Congress earn salaries of $141,300 per year (as of the year 2000), so their annual pensions currently amount to 33 to 35 percent of the current salary. The average worker in the United States receives Social Security retirement benefits at a rate of 44 percent of their annual wage, and high-income workers (those who earn more than $48,751.70 per year, according to the Social Security Administration) receive SS benefits at a rate of 25 percent of their annual wages. So, members of Congress are doing better in terms of pensions than the average high-income retiree, but not as well as the average American worker receiving Social Security benefits, on a proportional basis.

This is propaganda in its purest form, in the sense that it is not about policy change (the change it calls for was made 20 years ago), and the original author, whoever that may be, knows it. The point of this email is to push an “anti-government” message, and also to further erode support for the most popular public program in the history of the United States. It’s probably successful on both counts, judging by the fact that it continues to circulate.

If you receive, or have received, an email like this one, you may want to ask the person who sent it to you where they got it. (If you find out, let Nygaard Notes know; I’d love to track this down.) And if you believed it when you got it, you may want to ask yourself where you got the ideas that must be in your head to cause you to believe something so obviously and totally false.