Money, money, money. That's all that Washington has been yappingabout for the last three weeks. And I don't mean the impassionedarguments over campaign finance spending, the budget and PresidentBush's tax proposals. I mean the talk about the Bush appointees'financial disclosure statements.
The numbers are staggering. Given their size, it does sound likethe debate over taxes and the budget.
On the good news side, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has mademoney while holding on to his Alcoa stock for a few months after theelection. It was valued at $100 million at the end of 2000, but itwas worth nearly $40 million more a week after O'Neill announced (ontelevision!) that he was going to sell his stock after all, in orderto avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.
In other words, during the first two months of his labors astreasury secretary, O'Neill has been making more than $250,000 a dayof what used to be called "unearned income," but which Republicansnow prefer to think of as the product of blood, sweat and tears.
For other members of the Bush Cabinet, the news has not been sorosy. Not only has Colin Powell been forced to sacrifice hisenormously lucrative lecture fees for, at times, a mere 20-minutecollege address, but his stock portfolio, rich in high-tech stocks,also has plummeted in the current bear market.
Why Powell, the first high-level pick of Bush, didn't sell off hisstock holdings in December, when he knew he had the secretary ofstate job, is his business, but Powell took it all with him into thenew administration and lost a bundle. What was once valued at $18million to $65 million was worth between $8 million and $24 millionin January.
Other Cabinet members are in the same boat-though their boats arealmost as costly as the Titanic. OMB director Mitchell Daniels andCommerce Secretary Donald Evans are reported to be selling off stocksin the six-digit range.
Now, it is pretty clear why there is so much heated rhetoric andfast action by the Bush administration to lower those high tax ratesthe top 1 percent has to pay. And that oppressive "death" taxcertainly has to go, if not now, later, about the time Bush'sadministration begins to die off.
Close to 100 percent of Bush's Cabinet is in the top 1 percent ofwealth holders. There are a few exceptions, but even those are in thetop 3 percent of wealth.
Bush is looking out after his own, those willing to make temporarysacrifices to serve in government. And the new president continues toget good marks from the press for his self-deprecating charm, whichwas on display in his recent remarks to the annual Radio & TelevisionCorrespondents' dinner, an audience full of 1- and 3-percenters.
The president made fun of all his "Bushisms," his language-twisting pratfalls. He actually quoted from a published compilationof them. He was terrific-though no one handing out praise paused towonder for a moment if George W. actually had written the speech hejust gave.
But at the other end of the financial curve, the good news (orbad, depending on your point of view) is that welfare caseloads haveleveled off after a sharp six-year decline. The consensus is thatpeople who can work have found work.
Only the truly unemployable are left behind. The welfare rolls arefewer than 5.8 million, but the "working poor" is the fastest-growing group in poverty.
Given Washington's overweening concern for the big-money people-either those employed by the government, or those giving money tocandidates-Congress might now give some thought to raising theminimum wage, since everyone, it appears, who can work does, even forwhatever bottom-feeding low wage is offered. Isn't such a work ethic,arguably as strong for them as for Secretary O'Neill, worth another50 cents an hour?
E-mail: worourke@nd.edu
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий