Madonna Gets the Raspberry for Support of Gypsies

I have a lot of respect for Madonna. Not because I like her music (not really), but because she is an amazing businessperson. When she first came to celebrity more than 25 years ago, girls started wearing their underwear on the outside of their street clothes. Women everywhere sighed with relief as heavy, dark eyebrows became acceptable. She made it fashionable to jog while pregnant and for women to marry men several years their junior. Now, I don't argue that the woman has talent, but I'm pretty sure that many others with as much or more talent than Madonna have never made the big time. She's a very smart woman, and she knows how to market herself.

Knowing all this about her only makes it all the more surprising that, during her "Sticky and Sweet" tour of Europe, she was recently booed by thousands at a concert in Bucharest merely for making a supportive statement about her fellow performers. Her comment, "It has been brought to my attention that there is a lot of discrimination against Romanies and Gypsies in general in Eastern Europe...It makes me feel very sad", was a statement of truth, reflecting her disappointment with such biases. It wasn't inflammatory, and she didn't add, "And all of you here are part of the problem, I'm sure!" She wasn't being accusatory. Yet thousands of her own fans jeered at her. Why?

Well, when I first read this article I immediately thought of Cher's "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves"; the fact that the word "gyp" comes from the name for the Roma; and that many still consider the word "gypsy" synonymous with the notion of a band of rootless troublemakers. These people have been enslaved, scapegoated, targeted by the Nazis and persecuted by almost everyone else. They've been in Southeastern Europe since the early 1300s and in Western Europe since the 15th century. Still, Europeans aren't used to them.

Roma, I've learned, are a tribal people, who guard their culture fiercely and consider all non-gypsies Gadje, or barbarians. Because of their (largely) itinerant lifestyle and their dispersion all over the globe, it is hard to know their exact numbers. You know, this description sound quite a bit like another group of historically oppressed people: Strong cultural identification, closeknit community, scapegoated for society's ills, enslaved for centuries and the victims of Nazi genocidal strategy. Hmmm. When will people learn? Kudos to you, Madonna.

Social "Insecurity": Disability Benefits Taking Months to Process

The Social Security Administration, suffering for many years from an inability to catch up with its workload of new filings for disability benefits, has announced that things are now worse than ever. Not only are the backlogged stacks of claim forms getting higher and higher due to the recession's pressure on workers, but the increase in new cases is surpassing even the Administration's predictions. As if that's not enough, many states are furloughing the very employees whose job it is to process these initial claims.

Reporter Sam Hananel from the Associated Press states that hundreds of thousands more people are waiting in vain for their disability claims to be processed. Officials explain that an aging work force that is more apt to suffer injury together with the recession has caused them to ratchet up their original estimate of 3 million new disability claim filings over the next year to 3.3 million. The number of persons waiting for claim processing has increased 30% over the past eight months. Michael Astrue, Social Security Commissioner, admits that the situation is not apt to improve; additionally, several states have forced workers who process these initial claims to take furloughs, even though these employees are on the federal, not state, payroll.

Can you see a few planning issues here? I can, and I don't even work for the government. Since the agency has had a backlog of cases for years AND they actually predicted an uptick in claims during the next several months, I can't figure out why they didn't increase the staff needed to process the claims. I understand that this would cost money, but, really--do they want to fail? Is that the plan? Could a few cocktail parties have been canceled, or work suspended on the anti-immigrant wall being built in Texas in order to make up the shortfall? I know that economic recovery is a top priority for the Obama administration, but forcing desperate people to go for several months with no income is not helping. Not just a few people, either--the numbers are over .75 million.

In closing, I also wonder: Is there any reason that the Commissioner can't send a letter to the states furloughing federally-subsidized employees telling them to cut it out? If furloughs aren't saving money plus they're adding to an existent problem, well then--I think it should be halted sooner rather than later. He is technically the boss, right? He might want to check out where the money is going that the agency sends to the states to cover these employees' paychecks. Probably into the cocktail party fund.

A Massachusetts Icon Passes On

Senator Edward Kennedy, or "Ted" as he was known, died last night of brain cancer, ending a nearly 50-year career representing Massachusetts in the U.S. Congress. Now, I don't normally get all misty-eyed at the passing of a politician, but I'll make an exception here. Well, OK, maybe I'm not actually misty-eyed. I will admit that Ted was one of my all-time favorite politicians, though.

First of all, you've got to admire somebody with that kind of staying power. Through rumors of alcoholism and carousing, a public and messy divorce and, of course the mother of all scandals, Chappaquiddick--nothing could keep this guy out of politics. Any one of the aforementioned issues would have ruined the career of a lesser man. But not Ted. Why not? I believe that he really loved working for the people, pure and simple. I also believe voters could recognize that about him.

I always voted for Ted. He very seldom (if ever) voted in a manner that I disagreed with. His family pushed his siblings and himself out into the public eye encouraging them to "give something back" and they have. Ted, luckily for him, was able to do it a lot longer than his brothers, and he became a dedicated spokesman for issues that affect working people, most pointedly, universal health care. Sick with cancer, he showed up in D.C. for a vote on Medicare; he stumped for Obama at the Dems' convention, specifically speaking to the candidate's health care reform plans. On his deathbed (as it turns out), he pleaded with the Massachusetts legislature to allow Gov. Deval Patrick the ability to fill his seat with an interim appointee so that our state will not be at a disadvantage in Washington.

Sure, the guy had faults, some pretty serious. But he didn't let his own failings keep him from what he believed his mission was: to serve the people. He really cared, something I feel is missing from most politicians' agendas. His successor will have big shoes to fill, and he'll be missed. Uh-oh, I'm getting misty-eyed.

Cash for Clunkers: Who Really Benefited?

Last week, my husband and I bought a new Honda Fit. We have wanted one since 2005, when we had to settle for a Honda Civic (an excellent car) since our 1990 Toyota Corolla was literally rotting out from under us. Since then, we've been looking for a used Fit, to no avail. This summer, we decided to bite the bullet and just sell our car and buy a new Fit. Then, along came Cash for Clunkers (technically, the Car Allowance Rebate System). Not only did we not get a deal on financing a new Fit, but the market fell out of the used car market because of this program, so we didn't get as much for our Civic as we had planned. So, the first answer to the title question is: Not us!

One group that benefited from CARS was those with "clunkers", defined by the program as those vehicles that get lousy gas mileage (to paraphrase). So, while we and others like us have been buying only four cylinder cars for the last twenty years in order to foster fuel efficiency, others who were not so energy conscious got a cash bonus this summer. How nice! Not only did they get to use more than their fair share of gasoline all these years-not for work purposes, mind you, but to ferry the kids around and go grocery shopping-but they also got REWARDED! Unlike my spouse and I, who were unable to take advantage of this program because our car got 40 MPG. What a couple of dummies-we should have bought a Chevy Tahoe four years ago (used, of course)!

The groups that truly made out like bandits, however, are the new car manufacturers and dealers. The industry posted a 2.4% gain in sales due to this program, while the rest of the economy stayed flat or declined. There does appear to be a problem actually getting the money to the dealerships, though, with many suspending the program until they get paid back by Uncle Sam. Well, at least they'll have to wait a bit for their free money.

What if that money had come directly to consumers? If the government had divided up that $3 billion among U.S. taxpayers over the age of 18 (let's estimate this number at 200 million), each of us would have received a check for $15,000. Not a fortune, but, hey-that's almost exactly the price of a 2009 Honda Fit! We sure could have used that money. Consumers rule 70% of the economy, so even if most didn't buy a car, the ecomomy would still have gotten a boost. Perhaps some would be able to catch up on their mortgage payments, thereby avoiding foreclosure, since the mortgage relief program isn't working out too well. Not as glitzy as a new car, but much more important to cash-strapped working families.

Ah, well, it's all over but the shouting, now. On the bright side, we got the car we wanted, and thousands of gas guzzlers will never drink at another gas pump. I also won't have to grouse as much when I see a huge SUV pass me on the highway, since there will be fewer of those around. Now, if they only take my advice for their next bailout idea...