Blue Mass Group

On Fox News this morning, during my daily ten minute audit to see where the right wingers are getting their crazy ideas, they ran a story about Republican legislators concerned that President Biden’s Covid Relief Plan has unemployment benefits that will “discourage people from looking for work”, specifically a $400 per week unemployment insurance supplement and an extension of programs expanding jobless benefits to millions more Americans through Aug. 29.

A common myth on the right is that giving people  “free money” in the form of welfare, or SNAP, or unemployment assistance creates a culture of dependency, and as former Republican Senator Ben Sasse wrote in his book “The  Vanishing American Adult”, fails to install a work ethic in young adults, and deprives them of the character building and self-confidence that hard work imparts.  Senator Sasse goes on to tell how he raised his daughter and wanted her to “learn how to suffer…because very simply neither our children nor yours will grow up to be free, independent, self-respecting adults if we hand them everything without the expectation of something in return.”

Did you get that?  People need to suffer and work hard for their money, or it deprives them of character and creates a culture of dependency if we give them “free money”.

I doubt I will run into anyone on BMG that will agree with the Fox News Desk and Senator Sasse but I have no doubt that some reading this story can relate to conversations in the past with right wingers (and some neoliberal Democrats) who take this stand.  If you do, here’s a neat little trap you can set for them:

Agree with them.  Tell them you too, feel that when wealth is simply handed over to an individual, it creates a culture of dependency and robs the individual of the dignity of work; that a little suffering and hard work never hurt anyone in the long run and leads to a better person.

Now that they have started to listen to you, because you agree with them, perhaps they will exchange an anecdote or two about a welfare cheat that they heard of or the woman with three children from different fathers….it’s okay, just smile and nod your head. The payoff pitch is in your hand.  It’s time to start the windup.

Ask them why so many Republicans in Congress fight to reduce or even eliminate the Estate Tax.  Are these legislators not aware that simply giving the children of millionaires and billionaires “free money” creates a culture of dependency and robs the child of the dignity of work; a little suffering and hard work never hurt anyone in the long run and leads to a better person?

Your Republican friend will probably talk about family farms at this point,  another myth about the Estate Tax, but you’re made your point and they know it.  In truth,  your Republican (and maybe your neoliberal friend) sees wealth as a sign of morality and poverty as a sign of immorality, so that is the real reason they view giving the poor “free money” as bad, but giving the rich “free money” as virtuous.

If you really want to have fun, bring up the Trump family, Don’s five children with three different women not to mention his numerous affairs with porn stars and the fact that aside from being a reality TV star and a brief stint at the White House that caused his party to lose the White House, House, and Senate, he’s never really worked.  Neither he nor his children never “suffered a little” or worked hard for their money and maybe why that’s why they never became better people?

Middlesex County, Massachusetts is huge. According to Wikipedia, it has a population of more than 1.6 million people, with 818 square miles of land area. As a governmental entity, Middlesex has been neutered, electing only a small core of officers (district attorney, sheriff, registrars of deeds and probate) to perform functions that are vestigial offices of county government.

Yet, our county retains its geographic identity alongside 3,143 counties and county-equivalents across the United States. Steve Kornacki, a native of Middlesex County, is fond of ignoring it while devoting fond attention to counties with 1% of the population of the county of his youth. The vast size of Middlesex has rendered it useless as a descriptor of much of anything. Extending from Ashby to Holliston, to North Reading, to Cambridge, there’s a whole lot of a whole lot of things happening that defies a meaningful summary.

Those little counties adored by Steve Kornacki are all centered around a county courthouse, and have become units of analysis on all kids of measures. Middlesex has a population greater than 12 states, including four New England states (ME, NH, VT, RI), and like a state it has a dozen district courthouses and corresponding judicial districts; seven of these districts have a population greater than the average US county (104,435).

Eastern Equine Encephalitis in Middlesex County? That’s not very specific. Eastern Equine Encephalitis in the Third Judicial District of Eastern Middlesex County? For the 172,000 residents of the district that includes Arlington, Belmont, and Cambridge, that’s a defining and meaningful geographic region.

The 12 “counties” of Middlesex.

If you combine the Boston municipal courts into one unit, there are 63 judicial districts in the Commonwealth. the population of the average Massachusetts judicial district (103,930) is slightly smaller than the national average for counties. These 63 districts, if we declared them to be the equivalent of counties, would make our data comparable to the rest of the nation.

This is really a simple fix, a quick and easy way to create more meaningful statistical entities that aligns to national definitions of existing for “administrative or statistical purposes.” Clearly, the judicial districts serve an administrative purpose, and would provide a more specific and granular unit for statistical purposes, so why not just designate them as counties?

If we call the judicial districts counties, what do we do with the existing counties? We find a new name for them, possibly regions. Where county commissions currently exist, they can become regional commissions. Sheriffs, district attorneys, registrars of probate and deeds could serve regions.

Changing counties to regions and judicial districts to counties is a semantic game. Though it would require more complex legal language to enact it, it requires nothing more than clerical accuracy by the folks combing through the law to identify instances in the text and make adjustments to the language therein. There may be some requirements to describe regions, formerly known as counties, when pointing toward the few constitutional provisions related to counties. Again, this is not a functional change, but it does revolve around items such as the drawing of legislative districts to correspond (as much as possible) within county borders.

That said, the real fun in this proposal would be to name the new counties. Counties could be named for famous folks or prominent geographic features attached to the county, with a preference for names not used for an existing county or municipality. For example, O’Neill county could be named for Tip O’Neill, and the county containing the city of Barnstable (and Hyannis Port) could be Kennedy County.

Here’s a map of the 63 “counties” and their population (2010 census). I think you will agree using these existing districts, served by their very own courthouse, make much more sense for statistical analysis and making decisions based on criteria (such as rates of COVID-19 infection per 100,000 residents).

This is an interactive map, available by following this link.

• 56% of Minimum Wage workers are women.
• Congress is presently at a standstill trying to push a $15 minimum wage.
• I’m a news junkie and can’t recall any advocates for women’s rights pushing for this legislation.
• I’ve been reading through the NOW website and see no mention of this in their issues, blogs, or news releases.
• Raising the minimum wage will be a significant step in narrowing the wage gap between women and men.

Why has NOW and similar organizations ignored this issue?  (or have they been actively working to pass it and I can’t find it?)

One wonders how much lower student debt would be if “nonprofit” schools limited the wages paid their staff and administration. I am not saying that the state should dictate what any private school pays, but there should be limits on salaries if one wants the tax free nonprofit status.