Dear Editor,

The average voter in the United States has become fed up with Congress because lately it has accomplished little or nothing in the way of legislation during a time of economic crisis and lack of jobs. Polls show the approval rating of Congress to be the lowest it has ever been, now less than 10 per cent.

The Senate, for example, is set up with an archaic rule, the filibuster rule, which requires 60 votes out of a total of 100 votes to even take up a bill or an appointment, rather than the simple majority of 51 votes. The Republicans in the Senate have used the filibuster some 80 times in the past four years to stifle almost all of what President Obama has submitted. The right wing has been doing this for no other reason than wanting to prevent Obama from having any perceived success, even on proposed legislation which they themselves had presented in the past.

To understand what is happening, we need to look at the makeup of the Senate and how it was created. When the Founding Fathers were seeking to draft the governing structure in Philadelphia, in order to secure the support of officials from the smaller states, they proposed the Senate which would have two senators from each state, regardless of the size of the state in terms of population.

This supposedly would be offset by a House of Representatives which would have members elected according to the number of citizens in the states. A census is held every 10 years to determine the population of each state, and the number of representatives in the House is adjusted upward or downward, depending on what the existing population figures reflect. Massachusetts lost one representative recently because its population, in comparison to the other states, went down.

Because of the makeup of the Senate, however, Wyoming for example, which had a population of 550,000 in 2009, has the same number of senators as New York or California which had 19.3 million and 36.9 million, respectively in 2009. (Wyoming is so small that it has only one member in the House of Representatives.) Moreover, those small states like Wyoming, which are primarily rural in nature, usually elect Republicans to the Senate (both Wyoming senators are GOP right wingers).

Since Blacks and Hispanics, who tend to vote for Democratic candidates, live in large cities such as Los Angeles and New York City, their votes for senatorial candidates represent a tiny fraction of the value of the typical white voter in Wyoming. Thus, in terms of popular votes for all senators on the national level, Democratic senators, mostly from larger-populated states, have many times the total popular votes than do Republicans, but still only two senators from each of those states.

But to compound this situation, the Senate has had the disgraceful filibuster rule by which any bill must have at least 60 votes, out of the total of 100 senators, to be allowed a vote on the merits of the bill, which would require only 51 votes for passage. Thus 41 senators can prevent a bill from even being advanced for consideration.

Since Obama became President, the Republicans as noted above have used the filibuster rule repeatedly to prevent legislation he proposed from going forward. In the past, the filibuster was used only in exceptional situations. In the 1960’s, the rule was used only eight per cent of the time, whereas in the past few years it has been employed 70 per cent of the time.

Obama and Democrats in Congress have proposed increases in taxes on the wealthy, but the GOP absolutely refused to consider any such increase, even to the level the wealthy paid before the Bush tax reduction in 2001. Note that in 2007, the top 25 hedge fund managers made an average of $900 million, but paid only 15 per cent in taxes. From 2002 to 2007, high-income Americans averaged increases in income of 10 per cent each of those six years, ending with average income of $1.34 million in 2007. Yet the taxes they have paid are lower. (Romney paid only 14 per cent on the millions he made.) The members of the middle class, on the other hand, averaged $52,000 in 2007, but only $50,000 in 2008.

On the bill to increase jobs Obama submitted last year, which included a five per cent surcharge on the wealthy to fund the programme, Mitch McConnell, the GOP’s dogged minority leader, was able to herd together even mildly moderate Republicans to join him in lockstep to filibuster the bill, preferring to help reduce the deficit not through any increase in revenue, but rather by limiting the benefits of Social Security and Medicare for the elderly and programmes for the poor. McConnell reportedly told his colleagues in caucus that they could “either hang together or hang separately,” a rather obvious threat.

   Those Republicans who will be up for re-election in 2014 probably believe that their support of filibuster on the jobs bill, for example, will not be recognised for what it was, namely, a vote against helping the jobless. They could, and surely will, piously claim that they did not vote against the creation of jobs, which of course, is a total distortion of how they defeated that particular bill.

No, the Founding Fathers did not always use wisdom and foresight in setting up our government as reflected by how the Senate operates. Actually, their original plan for the Senate was even worse. The plan, as first adopted, provided that members of the Senate would be elected by the legislatures of the individual states and this was how senators were first elected.

   It soon became apparent, however, that successful applicants for the Senate were wealthy individuals and that financial contributions (bribes) were often made to influential state officials to secure appointments. The law was finally changed in 1913 by way of the Seventeenth Amendment so that the position depended, as it does now, upon winning the popular vote.

The purpose of this article was to identify some of the reasons nothing gets done in the Congress, particularly the “do-nothing” Senate. A Republican Senator from a small, rural state with a vote in the Senate equal to another senator from a state with 40 or 70 times more voters can totally offset the vote of that Senator on any bill. Many Republicans are elected in rural states with smaller populations. Thus, in proportion to the total votes which Democratic candidates receive nationally to be elected Republicans senators, as a group, receive significantly fewer votes.

   But, that presumes a vote on the merits which does not happen because, as we have seen, the right wing uses the filibuster to prevent this. So, not only are Republicans able to control the Senate in this fashion with only 45 seats, but they can do so even though they have, compared to Democrats, far fewer total votes supporting them as a group on the national level. Ah, the wonders of a Democracy.

Stephen A. Hopkins

Dear Editor,

Again Country St. Maarten is in a state of another impasse of not been able to approve the balance budget with a surplus.

The balance budget includes the paying off of the huge debts of about over one hundred and fifty million guilders to SZV and APS, accrued by the former governments who never saw it fit to turn over the collected premiums from civil servants and workers in the private sectors to the rightful institutions.

Contrary, they saddled the budgets with all sorts of pork and perks to realise their pet projects, conveniently ignoring paying off the accrued debts to the various institutions and creditors.

This balance budget with a surplus also allows the completion of the Administration Building on Pond Island, rather than let it stand idle there as some piece of art work in a museum collecting cobweb, mildew and what have you.

We must commend the Minister of Finance and his team for being able to come up, in record time, with this budget with a surplus knowingly that this certainly was and is a painstaking effort and exercise on his part to have accomplished this awesome task.

The public perception on the government’s performance is viewed in a very positive light where it concerns transparency and accountability and delivering on their promises made to the people.

This is a far cry from the past, usual trademark of shrouded secrecy and back-door dealing for self-enrichment benefits.

Instead of the opposition members in Parliament offering their valuable contribution in supporting this budget with a surplus, they choose first to boycott the budget meeting placing Country St. Maarten in this unfortunate situation or impasse of not approving the budget in the interest of the people of Country St. Maarten.

As a way forward the leader of the UPP offers his proposal to government in order to break the unfortunate impasse or deadlock in Parliament but on his terms, time and trend.

History has revealed, and reminded us all that it is safe to say, in order to have a stable government that works for all the people in Country St. Maarten, is a government without Theo Heyliger.

One cannot feel comfortable when one lets the fox into the hen house because the fox simply says that he is fasting.

Theo’s trash theory:

a) Governing and opposition parties must rid themselves of their supportive independent members in Parliament, thus throwing Leona Romeo Marlin, Connie de Weever, Maurice Lake and Silvio Matser under the bus.

b) UPP = Theo Heyliger, gets the portfolios of the money-making government institutions Harbour, Airport, GEBE N.V. and Public Works Dept., while caring less about portfolios such as education, labour and social affairs.

c) He will then postpone his once-upon-a-time, urgently-needed-and-requested election, which will now take place in 2018. So, suddenly there is no more need for an early election because Theo Heyliger would be sitting then in government.

Lloyd’s gentle gesture – Dr. Lloyd Richardson is championing a national government with all Parliamentarians being part of the government.

Contrary to the broad-base government Theo Heyliger is proposing excluding all independent Parliamentarians who are actually non-UPP aligned members, and whom he wants to throw under the bus.

Conclusion – what is then really in the making UPP…a forging of a formidable or a false formation?

Edwin James

Dear Editor,
The jury is out and the population is left in constant suspense. The question is: How long will these adjudicators keep us in this state of emergency, and what would it take for them to listen to the voice of logic and apply it appropriately?
The dilemma in Parliament just cannot persist anymore! Unconsciously, this deadlock continues to reveal the inability of our elected officials, to analyse and evaluate important documents; which indeed is a complete exposure of their level of intellect and work habits behind closed doors. This situation has also given us reasons to conclude that the craving for self-recognition has overridden every moral and political principle. Now it is clear why and who are the culprits in obstructing the progress in the House of Parliament.
This “Super Seven” is so accustomed of doing as they please. Now that they are handcuffed, they are trying everything possible to free themselves. They continue to put the Finance Minister in a grinder, due to their lack of understanding that the island cannot accumulate anymore debts. Government must be in control of its finances, which is one of the vital pillars that keep a country stable. What is so difficult for these so-called “intellectuals,” to understand? Since this “Super Seven” is refusing to support the budget that includes their salary, then why depend on the discarded document to compensate them at the end of each month?
In retrospect, the former prime minister indicated that whenever he travelled abroad, he was confronted with the question, “When will St. Maarten get it right?” At the time of this inquiry, the “Super Seven” was part of the ruling government and they just couldn’t get it right. The past minister blamed everybody else except his own colleagues. Now that the same group is in opposition and causing more havoc to the country, I’m wondering what his thoughts are, and where would he cast the fault for continued destruction of the country?
As mentioned, this long deliberation is causing much tension. However, when a politician understands his or her role and how it is connected to the development of nation building, he or she will always make decisions that are in the best interest of the country.

Joslyn Morton

Dear Editor,

Walmart has been prominently in the news lately but not in a good light. It is probably the largest employer in the world with 2.2 million employees and profits of US $316 billion on revenues of US $425 billion last year, two-thirds of which was in the United States. In 2012 there were nearly 3,900 stores and 1.29 million employees in the U.S.

The thrust of the news stories about Walmart is not about its huge financial successes, but rather the fact that many of their employees on average are paid less than the Federal minimum wage (US $7.25 per hour) with a medium wage of US $8.25 per hour. Most of the employees earn less than what is considered to be poverty level income.  

Some Walmart employees sought to unionise so as to obtain improved wages and they set up rallies as part of their efforts. Walmart, however, retaliated by firing those it perceived were the leaders of this campaign. This had the effect, as Walmart expected, of causing most employees to become fearful of losing their jobs, upon which they depended to support their families, and interest in unionising slackened. But the National Labour Relations Board then filed a complaint against Walmart for violating a rule that companies cannot discipline employees for seeking union support, and employees became more willing to demonstrate for better wages while seeking union support.

The recent news reports involve coverage of these demonstrations and rallies by Walmart employees, along with employees from fast food companies who work under similar conditions. People are now beginning to recognise just how these employees are suffering in working for poverty level wages from companies making vast profits.

Let us look at some of those fast food companies. The largest, by far, is McDonalds which has 34,000 restaurants in 119 countries worldwide, most of course in the United States. In 2012, it racked up US $5.5 billion in profits on US $27.5 billion in revenue. The wages for its employees, similar to Walmart, are barely the Federal minimum (US $7.25), namely what is considered to be poverty level income. Indeed, a study conducted in New York City in April 2013 showed that 84 per cent of McDonald employees were actually paid below the minimum wage.

Although these workers work hard and diligently, they still have to rely on public assistance, such as food stamps, to survive because of the low wages the companies pay them. In the period 2007 to 2011, McDonald employees received on average US $1.4 billion in public assistance each year, a total of US $7 billion for the five year period. Tax payers of the United States are in effect subsidising McDonalds for its failure to provide its employees with living wages.

Subsidising figures are not available for Walmart, undoubtedly because this is not information they would want the public to see, but you can bet that the public assistance figures for Walmart, which has far more employees in the United States than McDonalds, is significantly higher than McDonalds’ average annual figure of US $1.4 billion.

Beyond McDonalds, there are other successful fast-food companies which also pay their employees such similarly low wages that those employees also must rely upon public assistance. Burger King employees recently received US $118 million in assistance and Dunkin Donut’s employees US $108 million. Yum Brand Inc., the parent company of Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut has 39,000 restaurants in 120 countries with revenue in 2011 of US $3.8 billion and profits of US $589 million. Its employees in the United States in one recent year received US $1.6 billion in public assistance.

President Obama several years ago, hoping to rejuvenate the economy and help the downtrodden, proposed to Congress that the minimum wage of US $7.25, which had not been increased for many years, be increased to US $10.10 per hour. Naturally, Walmart and the fast food companies strongly opposed this proposal, making the absurd argument that although they consistently enjoy profits in the in the billions, if this small increase was put into operation, they would face insolvency.

The right wing Republicans who control the House of Representatives and always bow to the wishes of their corporate benefactors, opposed this minor increase, and John Boehner, then House Speaker, refused even to bring the bill to a vote as he is doing relative to other bills Obama has submitted.

So here we have a situation in which tax payers are paying subsidies by way of public assistance to hard working Americans to survive because the companies they work for, while making billions in profits, do absolutely nothing to improve the conditions of the workers who help them in attaining those profits. These companies have obligations to provide their workers with living wages, thus assisting them to avoid the need for Government benefits which the tax payers are funding. These corporations should be ashamed that they are ignoring these obligations in their greedy pursuit of even greater profits.

From 2002 to 2007 the income of the wealthy increased on average 10 per cent per year, ending with an average income of US $1.34 million while paying even less in taxes. They have made even more in the years since 2007. The income of the middle and lower classes went down in the same period. Some wealthy persons are genuinely concerned about the struggles of the less fortunate, but most could care less and are more interested in buying a new private jet or another mansion.

In the meantime, the Republicans pursued their agenda of obstructing Obama at every turn, even to the detriment of the ordinary tax payer who is providing subsidies for the rich companies. And they continue to protect the wealthy by opposing any additional tax on this pampered controlling group even though those taxes are the lowest they have ever been.

Stephen A. Hopkins