MARY MARGARET’S arrival in my office generated more cheers and applause than one of my triumphs on the floor of the Senate. She was assigned a desk in the rear of the room, as far as possible from the one vacated by Robbie, from whom nothing had been heard, according to Chris, except that she was looking for a job at the State Department.
I had to admit, though only to myself, that I felt less oppressed by the job than I had been in weeks. Maybe I did need to hear her laughter more often. Looking back on the campaign, I had hardly noticed it, but it had kept me going. Our eldest child had it all figured out.
My new staff member did not escape the eagle investigative eye of Leander Schlenk of the Examiner.
TOMMY CHARGED WITH NEPOTISM
Hired Wife as part of Presidential Fantasy
Little Tommy Moran is apparently showing presidential ambitions. He has hired his wife, Mary O’Malley—daughter of the soft-core pornographer—to work in his Senate office. Since no one thinks he has a chance in a rerun election next year with Senator Rodgers Crispjin, a presidential bid might be an easy way out of that race. Unfortunately for the Tom Cruise of the United States Senate, he has violated the Senate rule against nepotism. His double-dipping wife may have to quit her job at a prominent Washington law firm.
With Manny on one side and Chris on the other, Mary Margaret, in a clingy mauve dress which left no doubt about the
durability of her figure, responded with her own little press conference in the lobby of the Dirksen Office Building.
“Mr. Leander Schlenk would not make so many mistakes in his ‘Under the Dome’ column if he had time to check his facts. I am not double dipping. I have taken a temporary leave from the firm of Brown, Berger, Bobbet, and Butts to work in Senator Moran’s office. I am a volunteer, as this ID shows, and I will receive no salary. I am listed on the rolls that Senate security keeps as a volunteer. I am, alas, not even single dipping. Finally, the Senator has said repeatedly that he will not run for the presidency and that he has not made up his mind about reelection. Other than that, Mr. Schlenk hasn’t made any mistakes.”
REPORTER: What about his claim that your father is a soft-core pornographer?
MARY MARGARET: Ambassador O’Malley is quite capable of defending himself, but if I might quote one of his remarks on this subject, in the Pulitzer contest he leads Mr. Schlenk five—zip.
I had lunch with the Leader that same day. I was a bit uncertain about his reaction and fearful that he might object.
“Smart idea bringing herself into the office.”
“My staff’s idea. They didn’t even tell me about it till it was a done deal!”
“You might have put the kybosh on it. Nepotism and that kind of thing.”
“She’s a volunteer.”
“She’s just not your typical senatorial wife … I hope you give her charge of Lee Schlenk. Serve the little so-and-so right … But I did not invite you to lunch just to praise Mary Margaret. I’m thinking of making a little trouble when our friends get back from the election. We’ll pick up two or three seats, just a shade short of our majority … We might just bring up a couple of issues that could stir up the pot for the presidential election … Catch up on some of our issues, if you take my meaning.”
“Embarrass the other side for a change?”
“That bill of yours to repeal the tax benefits for those making
more than two million a year is languishing in committee, isn’t it?”
“We’ll never be able to pass it, will we?”
“We might come close. The President would veto it of course. We could make a great hue and cry that his whole administration has concentrated on giving more money to the rich … You’re right that it probably won’t get through this year or during the next session. But it will be fun to watch all the efforts of the other side to protect their fat cats … You aren’t earning more than that are you, with your royalties and her billable hours?”
“Not with her working as a volunteer, but even if she were we wouldn’t come close. Mind you I wouldn’t mind paying more taxes in the name of fiscal responsibility. I’d still have more money after taxes.”
“There’s a lot of people in this building who would be furious at paying more.”
“Your bill says that the money could be earmarked for education?”
“That would be up to the House to decide, but it’s one of the arguments.”
“We have an appropriations bill coming over from the House before the election. We’ll vote on it after the election but before the new session begins in January. By then it will be a big issue.”
“It’s good politics and good government,” I argued. “The Democrats balanced the budget then the Republicans created the biggest deficit in history. It’s time to return to a responsible budgetary policy. No reason to sell our children and grandchildren’s lives to the Chinese and the Saudis and the Venezuelans.”
“We could add an amendment for a small increase in the gasoline tax to promote further development of hybrid cars as a conservation measure? … Your man Peter Doherty is your tax specialist, isn’t he? … First rate … Have him get together with my guy and we’ll put it on the agenda the day after the election—with solemn high publicity.”
“Any support from the other side?”
“The fiscal conservatives over there might like it, but that would mean repudiating their president.”
“Co-sponsor?”
“George Hewitt from Montana, prairie populist. I’ll have his LA get involved in the drafting. He’s on the appropriations committee and will be sympathetic, but he isn’t the alley fighter you are.”
“We’ll get on it right away.”
“Mind you, it’s still secret. Tell your AA and LA—and herself of course and tell them to keep it quiet.”
“AA”—administrative assistant was the term some of the old timers used for “Chief of Staff.” It dated to the time thirty years ago when a Senator needed only one or two aides and not a crowd of them.
I had always told the good Mary Margaret what was going on—good lawyer that she is, she knows how to keep secrets, though silence violates her ebullient personality.
Did I really need her laughter as a response to my wit? Maryro thought it was self-evident. I hadn’t thought about it that way. No one laughed much in our house when I was growing up. My parents were quiet, serious people. My dad had a dry wit, I guess you’d call it, but the most he expected from one of his low-key jokes was an appreciative smile. My brother was a noisy, serious presence overshadowing me and my life. In school my teachers and classmates, on the contrary, laughed frequently at my attempts at humor, so I played the game often, earning a measure of popularity which I never found at home. The red-haired O’Malley girl laughed more loudly than the rest. Indeed she seemed to be laughing all the time, though she was the smartest kid in the class. The O’Malley’s, it was said, were a crazy family. I fell in love with her, of course, a silly junior high school crush. I was also terrified by her.
I’m not sure that primitive adolescent reaction to her has changed all that much.
When I attempted humor with Tony and his friends, it earned me ridicule.
“Shut up, Tommy,” he would tell me, “we don’t need your silly comments.”
If he didn’t need them, then none of his friends would dare laugh.
Had Mary Margaret saved me from my family, rescued me?
She saw only my smile and heard only my jokes. She could not imagine me as a repressed little boy and never paid attention to him when he tried to surface during our marriage.
Maybe that’s why I relaxed in my responsibility-heavy Senate office when I heard her laughter. It was, I concluded, medicine for me and for everyone else. No wonder they were delighted to have her around.
Was it her laughter which attracted God in our marriage bed? Did He find her laughter irresistible too? If so, God had good taste. Who was I to deny Him that characteristic?
I began to lay plans to seduce her in my hideaway. Exorcise my memory of the temptation by Robbie, poor lonely Robbie. Such plans were pure delight.
We picked up enough seats in the November election for a virtual tie, 49–51. It was not difficult to find a few people from the other side of the aisle who were really closet Democrats when we needed a majority. Better, the leader said, that we didn’t quite have control yet because that way the Republicans couldn’t blame us for the “politics” that went on in the chamber.
As though politics were something bad, a point to make in my book on democracy as a failure (though still the only way!).
On the Thursday morning after the election, Senator Hewitt, the Leader, and a dozen reelected Democrats and I met the media to announce the “The Distributive Justice Amendment”—also the Hewitt-Moran Amendment—to the appropriations bill.
“It is a statistically demonstrated fact that for the last thirty years,” I began, “that the poor in our society have grown poorer, the rich have grown richer, and the middle class has not improved its share in national wealth. The present administration has devoted its major efforts to make the rich richer, witness the President’s remark that his people were the haves and the have-mores. We proposed three items in our amendment that will be the first steps in modifying this situation. We will repeal the tax relief that was given to the rich in the last tax reform package. The tax rates for those who make more than a million dollars will return to what they were when the present administration came to power. The income level above which no taxes will be collected will increase by ten thousand dollars,
and we will add a dollar to gasoline tax which will also become an income tax credit. The last proposal will be to enforce conservation by other methods than urging people to drive less. The funds collected will be used to subsidize the purchase of such gas-saving vehicles as hybrid cars.
“These reforms will bring somewhat more equality to our country and to serve notice that the days of free yachts are over for the rich and the super rich.”
“Will rates for you and your wife go up this year, Senator?”
“I doubt they will this year. If my wife continues to work as a volunteer in my office, then our income will fall under the magic number. If my book royalties dry up, then we might start having tag days.”
“Will these reforms be part of your platform in the Presidential election two years from now?”
“I hope they will in the platform of the Democratic candidate next year, whoever it may be. However, I won’t be the candidate as I have said repeatedly. I also hope this amendment will serve notice on everyone in America that the inequality in our society is intolerable and that we Democrats intend to do something about it. It will also be a first step in restoring some sense of fiscal responsibility to the nation, so that our children and grandchildren will not be in hock to the Chinese and the Saudis and the Venezuelans for the next hundred years.”
“Do you think you have the votes for the amendments, Senator?”
“I refer that question to the Minority Leader.”
“After the Thursday election, yes.”
“Won’t these changes cause a decline of ambition in America?”
“Gimme a break. If I earn an extra million dollars on a book and have to pay a little bit more of it in taxes, I’m still a lot better off than if I didn’t earn it. There was a lot of ambition back in the nineties when the proposed rates applied.”
“The administration will say that increased taxes will hurt the economy.”
“I didn’t notice a lot of increase in the economy during the last eight years of give-aways to the super rich.”
“Aren’t you stirring up class war by turning the poor against
the rich, by creating resentment against those who have worked so hard for their success in this country? Isn’t this amendment somewhat Marxist in orientation?”
“Who are the poor? They’re the people who cut your lawns, who collect your garbage, who clean your homes, who sweep the sidewalks in front of your stores, who empty your bedpans and make your beds in the hospitals, who don’t own cars, who have to take public transportation to work, even in the worst weather, who have no life insurance, no health insurance, no pension plans, who often can’t get medical care in hospitals where they work, who can’t pay for the medicines to stay alive, who live in the homes that are the first to be swept away by storms, who can’t afford good education for their children. They are the people who are all around us, but we don’t see them. They are not about to throw up barricades in the streets or come after us with baseball bats. They are not revolutionaries. They are more likely to feel beaten down into the ground than resentful. All we’re asking is to give them a bit of a break, a better chance for their children than they themselves had. This is Marx, only to someone who hasn’t read him!”
The last couple of sentences made one network and CNN. As usual we put it on our Web page and sent DVDs out to our mailing lists.
“We could assemble a collection of these comments,” Mary Margaret suggested, “and send them to Chucky. They’d make great ad copy for the next campaign.”
“If there is a next campaign … Doesn’t he get the newsletter?”
“Sure, but, if you don’t object, Manny and I can cut them down a little and put them all on one disk.”
“Fine,” I said without too much enthusiasm.
They were all taking away from me the right to make my own decision about running again. Now that my wife was around the office most of the day, I had actually begun to enjoy being a United States Senator. I must be suspicious of that reaction.
“You and Mommy are really happy these days, aren’t you, Daddy?” Maran, our wide-eyed little witch said to me one day while we were walking home from weekday Mass.
“You smell good things too, sweetheart?”
“Uhuh.”
“What does happiness smell like?”
“Like flowers.”
I wasn’t sure that I liked my marital relationship being monitored by a good sniffer.
After our first highly rewarding tryst in my hideaway—I was intolerably proud of myself that afternoon—I had an idea for the Distributive Justice Amendment. Only the brave deserve the fair, right?
I walked over to the Leader’s office to see what he thought. He listened to me carefully, nodding his head as I talked.
“We’ll have trouble with the teachers’ union,” he said.
“And the ACLU and the AJC and the editorial board of the New York Times. But where else do they have to go?”
“No place. They’ll all have to support you for reelection, regardless … Should you run of course … In Illinois they certainly don’t want Crispjin back … It might win some Catholic votes and some Black votes too … Yeah, why not … I’ll clear it with Hewitt. I’m sure he’ll enjoy it too.”
The idea was to use some of the funds from our tax increases on the wealthy to provide a five-thousand-dollar tax grant to poor people so they could choose an alternative to public schools. The alternative school would have to be certified by some educational certification institution. No mention was made of religious schools one way or another. The Administration supported such ideas but never had to worry about implementing them because the Democrats would be afraid of the teachers’ unions. But in the fluid times between the last election and the next one, we might just sneak it by. Many Democrats felt just as I did. If the Catholic schools in the poor neighborhoods were providing better education, they deserved help in staying open.
“Is this a payoff to the Catholic bishops so they won’t deny you the Sacrament?” a very angry woman reporter demanded at a press conference.
“Only one bishop has denied me Holy Communion. If anything it is a payoff for the poor people who desperately want a little more choice. That seems to me to be a very liberal idea. The rich can make choices about the education of their children, why can’t the poor be given choices too?”
“Doesn’t your proposal violate the wall of separation between Church and State?”
“I don’t think you can base laws on metaphors. But there’s no mention of churches or religion in the proposed amendment.”
“But in fact, only Catholic schools provide alternatives for most poor people?”
“Is that wrong? Do you want to punish the schools for trying to educate the very poor? Moreover with this law on the books, other groups, religious and secular, will undoubtedly form their own schools.”
“Is it fair to demand that public schools compete?”
“Ours is supposed to be a capitalist society. Why shouldn’t the public schools compete?”
So it went. All the ideological forces weighed in against us. I dismissed them. “There are enough votes in both houses of Congress to approve this amendment. Let the courts decide whether it’s constitutional or not.”
“I want to note,” I said in one of my remarks from the floor, “that every Republican administration since that of Richard Nixon has promised help to Catholic schools. Now it is Democratic senators that are supporting a measure to which the present incumbent has already paid lip service.”
The New York Times editorial harrumphed that I was merely courting the Illinois Catholic ethnic vote.
I took the opportunity to reply. Or rather to direct my assistant in charge of media relations to reply.
To the Editors:
It is interesting that your editorial writers see a Catholic ethnic plot behind the amendment to the appropriations bill proposed by Senators Hewit and Moran. Most Catholic ethnics with European backgrounds earn much more money than the limit for tuition grants. Hispanic Catholics have shown so far little inclination to seek alternative educational opportunities for their children. The group of poor people most likely to benefit from the Distributive Justice Amendment will be African-American. Should Senator Moran decide to seek reelection, he doesn’t need this amendment to gain their support. He is surprised, however, that so many who are
eager to help the poor are opposed to the first major attempt to aid them in the last ten years.
Cordially
Mary Margaret O’Malley
Assistant to Senator Thomas P. Moran
The White House applauded this part of the amendment but condemned the “typical liberal trickery to increase taxes.”
Their era was winding down and they knew it. Vouchers for private schools were something to add to the legacy.
All four amendments to the appropriations bill passed at a session which ended at two A.M. three days before Christmas. The house, weary from the long wait, passed the bill by voice vote the next day, though some of their old-fashioned members protested that we had taken away their power to initiate tax reform.
The president signed the bill on Christmas Eve. Senator Hewitt was invited to the signing. I had flown home with my family that morning. They didn’t invite me because, as they told the media, I had turned down a previous invitation. We nonetheless had a Christmas party at my house, a modest and quiet one, despite the presence of the O’Malley redheads. However, we did toast to “The Beginning of a New Democratic Era.”
“If you decide to go for it,” the Leader told me, “you’re a shoe-in.”
“Which ‘it’?” Mary Rose asked with mischievous eyes.
“Either ‘it.’”