Gamblin’ Man
President Bush exchanged gifts with his family at Camp David yesterday, posed for photographs with Marines, and issued a Christmas day radio address urging Americans to care for the sick, the elderly and the poor. …
“Many of our fellow Americans still suffer from the effects of illness or poverty, others fight cruel addictions, or cope with division in their families, or grieve the loss of a loved one,” he said in his weekly radio address.
“Christmastime reminds each of us that we have a duty to our fellow citizens, that we are called to love our neighbor just as we would like to be loved ourselves,” he added. “By volunteering our time and talents where they are needed most, we help heal the sick, comfort those who suffer, and bring hope to those who despair, one heart and one soul at a time.” [Washington Post]
Compare/Contrast:
A more stark example of skewed priorities would be hard to find: the Bush administration has admitted that budget pressures are forcing cuts in overseas food aid programs for the poor. Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent of Americans — those earning more than $337,000 a year — are reaping tens of billions of dollars in tax cuts.
On Wednesday The New York Times reported that the United States is curtailing all but emergency food aid and cannot honor funding commitments it had already made to non-governmental charities. Those affected include Save the Children and Catholic Relief Services, which run programs in farming self-sufficiency from Indonesia to Nicaragua.
The cuts already taken appear to be in the $100 million range — a huge amount to people in underdeveloped countries, where many earn less than $1 a day, but dwarfed by America’s budget deficit, which was $412 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept 30. [Boston Globe]
The Boston Globe editorial linked above presents some brain-numbing numbers — for example, “Bush tax cuts equal 57 percent of all new spending since the administration took office in 2001, including spending on Iraq.” Most of the reductions have accrued to the wealthy. And I could follow up with links to no end of articles on how wages are going down and the cost of health care is going up; on the increasing numbers of Americans without health insurance; on the destruction of Social Security; on the tax burden Bush is dumping on young people; etc. Bush has vowed to halve his whopping budget deficit in five years, but will not raise taxes to do so. Nor will he ask for even modest sacrifices from the wealthy. But the burden will fall hard on the rest of us, and hardest of all on the poor and sick and destitute.
There’s an old joke that God must love poor people, because he made so many of them. In that context, it can be truly said that George W. Bush is doing God’s work.
As you probably know, Bush’s “tax cuts uber alles” doctrine is championed by Grover Norquist and other “movement conservatives” who view government as the problem, not the solution. Starve the government beast, and you starve the despised programs that provide a safety net for the needy. In the Norquist world view, such “welfare” programs transfer wealth from the productive to the nonproductive. The nonproductive — the poor — are a useless impediment to prosperity. And government itself, with its taxes and regulations, is the biggest burden of all.
If government is so terrible, why even have one? There are places in the world with little government and no taxes. You’d think Big Business would flock to those places. But where there is no government, there is also no infrastructure, law enforcement, reliable sources of food and water, and other little amenities that make doing business possible.
So, I ask again, why is there government? The Bushies seem to think that government exists to protect the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful. When Bush cronies — Big Pharma, Big Oil, cattle barons, whatever — want something from government, they get it next day, special delivery. Just a couple of recent examples —
In response to demands from the timber and mining industries, the Bushies have made massive changes in the way national forests and other public lands are managed. Says today’s Los Angeles Times, “The price tag may include loss of endangered species and habitat, irreparable damage to wild land owned by all Americans and the silencing of public comments on logging and mining in remote areas, all in the name of ‘efficiency.’” Also in the LA Times – this editorial discusses the “corrupting links between the drug industry and the Bush administration,” and this one tells us how Big Pharma, with the Bushies’ help, is ripping off American consumers.
As I said, these are just two recent examples. They are not the exceptions, but the rule. Time and time again, even in matters involving safety and national security, Bush favors the interests of the powerful few. The rest of us get lectures about self-reliance.
Is this the purpose of government? Of our government? Consider —
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This seems to say that our government was established to benefit We, the People. Fundamentally, a democratic republic is a means by which We, the People enact policies to provide ourselves with economic and social stability. Having economic and social stability means that we can earn a living, save money, be secure in our homes, enjoy the benefits of infrastructure (bridges, electricity, postal services, etc.) , etc. etc.
We Americans are so used to stability that we think it’s a given, like air. But in fact, the stability we enjoy was created by the hard work of our ancestors and the (mostly wise) policies and programs they established by means of government.
Most of the domestic policies and programs the righties oppose –from workplace safety regulations, food and drug regulations, anti-trust laws, Social Security and Medicare, public schools, etc. — were created not out of some sense of “do-goodism” but in response to situations that were causing instability. For example, school lunch programs were established because, during World War II, many young men failed their Army physicals because of malnutrition. A well-nourished population benefits all of us. About a century ago, the federal government began to enact safety regulations for medicines and food because people were being poisoned by food and drugs that were not safe. Antitrust laws and trade regulations maintain healthy competition in the marketplace as well as provide consumer protection.
It benefits all of us to live in a literate and vaccinated society, to be able to buy food and medications that are (nearly always) safe to consume, that savings accounts are insured, and that the value of our money is reasonabily constant, just for a few examples.
The Bush Administration is all about taking risk. It’s about creating a riskier, less stabilized society on the chance that at least some of us will strike it rich. What happens to those who don’t … well, we don’t want to think about that.
A few years ago, I managed production of a middle-school social studies textbook that focused on Canada and Latin America. During the months the book and ancillaries were in production, political upheavals required perpetual revisions. I remember yelling at a map of South America, “will you people settle down until we’re at the printer?” But in the course of working on this book I came to realize that much of the poverty of Latin America was the result of instability. Many South American countries — Brazil comes to mind — have enormous natural resources and should be able to sustain their populations in reasonable prosperity. Instead, the coups d’etat, monetary crises, and unregulated exploitation of resources and labor have created societies in which the few are wealthy and powerful and corrupt, and the many are desperately poor and unable to help themselves.
If you want to know where the Bushies are leading us, read this article by Condi’s smarter cousin, Constance Rice:
In Brazil’s favelas, murder is the leading cause of death for 10-year-olds. In these urban hyper-barrios, police patrol in helicopter gunships. Any delusion of crime prevention gave way to containment and suppression long ago. At night, black children hide from both rogue cops and gang members; the rich venture from their fortress homes nearby only in armored vehicles or private planes. In the midst of Rio de Janeiro’s splendor, favelas are at a tipping point €” on the way to joining Mogadishu as wholly failed “feral” cities, engulfed by gangs, black markets, rapacious crime and dysfunction.
It’s a fine thing to volunteer to help the sick and poor, but I’d rather live in a country where everyone has access to health care and the poor can find jobs that pay a living wage. And if it’s true that we have a duty to our fellow citizens, I don’t understand why government can’t be a means to fulfill that duty.
December 27th, 2004 at 10:42 am
You want to take money from people making more than $ 337,000 and give it to people overseas ? Hmmm.. Liberals are sure generous with opm. Remember, you’re always welcome to give more out of your own pocket… if you want.
December 27th, 2004 at 10:49 am
It’s about stability. Global stability is a good thing. Global instability is a bad thing. Extreme want creates instability.
Note to self: Investigate connection between rightie politics and brain dysfunction, as they don’t seem to be able to connect effects and consequences.
December 27th, 2004 at 11:24 am
…something called enlightened self interest, which is something Henry Ford understood but all other conservatives cannot. They cannot even understand generosity as practiced by CHristians. Nor do they understand that most rich people are rich not because it is THEIR money, but because a) they inherited it (95% of all rich people) or b) they finagled money out of everyone else either legally or illegally and got riches through no real effort of their own (and then gave it to their heirs).
December 27th, 2004 at 11:43 am
A Few Recommendations
Maha reflects on what type of society our forefathers wanted and why we should too. Melanie has brought to our attention a couple articles that are necessary reads. Our prisons have become the equivalent of the military-industrial society and are…
December 27th, 2004 at 12:19 pm
#3, it doesn’t matter how people got their money; as long as it was legally, it’s theirs. They have a moral claim to it; you don’t. You seem to equate all wealth with sloth and illegality; that kind of Bolshevik thinking is a bit passee.
Now, as far as providing assistance… does Bush’s forgiveness of $ 4.5 billion of debt to Iraq count ? Add that into your total.
#2. Calling your opponents stupid is childish and doesn’t win arguments in debates.
December 27th, 2004 at 1:01 pm
it doesn€™t matter how people got their money; as long as it was legally, it€™s theirs. They have a moral claim to it; you don€™t.
I see. So if you acquire it by owning slaves, or by trading with Nazis (on the latter, see the Bushes), then you have complete rights to it, morally. And if you were a Japanese American who lost theirs due to internment, other citizens owe them nothing.
The greatest weakness in your claim, Slo Mo, is that the capacity to make and keep wealth has never been equal. The powerful gain most of the services the government provides, while decrying any program that grants benefit to the weakest in our society.
(I oversimplify, as I know all well-off people don’t do this. Some remain Democrats instead of Scrooges).
December 27th, 2004 at 1:38 pm
The simple truth that you CANNOT pound into a rightie’s thick skull is that we all benefit from living in a world in which people can govern themselves and provide for themselves, and that people who cannot govern themselves and provide for themselves create instability that threatens all of us. For that reason, it is cost-effective to spend the money to get people on their feet rather than leaving them to suffer.
December 27th, 2004 at 3:18 pm
And if it€™s true that we have a duty to our fellow citizens, I don€™t understand why government can€™t be a means to fulfill that duty.
That’s an excellent point. Initially, I suppose, governments were intended to function as the “aggregate citizen” and would help to fulfill that duty. But as always, institutions take on lives of their own, and the government begins to view citizens — especially those who ask something of it — as its enemies. My guess is that the first HAL-2000 (a construction designed to serve humankind that turned against humankind) was not a computer but a government.
December 27th, 2004 at 3:47 pm
The United States has without a doubt the worst government in the industrialized world. US politicians are as corrupt as the people allow, and that is really corrupt. Take former representative, Republican Greenwood Pa. for instance, he held bullshit hearings on Big Pharma’s buying off researchers on the go’vt payroll at NIH with huge $$$, many multiples above their 6 figure gov’t salaries. Of course end result was Congress did nothing. Meanwhile Greenwood took the CEO job with a Big Pharma PAC when he recently left Congress (as did Billy Tauzin, Repub. La.).
Anyone hwo ever thinks the US gov’t under Bush is doing anything to help the middle class is in dreamland.
December 27th, 2004 at 5:05 pm
institutions take on lives of their own, and the government begins to view citizens €” especially those who ask something of it €” as its enemies.
That goes both ways — if anything, the real problem is that people have forgotten that government ‘r’ us, not some alien presence that beamed in from Mars. Government is an instrument to enable the will of the people, not a vending machine. We don’t seem to understand that any more.
December 27th, 2004 at 5:54 pm
# 6: People in this country have a right to own property, to work hard, to build and own businesses, aquire wealth and give it away or pass it on to their progeny. To equate all of that legitimate activity with slaveowning, which has been illegal for a while, and confiscating nisei property is silly. Comment # 3 seems to feel all those who have wealth got it illegitimately and have no claim to that wealth. Do you, Kevin ? That sounds rather Bolshevik to me.
As for Prescott Bush and Nazi Germany, this issue is so ridiculous it doesn’t even merit rebuttal. Take off your ” I’m a rabid Liberal hat ” and put on your thinking hat and read up on it. On examination it turns out to be a lot less noteworthy than sleeping with Sam Giancana’s girlfriend.
December 27th, 2004 at 7:06 pm
Mr Bush has the nerve to tell Americans to remember the needy on Christmas, while he is doing everything he can do put more people into the poorhouse. It’s OUR money he’s giving to his rich cronies and it’s OUR money that he is going to steal from Social Security so he can make himself and his rich buddies richer. How can any American be so STUPID as to buy into anything he says? Are they totally off their rocker? Hypocrite is too mild a word for him. How many more things is he going to do at OUR expense? It’s just free money to him. He doesn’t give a flying rip about anyone but himself and how many people he can just buy at a whim. Wake up, America before you go bankrupt altogether! Europe was right. This country has cracked up, mentally and emotionally. Welcome to Fantasyland USA. As the saying goes: he’s so full of *%&%, his eyes are brown.
December 28th, 2004 at 6:15 am
Slo, did you bother to read the entire post? Or is that putting too much of a strain on your limited cognitive resources? You are missing the point by several thousand miles.
December 28th, 2004 at 7:46 am
You want to take money from people making more than $ 337,000 and give it to people overseas ? Hmmm.. Liberals are sure generous with opm. Remember, you€™re always welcome to give more out of your own pocket€ if you want.
Comment by Slo Mo €” December 27, 2004 @ 10:42 am
As opposed to the Giggling Murderer taking poor people’s money, and giving it to the rich in this country? Hmmm - conservitards sure are greedy when taking other people’s money. Your Republic sense of values (cough) no longer surprises me. Saddens me, yes - but it doesn’t surprise me any more.
Hope you can sleep well knowing that people like you are killing thousands of innocents. Or do you just not care because they’re not rich Americans like you?
As far as the topic of this post: do you know, Barbara, if these cutbacks mean the pittance pRezNit Unending Debt promised for AIDS research and assistance has gone by the wayside, too? It seems like a no-brainer to me (of course he did - why waste money on them damn homos seems to be the Pretzelboy philosophy), but I would appreciate confirmation…
December 28th, 2004 at 4:18 pm
# 6: People in this country have a right to own property, to work hard, to build and own businesses, aquire wealth and give it away or pass it on to their progeny. To equate all of that legitimate activity with slaveowning, which has been illegal for a while, and confiscating nisei property is silly. Comment # 3 seems to feel all those who have wealth got it illegitimately and have no claim to that wealth. Do you, Kevin ? That sounds rather Bolshevik to me.
As for Prescott Bush and Nazi Germany, this issue is so ridiculous it doesn€™t even merit rebuttal. Take off your € I€™m a rabid Liberal hat € and put on your thinking hat and read up on it. On examination it turns out to be a lot less noteworthy than sleeping with Sam Giancana€™s girlfriend.
Slo Mo, you’re missing (not surprisingly) several big points here. For one, there’s a very big difference between earning wealth and promoting wealth. Having a society where people are encouraged to work for money is beneficial, but only up until the point where their desire to earn money doesn’t, in turn, do damage to society in other ways.
For example, drug companies have done a lot of good things for society by driving innovation that have led to effective treatments for all kinds of diseases. But if we solely look at all profit-making activity is good, and all government regulation as bad (as Grand Retard Norquist does), we end up with drug companies selling us drugs that kill us, and forcing us to go broke buying the drugs we need.
You mention Bolshevik as if people who want government regulation are communists. It’s this kind of overly simplistic thinking that unfortunately having quite the opposite effect. My allowing too much power to be concentrated into too few hands, this movement to neuter government has created an environment very similar to what eventually brought down the Soviet Union.
Until you figure out that people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are just rich people that like their tax cuts, rather than the protectors of the little people, as they claim to be, we’ll continue down the path of increased corporate abuse of power as you’re bent over its knee saying, “Thank you, can I have another”
Idiot.
December 28th, 2004 at 4:41 pm
it doesn€™t matter how people got their money; as long as it was legally, it€™s theirs. They have a moral claim to it; you don€™t. You seem to equate all wealth with sloth and illegality; that kind of Bolshevik thinking is a bit passee.
And I’m sure you’d never equate all poverty with sloth and illegality either. That would be hypocritical.
There are few poor people in this country lazier than Paris Hilton. Making the grotesquely wealthy pay higher taxes is essential for having a healthy democracy. While you defend the rights of the spoiled children of the rich, the rest of us here in reality will keep trying to help our country.
December 28th, 2004 at 4:58 pm
The aptly named Slo had better be a rich man, because in effect Bush is taxing money away from hard-working wage-earners and giving it to the wealthy and privileged who probably inherited their wealth. I’d like to know why that’s OK with him.
December 31st, 2004 at 5:41 pm
Fifty-seven percent of Bush Administration spending since 2001 has gone towards tax cuts for the wealthy, according to the Boston Globe.
And those people getting the tax cuts? The super-rich? They earned every penny of that money, legally, first by getting other people to work for them for low wages and then by making sure they had tax loopholes that were not available to their employees.
I’m just a little puzzled at people who keep talking about the rich “earning” “their” money. If you watch, you’ll note that 9,999 out of 10,000 times, someone else did the work. How did they earn it? Oh, yeah, by letting those other people do the work.
How magnanimous of them.
January 1st, 2005 at 12:59 pm
On Tsunamis & Bogs, Part 1: Incongruities
The Internet has been flooded — nearly every blogger I visited last week, as well as all the mainstream media — by The Great Tsunami. Consequently, I haven’t felt a need to comment upon it; I didn’t feel I had…