BuzzFlash
presents Southern Style
by Rebecca Knight
August 8, 2002
Practicing Class Warfare
by Rebecca Knight
"We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals."
- Theodore Roosevelt, "We Stand at Armageddon", 1912
The Republican Party has been charging the Democratic Party with practicing class warfare for years, apparently because of policies that tend to favor understanding the plight of and wanting to help those Americans who are less fortunate than others. The understanding of financial diversities within the American public and striving to give a hand up to those in need should be considered an admirable goal by most Americans and not derided as a shortcoming of a political party. Evidence exists that points to a class warfare practiced by the alleged "compassionate conservatives" that is anything but compassionate. In fact, their social and financial policies might better be called repressive towards those less fortunate.
According to the Republicans, the economic and budgetary successes accomplished during the Clinton years should not be credited to his policies or ideals. Rather they claim that those successes were due in large part to the fiscal responsibility practiced by the Republican led Congress. But did they really practice fiscal responsibility?
The Associated Press recently released a study providing evidence that, while they may not have increased pork barrel spending, they certainly took actions that proved financially beneficial to the more affluent suburbs and GOP leaning farm areas.(1) This resulted in an average of $612 million more in federal spending last year in districts represented by Republicans than those represented by Democrats. That directly impacts services not only through more business loans and farm subsidies, but also through fewer public housing grants and food stamps. Spending on child care food programs was cut by eighty percent, public housing grants were all but eliminated, rental housing loans for rural areas and special benefits for coal miners were cut by two-thirds, and the food stamp program was cut by a third.
GOP leaders readily admit that the spending shift was aimed at ensuring that GOP areas received what they term "fairer treatment." Of course everything has a political motivation, but shouldn't the spending of our tax dollars be focused on real need rather than a transparent attempt to buy votes? Sure it should, but in reality nothing will change until the American public pays closer attention and demands that elected officials do what is best for the people. The AP study paints a devastating picture of political party economic priorities and conclusive evidence of the importance of which major party controls Congress.
While both major political parties benefit from campaign contributions from large corporations, the GOP is well known as the party that pushes for policies benefiting corporations over people. The Bush tax cut passed last year is well known for favoring the richest one percent of Americans and large corporations. Indications already exist that the "trickle down" theory is not working. Putting more money back into the hands of the wealthy and the large corporations was supposed to spur investment in industry and more jobs, but last week economic data showed that the expected 75,000 increase in jobs fell far short at just 6,000 jobs.
The recovery from the 2001 recession has slowed considerably and signs point to it being a jobless recovery, if a recovery at all. There are whispers that the economy may be headed for a "double dip" recession if consumers lose confidence and slow spending.
Yes, consumer confidence is vital in improving the economy. It will be difficult for consumers to have confidence in the Bush administration's abilities on economic issues when both the president and vice president are embroiled in scandalous charges resulting from their practices while involved in private industry. If they did as private citizens what they publicly disavow now, how can they be trusted as voices of authority?
The list of corporations revealed to have practiced unethical and possibly illegal accounting methods continues to grow. Their motivations are purely based on greed. Since 1980, the average pay of regular working people increased by 66 percent, while CEO pay grew by 1,996 percent. In 2000 the average CEO made 531 times the average hourly worker's pay.(2) Yet, the GOP continues to support fiscal policies that would benefit the wealthy while the average American worker struggles to maintain the status quo, much less get ahead.
Paul Krugman's recent article in the New York Times points out the fallacy involved in the GOP's arguments against reversing the second of the two phases in the Bush tax cut passed last year.(3) Phase one, already in place, is the small tax cut received by the middle class intended to put more money in the hands of those who would spend it, thus giving the economy a needed boost during the recession. Phase two, scheduled to be completed in 2010, is the much larger tax cut going to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. Some Democrats have discussed the possibility of stopping or postponing phase two because of the impact on the federal budget deficit. This in no way suggests raising taxes on anyone, yet, that is how the GOP is framing the issue. It is true that phase one of the plan accounts for only fifteen percent of the deficit, but with the implementation of phase two that figure grows to forty percent or $4 trillion added to the deficit over ten years. If a tax cut that has not taken place is put off or eliminated, it is not a raise in taxes, but simply the end of an anticipated benefit. How can America afford to go forward with the second step of a tax cut when it has been proven that the federal budget is already short of funds for necessary expenditures to fight terrorism and/or conduct war? There is no logic to the GOP's reasoning.
Certain facts cannot be denied which demonstrate that the Democratic Party's policies are much more supportive of the average American. During the Clinton administration a $290 billion deficit was turned into a $236 billion surplus, the 7.5% unemployment rate was reduced to 3.9%, the Dow-Jones had climbed 8,000 points, unemployment rates for women, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans were at historic lows, and 22 million jobs were created in eight years –- more than in the previous 12 years of Republican administrations. Not only that, but statistics reveal that since World War II job growth was higher during all five Democratic administrations than the six Republican administrations.(4)
Recently it was reported that during campaign 2000 Bush flew on private corporate jets owned by Enron and Halliburton. Both corporations also helped fund the Bush campaign's recount efforts in Florida. Now Public Citizen has revealed that the Bush-Cheney recount fund avoided disclosure laws for eighteen months and their disclosure forms to the IRS contained thousands of errors and omissions that may result in fines up to $850,000.(5) The Bush campaign spent $13.8 million on the recount efforts as compared to the Gore campaign's $3.2 million. Gore's campaign filed its report in a timely fashion as required by the IRS.
Consortium News published a very informative article comparing two political riots and the resulting actions taken regarding the "Chicago Seven" of Chicago in 1968 and the "Brooks Brothers rioters" of Miami in 2000.(6) Six of the now infamous "Brooks Brothers rioters" in Miami were paid by the Bush recount fund. Three of them are now on staff at the White House. The Bush recount committee organized the movement of protesters across state lines, paid for lavish parties and living expenses for operatives to participate in disruptive tactics intended to stall or end legally sanctioned vote counting, and defended their actions. The Chicago Seven were charged with conspiracy for crossing state lines with the intent to incite a riot. Yet, the Republican Party and the individuals involved in the Miami scene were charged with nothing.
The Bush administration has taken many actions that result in hurting the less fortunate, not just economic actions, but with cutbacks in environmental regulations, healthcare funding, and social or educational programs for the needy. The encroachment on civil liberties will most hurt the average American who cannot afford to mount exhaustive legal defenses. When Bush pushes for military actions against nations harboring terrorists and beats the drum for war against Iraq, he is talking about sending the sons and daughters of average American citizens to fight those wars.
Are we supposed to have confidence in leaders who are beholden to the very corporations now under scrutiny? Are we supposed to trust leaders whose own political fund did not follow the rules of the IRS? Are we supposed to honor leaders who obtained their office by funding and encouraging the use of possibly illegal tactics of harassment in an all out effort to end the Florida recount? Are we supposed to remain silent regarding the loss of our civil liberties? Are we supposed to believe Bush's claims of the necessity of invading Iraq simply because he says so? The answer to those questions and many others should be a resounding NO!
It is high time for average American citizens to open their eyes to the realities of the harmful policies of the Bush administration and the GOP. It is time to make wise choices in the voting booth based upon the broad spectrum of problems confronting this nation and not vote solely on one or two issues. With less than one hundred days remaining to the mid-term elections, now is the time to make clear distinctions between the two major parties and vote for what is best for the nation as a whole. Evidence demonstrates that of the two major parties, it is the Democratic Party that is far more likely to take actions benefiting the vast majority of Americans.
It appears that the Republican Party is not merely practicing class warfare -- they have refined it to a science in order to benefit corrupt corporations and the wealthy!
* * *
(1)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=
story&u=/ap/20020805/ap_on_go_co/money_politics_3
(2) http://www.aflcio.org/paywatch/ceou_compare.htm
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/06/opinion/06KRUG.html
(4) http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/column.shields/index.html
(5) http://www.publiccitizen.org/hot_issues/issue.cfm?ID=348
(6) http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html
* * *
Rebecca Knight is a native Tennessean, who grew up in Nashville, and currently resides in a small town near Nashville. Ms. Knight's political awareness evolved through the civil rights movement, the Vietnam era, the Watergate era, and the cold war. The debacle of the 2000 election increased her sense of responsibility for political activism. You may contact Rebecca Knight via e-mail at tennessee_gal655@yahoo.com.
© 2002 by Rebecca Knight
