Bits and pieces of quotes from Republicans who are upset over the Inflation Reduction Act, and over the President's announcement that some refunds are forthcoming on student loans floating around the media today remind me of the same mindset and perspective they exhibited when Hoover couldn't wrap his mind around how to help people after the stock market crash of 1929. The only thing that's missing from their rhetoric today that was there during the Depression is some misplaced sympathy and some sad faces for those hardest hit, though the same stone-walled unwillingness to actually do something to help, and the same protectionism for the riches of the super wealthy, made most of that look hypocritical.
But there's no sympathy for those who endure economic hardship because some aspect of the economy, like exorbitant and unreasonable tuition costs for college, or ridiculously high medical and health care costs, get way out of proportion to the level of competition in the marketplace that is theoretically supposed to keep things balanced. That's gone, and the racism that was there during the Depression is now more vicious and rabid than it was back then.
During the Depression, Republican politicians, led by President Hoover, whose mantra has always been "small government is good government," were simply incapable of getting out of the economic box they were in, which was basically an early model of trickle down, without much trickle. They argued vehemently that it was not the government's job, or responsibility, to interfere with the laws of economics, except, of course, to protect the profits of big business with tariffs. But the Depression was too big for the prevailing economic practices to handle, and the unemployment it produced left millions homeless and starving. Political pressure forced the Republicans to provide some kind of relief, though it was as limited as they could make it and still call it relief.
And, of course, in their way of thinking, business could not be obligated, or forced, or taxed, to help because, after all, they had their own economic worries. So, the prevailing reasoning was that the economy would eventually work things out, and the government should provide what little relief it could, but nothing that would interfere with the natural process of economic law.
But, America is a democracy, a government of, by and for the people, and that last preposition can't be ignored. The people can make their government assume any role they think it needs to take, including levelling the economic playing field when things get way out of proportion, and using its resources to benefit citizens while correcting problems that are overwhelming, create major hardships for its citizens and might not resolve on their own. It is not bound by nebulous, artificial "economic laws." And if it gets in those kinds of ruts because of long-term dominance by one way of thinking, the people can make whatever changes they need to make.
It doesn't matter what it is, whether it is crushing student loan debt or crushing prescription drug costs due not to scarcity or supply, but to the greed of corporations who profiteer off of people's pain and suffering, Republicans don't want to do anything for anyone who isn't in their billionaires' club. They've used veterans for their purposes for a long time, trying to claim that Democrats would rather send billions in foreign aid than spend it on veterans. But it is Republicans who beat down every attempt to improve the Veteran's Administration, especially access to its health care. Who led the opposition to the burn pit bill which was aimed at helping veterans? In fact, who has voted down, ever single time it comes up, any legislation aimed at improving the financial condition of American veterans?
Different Times, Similar Circumstances
We aren't in a depression, and contrary to the prognostications of the extreme right, we are not in a recession, either. But there are some parts of the economy that have been skewed and distorted beyond reasonable ability of normal economic circumstances to handle for many people. One of those things is the cost of college and the need for students to take out large loans to pay for this necessity. The Republicans have been reluctant--er, ah, completely oppositional to making community college tuition free, mainly because anything that would cause consideration of taxing the corporate wealthy at similar rates to the working class is out. They've been both hypocritical and ridiculous in their criticism of the President's actions this week.
Clearly, the cost of a college education over four years has become disproportionately huge compared the resources available to finance it, which means that only those rich enough to afford it can go, or those who are willing to spread out debt load over decades. In fact, most colleges and universities would cease to exist if student loans were not available because their endowments and available grant and scholarship money is no longer enough to cover expenses for most students, including those who play football. Public universities are already partially underwritten by tax dollars.
Health care and the profiteering that is one of the core values of the prescription drug industry has gone beyond the ability of those on fixed incomes to afford it without something being done. You'd think this would be something Republicans would understand and be willing to work at fixing, since their party members get old, too and not all of them are wealthy enough to have much of a pension. But the GOP has gone so long without a coherent policy platform of any kind, except cutting the taxes of the wealthy and letting them get away with bribery and buying government policy, that they don't recognize something that is genuinely populist in nature.
"The Democrats are Just Playing Politics and Using This to Get Votes"
Of course we are. And I sincerely hope that it gets us a lot of votes. I remember reading What's the Matter With Kansas? by journalist historian Thomas Frank back when it came out around 2004. That's exactly what the GOP did, aimed at getting people to vote against their own interests. The governor of Kansas at the time was Katherine Sebelius, who, in a state where Republican party voter registration outnumbered Democrats by almost two to one, defied the prevailing political patterns and managed to win two terms, the second one overwhelmingly, by running on the belief that government should serve the people who empower it.
If cutting to the chase, promising to use influence as an elected official to get government to work for its citizens, relieving suffering and oppressive exploitation, helps candidates win elections, why take a different approach? The Republicans haven't offered a coherent plan to do anything except be obstructionists and help the white, wealthy corporate elite get rich enough to actually buy the government since Bush was elected in 2000. If someone votes for a candidate because they promised to help them avoid having to choose between medicine and food, or rent, and helps a college graduate in a professional occupation pay off a staggering debt that is controlling their life, what's wrong with that?
No comments:
Post a Comment