Social Security and the Larger Issue
Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 06:59:18 AM PDT
The recent and ongoing battle over Social Security has rallied Democrats and the "Great Middle" to defend the most elemental part of the social compacts forged during the New Deal (and the Great Society). But, playing defense by defending Social Security and the New Deal is not enough. Democrats must reframe and expand the framing. Democrats must have a positive goal and
play offense.
That positive goal--and the larger issue--is "the quality of life." And when it comes to the quality of life (QOL), the Democratic Party stands for improving the lives of the many; the Republican Party stands for the enriching of the few at the expense of the many. On issue after issue, Republicans act to defend and expand the wealth and power of the few; they call that defense "support of individual rights" --in reality, it's class warfare.
Rant Alert: After the jump, coherency may deteriorate greatly:
It has been pointed out that, when it comes to social programs, Social Security is a stunning success--lifting millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. Because of Social Security success, conservatives fear the potential consequences of a successful social program. Namely, they fear a greater demand by the populace (voters) for social programs--funded by taxation with greater progressivity. In plain English: They fear higher taxes on wealthy Americans. Clearly, it is
the few opposing
the many.
Conservatives don't care about QOL of the many; they don't care about society, as a whole--unless it gets in their face. When crime goes up, their response is to write more laws and to build more prisons--as long as they own the construction companies that build the prisons.
Over two decades ago, candidate Ronald Reagan asked Americans: "Are you better off today, then you were four years ago." Well, the answer for the few is certainly yes--beginning with the Bush skewed-to-the-rich tax cuts. Of course, when it comes to the many, there are millions more Americans without health insurance now than there were in 2000. Not to mention, workers are paying more out-of-pocket for health care--to employers for insurance premiums and to doctors for office visits.
Health care is not the only issue. Pick an issue--almost any issue. Conservatives prefer to enhance the QOL of the few, rather than QOL of the many.
Take taxation, for example, it kills conservatives that Bill Clinton raised taxes, particularly on the wealthy (the few), and the economy grew and millions of jobs were added (for the many), while after the several Bush tax cuts and four years, job growth has been scant--making the millions of new jobs that were promised a series of lies. Adding to that insult, there are large deficits as far as the eye can see because of Bush's tax cuts--and funding for wars in the Iraq and Afghanistan is "off-budget." Speaking of Iraq, with the shovels' full of cash going to Halliburton and other contractors (the few), has class warfare, as practiced by the Bushies, ever been more odious?
Moving on to the environment, the Bush administration stands up corporations and the ownership class (the few), whether it's the mining run-off (clean water), coal-fired power plants (clean air), or drilling for oil in wilderness areas (e.g. ANWR).
There are other issues where the Bush administration and conservatives put the wellbeing of the few over the society as a whole.
Feel free to volunteer other examples of where the few prosper at the expense of the many in your comments.
Permalink | 3 comments