I am not naive; I realize that anyone who in truth says "I don't have a selfish bone in my body" must be an angel, and angels, as far as I can tell, do not exist. I have come to believe that the good life must balance innate selfishness with altruism, with increasing emphasis on the latter. (If we began by really practicing "turn the other cheek" we would end--perhaps forever--in less than a week.)
Adam Smith, the father of free market capitalism, stated in his 1776 classic, the Wealth of Nations, that the market's invisible hand transforms private self-interest into public prosperity. There is some truth to this, but only when capitalism is balanced by laws that guarantee at least a minimum of fairness. ( I define fairness as heath care, safe neighborhoods, adequate nutrition, adequate housing, employment opportunities and good education for all--goals able to be approximated by wealthy countries that set these priorities.) Yes, there is truth to the benefits of capitalism--The leading industrial countries of the world have amassed much wealth, which has helped, in varying degrees, all their citizens. True, in the United States the gap between the have-nots and haves is so great that it is morally obscene--but still, would you rather live in a place like Bolivia where everyone is poor, since the principles of wealth creation are thwarted by the state?
Capitalism will always tend to push in a direction that favors the wealthy, while regulation tends to attempt -at least partially--to restore balance. The result will never be ideal--far from it-- but at least one that is less unjust.
I am sorry to say that many of our legislators have lost all sense of fairness. The House has an abundance of representatives who are so extreme, so unbalanced, so morally reprehensible as to make any decent American hang his or her head in shame. I will give but one example here, that of Stephen Fincher, a Republican congressman from Tennessee. He was a prime backer of a recently passed farm bill in the House, which splits off the provisions for food assistance to the poor while increasing the subsidies for agribusiness corporations.
The original farm bill legislation was passed during the Great Depression of the 1930s. At that time there were many small farmers who needed assistance to survive. Small farms today, however, are becoming as rare as carrier pigeons. They've all been taken over by large corporations; the current law provides huge benefits to the rich. For instance, the House Bill restores eligibility for those earning more than $750,000 dollars. The top 20% of recipients receive lavish payments. (Over the years, Fincher himself has received over 3.5 million dollars in "assistance.")
The current farm law is laden with fraud, but the big fat dark cloud does have a thin silver lining: it also provides food assistance for the poor. True, the number of those receiving food assistance has increased--due to a recession caused by unregulated capitalism, I might add. But no one receives millions in benefits; the average benefit is $134 per month. One must recall that over 80% of the wealth gain since the recession began has gone to the rich, while the status of the working class and poor has declined. Even a little help to offset low wages is denied by those like Fincher.
Fincher is acting out of spite--the program pays for itself. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that for every dollar spent on the food-stamp program, the economy grows by $1.60. (The benefits are immediately spent and stimulate the economy.)
Capitalism and greed go together, but if capitalism is to succeed in the long run there must be some sense of balance. Fincher, and so many Republicans like him, is an incarnation of untrammeled greed and spite, a truly toxic combination. The Republicans split the assistance to the poor from the assistance to the rich, hoping, of course, to decimate the food assistance program in separate legislation.
Here's how Fincher assesses the situation: "The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity, is to take care of each other. But not for Washington to steal money from those in the country and give to others in the country." If those, like himself, however, are rich and don't need assistance, then it's apparently a very good thing for government to make them even richer. This Anti-Robin Hood in Gucci shoes wants to insure that all his King John buddies are able to sail off to a tax haven on board a publicly financed yacht. How more Christian can you get?
A Democrat reminded him, a Bible-thumping Christian, about Jesus, who taught that what you do for the poor you do for God. Fincher didn't miss a beat and replied with a quote from Thessalonians: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." (Forty-one percent of food-stamp beneficiaries occur in families with earned income. Facts apparently don't bother Fincher.)
Can you think of a better example of the Devil quoting Scripture? I can think of a few. Those devilish extreme-right Republicans! Every day they are taking us closer to hell.
Adam Smith, the father of free market capitalism, stated in his 1776 classic, the Wealth of Nations, that the market's invisible hand transforms private self-interest into public prosperity. There is some truth to this, but only when capitalism is balanced by laws that guarantee at least a minimum of fairness. ( I define fairness as heath care, safe neighborhoods, adequate nutrition, adequate housing, employment opportunities and good education for all--goals able to be approximated by wealthy countries that set these priorities.) Yes, there is truth to the benefits of capitalism--The leading industrial countries of the world have amassed much wealth, which has helped, in varying degrees, all their citizens. True, in the United States the gap between the have-nots and haves is so great that it is morally obscene--but still, would you rather live in a place like Bolivia where everyone is poor, since the principles of wealth creation are thwarted by the state?
Capitalism will always tend to push in a direction that favors the wealthy, while regulation tends to attempt -at least partially--to restore balance. The result will never be ideal--far from it-- but at least one that is less unjust.
I am sorry to say that many of our legislators have lost all sense of fairness. The House has an abundance of representatives who are so extreme, so unbalanced, so morally reprehensible as to make any decent American hang his or her head in shame. I will give but one example here, that of Stephen Fincher, a Republican congressman from Tennessee. He was a prime backer of a recently passed farm bill in the House, which splits off the provisions for food assistance to the poor while increasing the subsidies for agribusiness corporations.
The original farm bill legislation was passed during the Great Depression of the 1930s. At that time there were many small farmers who needed assistance to survive. Small farms today, however, are becoming as rare as carrier pigeons. They've all been taken over by large corporations; the current law provides huge benefits to the rich. For instance, the House Bill restores eligibility for those earning more than $750,000 dollars. The top 20% of recipients receive lavish payments. (Over the years, Fincher himself has received over 3.5 million dollars in "assistance.")
The current farm law is laden with fraud, but the big fat dark cloud does have a thin silver lining: it also provides food assistance for the poor. True, the number of those receiving food assistance has increased--due to a recession caused by unregulated capitalism, I might add. But no one receives millions in benefits; the average benefit is $134 per month. One must recall that over 80% of the wealth gain since the recession began has gone to the rich, while the status of the working class and poor has declined. Even a little help to offset low wages is denied by those like Fincher.
Fincher is acting out of spite--the program pays for itself. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that for every dollar spent on the food-stamp program, the economy grows by $1.60. (The benefits are immediately spent and stimulate the economy.)
Capitalism and greed go together, but if capitalism is to succeed in the long run there must be some sense of balance. Fincher, and so many Republicans like him, is an incarnation of untrammeled greed and spite, a truly toxic combination. The Republicans split the assistance to the poor from the assistance to the rich, hoping, of course, to decimate the food assistance program in separate legislation.
Here's how Fincher assesses the situation: "The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity, is to take care of each other. But not for Washington to steal money from those in the country and give to others in the country." If those, like himself, however, are rich and don't need assistance, then it's apparently a very good thing for government to make them even richer. This Anti-Robin Hood in Gucci shoes wants to insure that all his King John buddies are able to sail off to a tax haven on board a publicly financed yacht. How more Christian can you get?
A Democrat reminded him, a Bible-thumping Christian, about Jesus, who taught that what you do for the poor you do for God. Fincher didn't miss a beat and replied with a quote from Thessalonians: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." (Forty-one percent of food-stamp beneficiaries occur in families with earned income. Facts apparently don't bother Fincher.)
Can you think of a better example of the Devil quoting Scripture? I can think of a few. Those devilish extreme-right Republicans! Every day they are taking us closer to hell.
No comments:
Post a Comment