LIKE A FAMILY

Whether it is Majority Leader Boehner saying that struggling American families "don't see government tightening its belt," while arguing for budget cuts or spending freezes, or GOP state legislators saying government must be like families who live within their means, my hackles go up.  I agree as one of my wise friends says, “I don’t want the government to be like a family, I want it to be a government.” But accepting this rejoinder as true has not been enough to assuage the irritation I feel, or calm the nagging sense that there is something very wrong with this analogy as a rationale for the GOP positions on budget cuts.

Thinking about it, the first thing that strikes me is that the analogy is most used when the GOP is rationalizing cuts to education, environmental preservation and protection, healthcare, programs for elderly, disabled, and those living in poverty. Funny how it is never applied to proposals to cut subsidies for industries and businesses turning record profits, like oil companies or the financial services firms, or the wealthiest who got tax cuts under the banner of job creation.  Funny too how most of those espousing the cuts are among the loudest in proclaiming their “Christian values”. Guess they just skip over the part from Mathew 25, “What you do to the Least, you do unto me,” or the part in Acts about selling goods and distributing proceeds according to each persons need.  Hewing to the interests of the well-to-do, and thoughts about un-Christian behavior aside, it is precisely in thinking about us as a big family that the logic of the analogy is totally shattered.

If we look at the U.S. population as a family, there are family members who have means that are vast, many who more than enough or enough to keep the family comfortable, some who are struggling, some on the edge and some with neither shelter nor regular sustenance.  Now if we sat down at our collective kitchen table to tackle our current budget problems, surely we would expect those members of the family with millions or billions to contribute more to the solution than the members struggling or those who have next to nothing. For sure we would also look to cut expenses, but I do not believe any healthy family would leave the poorest or most vulnerable members of the family at the mercy of fate, and we should not do it as the American family.  I believe that in most families there is caring, loving and concern for one another and that the wealthiest in the family would give up their Ferraris, third home or another luxury rather than see another member go without basic needs. I know it is true in my family which has some members doing okay, some with more than enough and some struggling—we share as needed to ensure each other’s well-being and security.

I know it is tempting to be drawn in by this analogy and believe that spending cuts will mean fewer struggles for the middle income earners. But, like the GOP tax cuts which have meant more only for those with income above $1,000,000 and increases on middle income earners, the spending cuts they propose will only spare those making well above $100,000 a year.  It is tempting to believe that cutting the cost of care and caring for the least able members will make it better for the family as a whole, but beyond being morally bankrupt it is simply not so. So come on people now the next time you hear a Republican using this analogy, call their office and challenge them to ask the most well to do in our national family to contribute more. It is the morally, AND the economically sound thing to do.

ON WISCONSIN

As the fight to preserve the rights of workers plays out in Wisconsin, it is important to keep a couple of FACTS in mind.  The first is that before Wisconsin's budget went bust, the GOP controlled senate and house passed, and Governor Walker signed, $117 million in corporate tax breaks into law. The deficit in Wisconsin is $137 million, and amount only $20 million more than the tax breaks. A piece of "old" news but a very important piece to keep at the forefront when Mr. Walker talks about the dire straights that make his draconian proposals and actions warranted.

The second fact comes from a look at the results of the 2010 general election that put these folks into office. Governor Walker is fond of saying that he is not going to let a "few thousand" (there were at least 70,000 at last Saturday's rally) to drown out the voice of 6,000,000 ( actually 5,654,774 according to the census bureau) in Wisconsin who spoke in the last election.  Before getting to the actual numbers, note how he under represents the number of those opposing his actions, and over states the population in Wisconsin.

The overstatement of the population is particularly relevant because the total votes garnered by Mr. Walker in 2010, according to the official elections website of Wisconsin (http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/results/2010/fall-general), was 1,128,941. While this was 52.25% of the 2,160,832 votes cast in the contest for governor, it represents only 32.32% of the 3,493,306 total registered voters in Wisconsin.  To carry the analysis further the votes he got represents exactly 19.964% of the total population of Wisconsin. This meager representation of the "electorate" must be the reason he inflated the population by 345,226 people or a number equal to 30.57% of the total vote he received.

Now elections do matter, he did win, but claiming a resounding mandate based on getting the vote of less than a third of registered voters and a bit less than 20% of the entire population is the kind of hubris and slight of hand that these new Republicans are fond of using to sell their patent medicine policies. To be fair the turnout of 61%+ was a record for mid-term elections in Wisconsin, but I can't help but wonder what the outcome would have been had just another 10% showed up at the polls last November.

How many of those were disillusioned President Obama supporters who really did expect miracles?  How many were young people who defied the conventional wisdom that said they were strong enough to help candidate Obama get the nomination but would not turn out to vote in '08, and then stayed true to conventional wisdom and sat out the mid-term elections? Well as the saying goes, the chickens are coming home to roost, and as any farmer knows, chicken manure is a great fertilizer for any crop, even one that grows like crazy but does not produce any fruit.