Tuesday, September 11, 2012

11 September 2012 Poverty for fun and political power

                “…Not for a second did I think that Ann Romney got it. This has nothing to do with wealth. After all, the Kennedys were rich. So were the Roosevelts. Someone who appreciated the plight of the poor would not have trivialized it with campy stories from her let’s-pretend past. The challenge is not the isolated person who has fallen on hard times who Mitt and Ann have helped — I applaud that! — but the utterly impoverished, the erstwhile homeowner, the financially precarious old and those who have flunked out of the middle class. They too have stories about eating off an ironing board and stuffing themselves with pasta and tuna fish. Only it’s not about the past, but about the present and, worse, the future.
                “…This is classic “weaponized Keynesianism” — the claim that government spending can’t create jobs unless the money goes to defense contractors, in which case it’s the lifeblood of the economy. And no, it doesn’t make any sense.
“What about the argument, which I hear all the time, that Mr. Obama should have fixed the economy long ago? The claim goes like this: during his first two years in office Mr. Obama had a majority in Congress that would have let him do anything he wanted, so he’s had his chance.
“The short answer is, you’ve got to be kidding.
“As anyone who was paying attention knows, the period during which Democrats controlled both houses of Congress was marked by unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate. The filibuster, formerly a tactic reserved for rare occasions, became standard operating procedure; in practice, it became impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. And Democrats had those 60 votes for only a few months. Should they have tried to push through a major new economic program during that narrow window? In retrospect, yes — but that doesn’t change the reality that for most of Mr. Obama’s time in office U.S. fiscal policy has been defined not by the president’s plans but by Republican stonewalling.”
                “…Don’t worry, Romney says, he’ll make sure all Americans have the health care they need and deserve. Someday. Somehow.
On one level, the confusion Romney generated Sunday about his views simply reflects his willingness to say whatever he thinks people want to hear. “Romney panders” is such a familiar story by now that it hardly qualifies as news.
But health care is no ordinary issue. Bringing universal health-insurance coverage to the citizens of Massachusetts — via the individual mandate — was Romney’s greatest accomplishment as governor. This is subject matter he truly understands.
He knows full well that if he fulfills his promises, or threats, regarding Obamacare, there won’t be any affordable coverage for people with preexisting conditions. He knows that if he follows through on Medicare and Medicaid, seniors will have to pay more for their care and many poor Americans won’t receive adequate care at all.
No wonder Romney has so much trouble sticking to a consistent story
Cassi Creek:  The Romney-Ryan promise to immediately repeal Obama’s Affordable health care act may not be worth the air time it has previously occupied.  The teavangelists have apparently realized that some of their base has begun to understand that they will be stripped of healthcare items that they like and wish to keep.  We’ve all got a pre-existing condition or two out there in a chart in some medical office.  The insurance companies will happily pay a clerk-typist (pronounced “bureaucrat”) to find them.  That same clerk can send out the notice to Medicare patients that the annual cost of caring for the elderly has just exceeded the monetary worth of this year’s insurance voucher, again. 
          Krugman’s article is quite accurate.  The lack of jobs action by Congress was and remains part of deliberate obstruction by the GOP/teavangelists.  Whether or not enough of the voting populace is able to accurately fix the blame for job program failures on deliberate obstructionism remains to be determined. 
          Equally important will be the ability of voters to avoid being taken in by the Romney-Ryan charade of poverty while starting out in life.  There is no reason to believe that the Romney family suffered for lack of any advantage.  They may have eaten canned tuna.  If they did, so what.  Canned tuna is a staple protein though out much of the world.  I doubt that the Romney pantry tuna was labeled for felines.  Truly poor Americans know the difference.  Truly poor Americans don’t have desks.  They don’t have ironing boards.  They don’t have the security of a job that pays for housing and food.  They do understand shoehorning a family into a motel room or sleeping in a car in a parking lot. 
          Truly poor Americans don’t have the luxury of attending college.  They don’t have the luxury of being able to see a doctor, a dentist, or to get help to avoid pregnancy.  
          There’s nothing cute about poverty in America.  It doesn’t sound any better if the tale is told wearing a tailored suit.  It doesn’t come with a family gym membership, access to a golf course and tennis courts, smart phones or the internet.  There is no one running on the GOP/teavangelists ticket for POTUS who understands poverty.
          However, Romney and Ryan, if elected, will do their best to continue to create poverty in America. 
          They will fire government workers while privatizing every government service they can.  They’ll preside over the off shoring of millions of jobs.  They roll back the social and cultural condition to the days of no family planning and no contraception.  They will do everything within their abilities to create a new pool of impoverished Americans.  Tuna fish and pasta will not be served. 

No comments:

Post a Comment