Con: Socialism is the ‘red herring’ the GOP drags out to gut needed spending on economic recovery
WASHINGTON — EDITOR’S NOTE: The writer is addressing the question, Is President Obama intent on transforming the U.S. into a European-style welfare state?
There are without a doubt competing views of the appropriate role of government in the United States.
On the one hand you have people, like me, who believe the role of government, generally, is to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves individually. That’s a paraphrased quote from Abraham Lincoln, founder of the Republican Party, who was referring to our collective need for government to build our roads and bridges, care for the young and sick, and provide education.
On the other hand, you have today’s conservatives who would rather have government do nothing or go back to the same failed policies that caused our current economic crisis.
Rush Limbaugh, the current leader of the Republican Party, openly wishes the economy collapses entirely so his party can continue the great job it’s been doing concentrating all of our nation’s wealth in the bank accounts of the top 2 percent.
President Obama’s economic recovery plan and his proposed budget have conservatives clutching their pearls.
Why the hysterics? For the first time in decades the government is addressing the needs of average folks: education, health care, jobs, housing and energy. The free ride for the wealthiest is over.
It is truly a testament to how little working people have been able to rely on their government for leadership when something as simple as the president’s recovery plan—put money into the hands of people who will spend it—has the Right screaming about the end of civilization and the advent of socialism. They didn’t have much to say when Bush administration policies were driving dollars into their own pockets by privatizing profits and socializing losses.
Unfortunately, those policies also drove us right into a ditch. The bad economy is a problem President Obama inherited, and his solutions are the very ones on which he campaigned. The hysterics are nothing but a transparent attempt to demonize their way back into power.
Reasonable people understand this isn’t about some national ideological transformation; it’s about fixing a disastrous economy. Period! President Obama’s plan is what our country needs at this moment. It returns fairness to our tax code, takes control of the deficit, and makes significant down payments on quality, affordable health care, world-class education and a clean energy future.
When the private sector retreats from the economy, the duty of government is to step in and protect all its citizens, not just the wealthy. The president’s proposals are not an attempt to turn the United States into—gasp!—France.
In fact, more than 90 percent of the jobs created through the economic recovery plan are in the private sector and the White House has pledged no money will go to government programs that are better left to American businesses.
Yes, there is plenty of spending on unemployment benefits, health care, food stamps and other programs that provide temporary assistance to the most vulnerable. These programs, like Social Security and Medicare—the cornerstones of our social safety net—make our counterparts on the Right, who think tax-cuts for the rich are the solution to every problem, positively apoplectic.
They’d rather our nation’s seniors survive by eating tuna out of cans. But really, it’s just good business. President Obama knows that for every dollar the government spends on food stamps, $1.73 gets pumped into the economy. Expanded unemployment benefits, money used to pay mortgages and utilities and grocery bills, get spent immediately and reduce the pain in an economy that is hemorrhaging more than 500,000 jobs a month. A publicly funded health care system makes American businesses more competitive and gives small businesses the flexibility to expand.
That’s recovery, not socialism, and it is the first step toward rectifying the decades-long failure of government to work for everyone.
Amy F. Isaacs is the national director of Americans for Democratic Action (www.adaaction.org), America’s largest and oldest independent liberal lobbying organization. Readers may write to her at ADA, 1625 K St. NW, Suite 210, Washington, D.C. 20006.
Mar 16, 2009 at 7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
You don't need to see any more than this quote "for every dollar the government spends on food stamps, $1.73 gets pumped into the economy" to know how devoid of intellect the writer is. If only that mattered (it doesn't say that every dollar to fund the food stamps removes over $2 from the economy), then the best thing the government could do would be to spend trillions of dollars every hour on food stamps.
Of course, this from the same people who are busy telling us how they need to lend more through the government SBA program (socialism) and simultaneously raise their taxes in order to, as Obama said, "spread the wealth around" (aka socialism.) We shouldn't be surprised.
Mar 16, 2009 at 1:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
"A publicly funded healthcare system makes American businesses competitive"; yes removing the burden of healthcare from employers on the surface looks good on the P&L for a company. So, who then will pay this bill? Do you really think removing today’s employer provided benefits will not still cost the employer? Do you think the government will not require additional funding (tax) from employers for each employee to pay this? What of the small companies today that cannot afford to provide healthcare for their employees, how do they stay competitive when the government wants more tax for each employee? Of the businesses that are in the insurance industry today, what happens to their jobs? Shifting the funding is smoke and mirrors. Someone still will pay for healthcare! It will never be free, no mater what people think. The larger issue here is when the government begins to be the “payer” for all healthcare they also become the decider of all healthcare…truly scary.
Mar 16, 2009 at 1:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Amy, there are many ideas in your piece I have question. Start with your Title; your premise of "needed spending" to begin with is wrong and not even supported in your piece.
-
It is very ironic that you quote Lincoln to make your point on helping others and then further claim the free ride for the wealthiest is over (paying most of the tax is a free ride?); Your deep research in finding a quote from Lincoln would have also revealed he stated the following, "That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise."
-
I love this one ..."a problem President Obama inherited, and his solutions are the very ones on which he campaigned." Did you forget the President has been in politics for many years, and has been in Washington for almost half that time? This is something he asked for, he did not inherit them. Many of the problems he faces as President today are the same ones he was in the Senate having discussions about for years.
-
"When the private sector retreats from the economy, the duty of government is to step in and protect"; at least we can agree to something here. But, this is only limited to government projecting into the money policy because they control the Fed reserve (for the most part).
-
"In fact, more than 90 percent of the jobs created through the economic recovery plan are in the private sector"; your contention of stating as a fact in the past tense is extremely risky. Until a job has even been created by this policy you have already judged it a success?
-
"They’d rather our nation’s seniors survive by eating tuna out of cans."; More blatant left spin with no facts.
-
"Obama knows that for every dollar the government spends on food stamps, $1.73 gets pumped into the economy."; This small fact has been disproven many times over; like the myth of a perpetual motion machine. If this was true, the government would always benefit by increased spending (less debt by spending more money?)...yet this has never happened.
Mar 14, 2009 at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
The French health care system would be great here. There would be an immediate 20% savings if the insurance companies were left out of a new system, but it looks like they want to keep them involved, for now.
Mar 14, 2009 at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
I am not a Limbaugh fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I know enough about him to recognize that a big part of his act is to say shocking things to get everyone's attention and then qualify those statements with less spectacular explanations. It's the old circus sideshow shock sell (the two-headed man doesn't really have two heads and the mermaid is just a person with syndactyly). Of course he is going to oppose Obama's policies. It is his bread and butter. He hopes that the policies fail because that is what his listeners want to hear and what will get the attention of the people who don't listen. It appears to be working perfectly, as the yokels are lining up to cheer him on or to take turns pitching baseballs at the dunking tank. Just remember one thing that may help you avoid compulsory anger management. Limbaugh is not a politician, he is a comedian.
Mar 14, 2009 at 7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
The well intended, yet dangerously misguided Amy Isaacs needs to do a little more research. How can more government spending help the crisis that was created by excessive government spending? Who pays for "heath care for all" when we can't pay for the heath care we have now? Eating tuna out of a can? I hope I'm that lucky when I'm a senior. Bluefin tuna has declined 97% since 1960 due to over fishing. Can we borrow some tuna from the future to feed our seniors today? Hardly.
Mar 14, 2009 at 7:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Roads, Bridges, Young, sick, education, all have been the used for the last 50 plus years to rally around a political point of view. To date, none of the above have been resolved but we have spend billions (now trillions) and nothing ever changes for the better. WHY?
Because, like congress, we look for the easy way out. Throw money at it and it will go away, maybe. There is no easy way out and now we have to make the hard choices that have been delayed for decades.
Now is the time to start making congress respond to our needs and not what they believe we should need. We no longer need all the pacifing BS, we need competent action and results.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.