My very own older sister gave me a new fresher answer to the question, "What is a Republican?". Thanks to my sister I now know that, at least some Republicans believe that President Obama is the figure that, after three and a half years in office, has failed to fix the mess that President Bush and the Republicans spent eight years creating. By "mess" they are referring to the economy and the fact that the median income of the middle class has decreased for seven of the last ten years. "Mess" does not refer to the setbacks suffered by the environment, women's rights, social issues, etc. during eight years of Bushdom. This accusation that Obama is responsible for the present financial crisis in America may sound unreasonable to more liberal thinkers. However, there is reasoning behind it which brings into question the appropriate function of government in our lives. The reasoning goes like this. If President Obama had not proposed Health Care Reform it would never have become law. Small business owners would not be anxious about whether they can afford the costs imposed by the new law in regard to their employees without laying employees off. This supposedly prevents them from hiring new people they may have to lay off because of the new Health Care Regulations. In other words, if business people felt confident about the future they would be hiring a lot more unemployed people. And the only reason they don't feel confident is because of Health Care Reform. Therefore, the person who originated Health Care Reform (not the people who made it the law of the land nor the Supreme Court that upheld it) is solely responsible for the current economic crisis. And he refuses to accept responsibility for the country's economic mess.
Business people don't like any kind of government regulations that interfere with their bottom line, i.e. profit. Expenses decrease profits . Anything that increases expenses such as fair wages, pollution controls, safety equipment and safety procedures for workers, decrease profits. If the government had not stepped in after the Industrial Revolution began, sunlight in Pittsburgh would still be a rare sight; mill workers would still be reduced to begging for handouts from their former peers. Pinkerton guards would still be employed to break worker strikes at any cost. Wage earners would be forced to work longer hours without overtime pay. Don't fool yourself. The only reason we have safer working conditions, cleaner air and water, higher wages, is because of government regulations. And despite hundreds of govenment regulations, the rich still have managed to get richer.
This argument about too much regulation of business by government raises the question as to what should the function of government be in regard to business. I don't recall the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution saying anything about the main duty of government being to maximize profits for corporations. I remember something written about our government being of, for, and by the people-not of, for, and by the corporations. There was also something about the individuals right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I think it would be appropriate for the government to protect those rights for all Americans, not just those earning over $250,000. You don't think corporations are trying to take over? Find out what is happening in Michigan. Corporate dictators taking over whole communities including Detroit, according to The Lowdown (see www.hightowerlowdown.com).
Governments need to create frameworks of rules, policies, etc. that serve the good of all citizens. An example of that good is every American having access to minimum necessary health care. Businesses need to figure out how to function within that framework without depending on government handouts. One problem I have with helping particular businesses, is that all taxpayers do not benefit from the services or goods any particular business produces. Besides that the government cannot afford handouts to business.
Businesses have no business trying to influence the framework determined by our elected officials for the good of all. The only motivation businesses have in influencing legislative or executive decisions is pure and simple greed.. If it were up to me, lobbyists representing the interests of for-profit corporations would be out of jobs. Nor would corporations be allowed to contribute to any one's political party nor campaign. Individual voters should determine who governs-not the amount of money a candidate has available. In the meantime, while corporations can still donate large amounts of money to campaigns, the amounts and donors should be disclosed to the public immediately. I would hate to spend money on a product or service that benefits the Republicans.
We have a time-honored tradition in this country of separation of church and state. We need to start another tradition called "Separation of corporations and government".
No comments:
Post a Comment