Brinksmanship at the Fiscal
Cliff
Obama wants to raise taxes on
families making more than $250 million a year. The Republicans are
adamantly opposed to that.
One sort of argument in favor
of not taxing the very rich more is known as “supply-side
economics” which no respectable economist subscribes to.
To be sure those very rich
shelled out a lot of money to get Mitt Romney elected. But Obama
hauled in tidy sums himself. You do not need to cater to the
superrich to win an election. In fact, experience shows that the
money of the superrich was not quite enough to get Mitt into the
White House.
So what is this fight about?
While Obama won, Romney did get
48% of the popular vote. Most of those folks were not superrich. Why
did they vote for Romney? It is hard to believe that they cast their
vote as they did out of concern for a possible tax increase for the
superrich. We know that about 60% - 70% of voters support such a tax
increase. At least about 12% - 22% of those voters must have been
Republicans.
But perhaps asking what
Republican voters were for is asking the wrong question. What
were they against? That's pretty clear. The Republican agenda
is not only looking to help the superrich get even richer but it is
going to balance the budget by cutting back on government programs to
support the unemployed, the poor and the elderly – all of them
members of the 47% whom Romney accused of not being willing to get
their life together but waiting, instead, for government handouts.
What's wrong with being poor
except, of course, that it's a pretty miserable life: you work hard
all week and have very little to show for all your effort.
Another interesting statistic
may help us understand this: 88% of the vote for Romney was from
white folks. White people – at least where I live – would be
reluctant to be openly racist. That's not really acceptable anymore.
But a lot of white people who think that they are open-minded,
tolerant and dedicated to equal opportunities and rights for all,
also believe that black people are the majority of those who receive
unemployment insurance, who get some government aid to allow them to
feed their children, in short, the 47% that Romney professed not to
care about. These whites also tend to believe that black welfare
clients could make a living if they were not so lazy or shiftless.
Many whites believe that sort of thing without any evidence about the
lives of the poor. The beliefs of many whites about welfare
recipients are clearly prejudices.
The vote for Romney had a
strong racial component. It was not in favor of African-Americans,
Hispanic Americans, of women from all different backgrounds. It made
no effort to appeal to African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and
women.
The fight about raising taxes
for the superrich is symbolic. It is really about support for
the poor, the sick, and the elderly. That fight is confused by an
often unspoken racist and sexist background.
We may congratulate ourselves
for having reelected a black man for president for a second term. But
the price of this victory is renewed virulence of the disease of
racism that we Americans have suffered from for the last 400 years.
The disease may not be quite as
powerful as it was. But we are still very sick.
It may well push us over the
fiscal cliff.
No comments:
Post a Comment