Skip to main content

Who Will Speak For the Poor?

If there was any doubt as to who Congress works for, it should have evaporated after the passage of the so-called "Cromnibus" spending bill last week. Included in the funding bill were provisions so odious to good sense that more representatives in Congress should have stood up in protest. One of these, a provision repealing certain regulations on derivatives trading, is so outrageous an act that every single member of Congress who voted for the bill should be ashamed to return to their home districts for Christmas. To make it even worse, the provision was drafted by Citigroup, one of the rogues whose reckless gambling through derivatives trading helped wreck the economy in 2008. Adding insult to injury, the same bill contained a provision raising the maximum allowable political donation so that a couple can now contribute a maximum of $3.1 million to a political party of their choice, as though our system of government was not already awash in money. 

It is fitting that one of the last acts of this Congress is a final insult against the majority of the public. The Congress that couldn't see fit to raise the minimum wage, fix gaping loopholes in the tax code that allow the wealthy and corporations to pay little in taxes, mandate that men and women be paid equally for the same job, couldn't be bothered to help veterans of the wars they helped to create, couldn't help themselves but continue to ignore all but the wealthy at the very end. 

If Congress isn't going to act on behalf of the poor and middle class, then who will? If representatives elected to speak for us all will only speak for a small percentage of exorbitantly wealth Americans, then who will speak for the poor in this country, for those who are supposedly middle class but live lives of economic insecurity, whose ranks grow larger every year? Who will talk about the outrage of a so-called recovery where most of the gains have gone to the top 1%, while incomes remain stagnant or have decreased?

Who in power is going to speak about the injustice of a lack of affordable housing in this country, where rents in urban areas for the smallest of spaces average over $1,000 a month? Who is going to speak about the injustice of a "social safety net" that fails to live up to the name, where a person can be poor enough to barely scrape by, but not poor enough to merit any sort of help? Who will decry the injustice of a broken system of public education, deliberately starved of funds at all levels, so that the nation's children face crowded classrooms with outdated textbooks, and the nation's high school graduates face the prospect of attending college and graduating with debt equivalent to a home mortgage, all for lousy job prospects at the end?

It is outrageous that the men and women on both sides of the aisle supposedly elected to speak for all of us have abandoned almost completely that responsibility. Little wonder, then, that not even 40% of the public eligible to vote bothered to show up at the elections. But this is exactly the wrong response. If our politics is drowning in cash; if our elected leaders speak only for the very rich, then the solution is not disengagement but organization and more activism. The only way to fix the problem, and to get a more responsive Congress, is to band together and give them hell for thinking that we can be ignored. When they are about to do something outrageous, tie up their phone lines with indignation, flood their office with letters and crash their website with email traffic! And if they still don't listen, organize to get them voted out! If you're angry with your elected representative, then do something about it. Only if we act together to change what's happening will we, eventually, manage to get a government that speaks for us all. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...