These days, the corporate media are having a ball. Between the
summer Olympics, election coverage, and, of course, Elian Gonzalez,
there are plenty of sweet nothings to be whispered into
America’s attentive ears.
Sadly, while “analysts” unabashedly bluster over the
same side of the same issue each day, there are serious problems
affecting millions of Americans which the media have successfully
banished from many people’s consciousness. Having trouble
thinking of anything? Try poverty.
Here in America, one of the wealthiest nations in the world,
there are hundreds of thousands of people living below the poverty
line and millions more struggling to survive
“underemployment” with low wages and no benefits.
Clearly, despite rumors of a booming economy, there is something
dramatically wrong.
The fact of the matter is that the recent “economic
boom” has disproportionately benefited the corporate bottom
line at the expense of American workers. The globalization of
America’s economy has led to “more efficient”
production, which essentially means that corporations can pack up
shop in the United States and move to developing nations, where
they can exploit cheap labor without such irritating regulations
like environmental standards and labor codes. As production and
labor costs are driven down, profits exponentially increase,
allowing the rich to get richer while the poor grow poorer.
As this trend has emerged, an increasingly heavy burden has
fallen upon the American government to provide workers with social
services such as affordable housing, health care, education and
welfare services. Instead of meeting this responsibility, however,
the American government has consistently and effectively promoted
economic policies detrimental to the poor, working and middle
classes.
Society is based on reciprocity and a strong sense of belonging
to a stable, supportive community. If the American government
continues attacking the working poor, we will all be negatively
impacted as social institutions shift from promoting the collective
well-being of all Americans to favoring a privileged elite with
access to political, social and economic resources.
Many proponents of such cuts argue that social spending should
not be a government venture, and accordingly advocate the continued
elimination of critical social services while promoting
“self-sufficient” alternatives such as privatization.
The idea is that our bureaucratic government cannot be expected to
efficiently manage social programs, so private corporations should
take over. One of the many fallacies of this argument lies in the
fact that administrative costs can be up to 15 percent more in the
private sector when compared to government costs
(http://www.aflcio.org).
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration decided that government
welfare was not necessary and proceeded to rapidly dismantle all
types of welfare services, reducing Aid to Families with Dependent
Children, food stamps and health care through Medicaid.
In “A People’s History of the United States,”
historian Howard Zinn reproduces a letter written by a welfare
mother in response to the Reagan administration’s actions:
“It appears we have governments that can’t govern and
an economic system that can’t produce jobs for people ready
to work. Last week I sold my bed to pay for the insurance on my
car, which, in the absence of mass transportation, I need to go job
hunting. So this is the great American dream my parents came to
this country for.”
Tragically, these conditions have only gotten worse since the
Reagan administration. Instead of promoting expanded economic
opportunities and job markets, the government has rallied around
recent welfare “reforms” which have arbitrarily cut
services to desperate individuals who want to work. The idea that
those living on welfare choose to do so is absurd. Why would anyone
want to live check to check, below the poverty line?
The fact is that most Americans surviving on welfare would much
rather be working steady, well-paying jobs with good benefits which
guarantee some measure of security to their families. Many people
on welfare have lost jobs and been unable to find new ones due to
ongoing trends like downsizing and subcontracting.
Instead of blaming the poor for such conditions, let’s
examine mammoth American corporations, which claim that downsizing
is necessary to “remain competitive” while corporate
CEO paychecks continue to skyrocket. In his 1996 book,
“Downsize This!” social critic Michael Moore remarked
that each year, American corporations receive in excess of $170
billion in tax-funded federal handouts, which breaks down to about
$1,400 from taxpayers. By contrast, the amount of money spent on
all social services, from AFDC to housing assistance programs to
school lunches for children, was a paltry $50 billion a year, or
$1.14 from each of us every day.
The amount of funding granted to “corporate welfare”
as opposed to social services underscores two serious issues.
First, it is clear that the funding priorities of the American
government place the development of extremely wealthy corporations
over the basic daily needs of millions of hard-working families and
dependent children. Second, the figures indicate a tendency for
government policies to cater to select groups, which completely
undermines the American dream in which all people in the United
States are treated equally, regardless of race, class, gender,
access to economic resources and so forth.
Beyond corporate welfare, there are other indications that the
U.S. government has neglected its principle responsibility, which
is to ensure quality lives for American residents. For those who
argue that our inefficient government, with its
“skewed” priorities, should bow out of the process of
combating poverty, I recommend we look at military spending in the
United States. Last month, The Progressive reported that the
Pentagon’s annual budget will reach $300 billion by the end
of 2000. To put this in perspective, it is estimated that the funds
necessary to immediately repair public schools in America would
amount to $110 billion, which is equal to the recent increases in
military spending. In these times of peace, the United States is
spending more on its military than any other nation in the world.
Even Lawrence Korb, the assistant secretary of defense during the
Reagan years, has publicly announced his belief that the
Pentagon’s budget can be $100 billion smaller. So
what’s going on?
Since military spending benefits corporations producing arms and
other agents of destruction, lobbyists and special interest think
tanks use their ample resources to pressure socially irresponsible
politicians to expand outrageous Pentagon funding. Since money
still doesn’t grow on trees, increased funding for the
Pentagon immediately translates into decreased funding for
imperative social services such as health care, support for the
working poor and education.
Poverty is not a permanent social evil that we are doomed to
face forever. Instead, it is an indication of a disconnection
between the needs of the public and the policies of the politically
powerful and economically wealthy. By struggling for living wages,
promoting fair labor practices over “profitable”
sweatshops, and reordering federal budget priorities to favor
social programs and services, we can begin to create a more just
society where the needs of the people triumph over corporate
greed.