WPA Poster: Pennsylvania

(Image courtesy of the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.) 

The Reverse New Deal: Obstructing access to food, water, shelter, and healthcare

Obstructing Access to Food:

Our political "leaders" in Congress--those "rudderless bunch of idiots" with the record low approval ratings--have been working feverishly to deprive low-income Americans of food assistance. They've scaled back food stamps, lowered funding for Meals on Wheels, and scolded the idea that low-income children should receive free or reduced-price school lunches.

(See, for example, "Meals on Wheels budget cuts: 'Slowly developing crisis'")

(New Deal policymakers felt that food was important for all Americans. That's why they facilitated the serving of 1.2 billion school lunches to America's schoolchildren, made sure that men in the Civilian Conservation Corps were well fed, and distributed food to low-income Americans via a surplus commodities program. WPA poster, courtesy of the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.) 

Obstructing Access to Water:

The city of Detroit has shut off water to many of its low-income residents who have fallen behind on their bills (but, apparently, they have not shut off water to businesses that have fallen behind on their bills). 

This is probably a sign of things to come. As income & wealth inequality grows, and water becomes more scarce, sociopathic behavior by those in power will likely increase.

(See, for example, "Detroit Shuts Off Water to Residents but Not to Businesses Who Owe Millions")

(New Deal policymakers felt that water was important for all Americans. That's why they paid unemployed workers to install 16,000 miles of new waterlines, 420,000 water consumer connections, and 4,000 new water wells. Above, WPA workers are installing water mains in Wicomico County, Maryland, 1940. Photo courtesy of the University of Maryland College Park Archives.)

Obstructing Access to Shelter:

In Kansas, where massive tax-cuts-for-the-rich have busted the state's budget, a homeless shelter is having its state funding cut in half. Hence, it will soon be closing so that rich Kansans can retain their unnecessary tax breaks. And, to add insult to injury, super-wealthy Kansans did not create many jobs in return for their tax breaks. Kansas lags far behind their neighboring states (states with higher taxes on the wealthy) in job creation...highlighting, yet again, the failure of trickle-down economics.

(See, for example, "What's The Matter With Kansas And Its Tax Cuts? It Can't Do Math" and "Budget Cuts Force Homeless Shelter To Close As Tax Breaks Go To Wealthy Kansans")

In addition to the trickle-down foolishness occurring in Kansas, we know that many laws criminalizing homelessness have been instituted across the nation. The homeless have also frozen to death, been beaten to death by thrill killers, and had their belongings stolen and/or destroyed by law enforcement.

(See, for example, "Three New Mexico teens charged with killing homeless men" and "(Democrat Politician) Uses Sledgehammer To Destroy Homeless People's Possessions")

(New Deal policymakers felt that shelter was important for all Americans. That's why they created affordable housing, built work camps for homeless people who wanted jobs, and rebuilt areas devastated by natural disasters. WPA poster, courtesy of the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.) 

Obstructing Access to Healthcare:

Republicans and Tea Partiers--funded by the Koch brothers and inspired by Ayn Rand--have burned the midnight oil trying to figure out how to bar low-income Americans from preventative healthcare. Their most high-profile and deadly action has been to prohibit the expansion of Medicaid in the states they control, even though the federal government would foot the entire bill for the first few years and 90% thereafter. According to a study from Harvard, this will likely result in thousands of low-income Americans living shorter lives. Of course, this is common sense. If you don't have health insurance, you're less likely to visit a doctor (for fear of the bill), and thus less likely to catch problems--like cancer or diabetes--early enough to prevent them from becoming debilitating or deadly.

And, of course, you're less likely to get the medicine you need without health insurance.

(See, for example, "Harvard Study: States' Medicaid expansion refusal will kill thousands")

 

(New Deal policymakers felt that healthcare was important for all Americans. That's why they operated health clinics, built hospitals, and hired unemployed nurses to tend to the health needs of low-income Americans. Photo courtesy of the National Archives and the New Deal Network.)

Why?

Why are all these things being done to low-income Americans? Because, even as Corporate America (a) sends jobs overseas, (b) replaces workers with machines, (c) lays off thousands of workers to enrich their executives, (d) refuses to give workers a raise, (e) scales back health & retirement benefits, (f) practices employment discrimination against the jobless, (g) engages in all manner of criminal & fraudulent behavior, and (h) bribes politicians to enact laws favorable to them and detrimental to everyone else, millions of Americans continue to buy into the right-wing declaration that all low-income Americans are unskilled "parasites" who don't deserve assistance--and that their low-income status is entirely their own fault. It's akin to blaming a store clerk beating, during a robbery, on the clerk's inability to avoid the beating. In other words, it's an assignment of blame steeped in a callous & cartoonish absurdity.

(See, for example, "Banking Is a Criminal Industry Because Its Crimes Go Unpunished" and "Matt Taibbi: America Has A 'Profound Hatred Of The Weak And The Poor'")

Historical evidence to the contrary:

If low-income & unemployed Americans are so lazy and unskilled, how did these so-called "lazy" and "unskilled" people accomplish the greatest modernization of American infrastructure in U.S. history during the New Deal years? How did they create & improve thousands of parks that we still enjoy today? Why did Ronald Reagan praise the WPA in his autobiography? Answer: Because the idea that all low-income & unemployed Americans are lazy, unskilled, and entirely to blame for their low-income status, is nothing but politically-motivated bulls&*t.

Welcome:

Welcome to the Reverse New Deal: A persistent, perverted, and misinformed obsession to block low-income Americans from food, water, shelter, and healthcare.  

WPA Poster: Party & Barter

(Image courtesy of the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.)

400 square miles burnt and no sign of a Civilian Conservation Corps

(Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) workers in Georgia, 1933. Millions of men, including World War 1 veterans, Indians, and young adults desperate for a paycheck, found work in the CCC. Among their many work responsibilities were fire prevention and fire fighting. Photo courtesy of the National Archives and the New Deal Network.)

Recently, about 400 square miles have burned in Washington State. 

Currently, unemployment is still high for young adults (as it has been for the past 6+ years). For example, for men between the ages of 20 and 24, the unemployment rate in June 2014 was 11.7% (and we know that official unemployment figures rarely capture the whole problem).

One would think that a country facing record-setting wildfires, higher-than-normal temperatures, and a high unemployment rate for young adults, would look to the past and see what has worked before. For example, the Civilian Conservation Corps. Are we?

Nope.

Republican & Tea Party politicians are too busy trying to bar low-income Americans from health insurance, and Democrats are trying desperately not to appear too "socialistic."

So, we let the goals & dreams of our youth burn alongside our natural areas, as we wait for the mythical "JOB CREATORS" to come to the rescue, and as our political "leaders" pocket their campaign cash.

WPA Poster: Can You Stop?

(Image courtesy of the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.)

Right-Wing Lies vs. New Deal Truth (part 10 of 10): "The New Deal did not work!"

(U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.)

U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) summed up the modern right-wing philosophy on the New Deal when he said: "...we know for sure that the big spending programs of the New Deal did not work."

But when FDR took office in 1933, the national unemployment rate was about 20-23%. In 1940, before the U.S. entered the war, it was at 9.5% (McConnell says it was 15%, but that figure does not include Americans working in the WPA, CCC, NYA, etc.). Also, in the three years before FDR took office, the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) plummeted by 12% in 1930, 16% in 1931, and 23% in 1932. During the New Deal, America saw its GDP skyrocket. These are the figures from 1933 to 1940: -3.9%, +17%, +11%, +14%, +10%, -6%, +7%, and +10%. (Figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, here.)

(A graph showing rising GDP during the New Deal era. Image by Brent McKee.)

If the big spending programs of the New Deal did not work, how do we explain the American economy expanding, after World War II, along thousands of miles of New Deal roads, across thousands of New Deal bridges, and out of hundreds of New Deal airports?

If the big spending programs of the New Deal did not work, why are we still enjoying & utilizing so many thousands of New Deal creations (see, e.g., The Living New Deal)? It seems just a tad hypocritical to scold the New Deal, and then use a WPA-built road to take the family on a vacation to a CCC-created state park.

(A historical marker at Swallow Falls State Park in western Maryland, honoring the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps. Photo by Brent McKee.)

If the big spending programs of the New Deal did not work, why is there a statue of Ronald Reagan--the icon of the right-wing movement--standing at a big New Deal project site (see next photo)? And why did Reagan enjoy the WPA & CCC-developed Camp David more than any other president? And why did Reagan write in his autobiography, "The WPA was one of the most productive elements of FDR's alphabet soup of agencies because it put people to work building roads, bridges, and other projects...it gave men and women a chance to make some money along with the satisfaction of knowing they earned it."

(The Ronald Reagan statue at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, formerly called Washington National Airport. The airport is a New Deal creation, utilizing funds from the PWA, labor from the WPA, and a great deal of advocacy & arm-twisting by FDR. Photo by Brent McKee.)

(A presentation I made about the WPA's infrastructure improvements during the New Deal era. The presentation includes some nice narration, music, statistics, and historic film & photos. YouTube link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snOXQsVipwE.)

Aside from the work & construction components of the New Deal, if FDR's alphabet soup was so bad, why do we still enjoy FDIC protection for our bank accounts, Social Security for our grandparents, and unemployment insurance when we get laid off via corporate greed, corruption, and crime?

So, let's sum up the New Deal: Lower unemployment; higher GDP; infrastructure for our post-World War II economic expansion; thousands of New Deal projects still being used today; Reagan's statue at a large New Deal site; Reagan praising the WPA in his autobiography; and New Deal policies that still help us, three-quarters of a century later.

That's failure?? Wow, okaaaay...

(U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren explains how a New Deal-era policy--Glass-Steagall--helped stabilize the American economy for decades. Excellent commentary by Cenk Uygur. Original YouTube link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTWfa-iO9Nc.)

The truth is, people who say the "New Deal did not work" are people who either (a) don't know their history, (b) do know their history but place zero cultural or economic value on roads, bridges, schools, airports, state parks, and public art, or (c) work for think tanks, media outlets, legislative bodies, or non-profits that are funded & controlled by right-wing millionaires & billionaires who don't want the public to know the truth about the New Deal. Why? Because, if the public ever fully realized (1) just how badly they're being treated by Corporate America and our corporate-controlled government, and (2) just how valuable the New Deal was to this country, they would demand a new & stronger New Deal. And a new & stronger New Deal would require more tax revenue from the super-wealthy and, perhaps, fewer 24-karat gold bathtubs for their children to soak and gloat in.

Don't listen to the right-wing lies....learn the New Deal truth. 

Right-Wing Lies vs. New Deal Truth (part 9 of 10): "Half the country doesn't pay taxes!!!"

(Image courtesy of Wikipedia.)

In an attempt to cast some middle-class Americans, and all lower-income Americans, as "takers" and "parasites," therefore marginalizing their political voice, right-wing extremists often claim that middle & lower-income Americans don't pay taxes.

The problem here, is that they routinely leave out the words "federal income." The political right screams, "They don't pay taxes!", when they should be saying, calmly, "They usually don't pay federal income taxes." Why is this important? Because middle & lower-income Americans get hammered by an array of other taxes, tolls, fees, and fines, usually at the state & local level. Perhaps their federal income tax relief is an acknowledgement that they are getting battered elsewhere.

(See "Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent") 

Middle & lower-income Americans pay one or all of the following: Federal fuel tax, state fuel tax, sales tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, property tax, state income tax, local income tax, and more. And these taxes are more burdensome (i.e., regressive) on lower-income Americans, for two reasons. The first reason is because it takes a higher percentage of their income to satisfy, for example, the sales tax. If a middle or lower-income person buys a $100 air conditioner, the $5-6 sales tax extracts a much higher percentage of his/her income, than it would from an upper middle-class or wealthy person's income. Does that seem fair to you? And that's just one purchase. Multiply this regressive taxation over hundreds of transactions, year after year.

The second reason these taxes are more burdensome on middle & lower-income individuals is because they extract money from their necessity income, whereas, from a wealthy person, it is extracted from his/her luxury income. To put it another way, a middle or lower-income person needs every penny he/she has for rent, car payments (or public transportation costs), groceries, utilities, clothes, etc. Wealthy people have these necessities covered, many times over, and so when they pay a tax it merely cuts into the money they might otherwise use for non-necessity spending, e.g., luxury items like boats, multiple homes, vacations, art, car collections, and gold-plated bathtubs.

(See "No, The Rich Do Not Pay 'All The Taxes'")

In addition to regressive taxation, middle & lower-income Americans are also pummeled with regressive tolls, fees, and fines. A $5 bridge toll, a $60 car registration fee, a $25 parking fine are all regressive, meaning the government is forcing a middle or lower-income person to pay a higher percentage of his/her income to satisfy the toll, fee, or fine. Again, does this strike you as fair?

Interestingly, some countries base their traffic fines on a person's income. This is how it should be. If a fine is intended to deter behavior, e.g., speeding, then it needs to be in proportion to one's income so that the deterrence effect is equal. Bill Gates is not going to be deterred from speeding by a $100 fine (he may, or may not, be deterred for other reasons, e.g., a sense of social obligation to obey the law). However, most low-income drivers will be deterred by such a fine. Once again, does this seem fair to you--that government uses a heavier hand of deterrence on middle & lower-income folks? Of course, we rarely think about these things do we? And that's just how the political right, and the millionaires & billionaires who fund them, want it: Keep the people embarrassed about their lower-income status, and sheepish about the regressive taxes, tolls, fees, and fines that they are forced to pay.

(See "Soaking the Poor, State by State")

As if all of the above were not bad enough, many super-wealthy Americans hide money in foreign bank accounts, or set up complicated estates & trusts, to evade and avoid taxes. These types of schemes are largely unavailable for middle & lower-income Americans. In this same vein, Corporate America is infamous in its ability to lobby for tax loopholes, and to play states & countries against one another, to secure the lowest possible effective tax rate. Do you think middle & lower-income Americans can play states & countries against one another, to secure lower taxes, the way Corporate America does?

And all this tax evasion & avoidance by many super-wealthy Americans (e.g., 22,000 at just one foreign bank; see next set of links) causes a downward pressure on revenue. In other words, to make up for the lost revenue from the super-wealthy (i.e., less potential for federal assistance), state & local governments are forced to raise taxes, tolls, fees, and fines on middle & lower-income Americans. And, indeed, that's just what they've been doing for the past 30+ years.

(See "Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans $3 Trillion Each Year," "Credit Suisse bank charged in helping wealthy Americans avoid taxes," and "Republican Platform Now Endorses Gutting Laws that Stop Offshore Tax Evasion")

New Deal policymakers realized that our tax system is skewed in favor of super-wealthy Americans who can game the system with lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, tax shelters, foreign bank accounts, and political campaign contributions. That's why, when President Franklin Roosevelt advocated for the Revenue Act of 1935, which increased taxes on the super-wealthy, he said, "Our revenue laws have operated in many ways to the unfair advantage of the few" (from The New Deal: A Modern History, by Michael Hiltzik, 2011).

Sadly, we haven't followed Roosevelt's lead but, instead, are back to coddling the super-wealthy. And this coddling is one of the major reasons why poverty is rising and the middle-class is shrinking in America.