Practicing Class Warfare

"We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals."

- Theodore Roosevelt, "We Stand at Armageddon", 1912




The Republican Party has been charging the Democratic Party with practicing class warfare for years, apparently because of policies that tend to favor understanding the plight of and wanting to help those Americans who are less fortunate than others. The understanding of financial diversities within the American public and striving to give a hand up to those in need should be considered an admirable goal by most Americans and not derided as a shortcoming of a political party. Evidence exists that points to a class warfare practiced by the alleged "compassionate conservatives" that is anything but compassionate. In fact, their social and financial policies might better be called repressive towards those less fortunate.


According to the Republicans, the economic and budgetary successes accomplished during the Clinton years should not be credited to his policies or ideals. Rather they claim that those successes were due in large part to the fiscal responsibility practiced by the Republican led Congress. But did they really practice fiscal responsibility?


The Associated Press recently released a study providing evidence that, while they may not have increased pork barrel spending, they certainly took actions that proved financially beneficial to the more affluent suburbs and GOP leaning farm areas.(1) This resulted in an average of $612 million more in federal spending last year in districts represented by Republicans than those represented by Democrats. That directly impacts services not only through more business loans and farm subsidies, but also through fewer public housing grants and food stamps. Spending on child care food programs was cut by eighty percent, public housing grants were all but eliminated, rental housing loans for rural areas and special benefits for coal miners were cut by two-thirds, and the food stamp program was cut by a third.


GOP leaders readily admit that the spending shift was aimed at ensuring that GOP areas received what they term "fairer treatment." Of course everything has a political motivation, but shouldn't the spending of our tax dollars be focused on real need rather than a transparent attempt to buy votes? Sure it should, but in reality nothing will change until the American public pays closer attention and demands that elected officials do what is best for the people. The AP study paints a devastating picture of political party economic priorities and conclusive evidence of the importance of which major party controls Congress.


While both major political parties benefit from campaign contributions from large corporations, the GOP is well known as the party that pushes for policies benefiting corporations over people. The Bush tax cut passed last year is well known for favoring the richest one percent of Americans and large corporations. Indications already exist that the "trickle down" theory is not working. Putting more money back into the hands of the wealthy and the large corporations was supposed to spur investment in industry and more jobs, but last week economic data showed that the expected 75,000 increase in jobs fell far short at just 6,000 jobs.