The Republican Blueprint for Progress?

Dr. Errington Thompson

When Republicans took control of the House of Representatives last November, everyone knew that things were going to be different. The question was just how different, and now we know the answer. Things are very, very different.

We must remember that Republicans see government completely differently than the rest of America. Remember Ronald Reagan’s refrain: “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.” Republicans have taken up this slogan as a guiding principle; it is their mantra.

As we look across the United States, we see Republicans doing their best to put this central belief into legislation, so we should not be surprised by dramatic cuts to budgets and core programs. They don’t like Social Security. They don’t like Medicare/Medicaid. They don’t like welfare. They don’t like housing aid, or union rights, or equal rights for women and minorities. They rallied and voted against these programs in the 1930s and the 1960s and the 1990s.

What do they like? They love free enterprise. They love open markets
where corporations can run amok, unencumbered by regulations. They love
the Pentagon, as long as the Pentagon continues to spend money in the
private sector—especially in their districts. They love big businesses
and big profits and big incomes for themselves and their friends.

What do they hate? The Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Labor, the Departments of Education and Health & Human
Services. They hate anything that puts any limits or regulations on
business, no matter how essential to the well-being and safety and
health of “we the people.” And they are completely indifferent to Main
Street, small business, working people, children, and “the general
welfare” of the American populace at large.

Last month, I talked about Wisconsin’s Republican governor Scott
Walker and his attack on collective bargaining and unions. Conservatives
believe that unions strangle big business; therefore, they have no use
for unions. Since then, the governor of Maine decided that a mural
hanging in the Department of Labor was not “business friendly.” The
mural depicted the history of labor in the state of Maine. It was taken
down.

Florida’s new governor, Rick Scott, has been following this same
conservative playbook. He has proposed a $703 million cut to education
funding. He wants to eliminate almost 1,700 jobs from the Department of
Corrections and reduce overall state government by almost 9,000
employees. He would like to transfer Florida’s Medicaid recipients into
privately owned managed-care programs, the largest of which he once
owned and which is now held by a trust set up in his wife’s name. This
transfer of public money from state taxpayers into private hands would
do nothing to increase quality of care, but it would enrich him
personally. And typically, in the face of a state budget deficit of $3.6
billion, Governor Scott would like to give away almost $4 billion in
tax cuts that would unduly benefit the very rich.

U.S. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (Republican) has
introduced a similar plan for “balancing the federal budget.” His plan
takes an axe, not a scalpel, to the federal budget. Representative Ryan
is proposing $4.3 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, the majority
of which will be felt by the poor and the middle class. Cuts to
Medicaid, Pell grants, food stamps, and low income housing support are
the mainstay of this budget. According to the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office, the typical American over the age of 65 will pay more
under this Republican plan than under the current system.

The purpose of the Republican plan is to privatize medical care.
Studies have shown that Medicare and Medicaid deliver cost-effective
care better than private insurance. One reason is that the federal
programs have less than five percent in overhead costs, compared to an
average between 25 percent and 30 percent in for-profit private insurers
(after all, the money for executive bonuses has to come from
somewhere). Switching Americans from Medicare to private insurance would
increase costs and not improve care. From a Republican standpoint, this
is good, as long as—in fact, because—it decreases government in size
and scope.

In the old days, conservatives played their cards fairly close to
the vest. They didn’t want American knowing their deep-seated hatred
for government and for most, if not all, all government programs. Now,
with the support of the Tea Party, they feel emboldened.

It is time for progressives to push back. Polls have consistently
shown that Americans, especially those around age 65, like
Medicare/Medicaid. With college tuition rising, our youth need more
help, not less, paying for college. We need more grants, not fewer, to
help our kids get through school without owing tens of thousands of
dollars. With the economy slowly improving, there are still millions of
Americans out of work. Cutting food stamps and assistance for low-income
housing is a proven formula to choke off our slow economic recovery.

The difference between progressives and conservatives is now
starker than ever. On one hand, we could give tax cuts to the rich and
cut services to the poor and the middle class. On the other, we could
increase taxes on those who can afford it and continue programs that
have been successful in the past at helping the poor and the middle
class get ahead. It’s not hard to figure out where most of America’s
middle class would come down on that choice.