Views > March 8, 2007

Which Side Are We On?

By Sen. Bernie Sanders

In early February, President Bush told a group of Wall Street executives that “income inequality is real; it’s been rising for more than 25 years. … And the question is whether we respond to the income inequality we see with policies that help lift people up, or tear others down.”

It’s ironic that this president raised the issue of income inequality because his own trickle-down economic policies have contributed to the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else, a situation worse today than at any time since the ’20s.

Despite Bush’s professed concern, the budget he recently submitted to Congress will exacerbate the enormous gap between the rich and the poor, squeeze the middle class, reward war profiteers and hurt those most in need.

The president’s budget cuts the number of children receiving childcare assistance by 300,000 and terminates food stamps for 280,000 families. At a time when veterans urgently need access to healthcare, the president’s budget imposes a new enrollment fee for Veterans Administration healthcare as high as $750. And the list goes on and on.

Over the next decade, the Bush budget would cut Medicare by $252 billion and Medicaid by $28 billion. In 2008 alone, education will be cut by $1.5 billion and the Environmental Protection Agency will lose $509 million.

The administration claims we just don’t have the money to reduce childhood poverty or provide universal healthcare. Meanwhile, millionaires would receive an average tax break of $160,000 per year at a cost of $739 billion over the next decade. And, the president’s 2008 defense budget — $608 billion — is more than at the height of the Vietnam and Korean Wars.

Class warfare is being waged in America and the wrong side is winning. It is time for the new Democratic majority in Congress to stand with the working families of our country. It is time we offer a budget that reflects the needs of working people instead of the wealthy.

And it is time for citizens across the nation to stand up and demand that their representatives and senators, Democrats and Republicans, do so and thereby represent the interests of all Americans, not a select few.

We must ask: Which side are we on? Are we for the rich and the powerful or the middle class and working families?

As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I see a pretty clear answer. I will not be voting for more tax breaks for the outgoing CEO of Home Depot, who recently received a $210 million golden parachute. Rather, I will be voting to substantially increase financial aid for low and middle class families so that every American, regardless of income, can receive a college education.

I will not support a tax cut for the former CEO of Pfizer, who received a $200 million compensation package. Instead, I will vote to substantially increase funding for childcare so that families can find affordable and quality care for their children.

The former CEO of ExxonMobil, who managed to get a $400 million retirement package, does not need more tax relief. It is far more important that we keep our promises to the veterans of this country who now find themselves on waiting lists to get the health care they need.

If we as a nation are serious about creating a more egalitarian society, we need to invest more federal resources in education, health care, housing, infrastructure, environmental protection and sustainable energy. We also have to reduce our national debt. Given that reality, Congress must develop the courage to stand up to the big money interests and roll back the tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent, stop corporate welfare, eliminate unneeded defense weaponry, and demand that the wealthy and powerful rejoin American society.

We should do nothing less.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  “every American, regardless of income, can receive a college education.”

  While one might hope that every *qualified* applicant to a college would be able to afford it, it is foolish to believe that every student leaving high school *should* go to college. The bottom half academically are mostly unsuitable for college and should pursue job training opportunities that they are better suited for. This is not a bad thing - plumbers, carpenters, etc are all good honorable professions and can pay quite well.

  Other than that nitpick, i am all for raising taxes for the extremely wealthy. But i doubt that the problems of the poor can be solved by government assistance. Far too often their problems lie in bad choices they make, such as too early childbearing, too early marriage (and/or single mother households) and dropping out of school.

  Posted by wolf on Mar 8, 2007 at 9:19 AM

  Why raise their taxes ? Bitch egalitarianism ? We need to get the government out of education en toto. Not everyone should go to high
  school, much less college. 90% or more of all jobs are learned on the job. Plumbers are one of the better paid criminal groups in society. All
  the left stands for is more taxes, more controls and more government.
  Socialism has failed every place on the globe and yet is promoted by
  mongoloids here. Unbelievable.

  Posted by blondemike on Mar 8, 2007 at 11:11 AM

  Not more taxes, but fairer taxes.  Trickle down economics didn’t work under Reagan and doesn’t work now.  Removing the significant additional tax breaks the wealthy have enjoyed since 2002 and then lowering taxes for the middle class will be a good start.

  Posted by tomkins on Mar 8, 2007 at 3:52 PM

  Removing the tax breaks for the rich would kill the boom and finish off the economy. Fair taxes are an oxymoron. Taxation is theft at the point of a gun. The economy did boom after Reagan’s cuts took effect, they were
  in a three year stage. In fact in life most things trickle down, they don’t happen all at once. The progressives will NEVER lower taxes for the middle class, that is boob bait, they want an expanding lower class to
  keep them in power forever.

  Posted by blondemike on Mar 8, 2007 at 6:51 PM

  Hi blondemike,
  Um, who has looked for more control, more government than the current administration?

  I’m confused; you’re against formal education (the U.S. school system historically, the best through government intervention) and trades for thou’s inclined otherwise ; such as plumbers, electricians, etc.

  As a carpenter; I stand with them, as a student I stand with them

  After 35 yrs, mostly in construction, but a few in academia, management(ugh!), retail, etc.; I appreciate the years necessary.

  Posted by homohabilis on Mar 8, 2007 at 7:57 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 56 posts.

Member Login

Also by Sen. Bernie Sanders

• Earth to Bush
  While the prez pats himself on the back, 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty, hunger and homelessness
• Which Side Are We On?
  
• No Small Achievement
  
• Remote Control
  
• An Indecent Act
  
• Ground Control to Mr. Bush