Home / News Features /  Speaking Up for That '1%'
  Share
Monday, October 31,2011

Speaking Up for That '1%'

Paul Ryan wages class warfare on the rest of us

By Joe Conason
 
Lauded by the Washington press corps for his "courage" and "honesty" in allegedly confronting federal deficits and the national debt, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) wrote a budget that almost sank the Republican Party—and may still damage its prospects—because he proposed to dismantle Medicare. Yet his party still relies upon Ryan to speak on behalf of its most important constituency, now known in America and across the world as "the 1%."

Addressing the right-wing Heritage Foundation last week, Ryan sought to discredit Elizabeth Warren—the Massachusetts Democratic senatorial candidate, Harvard faculty member, creator of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Enemy No. 1 of Wall Street cheaters—for daring to utter an obvious truth.

While praising the creativity and industriousness of entrepreneurs, Warren recently pointed out that business cannot thrive without functional government providing police and fire protection, safe and efficient transportation, educated workers and myriad other public services.

Paying for those services is a responsibility that must be broadly shared, she said, and the rich who have benefited most from government in so many ways should now pay their fair share of its budgets and debts.

"You built a factory out there? Good for you," she explained in videotaped remarks that lit up the Internet not long ago. "But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory—and hire someone to protect against this—because of the work the rest of us did.

"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea,” she added. “God bless—keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Ryan Channels Ayn Rand

That simple, plainly factual statement obviously rankled Ryan, a philosophical acolyte of the extreme libertarianism of the late Ayn Rand, whose spirit he channeled in excoriating Warren for supposedly elevating government over "the individual, the family, the entrepreneur," which he called "completely, inherently backwards."

Nothing that Warren actually said indicates the primacy of government over the individual and the family, or even the private sector—and Ryan is certainly intelligent enough to understand what she meant. Did he misinterpret her words intentionally? The telltale evidence lies in his own remarks about government's role in society.

"No one is suggesting that we don't need good schools and roads and infrastructure as a basis for a free society and a free enterprise system," he told the Heritage audience. But Ryan's own budget, with its enormous tax cuts for the wealthy and its required cuts in spending, would cripple government's capacity to provide those services.

Under a Ryan budget, infrastructure and education would not only continue to languish, but starve. He also nodded toward "our safety net system," calling it "necessary, I believe, to help people who can't themselves, to help people who are down on their luck get back onto their feet," without acknowledging that his budget would decimate that system entirely, depriving seniors of the benefits that have raised millions from poverty over the past half-century.

The gist of Ryan's speech was to scold President Obama for allegedly promoting "class warfare" and for incivility toward his political opponents. (Such complaints might be taken more seriously from a politician who had spoken up at some point against the racially divisive "birther" propaganda in his own party.) Understandably, Ryan isn't eager to discuss the issues of wealth and income distribution, preferring to focus on "upward mobility."

But between Ryan and Warren, who is the better exemplar of the American Dream? Ryan is a figure from the privileged class he defends, scion of a Midwestern construction empire created two generations ago that enabled him to pursue an expensive education and a political career without worrying about the cost. Growing up middle-class in Oklahoma City, Warren had to struggle for her own advancement from the age of 12, after her father's heart attack and medical bills almost ruined her family. She has worked all her life, starting as a waitress, and she put herself through law school.

Before Ryan delivers another lecture on the "fatal conceit of liberalism," he ought to examine his own silly conceit: that he and others like him represent the hardworking majority, when he was merely born at the top.

© 2011 Creators.com

 

POST A COMMENT
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
We all agree we need a "government providing police and fire protection, safe and efficient transportation, educated workers and myriad other public services." We all agree we need to pay our fair share. But Elizabeth Warren doesn't know what the fair share is? Where is her plan other than just whining like an idiot that the rich need to pay more. Maybe 40%? Oh wait, they are already paying 50%. Paying for those government services is fine. But over-paying and handing out free pensions, free health care, and above market wages while taxing harder and smarter working people more is just crazy. One thing I've noticed about the top 1%, is they actually get up and go to work every day. I heard the top 1% are those that make over $350k per year. I thought it would be like $5 million. Because just about every I know makes $100k to a million a year out here in Merton and Delafield. My friends and neighbors are taxed plenty already. I wish these liberals would stop talking like they know whats best for the economy. Most low income liberals I know have zero knowledge of Classical Economics, free enterprise, Capitalism, wealth building techniques, and money management. Stop blaming rich people because poor people just won't turn the light bulb on. We are all for helping those who can't help themselves. But those down on their luck, well we all create our own luck. People down on their luck is usually a result of a series of poor choices or being suckered. Life is like Las Vegas - you are either a winner or a loser. And most winners don't gamble. This Warren woman is a nobody, a zero. The S.E. wouldn't even print her picture. Just her ignorant simplistic ideas on economics and thinking the rich 1% who pay about 50% of the taxes just isn't enough. She is took cowardly to toss out a percentage that the rich should pay. Then again when you are paying 50% it takes a lot of nerve for someone to suggest more. That would be like asking someone to start working 25 hours a day.

 

And why is it that most "low income liberals" have "zero knowledge of Classical Economics, free enterprise, Capitalism, wealth building techniques, and money management"?

Because the last thing a mover and shaker wants is a "smart consumer", a "smart investor", or a "smart voter", they only want a "smart worker", oh right, most of that has been outsourced! -- And the other worst thing for your worker to have is an "environmental awareness" as he is told to dump that 55 gallon drum out in the back 40.

A mover and shaker only wants "tools that blissfully do what they are told to do". That goes for both their labor force and for their customers. Why does it seem that the "hot item for the holidays" has already been manufactured 6 months in advance of when consumer surveys say it is hot?

How did we strip the real knowledge out of the schools? By commercializing American life, and once addicted to the need for brand name stuff, knock down the pay scales so that nobody has time to step back to "observe" and "critically think" anymore.

And to think that we once thought we could be so productive that we could satisfy all our weekly material needs with only one family member working a 40-hour job.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
She goes on and on about someone with a factory and seems to elude the person who owns the factory doesn't pay taxes. Gee did she ever think about why the person built the factory and has legal loopholes such as accelerated depreciation, hiring tax credits, and other legal deductions the government provides as an incentive to open a factory? She just sound like some idiot that sees anyone who owns a business or lives in a mansion as some kind of mythical rich person that has been screwing the "rest of us". Believe me, we business owners pay taxes. The one I hate is the unemployment tax on my own salary but if I decided to lay myself off I can't collect unemployment.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Well mister anonymous, what about the poor CEO's who almost sank there companies with those subprime mortagages then parachuted out with large golden parchutes when fired.

 

You mean Fannie and Freddie?  As championed by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et. al? 

Are you actually going to spout about subprime loans and not mention the GSOs that made them happen?  Without subprime loans, the bad derivates based on the loans never could have happened.  Get informed.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Paul Ryan does have actual work experience. He drove the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile. Somehow I think he is more suited to that job.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
I remember learning about "creation of money" in my Econ 101 class back in the late 70's. By allowing a bank to re-lend no more than 80% of their hard-cash deposits, paying no mind to whether that depositor's cash was from new hard cash or earned from somebody else's loan, an initial $1 put in by the (government or investor) would eventually be doing $6 worth of "on paper" work in the economy. That was called "creation of money". Nobody ever wanted to consider that this $6 was still $5 worth of loans that wanted all that $5 back... plus interest! It meant that once all the loans were paid back we would not have that full $1 anymore.

I always wondered how that could be considered "creation" of money. It was really a pyramid scheme type of tool that did indeed prompt us to "make more stuff", but could never be gracefully ended. Debt has to constantly grow, debt cannot be paid off. Since Capitalism "allows" the building up of unequal distribution of that wealth through shrewd marketing and business deals, the game was to make sure you were holding at the time the game fell apart. They never told you that in Business School.

My opinion, those who are "holding" today have lost faith in the American economy, and want to find a way to "cash out" tax free so they can take it to an economy that still has room to grow. DO NOT ASSUME that they will "spend it here, keep it here", meaning the main street of America. "Job creation" must be accepted by the American voter to mean creation of jobs in the 3rd world if the movers and shakers expect to continue the game. They will try their damnedest to make sure the working class, welfare class, and Middle class believe that all these pro-business "cost cutting" measures serve to create American jobs, won't we be fooled when those jobs are created elsewhere, and now all that on paper money is no longer in the American legal jurisdiction, will not be able to be taxed or confiscated.

 

 
 
Today in Milwaukee
CityGuide2012_banner_410x93_040512.jpg
SpringGuideToHigherEd2012_410x93.jpg
SAG_Click2012.jpg
Express234x120.gif

Join Us at Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and Flickr


 
 
 
*/?>