More proof of the anti-poor ways of the GOP
by Matt | July 13th, 2008 |Our fabulous InterstateQ contributor Casey Pick — who is currently on “hiatus” while she is working for the Log Cabin Republicans — made her debut on this site with a commentary rebuttal to my Feb. 7, 2008 post, “Why don’t they just come out and say it already?”
In that post, I detailed just a few of the numerous reasons why the GOP “doesn’t like poor people” and how they’ve done their best to ensure lower-income Americans continue to live in a mire of economic depression.
In response, Casey said:
So, why don’t conservatives just admit we hate poor people? Very simply, because most of us, like most liberals, don’t. We care deeply about the poor – some of us, myself included, have even lived below the poverty line for much of our lives – and generally we view ourselves as compassionate, reasonable human beings. We just have different beliefs about what will best serve the least among us.
Granted. She has a point. Not all Republicans hate the poor. I’d venture to say that most Republicans care deeply about the living and economic situations of America’s most low-income citizens and families. Someone should relay the message and copy the memo to the GOP leadership in Washington, and in particular, the miserably failed Bush Administration.
There’s a very simple philosophy that you’d think Americans would have learned by now: If you aren’t counted, you don’t count. Really, it’s quite similar to if you don’t vote, you don’t count.
We should have learned this lesson when our founding fathers saw fit not to count the slaves of African-descent. In that instance, only three out of five were counted. We should have learned when Southern states passed crushing Jim Crow legislation to prevent African-Americans from fully participating in our unique American-style democracy.
Now we learn that because of the Defense of Marriage Act, administration officials have said they will not count married, same-sex couples in the next U.S. Census (2010). Instead, the couples will be counted only as “unmarried partners.” Again, if you don’t get counted, you don’t count.
The news of the Administration’s decision not to count same-sex married couples is maddening in and of itself. However, we can’t blame Bush for that screw up. It was his Republican colleagues and our Democratic President Bill Clinton who originally passed DOMA.
What we can blame Bush for, while holding his failed administration responsible for it, is the decision to cut programs from the Department of Commerce in order to pay for the extremely underfunded Census operations:
What came as a shock was Mr. Gutierrez’s message that the White House insists on cutting other Commerce Department programs to come up with new money for the census. Most of the targeted cuts are from programs the White House tried to kill or reduce in 2008, but were rescued by Congress: such as spending for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, marine sanctuaries, pollution control, Chesapeake Bay restoration and economic development grants for Appalachia.
Since Bush conveniently dismisses the Constitution as just “a god-damned piece of paper,” we shouldn’t waste any time reminding him that the Constitution demands a decennial census — something that should have been adequately and properly funded since the last Census in 2000.
In all the cuts that will be made to ensure the survival of the Census, those that’ll sting the most are the cuts to economic development grants for the Appalachians.
Of all geographic areas in the continental U.S., Appalachia is among the poorest of the poor. In the 1960s and even today, some Appalachian “highlanders” live in poverty comparable to that of third-world nations. Children go without shoes during the summer while parents save whatever money they have to buy them for the cold and harsh winters. Some families live in old coal mining company trailers, factories and warehouses. The isolation, coupled with the desolation, is among the worst of America’s historic failures. The Great Depression certainly didn’t help matters.
Poverty Map of the Appalachians. Source: U.S. Census
I’m not from Appalachia. I was lucky enough to grow up in a mid-sized, fairly economically stable city. I was, however, only hour-and-a-half from the Appalachians and traveled there often. My entire family originated from Appalachia, after first arriving to this “New World” from England and Holland. My maternal grandfather, 80 this year, can still tell stories of his old one-room school house near Galax, Cana and Lambsburg, Va. His family was so poor, his father’s carpenter pencils doubled as school supplies and his pocket knife served as his pencil sharpener. One year, he got only fruit for Christmas.
 The Williams Family - my maternal grandmother’s family - Galax, Va., ca. 1920s. Sitting: My great-great grandmother. Second from left: My great-grandmother, Mary Magdalene (Williams) Walker. |
My maternal grandmother grew up in Independence, Va. Her family also originated in the Appalachians. They lived off whatever money they could find and subsistence farming. Certainly, their economic situation was worse than my grandfather’s family; at least his father was a skilled carpenter and a part-time school teacher.
My grandfather’s family, unable to any longer bear it, moved their family to Winston-Salem, N.C., a bustling town an hour-and-a-half south from their humble beginnings in Carroll County, Va. The move ended up being a God-send. Taught the value of a dollar growing up during the Depression and with the poverty of Appalachia fresh in his childhood memories, Grandpa grew up to make his million.
Grandma moved to Winston-Salem on her own. There she met Grandpa, and well, here I sit today… a moderately successful, somewhat economically stable young person working to finish college and taking on my first job in what will hopefully become a career.
My family made it out of the extreme poverty of Appalachia. The decisions made by family members almost 100 years ago have turned out to be well-invested time, energy and back-and-soul-crushing labor for future generations. Still, hundreds of thousands of Americans continue to live in poverty. And now Bush and his cronies want to make it worse.
The amount of money it would take to fully fund the U.S. Census is less than one day’s expenditures on the “War” in Iraq — A drop in the bucket for our grossly mis-managed, GOP-led administration. The budget for the “War,” in toto, would be enough to forever change the millions of lives currently living in and not yet born to Appalachian poverty.
Clearly, our priorities have been misplaced.
6 Responses to “More proof of the anti-poor ways of the GOP”
So wait, you’re telling me that because:
A. Henry Waxman has spent the last two years investigating pointless bullshit rather than a very real failure on the part of a Federal agency; and
B. The President is, for once, actually trying to work with the money he has rather than run our country further into debt
…that somehow you can extrapolate that all Republicans must hate poor people? Sorry Kanye, I think you’re a little confused as to which party presently controls the money and the oversight authority in our nation’s legislature.
By Ryan on Jul 13, 2008
No, Ryan… I think you’re confused.
1. The GOP controlled the money when it should have originally been allocated toward Census operations.
2. The Dems now control the money and need to allocate it though Bush’s emergency funding request.
3. If there is anything in this nation that doesn’t need more funding cuts it is: (a) education, or (b) economic development for rural and impoverished areas.
4. You didn’t read what you’re commenting on… “Granted. She has a point. Not all Republicans hate the poor. I’d venture to say that most Republicans care deeply about the living and economic situations of America’s most low-income citizens and families. Someone should relay the message and copy the memo to the GOP leadership in Washington, and in particular, the miserably failed Bush Administration.”
On a less partisan note… how’s Raleigh?
By Matt on Jul 13, 2008
First thing’s first… it’s not “should have” been allocated, they DID allocate it and the Census Bureau wasted it. Who’s in charge of keeping track of government waste? Let’s see… the GAO, which is controlled by Congress, and the House Gov’t Reform committee. Maybe I’m mistaken, but who’s in charge of Congress right now?
Sorry, had to get that out… Raleigh’s great!! I may only be here through the election though, I’m thinking about going to grad school in the spring. How’s Charlotte? How’s work going?
By Ryan on Jul 13, 2008
Ah… I’m going back to school in the spring, too. I’ll be working while I’m finishing up the BA, though. Charlotte is great and the job is going well. We’ve got a new website (it still needs improvement, but, hey, it is better than the late 90s, early 2000s version we had) and I’ve pushed for a new layout for the print edition. Things are looking up for little ole’ QNotes.
I’ll be going to D.C. for the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association national conference at the end of August. Looking forward to it.
By Matt on Jul 13, 2008
Matt, this one goes so far all over the place I’m not even sure where to start. Ususal disclaimers apply, and I guess I’ll just stick to the blatant problems with the post. 1) Regarding census data not counting married gay couples. Anybody who has read the federal Defense of Marriage Act has to response to this which “duh.” What did you think that a law which says the federal government only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman meant? We’ve been in this situation since MA legallized marriage. Statisticians will keep doing what they have been - counting up the number of unmarried partners who show up as male/male or female/female. It ain’t precise, but it’s what we’ve got. As far as the constitutional mandate for a census goes, legally, as long as we get an accurate count for purposes of determining representation in the House, we’re good. Additional information, like who those people are, is all gravy - and I have to agree with Ryan that if you want to blame somebody for funding issues, you’ve got to look in the mirror as far as party affiliation goes.
2) You brought up the 3/5’s clause of the constitution, implying that it would have been a good thing for the slaves to be counted as whole people in the early censuses. C’mon Matt, your history professors had to do better than that - it was the northerners, and the anti-slavery movement, that pushed hardest for slaves to be counted least, because the higher the population in the slave-holding south, the more influence they would have in Congress, and therefore, the longer it would take for slavery to be “put on the path to ultimate extinction.” The point that you made, that it is important to have the data in order for people to count, is well taken - but it doesn’t excuse blatant misrepresentations of history.
3) Budgeting priorities. I appreciate the story you tell about the Appalachian region - the level of poverty there really is astounding. I guess I just don’t feel comfortable assuming that I know better than they do who they should be voting for, given that those are some pretty strongly Republican regions of the country. Telling them they should be voting for policies that they aren’t strikes me as pretty dang condescending - and the folks I’ve met from that region are some of the most self-reliant and proud I know. There’s also the fact that a heck of a lot of money already flows into this area in the form of welfare - significantly disproportionate to the amount of revenue the Federal government takes in from the region - but that’s a whole ‘nother, very complicated, topic.
Last thing - do you even look at the list of spending programs that Republicans propose cutting before condemning them? The Chesapeake Bay Restoration program jumped off the page at me, since just last month the Washington Post asked highlighted the fact that it’s been an absolute waste, spending $58 million only to have fewer, not more, oysters today? Good intentions do not necessarily make good programs, and it’s time some fat was trimmed.
By Casey on Jul 14, 2008
One last thing - knew I posted that too soon. The Defense of Marriage Act which got us into this mess re: the census? Thanks for noting that Bill Clinton, Great Savior of the Gays, signed it - but the attempt to blame it on the Republicans in Congress was pretty damned weak. DOMA passed 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House. Lots of Democrats there, my friend. This one was as bipartisan as it gets.
By Casey on Jul 14, 2008