To the Editor:
The recent Post Review coverage of an event on Feb. 22, 2012 at Rep. Cravaack’s North Branch office brought into clear focus the Feb. 12, 2012 New York Times article about conservative county residents who support economic policies that are designed to reduce government while actually making their lives harder.
What is not acknowledged by those interviewed and their reps is that all these social programs: Social Security, Medicate, Fair Labor Standards Act, unemployment insurance were all passed by mass mobilization of citizens attempting to deal with the increasing contradictions of a political system that richly rewards the 1 percent at the expense of the 99 percent.
As Dane Smith points out in a crisp commentary of this article: Since 1980 and the rise of more conservative economic policymaking…most Americans have suffered declining hourly wages, fewer benefits, higher costs for healthcare, massive layoffs and few job opportunities. And as a result, more people qualify for the modest benefits of a safety net that is actually weakening in buying power.” – Growth and Justice 02/23/12
The prospects exist that for the working families of Minnesota, who will never be part of the richest 1 percent, will begin to connect the dots and come to the realization and begin to understand that they are paying with their lives the consequences of a political and economic conflict between the economic interests of the richest 1 percent and the political party that represents their interests.
As James Gilligan so forcefully illuminates in “Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others,” the more the members of the middle class and lower classes become manipulated into fighting each other, and distracted from noticing that the people by who they are most in danger of being robbed are not the poor…but a small number of very wealthy people and their agents, the Republican politicians who write laws that divert money into their hands, and out of the hands of the lower and middle classes.” P. 81