Once again, Barry Nathanson has written a lengthy letter to Blank Slate Media Newspapers (June 8, 2018) asking his readers to “recognize some of the good things that have happened under this president.”
As a progressive, it pains me to acknowledge that the stock market is up and unemployment down.
I do, however, believe that this is true because the Trump acolytes know that the man sitting in the White House is their friend and an enemy of the poor.
A United Nations report pointed out that there are some 40 million Americans living in poverty with 13.3 million of them being children. How does this affect the billionaire class? They are growing in number with 1 percent of Americans holding nearly 40 percent of all U.S. wealth.
In a letter I wrote which appeared on January 26, 2018, I stated how the Trump family and cabinet benefitted from the so-called tax-reform legislation.
The figures tell the story. Trump was enriched by $11-$14 million, Jared Kushner $5-$12 million, Betsy deVos $2-$7 million with substantial savings to Linda McMahon, Steve Mnuchin and Rex Tillerson.
Alert!! I am about to quote Karl Marx who, incisively, stated that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”
I do not wish to further distress Dr. Nathanson by pointing out how the Estate Tax deductions in this legislation benefitted the most affluent Americans.
One other point needs to be made. Nathanson cites as Trump achievements the following:-
– number of people collecting food stamps reduced by 2 million
- number of people collecting disability declined by 100,000 since 2017
- welfare down 12 percent under Trump
- -Medicaid enrollment dropped by 1 million in 2017
If you see these program reductions as “good,” then, obviously, you must credit the embattled billionaire.
But what if you worry about the family denied food stamps going to bed hungry, or the patient no longer on Medicaid getting adequate medical attention?
We must look to our underlying assumptions about the government’s role…some see it as caring for those “ill-clothed, ill-housed and ill-fed,” while others concerned with their taxation rate (whom I would describe as selfish and mean-spirited) view the diminution of government interference as laudatory.
As I engage in this back and forth with Dr. Nathanson, I am led to conclude that we are stuck in the weeds, each of us presenting only the data which support our divergent opinions.
We each have our network of heroes (Fox v. MSNBC.) And, unlike in the past, there is
very little reaching “across the aisle.”
Such ideological bifurcation does not auger well for our democracy. My hope is that “the Donald” will not be around much longer and that we can return to a time when there were moderate Republicans who understood compromise, rapprochement, and the utility of the rule of law.
Dr. Hal Sobel
Great Neck
