-by Daniel Meltzer
Originally published in The New Sun Newspaper (www.newsun.com )
President George W. Bush has stated clearly and often that he feels the
US Government is too large, that more decisions should be left to
individual states, and that tax cuts and other incentives for investors
and for businesses are needed to encourage economic growth, which he
suggests will ultimately lead to more jobs. What kind of jobs those would
be is not clear. Taking history as our guide, we imagine one scenario
from such a policy, and a direct question to him on it at some future
news conference, if anyone can locate the journalist with the nerve to
ask it.
Q:
Mr. President. You’ve been saying the federal government should be
doing less, that states should be taking over a lot of what Washington
does — social welfare programs, disaster response, and so on.
Washington has too much power over people’s lives, you’ve said; The
state houses should have more control, pick up more of the burden.
With the markets struggling, fuel prices and the trade deficit both
rising, with so many companies laying off employees, cutting pay and
benefits; more jobs going overseas every year to countries in Asia and
Central America, for example, where workers are paid so much less…
there’s talk that some states might try to bring back slavery — to
keep labor costs down and help companies compete better on the world
market. What’s your opinion of that?
A: We are a nation of laws. American Laws. Throughout our history, many
bills have been passed by the Congress and signed into law by myself
and my predecessors in this great and humbling office. Laws having to
do with a lot of different things.
It’s… a tough situation, no question about it. Tough on farmers,
small businesses, tough on working people, and on the American
taxpayer. It kind of depends on how you look at it. See, you’ve got two
opposing theories here. Not unlike the situation in the schools that
we’ve talked about–teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution versus the
theory of Intelligent Design. Two theories, two different points of
view.
Now, when it comes to slavery, well of course it offends us. It’s got a
bad history, got a bad… reputation. But the fact is, ever since the
end of the Civil War just about, the federal government’s been
subsidizing cotton and tobacco farmers. More than a hundred years now.
Hundred and twenty. Whatever.
Up
to now, the American people have gladly shouldered these costs.
Otherwise, a lot of farmers and small businesses would o’ gone bust.
Then there’d be fewer jobs, an even bigger drain on the economy.
But
the fact is, we also got a war to fight now. And there’s Social
Security to worry about, and Medicare, and Medicaid, school lunch
programs, Head Start. Lotta programs. Some of ’em may have to go, or
get cut back.
We
got a lot of unemployed people out there… and homeless…
particularly down south, thanks to Hurricane Katrina, and Rita, and now
Wilma. No place to work. No place to live.
So, to answer your question as I understand it; One theory is of
course… Slavery’s un-American, it’s immoral, it’s got no place in a
democracy. I totally agree.
But
then you got another theory that says… we’ve got a large population
of poor — no jobs, no homes, no PROSPECTS of jobs. No health
insurance. Many of them are living in motels, at taxpayer expense. Some
of ’em get free continental breakfast and Cable TV thrown in. At
taxpayer expense. During a time of war.
Might
there a solution? Call it slavery, call it whatever. Look at it the
other way, you could also call it guaranteed employment, with benefits;
subsidized housing, free roof over their heads, plus food on the table
for them and their kids. Not to mention long term job security.
And all of it at the expense of the employer, the private sector, not the taxpayer.
Low
wages in foreign countries are hurting the American worker, no doubt
about it, luring American businesses elsewhere. This might help keep
some of them here.
Two theories – one says it’s bad, it violates our democratic
sensibilities. The other one says you could save a lot of lives, and
you could help the farmer and the small businessman, and the national
economy.
Maybe it’s just the word. “Slavery.” “What’s in a word?” Shakespeare said that. Didn’t he? Well, somebody did.
Like
I said about the evolution/intelligent design thing: This is a
democracy. Why not just put it out there and let the people decide?
State-by-state. Know what I mean?
Next question.
(Daniel Meltzer teaches journalism at New York University. He has
written, edited, and reported for radio, television, magazines, and
newspapers. He has received the New York Press Association award for
creative nonfiction, and the O. Henry and Pushcart Prizes for fiction.
He is also a published and widely produced playwright.)