The 2% Conundrum

98% of us would be on the dirty end of the Republican stick

By Richard Bartlett

I am greatly bewildered about why the polls on the presidential election suggest it is a close race. One party has a vision, soon to become its platform, that is a veritable Christmas tree loaded with expensive gifts for the wealthiest 2% of our population, and will do it at the expense of women, racial and ethnic segments of our citizenry, take away or cripple the safety net for seniors and the jobless, destroy our newly enacted insurance against the worry of medically caused financial ruin, stifle the EPA's programs to keep our air and water healthy, underfund vital infrastructure repair and improvement, make it harder for middle class students to afford college.

If you are in the 98% of us who would be on the dirty end of the Republican stick you would clearly be voting against your own best interests.
That set of policies means that if you are in that fortunate wealthy 2% it perhaps makes sense for you to vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket. But if you are in the 98% of us who would be on the dirty end of the Republican stick you would clearly be voting against your own best interests.

We've all heard the media's drumbeat, over and over, "If you are dissatisfied with the economy you will vote for change." That begs the question --- change what, give the heave-ho to whom? I'd toss out the obstructionist congressmen who have almost closed down our government. They deserve their historically low approval rating of 12%. And the financial extremist and a leader of the Tea Party obstructionists on money matters has now been picked to be their vice-presidential candidate! Why would you want to substitute Romney/Ryan for Obama/Biden? Change is only a good thing if it is beneficial for all, not just 2%.

The Republican Party has put political gamesmanship over governing for the good of the country. Their publicly announced agenda for four years has been to foul up our economy in order to make Obama a one term president. If you use your precious vote to endorse that cynical policy you then become as guilty as Sen. McConnell himself.

For most of us --- the 98% --- a Romney/Ryan win would produce a country we really wouldn't want to live in, a surly, angry milieu.

Taking away the safety net is a certain pathway to increased crime. A jobless worker with a family to feed and no food stamps or unemployment check is going to be forced to do something he/she had previously thought to be unthinkable. The safety net provides a measure of safety for us all. Most of the infrastructure would be unfunded by the GOP, but they would have to build more prisons. Incarceration is more expensive than education, so where is the budget-cutting advantage in dropping the safety net?

Richard C. Bartlett,  Cotuit welcomes thoughtful comments and the varied opinions of our readers. We are in no way obligated to post or allow comments that our moderators deem inappropriate. We reserve the right to delete comments we perceive as profane, vulgar, threatening, offensive, racially-biased, homophobic, slanderous, hateful or just plain rude. Commenters may not attack or insult other commenters, readers or writers. Commenters who persist in posting inappropriate comments will be banned from commenting on