LEFTY'S LUNCHBOX #3

“Let them eat cake,” F__k it, let them starve!

It appears that historians have now concluded that Marie Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI, was incorrectly attributed with uttering the famous phrase, “let them it cake.”  In historical context, the importance of such an utterance in 18^th century France derived from the fact that bread was the food staple of the French peasantry and working class.

Having a king or queen or other noble order the replacement of bread with cake during a famine or food shortage would be viewed as disdainful as well as illustrative of the decadence and selfishness of the aristocracy and upper classes. Whether uttered by Marie Antoinette or not, the phrase was a rallying cry up through the French Revolution, and continues today as a phrase symbolizing disdain for the less fortunate.

Come now 21^st century America where, despite a certain rejection of most things French, we now have a profuse number of very wealthy, ultraconservative Republican-Tea Party office-holders and candidates espousing philosophies and policies that go beyond “Let them eat cake,” and are in fact, tantamount to “let them starve.” A few examples follow.

First, we have multimillionaire, Republican-Tea Party senatorial candidate John Raese of West Virginia.  Mr. Raese has explained that he made his money the old fashioned way, he inherited it.  Apparently, to insure that his aristocratic standing and realm will not be in jeopardy and his heirs will be able to continue the dynasty, Mr. Raese is diligently advocating for continued tax breaks for the wealthy, elimination of the inheritance tax, and of course, abolition of the federal minimum wage - $7.25 per hour. After paying for rent, auto insurance or bus fares, clothes, health care, I am not sure that $7.25 per hour would buy bread or cake or anything to eat for an individual, nevertheless, a family.  I wonder if Mr. Raese believes in the divine right of the rich.

Next, we have a whole group of Republican-Tea Party office-holders and candidates who are against extending or in some cases giving benefits at all to unemployed people who have been laid off because of outsourcing or other reasons.  Ostensibly, if the unemployed are prevented from receiving any benefits and are unable to find employment, it is not far fetched to conclude that in a short period of time they or their family could be lacking money to put any food on their table.  But no worry, the same Republican-Tea Party folks voting against the unemployment benefits will be campaigning hard for those tax breaks for the companies that are outsourcing the jobs.

Last, and more close to home, because I reside in California, are the royal proclamations of Meg Whitman, Queen of Ebay, and candidate for governor. Most telling about this billionairess’ approach to serving the people of California, aside from the fact that she has spent over 100 million dollars of her own money to finance her campaign, is her initial proposal to create jobs by eliminating up to 40,000 state employees, employees referred to by Ms. Whitman as “selfish and arrogant.” Is that the pot calling the kettle black or what?

Although one could conclude that the elimination of 40,000 employees would slightly reduce the state budget, there is no logical way that anyone could conclude that employment will improve by eliminating the jobs. And what about the foreseeable consequences of the elimination of those lost jobs?

Such simple questions, but no one has asked Ms. Whitman.  How much will have to be paid for unemployment for these individuals, assuming the Republican-Tea Party office-holders don’t scrap those benefits?  What do these individuals do for healthcare after losing the coverage they have through employment?  Do the people end up on Medi-Cal, or do they end up in an expensive emergency room?  Both alternatives resulting in additional burdens to the state and taxpayers.  How about the ripple effect on the business establishments in the neighborhoods where these people live when they stop spending because their job has been eliminated? How will these newly unemployed individuals pay their house payment, their family bills, kids costs, food on the table, or do you “let them starve?”

Oh yes, some will say that Ms. Whitman also wants to eliminate the capital gains tax in California.  Without going into an in-depth economic analysis, suffice to say that elimination of this tax primarily benefits the very wealthy and privileged class of which Ms. Whitman is a member in good standing, and does little for the peasants, the working class or employees whose jobs would be eliminated by Ms. Whitman.

In addition to the foregoing, the “let them starve” upper crust attitudes and positions of the Republican-Tea Party members are further demonstrated by the following.

1.    The demonization and attempts to cut funding for the Food Stamp Program.

2.    Current proposals to reduce or eliminate college student loan funds that assist those “starving” students.

3.    Republican Senator Coburn’s (Oklahoma) singular act of holding up one billion dollars in legislatively passed funds for Haiti earthquake relief because he doesn’t like one of the administrative provisions.

4.     Republican-Tea Party media celebrity support for the County Council of Obion County, Tennessee, for the Council’s decision not to allow their fire fighting force to put out a fire at a local resident’s house because he failed to pay his $75.00 “Fire fee” (although he paid his taxes).  In this case, “let him eat ashes.”

Of course, the Republican-Tea Party moneyed elitists, with the assistance of wealthy pseudoeconomists and corporate shills, mask their hidden agenda as fiscal conservatism and deficit hawking while they mistakenly claim that tax cuts for the wealthy class and elimination of capital gains and inheritance taxes will somehow benefit the working class and create jobs.  In reality, facts and evidence indicate that since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and continued more so in the recent Bush decade, reduction of taxes for the rich have done just that, benefited the rich, while the rest of the nation, the poor and middle class working people have not benefited.  In their own circles, it is a towering tribute to these wealthy Republican-Tea Party loyalists that the richest one percent in America now holds 43% of the country’s wealth.  King Louis and Marie would be impressed.

Some will assert that I am attempting to instigate class warfare.  This conclusion would be incorrect.  My primary objective is to caution those who are not part of the moneyed elite not to be fooled by the agenda of the aspiring kings and queens that hope to enrich and expand their own palaces while leaving those less fortunate starving, without even a piece of cake.