🚀 go-pugleaf

The Loyal Opposition
        CLASS WARFARE
        It's Back in Fashion

        David Corn is the Washington editor of the Nation. His first novel,
        Deep Background, a political thriller, was published recently by St.
        Martin's Press.

        Class warfare is alive and well in Washington, DC.

        Last summer, after Al Gore delivered his populist-lite acceptance
        speech at the Democratic National Convention -- in which he pledged to
        combat powerful interests on behalf of common folk -- Republicans and
        much of the chattering class hooted him for resorting to old-fashioned
        get-the-rich classism and proclaimed that his desperate tactics would
        be soundly rejected by The People.

        After the election was finally resolved, New Democrats -- those
        bankrolled by corporate lobbyists -- attributed Gore�s defeat to his
        down-beat populism (as diluted and last-minute as it was), and they
        echoed the conventional wisdom that us-against-them rhetoric is a thing
        of the past and does not reflect the realities of the New Economy. All
        these predictions and analyses, though, were undermined by the numbers,
        for Gore did draw more popular votes than George W. Bush. And had the
        Supreme Court not intervened in the fiasco in Florida, Gore probably
        would have pulled ahead in the statewide recount ordered by the state
        supreme court. Consequently, it�s hard to argue his line of attack was
        an obvious mistake. Nevertheless, his loss has not side-lined class
        warfare -- just open talk of it, for the Republicans have been
        advancing their silent form of class conflict on various fronts.

        Battle one -- the Bush tax cut. After Bush made nice-nice with the
        Democrats -- and suckered them into seconding his empty rhetoric about
        bipartisanship -- his Republican allies in the House rolled the
        Democrats on legislation encompassing the central provision of the Bush
        tax cut. There is no denying that Bush and the House GOPers rushed
        through a measure that by lowering tax brackets sends far more "relief"
        to higher-income Americans than lower-income Americans. The top 1
        percent would get about 44 percent of the Bush tax give-back, according
        to Citizens for Tax Justice. The GOPers argue this is only natural
        since the rich pay more in taxes. But by one estimate, the 1-percenters
        pay 39 percent. Thus, even by Bushian standards, they will pocket more
        than their fair share. (When Bush's Treasury Department released
        figures on the distributional impact of the President's proposed tax
        cut, it conveniently left out the calculation for the top 1 percent,
        which previous administrations customarily included.)

        There�s no compelling need to structure a tax cut in favor of the
        wealthy. If the goal is to send $2 trillion back to people to spark the
        sluggish economy, why not zap it all to middle- and low-income
        citizens? Is it better that a boost in consumer spending be
        Lexus-driven rather than Taurus-driven?

        This was how Republicans and the corporate lobby tried to demonstrate
        the Bush tax cut is good for working Americans: the National
        Association of Manufacturers sent out a memo to business groups that
        urged lobbyists to show up at Capitol Hill tax cut rally wearing hard
        hats and non-business attire. "WE DO NEED BODIES -- they must be
        DRESSED DOWN, [to] appear to be REAL WORKER types, etc," said the note,
        which was obtained by the Washington Post. Camouflage -- just like in
        real warfare -- to hide the truth.

        Under the House measure, the top 1 percent would see their after-tax
        income go up 3.8 percent, the bottom 20 percent, 0.6 percent, according
        to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Why shouldn�t those
        numbers be flipped? Millions of low-income Americans who pay little, if
        any, income taxes but who are socked by Social Security taxes would
        realize no relief under this plan. And the Bush/GOP tax cuts are based
        on iffy surplus projections, so there�s a possibility that down the
        road the tax cuts will have to be paid for by reductions in social
        spending or a raid on the Social Security surplus -- either of which
        would likely hurt the poor more than the affluent.

        In order to beat back the Bush offensive, the Democrats will have to
        persuade Americans the tax cut of this charming and friendly fella is
        unfair, and that means they have to spell out who wins and who loses.
        ("Our strategy at the moment," quips one congressional Democratic aide,
        "is to wait for Strom Thurmond to die.") If the Democrats don�t want to
        acknowledge they are in the middle of class warfare, perhaps they can
        refer to it as a "policy dispute involving population strata
        distributional benefits." Still, they are going to have to ask people,
        which side -- or strata -- are you on?

        Battle two -- the ergonomics rules. In response to one of the most
        intense corporate lobby blitzes in years, the Republicans in the House
        and Senate -- aided by several conservative Democratic senators --
        voted to deep-six the ergonomics standards issued last November by the
        Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The rules -- ten years
        in the making -- were wiped out with little debate.

        The standards, designed to reduce repetitive stress injuries and other
        musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace, covered nearly 102 million
        workers. A 1999 study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that more
        than 600,000 workers suffered such injuries. A National Academy of
        Sciences report released in January estimated that there are one
        million musculoskeletal work-related disorders each year and that these
        injuries cost the economy $50 billion. OSHA put the pricetag of the
        regulations at $4.8 billion a year. Some industry sources claimed it
        would be over $100 billion and maybe up to $1 trillion a year.

        Millions of Americans toil in jobs that require repetitive motion that
        results in pain and ailments: key-stroking, food processing, dock
        loading. We�re not talking about signing thank-you letters to political
        contributors. The losses suffered by these workers (in time off, in
        physical discomfort, in medical bills, in shortened work-life) are
        subsidies for businesses. They are hidden costs that do not appear on
        the balance sheet. By keeping these costs out of the picture,
        corporations enhance profits. The prices of their goods do not have to
        reflect the true costs. The bottom-line: owners and consumers benefit
        at the expense of certain workers.

        Could it be any more obvious? This is class conflict. And when the
        corporate lobby convinces congressional Republicans to kill with haste
        standards that were devised to help these workers and that were the
        result of nine weeks of public hearings involving over 1000 witnesses,
        it�s war.

        Perhaps the government cost estimates were low-balled. But industry
        always shouts the sky is falling when confronted with new regulations.
        A 1995 Office of Technology Assessment report found that industry --
        and OSHA -- usually overestimated expected costs. (If cost is indeed a
        problem, why not take a chunk of the $800 billion in coming surpluses
        Bush devotes to tax-cuts for the super-rich and use it to cover the
        cost of the ergonomics rules?) Maybe the regulations contained problems
        or were a bit more onerous than required. But the gleeful and quick
        manner in which the Republicans and the lobbyists slaughtered these
        rules indicated that what was at stake was a fundamental principle --
        industry over labor -- not a disagreement over the best means of
        reaching a common goal.

        If the Republicans want to protect workers without imposing any more of
        a burden on industry than absolutely necessary, why not hold extensive
        hearings on the issue first and develop a persuasive public record?
        Instead, they rammed through the legislation and held out Labor
        Secretary Elaine Chao�s vague promise that she would review the issue.
        It would have been reassuring if House Majority Whip Tom DeLay had
        spent a week of double-shifts in a chicken-processing plant, where each
        day he had to swing a cleaver the same exact way tens of thousands of
        times, before he led the assault on these standards. Why do most
        congressional fact-finding missions entail overseas travel to fancy
        hotels?

        "There is no doubt that musculoskeletal disorders of the low back and
        upper extremities are an important and costly national health problem,"
        the NAS report found. That is, only a problem for some people -- not
        those who earn their keep by legislating or lobbying on Congress.

        Gore was right; there are powerful interests that use the political
        system to thwart the public interest. With his record, though, he was
        ill-suited to make that case. Yet his defeat does not mean class
        warfare is off the Washington agenda. It's merely being waged rather
        than discussed.

        Originally published at:
        http://www.tompaine.com/news/2001/03/09/1.html

        � 1999-2000 The Florence Fund

-- 
Tradition is the last bad performance. --Arturo Toscanini