Washblog

Do Democrats in national office have a "40-year wish list" for assisting average working Americans, whose income adjusted for inflation has flatlined over that same period? While millions more adults and children joined the ranks of the uninsured? I hope so! Someone needs to do something for our declining quality of life. Americans now work longer hours than ever before (and more hours per year than workers in any other country) just to keep body and soul together. The last 2 rounds of tax cuts--the Bush Administration's prime domestic policy--accomplished little for the lower brackets. Nonetheless, Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor claim that nothing is needed so badly as more tax cuts. Lo and behold--more tax cuts appeared in the Stimulus Bill. Please explain to me why Mr. Boehner then met with your caucus to instruct members to oppose the bill.

Medicaid coverage for contraception offended some sensibilities. As a woman, I think you should put yourself in the position of a wife whose husband loses his job AND coverage for her birth control pills. Is it a good time to grow their family, when they can't make ends meet? The WSJ editorial expresses contempt for child-care subsidies, a position that creates a serious double bind: I would like to know how families with children are supposed to keep working (and contributing to the economy) if they cannot pay these bills. But never mind the reasons such funding was included in the legislation--it was promptly removed to appease Republicans. To no avail. Is your party doing itself a favor by voting unanimously against a measure after all the outreach and accommodation? What reason will the majority party have to make such efforts next time?

It is well known that Republicans have a "wish list" of their own: to shrink the size of government until it can be drowned in a bathtub. Benefits of small government aside, Republicans do not seem to pursue this goal effectively when they hold the Presidency. As you know, the size of government and of federal deficits increased considerably under Mr. Bush. Nonetheless, a "wish list" is not a bad thing, in and of itself. I feel that your WSJ editorial strikes a needlessly negative tone in bewailing 40 years of deferred policies favored by the Democrats. Is it really so terrifying that the government might spend money on the average citizen?

Perhaps you saw the AP headline this morning--"Americans receiving jobless benefits hits record." Did those Americans deserve to get kicked out of work? Did they lose health insurance along with their jobs? Maybe that is why more funds for Medicaid are needed right now. Are they having trouble putting food on the table, including food for their children? Maybe that explains the need for Food Stamps. Do you condone the editorial's characterization of these life-saving programs as benefits for individuals "for doing nothing at all"? This attitude appeals to the old tired hatred of welfare recipients that Republicans used for years to shred our social safety-net. Do you find it helpful to drum up such hostility today, when our entire economy is contracting as people lose their homes and pensions?

How will the economy be helped if we wind up in tent cities and Hoovervilles, scrounging out of trash cans and riding the rails, like in my parents' day? Keeping people in their homes helps keep up the value of property--dwellings standing empty can ruin an entire town.

Speaking of rails, your editorialist strikes a belittling tone on this point, as well: "There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years." Someone should tell him that nowhere in the world does mass transportation "turn a profit." It is a public good that supports the economy because people need to go places, like to their jobs every day.

Personally, I wish we still had passenger rail service here in Pullman. I hope you read my recent email on this topic. Train travel reduces air pollution and associated climate change; it benefits the elderly and disabled, as well as anyone disinclined to drive. And when did car-driving ever "turn a profit"? Use and maintenance of a vehicle is one of the highest annual expenses for an average family. Oh, but how foolish of me--it makes lots of money for highway construction, the auto industry, and the oil companies. Of course, the latter enjoy heavy public subsidies, including defense of international oil fields in places like Iraq, so their profitability might be called into question.

Again with the old tired conservative lines, your editorial decries "$50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts." Did you miss the spot on NPR the other night, discussing how nearly 6 million Americans are employed in arts-based industries? This does not include part-timers who gain some of their income from craft fairs and sales, performance, and the like. Artists purchase materials, rent studios and theaters, hire other artists or assistants, and attract people to events, often in depressed neighborhoods, where goods and services are sold. How does all of that fail to stimulate the economy?

Instead of a broad vision, considering all aspects of how people contribute to a healthy economy, the editorial you chose to share this morning promotes a worn-out supply-side philosophy: Government should never do anything but cut taxes; aid to those who struggle is waste, because only the wealthy grow the economy as their investments trickle down to the rest of us.

These ideas have failed, and their day is past.

With thanks for your attention,

Anesa Miller

Chad's note:  To learn more about what a vote FOR this piece of legislation Rep. McMorris could have taken credit for, check out the Campaign for Americas Future has to say about what this bill has in it for our state.  And here is her press release about her vote.

Oh for a good candidate in 2010 in the 5th CD...