On the Ownership Society
One of Bush’s central themes during the past election revolved around the idea of making American an “Ownership Society.†Making America a society of owners, Bush argued, would make them less reliant on government, more entrepreneurial, more resilient, and better able to build a legacy of wealth that could in turn be handed down to future generations. Among the policies that Bush touted as being part and parcel of this drive were his various tax cuts, as well as the most recent effort to radically change social security.
However, at the same time as he touts an ownership society Bush has made it much harder for people to actually become owners. The recent bankruptcy laws passed by Congress made it much harder for people beset by medical difficulties to get from under the burden of debt. Further, Bush considered cutting the Pell Grant program, which in its which in its heyday cut the economic costs of college almost in half by providing middle and working class kids grants they did not have to pay back after graduation.
Finally the Bush budget not only suggests stark cuts in social services to urban constituencies, cuts in unemployment benefits, in housing assistance, but also in cuts to his own working class supporters. Here his proposed cuts in farming subsidies will literally bankrupt thousands of small farmers.
One of my readers noted that he agreed with these cuts—starting with Pell Grants. He told me he was glad Bush was cutting the grants because he felt that kids should have to work like he did for their schooling. He had worked four or five jobs for years just to make ends meet. The path he followed is the path that he felt best prepared him to handle life’s hurdles, and to the degree that it is possible, he believes that others should follow in his footsteps.
There is no doubt in my mind that for this reader Bush’s idea of an ownership society fueled by tax cuts and the reduction of government services for the poor will both drive innovation and give the poor the kick in the ass they need to actually take control of their lives.
For some individuals he is probably right.
But there is a deep hypocrisy in thinking on the one hand that the poor should fend for themselves, that hard work is redemptive, and on the other thinking that wealth should be handed down to children who do not have to work for it. There is a deep hypocrisy in thinking that on the one hand that middle class families becoming because of medical issues should have to pay all of their debts, while lauding government bailouts of corporations. There is a deep hypocrisy in calling for soldiers to fight our wars then cut their benefits when they return. Finally there is something deeply hypocritical about saying on the one hand that we want to build a society of owners, and on the other say that we as a society have absolutely no responsibility to aid students whose only way out of poverty is through a college education. If the poor need a kick in the ass to take control of their lives, shouldn’t trust fund kids need the same kick?
I say it is time that we as African Americans and people dedicated to the promotion of a humane society should indeed call for an ownership society. But instead of one in which the only people who get a chance to be owners are people who were either born on third base, or got there through the lottery, we should make a path for people who weren’t even born in the stadium. And instead of forcing poor kids to work through college (like the reader…and myself) we should instead be paying their way. This is an ownership society worth fighting for.
(Originally published in Blackvoices.com)
