Big money got a heavy hand.
Big money take control.
Big money got a mean streak
Big money got no soul.
Neil Peart of Rush
* * *
The lyrics written by Rush drummer Neil Peart still ring true 26 years later.
While defending the wealthiest one percent of Americans, Republican lawmakers are willing to gut Medicare, raise taxes on the middle class and reduce Social Security benefits while they cut funding for education and unemployment benefits.
Such is the heavy hand of Republican politics.
In between making $10,000 wagers with his Republican colleagues, claiming that he likes firing people and protesting that any criticism of the one percent is “class warfare,” GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney is now disturbed that this discussion is being held in public. It’s one thing to dismantle the middle class, but it’s never a good idea to let them know that it’s happening.
“You know I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms,” Romney said on the “Today” show. “But the president has made this part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach.”
The truth has finally been told. It’s all about envy.
Lust and gluttony were out of the room. Greed, as Republicans emphatically claim, is no longer a deadly sin. So the less fortunate among us are left with envy.
I was really hoping for more than a stolen page from the diary of a spoiled 16-year-old girl. But this is how far the debate over economic policy and fairness has regressed in today’s political climate.
If only we were multi-millionaries, like Romney, then we would look at life differently. Once you’re part of the Romney crowd, it’s so much easier to tell the unwashed masses to “eat cake” and do so with a clean conscience.
Perhaps we’re being too idealistic, but we’d like to believe that the vast majority of people can’t be bought off so easily - that they are less concerned with the accumulation of great wealth than they are with making sure that everyone is treated fairly.
We know of no one who would turn down a million dollars if Bill Gates should add them to his Christmas list. Neither are we, or anyone else we know, consumed with envy at Warren Buffett’s immense wealth or, for that matter, Romney’s.
If someone earned that wealth by the good fortune of hitting the lottery, then great. Are we happy? Yes. Envious. No.
Same is true for someone who accumulated their wealth through hard work and smart business decisions.
Even though Romney seemingly built a large share of his fortune through a means by which we strongly disagree, we aren’t envious. What he did was apparently legal, though the ethics is questionable. It’s unfortunate that people are allowed to build a fortune by creating tremendous misfortune for others. It would be nice if those rules could be changed. But it doesn’t make us envious.
The world of sports offers a similar narrative.
The New York Yankees will always have more money and opportunity for success than the Kansas City Royals. Fans of the Royals may not like it, but the rules are the same for everyone. The Yankees have found ways to create more financial opportunity for themselves and have ownership that’s willing to take risks that the ownership of the Royals isn’t willing to take.
That’s the way it is and we accept it with the hope that, someday, the Royals can still find a way to win the World Series.
But what if the Yankees, because of their great wealth, were able to convince the commissioner of Major League Baseball that they needed special consideration?
Say, for example, that the Yankees signed a pitching prospect to a $160 million contract and, midway into the season, he has an arm injury that ends his career. Tough break. The Yankees gambled and will be forced to pay the price . . . unless.
What if the Yankees were able to persuade the MLB commissioner that the organization will fold unless all the owners can help cover the cost of the contract?
The Yankees, naturally, weren’t going to share the stadium receipts with the other team owners every time their star prospect was on the mound; and they weren’t going to share the World Series proceeds. But they want everyone - including Kansas City - to help shoulder the cost when their gamble goes bust.
Sound fair? Of course, not. If Kansas City objected, would we say, “You’re just envious because they had enough money to sign the star pitcher and you didn’t?” It would be a ridiculous argument to make.
Let’s carry that a step further. What if MLB decided that the teams from major markets deserve their own set of rules? For example, they get four outs per inning rather than three; or their opposition can only play with seven players in the field.
The rationale? Major market teams bring in more fans and more revenue for baseball. When they win it’s better for everyone. They are the so-called “fan creators.”
No one would stand for it.
So why do we allow that argument to be made away from the baseball field? It makes no more sense in economics than in the world of baseball.
It’s not class warfare. It a matter of right and wrong; fair and unfair.
It’s about having a soul.
Rod Haxton can be reached at editor@screcord.com