What To Do About "The Rich?"

So what to do about the wealthy and business interests? (Please don't ask me what to do WITH them, as that would be a temptation I might not be able to resist.) We need some "balance" in the system. We'll never eliminate their tremendous influence(s ), but as I noted in other articles, post-Depression times diminished some of their influence and gave the "un-rich" a better chance in life. The rich were still the rich, but other folks had some influence and protections, too, and it benefited America as a whole, as more people moved into the middle class. To be fair, I would even argue that some of the changes from the New Deal on got out of balance, too, especially by the 1970s, and they had to be corrected (and some things still need to be corrected), but since that time, the system has gotten far out of balance again, and the "un-rich" have actually lost ground in many ways. Again, you have to remember, if you use Medicare and Social Security, what would your life be like without programs like these? These programs, and programs like them, were basically opposed by the wealthy and business interests. They aren't perfect programs, and I've never argued that they are, but where would many folks be without them? Now, we need to move beyond those programs to provide health care for other (non elderly or non poor) Americans, too, for one thing. I don't advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water, as we need some combination of private sector/public sector medical care.

Well, just to prove that I'm not totally one-sided, I heard it mentioned the other day that de-regulation of various products/services hasn't worked. I guess most folks think of oil/gas/nat. gas, airlines, banks, etc. Well, de-regulation DID work, for awhile, but the big boys learned how to consolidate and get around competition, especially in the energy field. Now they've really got us, and they're not about to let go, in my opinion. That's why it takes government to protect the interest of the public at large. On the other hand, from the New Deal until the Great Society and a while later, government grew too large and inefficient in many ways. Again, the flaws of humans. The public isn't stupid, and it (we) saw that there had to be changes, and along came Reagan who effectively articulated the need to curtail government. He got some things, but met heavy resistance on others. He was not the ideologue that Democrats tried to portray, but was much more moderate and was willing to compromise. Now, we've had about 30 years of anti-government sentiment and deregulation (which actually started with none other than Jimmy Carter), and as I said above, the big boys have frequently, but not always, found a way around competition (once again, the flaws of humans; we think we have solved a problem, and we may well do so for awhile, but there's always someone out there figuring how to circumvent the new system), so in my opinion, we've got to reverse course, to try to get the cat back in the bag. Advocates for a particular philosophy, like Reagan, for instance, may come across as being one-sided, but they aren't always like that. They hit hard, but then are willing to accept a more moderate approach. I hit the "rich" and their cohorts hard, because, in my opinion, these are VERY ruthless people, who only understand strength (like Reagan hit the Soviet Union, because they only understood strength). If you blink, that's it; they'll win every time. I may sound harsh at times, but just remember what happened to me, and unfortunately, that was NOT an isolated incident.

We need to keep updating our government programs, because, just like when you put that new lock on your house, and you thought, "Whew! Now we're safe," there are unscrupulous people working day and night to find out how to crack that new lock. Likewise with government programs, there are people, not all of them rich, figuring how to get around the laws and reforms to beat the system.