Welcome to Pottersville

Every Christmas Eve,   I watch  Frank Capra's  iconic film,  It's a Wonderful Life.   Anyone who has never seen it should do so.   It never gets old.   In fact,   despite its age, 67 years,   I believe that this classic is as timely as ever. 

The central character,  George Bailey,  masterfully portrayed by Jimmy Stewart,   is a small-town loan officer who casts aside his personal aspirations,  to save his family's building and loan operation from certain ruin at the hands of Henry Potter (Lionel Barrymore),  a ruthless manipulator who seizes the town bank in the wake of the Crash of '29  that sparked the depression.

George Bailey's genuine concern for the welfare of his fellow townspeople fuels his iron-bound determination to keep the family's business alive:  a bulwark which is all that stands between working families'  opportunity to live with dignity in decent homes as opposed to abject misery in Henry Potter's slums.

By dint of events beyond his control,  George Bailey finds himself on the brink of bankruptcy  and seriously considers doing himself in.   But a guardian angel (Henry Travers) intervenes  and presents George with a precious gift:  an  opportunity  to see what everyone's lives would have been like had he never been born.   Had George Bailey never existed,   the friendly,  thriving town of Bedford Falls would have degenerated into a toxic fog of sullenness, despair,  and petty meanness ---  and been re-dubbed "Pottersville" in dubious honor of its most powerful resident.

Well folks,  Pottersville is real and getting realer.   The lion's share of the US Congress as well as (too) many statehouses is under the merciless thrall of Henry Potter and those like him.  

In the meantime,   millions of hard-luck families will be losing extended unemployment benefits next week because the majority of Republicans --- including many so-called "moderates" --- voted against their renewal.   These jobless folks are not slackers,  regardless of what Congressmen like Paul Ryan (R - Ayn Rand)  and Steven Fincher (R - Those Who Don't Work Don't Eat)  seem to believe.   These are the same legislators who spiked every effort to extend job-creating stimulus programs and butchered food stamp benefits.

Sorry folks,  but the private sector is not creating enough decent jobs:  ones that enable families and individuals to live securely and with dignity without marrying themselves to Wal-Mart or McDonald's.

Henry Potter lives.


  

The Issue of Economic Inequality is Front & Center. But What About Congress?

  President Obama recently spoke at a venue in an economically ravaged neighborhood in the Nation's Capitol.  The focus of his speech:  economic inequality.   It was refreshing to actually hear the nation's chief executive address this issue.   It's been a dog's age and it's long overdue.

Obama suggested that following through with the health care agenda would be helpful.   Consider how easy it is to become medically indigent.    One major medical event can do it!   The full implementation of Obamacare,  including the expansion of Medicaid would certainly make a dent.  (Not as effective as the single-payer alternative or Medicare For All,  but still a vast improvement).

He also offered a number of legislative remedies:  

      -  better education,  including making college more
         affordable
      -  an increase in the minimum wage
      -  strengthening of unions.

Finally,  the president summarized some of the principal causes of economic injustice:

      -  outsourcing of formerly stable jobs
      -   legitimization of "trickle-down ideology"  including
          tax cuts for the wealthy
      -   neglect of schools and infrastructure and their
          ultimate deterioration.

But Congress is doing squat in regard to offering any sort of legislative remedies.   Senator Patty Murray (D.-Wash) and Congressman Paul Ryan (R.-Ayn Rand),  the chairfolks of their respective budget committees,   managed to broker a compromise,   enabling passage of a new budget with a minimum of fuss.   I guess that in itself is considered a major achievement.

Parts of the sequester-fueled budget cuts are apparently being restored;   that's progress.    But none of the elements of Obama's speech are really being addressed.   Additionally, food stamp allotments and the extension of unemployment compensation are being scaled back.   Is it really fair or moral to sacrifice the welfare of folks desperately in need in order to broker a political compromise?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,  among others,   seem to believe that some of these provisions can be reintroduced later.    I hope they're right.