Adrianne Shropshire

For the Good of Everyone… let’s prioritize

Three articles today have caused me to question what "opportunity", "hope", and "fairness" really mean nowadays. There is no end to the stream of stories about poverty, despair, and the increased burdens being heaped on the shoulders of the working-class in this country. Unfortunately, there’s no debate about solutions and the tone of the articles is usually cynical and harsh on the poor.

Today was somewhat of an exception. The first article was on the growing unease of the elite in Mexico. With the presidential elections only weeks away, there is a real potential that Mexico could join other Latin American countries in a wave of leftward motion by electing Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (candidate of the Democratic Revolutionary Party and would-be Robin Hood) as president. Obrador's campaign slogan, "For the Good of Everyone, the Poor First", apparently is more than the rich can stomach. The thought that they may have to pay some taxes (a responsibility they've loop-holed their way out of) in order to meaningfully address staggering poverty throughout the country, is driving the wealthy to threaten to flee the country to places that respect the right of the upper-class to thumb their noses at the poor, like Miami. We've spent the last few months deep in an immigration debate that acknowledges that crippling poverty is what causes people to risk life and limb to cross the border. We decry the two-class system (rich and poor) that exists in Mexico and demand that the Mexican government do more. And yet with more tax breaks for the crazy rich in this country, deeper cuts for social programs that alleviate the impact of increasing poverty for people in this country, and an unchecked market economy that continues to find new lows for the bottom of our wage scale, can we actually say that we are headed in a different direction?

The second article was on the increasing rents and fees being imposed by New York City on public housing residents. Are we comfortable with NYCHA balancing their budget on the backs of NY city's poorest residents? Hard to see how it's fair that those who struggle the most to make ends meet should have to be responsible for bailing out the housing authority. Take from the poor, to give to the state, to be redistributed to the rich. A not so new twist on Robin Hood.

And redistributed how? The last article was on the 421A problem. City Comptroller Bill Thompson is speaking out on an issue already being "spoken on" by the Pratt Center, ACORN , and others. How does a program go from being one designed to increase the number of affordable housing units for working-class families to one that subsidizes the development of luxury housing for the rich?

"For the Good of Everyone, the Poor First" is a statement about priorities. Ours, it would seem, are completely distorted.

Adrianne Shropshire: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 10:49 AM, May 24, 2006 in
Permalink | Email to Friend