The most appealed-to group in politics is also the most elusive: the middle class. The definition of this socioeconomic group is fluid, and the only thing people can agree on is that they’re not the upper class or the economically disadvantaged. They’re just stuck somewhere, wandering around in the murky in-between realm, and yet, this is the group politicians always claim to represent, the ones they’re allegedly protecting from those shady others – greedy corporations, welfare abusers and all the accepted scapegoats of the two parties.
Here in Wisconsin, we’ve got a governor claiming to protect the middle class while opponents are berating him for destroying it. Whatever his rhetoric, altering the Homestead Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit is not good for the middle class, especially the lower middle class (isn’t that just so descriptive?). Walker is systematically attacking Wisconsin’s middle class, and perversely defending his actions as protecting its members. The only thing scarier is the thought that if people are not actually paying attention, they won’t even notice.
In his budget (not the budget repair everyone was/is protesting against, but the actual budget), Walker proposes separating the Homestead Tax Credit from inflation and lowering the rebates people would qualify for under the Earned Income Tax Credit. Basically, these changes would make it more expensive to own property and increase the amount of taxes lower-income individuals would have to pay. But don’t worry, Walker’s not touching the corporate taxes.
He did promise in his campaign to not raise taxes. He must have just meant certain kinds of taxes, like those for the interests that funded his campaign (oh, oops, did I just say that? My apologies for cynicism). Walker would like to argue that these tax breaks will help the middle class by creating jobs. That’d be fine, except trickle-down economics have pretty much been debunked at this point.
Most of us on this campus weren’t alive during the 1980s (or, if you were, it probably isn’t a time you remember), but Ronald Reagan tried out this ‘supply-side’ economic theory with the nation. It was great – we deregulated industry after industry, cut taxes for corporations, removed oversight and let business take care of itself. After all, businesspeople are all socially responsible individuals and wealth is just a secondary goal. It’s something that you get for doing a good job, but you do a good job because you love it. And then there was 10 percent unemployment in 1985, a rate that had been slowly rising for years.
I understand the theory – if you give businesses more capital they’ll invest it, hopefully in new small businesses, and the world will be good and we’ll be happy with our dogs and white picket fences. It’ll be like the ’50s but without the threat of nuclear holocaust. Except that didn’t happen. Continuing deregulation led to a lack of oversight and sketch business deals conducted by investors trading derivatives, and a housing bubble – an elaborate glass house that came crashing down in 2008. Walker should remember this history when he designs his economic policies.
Walker is not defending the middle class. He’s making it harder for people to get by, burdening those with less wealth with the greater burden of paying for state services. The promise of America is supposed to lie in the potential for upward mobility – as Mika puts it “Who gives a damn about the family you come from”? That’s the way it’s supposed to be. Where you come from is not supposed to matter. Walker’s current trend of policies will make it matter, and matter a lot.
The harder it is for middle class individuals and families to get by, the harder it will be for their children to advance further. When parents can’t afford gas, food and other daily expenses, they won’t be saving for their child’s college education. They won’t be investing in stocks or bonds or even an IRA. These aren’t the people who deserve to be challenged. These aren’t the people who put Wisconsin in debt, and they aren’t the ones with the wealth to get us out of it. Walker’s rhetoric may strike an appealing tune, but it’s not in the best interest of Wisconsin’s middle class.
If the middle class doesn’t pay attention to the real consequences of these policies, if they don’t look beyond the rhetoric (of both sides) to really understand the proposals, then we’re doomed (I say that in the least melodramatic way possible). Political discourse will continuously degenerate into visceral and unfounded attacks instead of respectful and productive debate. You can oppose these policies while still supporting Walker (or you can just disapprove of him, too). But don’t think this won’t affect you, and don’t take the rhetoric at face value.
Elise Swanson ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and English.
