SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Surrounded by Democratic House and Senate Committee Chairs, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sign the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill during a bill enrollment ceremony on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on March 10, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
An event revealing a great deal about the kind of government Americans want occurred this March, when members of the U.S. Congress voted on the American Rescue Plan. This legislation, staunchly supported by the Democrats, provided federal funding for the provision of life-saving vaccines, the re-opening of public schools, expanded benefits to the unemployed, a direct payment to millions of hard-pressed Americans, the lifting of millions of children out of poverty, and other vital public programs.
And what was the response of Congressional Republicans to this legislation, passed amid the worst disease pandemic for a century and the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression? Every one of them voted to kill the measure. Almost immediately after the legislation was unveiled, Senator Pat Toomey, a top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, denounced it as "a colossal waste." According to Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, "this bill is too costly, too corrupt, and too liberal." Apparently, spending money to support the welfare of Americans is an extravagance--and not an appropriate function for the U.S. government.
Perhaps the time has come for Republican politicians to withdraw from the public sector they so despise and go back to enriching themselves in the private sector, leaving the governing of the United States to people who are willing to promote the general welfare.
By contrast, the Constitution of the United States declares clearly, in its Preamble, that a key purpose of the U.S. government is to "promote the general welfare." Furthermore, promoting the general welfare is the usual reason that people around the world support some sort of governing authority. After all, if a government doesn't promote the welfare of its people, what good is it?
Although there have been plenty of governments that have not promoted the general welfare, these usually turn out to be quite unpopular. Some, like monarchies or other forms of dynasty, promote the interests of a powerful family. Others, such as oligarchies, promote the interests of a wealthy class. Still others, like theocracies, promote the interests of a particular religion. Finally, some, like Communist dictatorships, though professing to support the working class, promote the interests of a ruling political party.
It could be argued that the Republican Party, with its lurch rightward in recent decades, has been adopting aspects of all these approaches. It certainly hasn't been promoting the general welfare.
For this reason, after years of Republican governance or obstructionism, it's refreshing when the U.S. government actually lives up to its promise of promoting the welfare of the entire society, rather than a privileged few. Americans seem to agree, for polls have found that the American Rescue Plan is supported by 69 percent of respondents, with only 24 percent opposed. Moreover, opinion polls also report strong public support for massive U.S. government investments in job growth and economic recovery.
From the standpoint of the Republican Party, the popularity of programs that promote the general welfare represents the latest in a string of bad news. As the GOP has continued its long march to the Right, it has been losing its attractiveness to voters, and has only managed to cling to disproportionate influence in Congress thanks to gerrymandering, the apportionment of Senate seats without regard to population, voter suppression, the filibuster, and other undemocratic means. The popular vote for President provides a better gauge of public support, with the Democratic candidate outpolling the Republican candidate in seven out of the last eight elections.
Perhaps the time has come for Republican politicians to withdraw from the public sector they so despise and go back to enriching themselves in the private sector, leaving the governing of the United States to people who are willing to promote the general welfare.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
An event revealing a great deal about the kind of government Americans want occurred this March, when members of the U.S. Congress voted on the American Rescue Plan. This legislation, staunchly supported by the Democrats, provided federal funding for the provision of life-saving vaccines, the re-opening of public schools, expanded benefits to the unemployed, a direct payment to millions of hard-pressed Americans, the lifting of millions of children out of poverty, and other vital public programs.
And what was the response of Congressional Republicans to this legislation, passed amid the worst disease pandemic for a century and the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression? Every one of them voted to kill the measure. Almost immediately after the legislation was unveiled, Senator Pat Toomey, a top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, denounced it as "a colossal waste." According to Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, "this bill is too costly, too corrupt, and too liberal." Apparently, spending money to support the welfare of Americans is an extravagance--and not an appropriate function for the U.S. government.
Perhaps the time has come for Republican politicians to withdraw from the public sector they so despise and go back to enriching themselves in the private sector, leaving the governing of the United States to people who are willing to promote the general welfare.
By contrast, the Constitution of the United States declares clearly, in its Preamble, that a key purpose of the U.S. government is to "promote the general welfare." Furthermore, promoting the general welfare is the usual reason that people around the world support some sort of governing authority. After all, if a government doesn't promote the welfare of its people, what good is it?
Although there have been plenty of governments that have not promoted the general welfare, these usually turn out to be quite unpopular. Some, like monarchies or other forms of dynasty, promote the interests of a powerful family. Others, such as oligarchies, promote the interests of a wealthy class. Still others, like theocracies, promote the interests of a particular religion. Finally, some, like Communist dictatorships, though professing to support the working class, promote the interests of a ruling political party.
It could be argued that the Republican Party, with its lurch rightward in recent decades, has been adopting aspects of all these approaches. It certainly hasn't been promoting the general welfare.
For this reason, after years of Republican governance or obstructionism, it's refreshing when the U.S. government actually lives up to its promise of promoting the welfare of the entire society, rather than a privileged few. Americans seem to agree, for polls have found that the American Rescue Plan is supported by 69 percent of respondents, with only 24 percent opposed. Moreover, opinion polls also report strong public support for massive U.S. government investments in job growth and economic recovery.
From the standpoint of the Republican Party, the popularity of programs that promote the general welfare represents the latest in a string of bad news. As the GOP has continued its long march to the Right, it has been losing its attractiveness to voters, and has only managed to cling to disproportionate influence in Congress thanks to gerrymandering, the apportionment of Senate seats without regard to population, voter suppression, the filibuster, and other undemocratic means. The popular vote for President provides a better gauge of public support, with the Democratic candidate outpolling the Republican candidate in seven out of the last eight elections.
Perhaps the time has come for Republican politicians to withdraw from the public sector they so despise and go back to enriching themselves in the private sector, leaving the governing of the United States to people who are willing to promote the general welfare.
An event revealing a great deal about the kind of government Americans want occurred this March, when members of the U.S. Congress voted on the American Rescue Plan. This legislation, staunchly supported by the Democrats, provided federal funding for the provision of life-saving vaccines, the re-opening of public schools, expanded benefits to the unemployed, a direct payment to millions of hard-pressed Americans, the lifting of millions of children out of poverty, and other vital public programs.
And what was the response of Congressional Republicans to this legislation, passed amid the worst disease pandemic for a century and the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression? Every one of them voted to kill the measure. Almost immediately after the legislation was unveiled, Senator Pat Toomey, a top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, denounced it as "a colossal waste." According to Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, "this bill is too costly, too corrupt, and too liberal." Apparently, spending money to support the welfare of Americans is an extravagance--and not an appropriate function for the U.S. government.
Perhaps the time has come for Republican politicians to withdraw from the public sector they so despise and go back to enriching themselves in the private sector, leaving the governing of the United States to people who are willing to promote the general welfare.
By contrast, the Constitution of the United States declares clearly, in its Preamble, that a key purpose of the U.S. government is to "promote the general welfare." Furthermore, promoting the general welfare is the usual reason that people around the world support some sort of governing authority. After all, if a government doesn't promote the welfare of its people, what good is it?
Although there have been plenty of governments that have not promoted the general welfare, these usually turn out to be quite unpopular. Some, like monarchies or other forms of dynasty, promote the interests of a powerful family. Others, such as oligarchies, promote the interests of a wealthy class. Still others, like theocracies, promote the interests of a particular religion. Finally, some, like Communist dictatorships, though professing to support the working class, promote the interests of a ruling political party.
It could be argued that the Republican Party, with its lurch rightward in recent decades, has been adopting aspects of all these approaches. It certainly hasn't been promoting the general welfare.
For this reason, after years of Republican governance or obstructionism, it's refreshing when the U.S. government actually lives up to its promise of promoting the welfare of the entire society, rather than a privileged few. Americans seem to agree, for polls have found that the American Rescue Plan is supported by 69 percent of respondents, with only 24 percent opposed. Moreover, opinion polls also report strong public support for massive U.S. government investments in job growth and economic recovery.
From the standpoint of the Republican Party, the popularity of programs that promote the general welfare represents the latest in a string of bad news. As the GOP has continued its long march to the Right, it has been losing its attractiveness to voters, and has only managed to cling to disproportionate influence in Congress thanks to gerrymandering, the apportionment of Senate seats without regard to population, voter suppression, the filibuster, and other undemocratic means. The popular vote for President provides a better gauge of public support, with the Democratic candidate outpolling the Republican candidate in seven out of the last eight elections.
Perhaps the time has come for Republican politicians to withdraw from the public sector they so despise and go back to enriching themselves in the private sector, leaving the governing of the United States to people who are willing to promote the general welfare.