Money is policy. That is, financial decisions and budget allocations reflect an organization’s or a government’s true priorities. Some politicians’ and some governments’ stated goals and budget allocations contradict one another; others dovetail. In either case, if you want to know what they really stand for, follow the money.
What policy would be supported by threatening to shut down the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) in the middle of the California fires? Where would you move the money? Is there something more important than supporting our fellow countrymen and women when they just lost everything? Is there something more important to use the money for? What would that something else be?
What if the government established a unit to attempt to cut a trillion dollars out of the budget and concomitantly cut taxes on the upper one percent? What policy would that support?
I was so struck by a woman who explained that she voted for Trump because she knew when he criticized the government it meant he supported her, and folks like her, who were struggling. It does? Do tax cuts to the upper one percent and a concomitant diminution of services to the needy and those in urgent need mean that? Only if you believe Ronald Reagan.
Reagan served from 1981 to 1989. In the third quarter of 1981, the country suffered a recession. Interest rates rose and put pressure on sectors of the economy that relied on borrowing—primarily manufacturing and construction. Unemployment rose from seven percent to 10 percent.
In a now-famous speech, Reagan said, “In this current crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
That was a striking moment. Those were monumental words. Why? Because those words threatened democracy itself. If the government—that of, by, and for the people construct—was a problem, what is the solution?
What is democracy? What is this great experiment in governing? After centuries of acceptance of the “force theory” of governing, democracy was a new idea. The force theory of government held that government was initially established through violence and domination. In short, the strong become the ruler of the weak by way of aggression and the threat of violence.
Democracy was the line in the sand: No more would the strong rule over the weak, abrogating their rights, ignoring their needs, and ceasing their property at will because they could. Educated men, convinced by the principles of the Age of Enlightenment, considered the possibility that free men (not women yet) could rule themselves.
In order for it to work, there had to be a new concept: Government was not oppression; government was a force for good. There was a social compact wherein we came together and looked out for one another. We eschewed bullies and grabbers; we protected the mass from whimsical strongmen by enforcing the notion of equality under the law in a nation of laws; we stopped, dissuaded, or prosecuted men willing to use force and the threat of violence to take what they wanted; we shunned and denied the mic to those who would lie to get their way. We limited the power of those we granted power by a system of checks and balances and thereby assured they were not ever above the law. Those were the ideas—new, radical, life-changing.
From the Declaration Of Independence (July 4, 1776) to the Constitutional Convention and ratification of the United States Constitution (September 1787) to 2025, the ideas were challenged. There were those who wanted more power and money than allowed. There were those who fought and risked everything to protect the ideas that protected democracy. Those fighters believed there is no place for violence in politics; it is not one dollar one vote; it is one person one vote; democracy was secure because majority rules and a majority would not vote away their own rights. Until they did.
February 1981 was the opening salvo. First, tell them their government, the people’s government, the government of majority rule, is the enemy. Followed by 44 years of constant pressure on democracy by those seeking oligarchy. The majority held until it didn’t, and by one percentage point, they relinquished their rights.
Now, watch the money shift, distributed into a few hands—not for the first time and hopefully not for all time.