Legislating For the Poor

 DAVY CROCKETT, among his many clever colloquialisms, said:"It is my firm belief that Congress ought to at least occasionally legislate for the poor." Crockett ran for Congress seven times, won three and lost four, and served three terms, finally giving up Tennessee politics after his final defeat. His plan was to migrate to Texas and begin a new political career, seeking fame, fortune, and power in the rough, rugged, contested Texan part of mexico, where revolution was in the air. Crockett has risen in politics as a supporter of Andrew Jackson, a fellow former military Tennessean with humble origins and populist sympathies, but the too had severely fallen out over issues such as Indian removal, and had become bitter enemies. Jackson called Crockett "profligate", accurately, and Crockett derisively referred to Jackson as "the government", meaning that the president had become a dictator. Crockett's congressional crusade, besides forcing the government to live up to its treaty obligations and allow Indians to remain in their ancestral homelands, was to grant ownership of their land to pioneer homesteaders, instead of leaving the land in the hands of wealthy eastern banks.he never accomplished this, but his son, John Wesley Crockett, elected to Congress in his father's seat shortly after Crockett senior died at the Alamo, did. David Crockett, as he liked to be called, would doubtless have been proud of his eldest son, for doing what he himself had failed to accomplish, successfully legislating for the poor. The legendary martyr of the Alamo, however, did in fact achieve his dream because after his death he became a national hero, making his son's job a mite easier, as he might have said.There are instances in american history in which government legislated for the poor, but, arguably, too few. And, in such instances, the wealthy who do the legislating cannot seem to resist the temptation to throw themselves a few goodies as well, or to so skew the legislation as to appear to be favoring the poor, while actually benefiting mostly the wealthy.The wealthy, as well as the poor, receive social security benefits, and better benefits. Above a certain income, close to one hundred and fifty thousand a year, income is not taxed for social security. The Homestead Act of 1862 and the Mining Act of 1872 were on the surface beneficial to the poor, but in reality gave large banks and corporations an opportunity for huge profits.Roosevelt's New Deal was indeed of great help to the economy generally, and carefully crafted so as not to arouse the envy of the wealthy.usually, government legislates for the wealthy. Obama's bank and corporate bailout ws justified on the grounds that if the huge corporations went down, so would the rest of us. the poor in America are held hostage by the profits of the rich. Early in the Covid 19 pandemic, millions of Americans, myself included, were thrilled to receive a very helpful twelve hundred check from the government. We were grateful. but these same Americans would probably be appalled if they fully realized just how much of those trillions of dollars went into the hands of the wealthy, in the form of assistance to big business. Since three hundred an eighty two of the five hundred forty five members of congress are millionaires, we should expect nothing else.No government will ever truly represent the interests of the poor, until some government comes into existence comprised of poor people.