Income Equality

Posted: February 25, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 2 Comments

Recently, a lot has been written about income equality, or the lack of it, in the United States and around the world.  Although a topic of discussion for sometime, the debate was renewed in late January with the release of a report by the charitable organization Oxfam.  The report  states that the 85 richest people in the world own the same amount of wealth as the 3.5 billion (with a “B”) poorest people in the world.  It got a lot of people’s attention.

There was also a lot of push back from those that argue that one cannot help the poor by making the rich poorer.  True enough.  Despite the political rhetoric in this country that government, in particular Democrats and President Obama, are trying to take away from the rich and give to the poor (or in some circles, to give to the lazy bums that don’t want to work for their own benefit), I do not see it that way.  To me, to use the over-used cliché, they are really looking at ways to level the playing field, or more accurately, to provide the opportunity for people to provide for themselves and for their families.

I recognize that although we are all equal in the eyes of the Creator, we are not all equal in our abilities and talents.  The market place, like it or not, is going to favor some individuals and occupations more than others.  Intelligence, athletic ability, entrepreneurial spirit, willingness to take risks, and on and on are rewarded when success occurs.  As it should be.  There is a possible moral argument that a football player making millions for playing a game should not be rewarded more generously than a brilliant teacher that impacts the lives of countless children, but that ignores the marketplace and the fact that the business of football is worth billions of dollars and the “workers” (players) should get a big payday for providing the product.  This is a totally different discussion — whether football should be  such a lucrative undertaking — and that is not why I am writing today.  It merely shows that effort or impact are not the only quantifiers for compensation.

What caught my eye in the report, and has been widely reported in other forums and in other contexts, is that the income gap is growing at a rapid rate.  The super rich are getting richer at a rate not seen since before World War I (think “Downton Abbey”) and the gap continues to grow.  One can argue that certain risk takers and specialists deserve to have much higher incomes due to their rare talents, but to me, that does not explain why those individuals are increasing their wealth at a rate well above anything that would explain why it is so.  The difference in disparity grew by nearly 100 billion dollars from 2012 to 2013.  Doing a rough back of the envelope math, I cannot be convinced that those 85 people were so much better in 2013 that they earned over a billion dollars more per person because of their talent.

The percentage of income held by the richest 1% in the U.S. has grown nearly 150% from 1980 through 2012. That small elite has received 95% of wealth created since 2009, after the financial crisis, while the bottom 90% of Americans have become poorer, according to the Oxfam report.  The report covers the world, not just the United States, but once again the US is “number one.”   In other words, as the report explains, following the Great Recession, the top 1% regained 95% of the post-crisis growth in the United States.

There are groups that dispute the Oxfam report, such as the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank.  They argue that the Oxfam report is focused on the wrong issues and that in fact, a case can be made that poverty has decreased over time.  To me that misses the real point of the Oxfam report and of those in other sources and in political discussions.

The real point, with political ramifications, is that there are a large number of people in the United States (and around the world) that believe that the deck is stacked against them — they feel they just can’t “catch a break”.   I have posted pieces before that convey my belief that there is some portion of our society, of every society, that no matter what you do for them, they just are not going to be productive members of that society.  They just are not.  In my view those are the people that much of the conservative political rhetoric is aimed at, but I believe that they are a small percentage of those that find themselves suffering hard times.  The rest just need to “catch a break” and they willingly and proudly get themselves up and going.  I am not arguing that we leave the non-productive members of society to fend for themselves, we need to try to help them, I’m just saying that if they never get the big picture, taking care of them is just the cost of doing business in order to get the large majority of people moving again.

So nobody, at least nobody that I take credibly, is arguing that there should be no rich, that in this country we should take from the rich and give to the poor “just because”.  What I am asking is why is the disparity covered in the report growing?  I am asking that if American productivity is at an all time high why is the working wage stagnant, or by some accounts falling relative to the historical norm, while the compensation for the CEOs of those companies is growing at an accelerated rate?  I am asking that if these trends continue, what does it mean for the future of our country?  What does it mean in terms of political influence, education, quality of life and the things that we hold dear in our country?  Ask yourself this question as debate over whether to raise the minimum wage continues (the current minimum wage already lost value since it was last raised as it is not pegged to inflation), why has the average CEO compensation versus average worker compensation gone from 20-1 in 1965 to 273-1 in 2013?

In the end, my bottom line continues to be why is it, given the amount of wealth in this country, that citizens of the greatest country in the world have children that go to bed hungry?  Why is it that in the country with the greatest medical capabilities in the world, in the greatest country in the world, that access to health care and its affordability remain an issue?  Whatever one’s political persuasion it seems to me that we should be able to agree that no one in this great nation should go to bed hungry or die of a curable disease just because they can’t afford it.

Cleaning Things Up

Posted: February 12, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

I do not often give a “well done” to Speaker John A. Boehner (R–Ohio) for his leadership in the House, but today I’ll give him a nod and a smattering of applause for getting fed up with his own party and getting something done.  Yesterday the House approved a “clean” extension of the government’s borrowing authority, or in common terms, they passed a bill allowing for an increase in the debt ceiling.   It was accomplished without amending any other elements to it and without creating another crisis such as the country went through last fall.  Unfortunately, it still had its share of drama, at least in the Republican Party.

The bill passed by a vote of 221 to 201 with only 28 Republicans voting for it.  Speaker Boehner made it clear that there would be no shutting down the government again this time and that the bill needed to pass sufficiently ahead of the government hitting the debt ceiling so as to remove the uncertainty and drama of the past several years.  I hope that he determined this was necessary in order to insure the full faith in the word of the United States government, and not because we are approaching mid-term elections and most of the American voting public is fed-up with the shenanigans from last fall and he did not want to risk losing control of the majority in the House.

The Speaker worked hard since the start of the new year to find a suitable compromise that would bring in both Republican and Democrat House members to vote for the bill.  He tried several different amendments to bring Republicans on board such as lifting the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) cut to military veterans benefits (see my post from 7 January 2014) without losing Democrats’ votes.  It also had to be realistic enough that there would be a chance of getting the bill through the Senate and signed into law.  He was unable to come up with any compromise positions on the bill because the extremely conservative elements in his party opposed any effort to raise the debt ceiling — even though that ceiling is necessary to pay the bills already authorized by the Congress.

In a surprise move on Tuesday morning, he told the Republican caucus that he was moving ahead with the clean bill and, essentially, letting the Democrats move ahead with actually governing the country.

What rankled me a bit, although I was happy they finally did what they should have done long ago, is  that many Republican Congressmen wanted the debt ceiling raised knowing what the consequences of not doing so would be, but refused to vote for it because of fears that they would be challenged in this year’s primaries.  As Representative Devin Nunes (R-California) put it (he was one of the 28 Republicans that voted for the bill); “It wasn’t exactly a profile in courage.  You had members saying that they hoped it would pass but unwilling to vote for it.”

The Senate is expected to pass the same legislation (although just one hour ago a filibuster by some conservative Republican Senators was narrowly averted) and the President has declared that he will sign it.  Now we can get on with the business of governing.

Why Is This Necessary?

Posted: January 29, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 2 Comments

On Tuesday President Obama reported on the State of the Union to a joint session of Congress and to the American people.  It was his fifth since being elected (traditionally the first speech given by a president, when it occurs, is an “annual message” rather than the “State of the Union” since they just took office days before the speech, so this is his sixth such speech).  Following his speech, the Republican Party offered their rebuttal to the president.   Why is this necessary?  Why does the party not holding the presidency always have to have “equal time” to present their political viewpoint when the president’s speech is fulfilling an official obligation of the office?

Article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution states that “He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”  (Of course the founding fathers could never imagine that the president might one day be a woman, since women did not get the right to vote until 1920, thus the “he” reference concerning the president.)

The Constitution does not say anything about the party or parties not in power having the obligation, or even the right, to follow what is a Constitutionally proscribed event with a requirement of their own.  This has been ongoing for years, for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been a staple of televised State of the Union addresses since 1966.  But why does it have to continue?

Indeed, the president does not even have to make a speech to a joint session of Congress to deliver his message.  As many of you may know, George Washington did so, but starting with Thomas Jefferson, most presidents sent an annual letter to meet the requirement.   Woodrow Wilson revived the custom of actually speaking before a joint session, and it was solidified under Franklin Roosevelt in its current form.

My question remains, however, as to why the “other” party must be given air time on national television to give a scripted rebuttal to a speech that they do not directly address, as the rebuttal is written prior to the original speech being delivered.

This year there was not even a unified rebuttal.  The “official” Republican response was delivered nearly immediately after President Obama finished by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) in English.  A nearly identical “official” speech was given by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FLA) in Spanish.   (I am sure that the choices were merely a coincidence and had nothing to do with the perception that the Republicans have lost voters among women and Hispanics in recent years.)  Additional “rebuttals” were given by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT).  Senator Paul’s speech was “his own” (and pre-recorded) — coincidentally he will undoubtedly run for president in 2016 — and Senator Lee’s response was the “official” Tea Party position.

It all makes for great political theater and provides employment for the various analysts and strategists employed by the networks, media outlets and political campaigns.  So in that way, I guess that makes them all “job creators.”

I just wish that all that “speechifying” was useful.  Can’t they actually talk to each other?

Puhleeze!

Posted: January 21, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 4 Comments

It struck me today while reading the Washington Post print edition that our Congress may be even more under-handed than I thought.  I doubt that it was the editors’ intent to do so, but in just the “A” section of the paper there were numerous articles, editorials and opinion pieces that when put together show just how self-centered and narrow-minded some members of Congress can be.  While arguing for smaller government, reduced spending, and the elimination or reduction of various government agencies, the omnibus spending bill that just passed was full of what used to be called “pork”.   Since the current rules of the House and Senate eliminate anything that resembles good old-fashioned bring-home-the-bacon pork barrel spending, they are now called “add-ons” or “specialized programs” or prohibitions for eliminating programs that benefit specific Congressional districts.

Here is a short list of some of these dubious exploits outlined in today’s paper.  It is hardly exhaustive and does not include everything a casual look at the news will reveal.

The 605.7 billion dollar Department of Defense (DOD) budget (over half of the total 1.1 trillion dollar total budget) is riddled with unwanted and unnecessary spending mandated by Congress, as highlighted by Walter Pincus in his piece in today’s paper.  The money comes by shifting money from the “base” DOD budget to the Operational Contingency Operations (OCO) fund.  The OCO fund is outside the regular budget and is not part of the agreement.  It is intended to be used to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but through accounting sleight of hand moving funds around, billions of dollars become available for “special projects” while being able to trumpet the savings to the base budget which does not directly reflect all of these expenditures.  Much of that spending is unwanted, unrequested and only minimally related to achieving the military’s mission or desired spending levels.

In an article about the United State Postal Service (USPS) which has come under withering criticism from the Congress for its increasing debt, we find that the USPS is trying to sell off surplus post offices but is being prohibited from doing so by House members until a study by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is completed.  Remember that the USPS tried to change delivery days to Monday through Friday — dropping Saturday delivery to save money — and was prohibited from doing so by the Congress.

As explained on the editorial page, Congress is considering a “tax extenders bill” to continue specific tax exemptions or tax breaks for special interests for everything from Puerto Rican rum to auto race tracks.  Historically, there are no increased revenue sources nor spending off-sets from other parts of the budget to pay for these special exemptions.  Yet, the proposed extension of added unemployment benefits is held up by those that insist it cannot be passed without corresponding reductions to “pay for it” in other areas.

Despite the chemical spill in West Virginia that contaminated the water supply for hundreds of thousands for over a week, many in Congress still want to eliminate or severely inhibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

I could go on.  This was only in a few pages of one paper today.  Puhleeze!  Spare me!  Enough!

This is the same Congress that has members that want to do away with or at least limit unemployment benefits, significantly reduce SNAP (food stamps), reduce the Cost of Living (COLA) payments to veterans, and on and on.

By focusing on the deficit and deficit reduction, some members have put their energy on the wrong issue.  While there is little criticism of trying to get spending under control, the real issue is where the money is spent and how effective it is in achieving the intended result.  Focusing only on dollar amounts and screaming about debt limits does little to enhance the effectiveness of government in achieving those things that can only be done on the scale needed to get at root problems.  And it does not help their credibility as they continue to add pork barrel spending while the demagoguery continues about too much spending.

I understand that some of the spending outlined above is about the give and take of doing business in our government following many,  many years of doing business in that way.  Sometimes these “add-ons” grease the wheels of progress towards larger issues.  I get that.

My problem is the callous deceit and phony-baloney lecturing about getting spending under control by focusing on spending on social issues while at the same time inflating spending in order to satisfy special interests that support their re-election.

While this is nothing new, I suppose, I have just grown tired of all of the posturing and self-righteousness that has no actual meaning.  Governing our country is a messy business and politics are a necessary part of it.  What I miss is a clear vision for the country and demonstrable leadership that extends beyond parochial interests or self-promotion.

One cannot be a “leader” in name only.  It must be demonstrated and focused towards a definable goal that contributes to society.

Where are the leaders?

Shaken, Not Stirred

Posted: July 30, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.” — James Branch Cabell

With apologies to James Bond for borrowing his famous tag line, I would say that despite the deep divide within our Congress today, when put into historical perspective it’s bad, but not historically bad.  We are shaken in our belief in the ability of the system to accomplish anything meaningful, but we are not stirred to action to undo it or, seemingly, to even vote for someone new.  It is however, no less frustrating that important, if not easy, issues get side-tracked over partisan political bickering.  (Of course like many of us that take to the internet to blog, I think that all right thinking people will agree with my view of things.)

Recent opinion polls rating Congressional job approval are abysmal with an average across five different polls of 15.8% approving and 76.2% disapproving of the job that our representatives in Congress are doing.  The President’s approval ratings are better (46%) but still historically lower than average for this point in a president’s term, at least since Gallup began polling in 1938.

But keep it all in perspective because we often forget as a nation that the absolute worst period in our history has to be the years leading up to and including the Civil War.  We may have a war of words in the political circles of our capital, but no one is talking about secession.  Or at least no one that the main stream citizenry takes seriously.

It wasn’t just the Civil War.  In the period immediately following our independence serious disagreements existed among our Founding Fathers as to how the country should be run.  Washington and Adams were Federalists with a distinct view of how government needed to operate to preserve our hard-fought independence.  The Republicans (a different flavor of political party in those days),  represented by Jefferson, avowed that as president he would undo nearly everything his predecessors had implemented in forming a new government and differed greatly on how it should operate.   (As with many politicians, reality set in once in office and he found that much of what took place before him could not, and should not, be undone without hurting the country more than the sting of  his distaste for some of their policies — also true today.)

When did this letter arrive at the White House?

“You have brought the government to the jaws of destruction. I do not undertake to say whether by supineness, timidity, or enthusiasm. The effect is certain.”

According to Jon Meacham in his award-winning biography of Thomas Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power) those words were written in  February 1809 to the President as he was preparing to leave office.  There were more from people of many walks of life that were even more critical of his time in office.

Even our Founding Fathers found that politics in the United States is a full contact sport.  The nature of our democracy (often grossly misunderstood by adversaries past and present) is that we are a contentious people as we strive to make our country better.  Our history and current events support that view.

But, come on guys and gals.  Seriously.  I think you can do a lot better than 16%.

Newer Entries →