THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: Inequality fine with conservatives


image_pdfimage_print

By Robert Reich

With polls showing that a majority of Americans now believe inequality has grown over the past decade, and favor tax increases on the wealthy to expand help to those in need, conservatives want to change the subject.

Those with presidential ambitions say we should focus on poverty rather than on inequality.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida points to the “lack of mobility” of the poor as the core problem. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin blames their isolation from mainstream America: “On every measure from education levels to marriage rates, poor families are drifting further away from the middle class.”

Robert Reich

Robert Reich

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks argues that the “interrelated social problems of the poor” have nothing to do with inequality.

Rubbish.

When almost all the gains from growth go to the top, as they have for the last 30 years, the vast middle class doesn’t have the purchasing power necessary to keep the economy growing and generate lots of jobs.

Once the middle class has exhausted all its coping mechanisms — wives and mothers surging into paid work (as they did in the 1970s and 1980s), longer working hours (which characterized the 1990s), and deep indebtedness (2002 to 2008) — the inevitable result is slower growth and fewer jobs.

Slow growth and few jobs hit the poor especially hard because they’re the first to be fired, last to be hired, and most likely to bear the brunt of declining wages and benefits.

A stressed middle class also has a harder time being generous to those in need. It’s no coincidence that the tax revolts that began thundering across America in the late 1970s occurred just when middle-class wages began stagnating.

Helping America’s poor presumably requires some money, but the fiscal cupboard is bare — and the only way to replenish it is through tax increases on the wealthy because the middle class is stretched to the limit.

The shrinking middle class also hobbles upward mobility. Not only is there less money for good schools, job training and social services, but the poor face a more difficult challenge moving upward because the income ladder is far longer and its middle rungs have disappeared.

Conservatives don’t want Americans to draw the connection between widening inequality and unequal political power. Brooks, for example, warns that any discussion of unequal political power will make it harder to reach political consensus over what to do for the poor.

But it’s precisely the concentration of power at the top — which flows largely from the concentration of income and wealth there — that has prevented Washington from dealing with the problems of the poor and the middle class.

As wealth has accumulated at the top, Washington has reduced taxes on the wealthy, expanded tax loopholes that disproportionately benefit the rich, deregulated Wall Street, and provided ever larger subsidies, bailouts and tax breaks for large corporations.

The only things that have trickled down to the middle and poor besides fewer jobs and smaller paychecks are public services that are increasingly inadequate because they’re starved for money.

Unequal political power is the endgame of widening inequality — its most noxious and nefarious consequence.

Big money has all but engulfed Washington and many state capitals — drowning out the voices of average Americans, filling the campaign chests of candidates who will do their bidding, financing attacks on organized labor, and bankrolling a vast empire of right-wing think tanks and publicists that fill the airwaves with half-truths and distortions.

Finally, conservatives would rather talk about poverty than about inequality because they can then characterize the poor as “them” — people who are different than most of us, who have brought their problems onto themselves, who lack self-discipline or adequate motivation. Accordingly, any attempt to alleviate poverty requires that “they” change their ways.

But inequality affects all of us, and dealing with it requires that we acknowledge how distorted our economy and our politics have become. When 95 percent of the economic gains since the start of the recovery go to the richest 1 percent, something is fundamentally wrong

America’s surging inequality requires that we address the growing misallocation of political and economic power in America. That’s exactly what conservatives don’t want us to do.

Robert Reich is chancellor’s professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley and senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. His new film, “Inequality for All,” is now out on iTunes, DVD and on demand.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (15)
  1. Dogula says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    “The real democratic American idea is, not that every man shall be on a level with every other man, but that every man shall have liberty to be what God made him, without hindrance.”

    Henry Ward Beecher

    Give me liberty over “equality” any day of the week.

  2. BijouBill says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” J.K. Galbraith

    Worse than the oligarchs that perpetrate these crimes against America’s middle class are the duped bootlickers that support them in search of a few more coins to fall their way.

  3. Rhinopoker says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    Robert “Robinhood” Reich,

    Your idea sounds so noble to take from those who have excess and give to those in need but it does not work. Every article you write that has been published in the LTN is the same theme. When you were in the Clinton Administration you had 8 years to make a change and nothing changed.

    Giving more money to the poor in this country is not going to lift up the poor. Habits and ideas must be changed first. The ideas of saving, education and investment must mean something to make the poor and the inequality change. By giving money through a government program it will enhance their spending habits of liquor, cigarettes, and fast food. This is why in most poor neighborhood’s you see liquor stores, McDonald’s and no banks.

    To take that money away from a high earning person your taking away their opportunity to save and invest. The more you take away the less investment their will be and your return on giving that money to the poor is darn near zero.

    Change the mindset and you can change the results. Money and government programs have never done it and they never will.

    Dr Reich leave the UC Berkeley campus and do something in the private sector, join us out in the real world and maybe you will learn something. Change your behavior. Quit trying to take from those that have and given to those that have not.

  4. cosa pescado says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    ““The real democratic American idea is, not that every man shall be on a level with every other man, but that every man shall have liberty to be what God made him, without hindrance.””

    Says the ‘proud Islmaophobe’.

  5. Perry R. Obray says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    What the article doesn’t address is the criminal element of government suppressing education, and allowing criminal acts against people trying economic mobility, ect… Is this criminally repressed population supposed to go to the criminals court (also known as our justice system)to get relief(lol)? We live in a system the gestapo would have been proud of. No gas chambers to build, just public housing and public schools to hack to oblivion the people migrating south of the economic ladder of economic mobility.

  6. BitterKlinger says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    Komrade Reich need only look to his fellow brown shirts in the Obama Regime for the root of the problem.

    At no time in American history has the income inequality gap grown more than under the tyranny of the present regime.

    Government regulatory burdens, taxation, and largesse have all suppressed those at the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder while providing those in power with more wealth.

    Komrade Reich might want to study the former Soviet Union for reference purposes. Income equality was goal there.

  7. Perry R. Obray says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    BitterKlinger,

    Great comparison. If this country only needs around 25% of the population to make about 25% of the yearly economic wealth of the planet, does this have any relation to the lawlessness of the situation?

  8. Perry R. Obray says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    Is the real issue, if this country can produce around 25% of the yearly economic output of the planet with about 25% of the country’s population, how does this effect the society?

  9. Perry R. Obray says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    I get heavily hacked every 3 day weekend. Someone must be onto the hackers so they started 1 week early. Hence the inability to control posting to this website.

  10. rock4tahoe says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    Hey Rhino. So you expect the elderly, sick and poor to just do what exactly… go away? What has never worked are NEOCON Wars, that cost Trillions in money and blood, acting as some sort of economic stimulus. Ex. Destruction of Iraq then the rebuilding effort that failed produces no lasting economic benefit to Americans. Also, tax cuts for billionaires with no incentive to be used in America, end up stimulating China and India; not Americans. FDR, Truman and Ike had it right, you raise taxes on the rich to pay for War costs and the rebuilding process after the War is over.

  11. cosa pescado says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    “fellow brown shirts”
    Is that a nazi reference?

    What is wrong with you?

  12. A.B. says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    The Obama Regime has a cult like following who act like Brown Shirts. I see nothing wrong with that comparison.

    Fish, perhaps you should study a bit of history chap.

  13. rock4tahoe says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    Hey AB. Does that “brown shirt” remark go for FDR too; he was a liberal and elected by his “followers” FOUR TIMES! Wow you people are thick… or skin heads.

  14. rock4tahoe says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    Hey Klinger! During the Slavery period of America income inequality was much worse than today. Oh, but you don’t believe in history prior to January 2009 do you.

  15. cosa pescado says - Posted: February 9, 2014

    “The Sturmabteilung (SA) (German pronunciation: [ˈʃtʊɐ̯mʔapˌtaɪlʊŋ] ( listen); Storm Detachment or Assault Division, or Brownshirts) functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. It played a key role in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their main assignments were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of the opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties (especially the Rotfrontkämpferbund) and intimidating Slavic and Romani citizens, unionists and Jews (e.g. the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses).

    The SA was the first Nazi paramilitary group to develop pseudo-military titles for bestowal upon its members. The SA ranks were adopted by several other Nazi Party groups, chief amongst them the Schutzstaffel (SS), itself originally a branch of the SA. SA men were often called “brownshirts” for the colour of their uniforms ”

    ” I see nothing wrong with that comparison.

    Fish, perhaps you should study a bit of history chap.”

    You are a complete moron.