EQ8: RTV ≠ AV

Dear Friends,

RTV = Right to Vote
AV = Actual Voting

There has been a lot of speculation about why Eric Cantor lost his primary challenge from a little known Tea Party favorite in a year where the press narrative is that the Republican Party establishment is regaining control of the party from the Tea Party.  In his column in The New York Times this morning Paul Krugman explained his theory (here) which I hope is correct.  Essentially he postulates that the Republican base, i.e. the Tea Party, has finally figured out that at election time the Republican establishment talks about social issues but once in office forgets about those and does the bidding of the 1%.  His column is much better than my summary so you should actually read the column.

In the now famous Virginia primary election in which Eric Cantor lost his job approximately 12% of the eligible voters turned out.  The old adage that the world is run by those who show up was once again clearly demonstrated.  Americans are terrible at voting and were even before it became the Republicans' goal to make voting as difficult as possible.  In the 2012 Presidential election, 58.2% of eligible voters actually voted.  I am proud to say that Minnesota topped the list with 75.7% participation.  In Minnesota it is so easy to vote that there can be no excuse for not voting.  Hawaii is worst at 44.2%.  Here is a great chart so you can see how your state performed.

Participation in non-Presidential election years is even worse.

When you think about these miserable participation rates and what has happened at the State level about redistricting and restrictions on voter eligibility, the small number of people that vote in the off year elections are making it more and more difficult for our democracy to work.  We need to get the vote out and get the vote out big this fall and every fall.

As Keith Ellison, my wonderful, liberal Representative says, "When progressives show up, progressives win!"

Support the candidates of your choice, vote and get everybody that you know that is eligible to vote too.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

EQ7: America ≠ Equality or Justice or Opportunity

Dear Friends,

While reading The New York Times this morning, I was struck by what different worlds people live in within the United States.  In the business section there was an article about executive pay which focused on how hard it was for women to become CEOs, but once they did they were paid the same as men.  There was also a table of the 200 highest paid chief executives in America (here) for 2013.  The high was just under $142 million, the low was $12.4 million, the median was $17.3 and the average was $20.7.  Just for a quick comparison if we were to miraculously raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour as Seattle did, a person working full time (8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks per year or 2,080 hours a year) would earn $31,200.  At the current minimum wage of $7.25, a full time worker earns $15,080 a year.

There was also an ad for penthouses at the Puck Building in SOHO that are listed between $21 million and $60 million.  Here is a link to a story about the Puck Building from last September (here).

There was also an article about President Obama's plan to ease student debt (here).

All of this made me think about the incredible disparities in wealth, income, opportunity and justice in America.  According to the Census Bureau (here) in 2012, there were 46.5 million Americans living in poverty, and almost 22% of children under the age of 18 were living in poverty.

According to a study by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development on any given night there are over 600,000 Americans who are homeless and almost 25% of those are children under the age of 18.

Last December the Huffington Post ran an article entitled "United States Is Now the Most Unequal of All Advance Economies" (here).  Think about this paragraph from that article:

The most authoritative source comparing wealth-concentration in the various countries is the successor to the reports that used to be done for the United Nations, now performed as the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook. The latest (2013) edition of it finds (p. 146) that in the U.S., 75.4% of all wealth is owned by the richest 10% of the people. The comparable figures for the other developed countries are: Australia 50.3%, Canada 57.4%, Denmark 72.2%, Finland 44.9%, France 51.8%, Germany 61.7%, Ireland 58.4%, Israel 68.9%, Italy 49.8%, Japan 49.1%, Netherlands 54.6%, New Zealand 57.6%, Norway 65.9%, Singapore 61.1%, Spain 54.0%, Sweden 71.1%, Switzerland 71.5%, and U.K. 53.3%. Those are the top 20 developed nations, and the U.S. has the most extreme wealth-concentration of them all. However, there are some other countries that have wealth-concentrations that are about as extreme as the U.S. For examples: Chile 72.5%, India 73.8%, Indonesia 75.0%, and South Africa 74.8%. The U.S. is in their league; not in the league of developed economies. In the U.S., the bottom 90% of the population own only 24.6% of all the privately held wealth, whereas in most of the developed world, the bottom 90% own around 40%; so, the degree of wealth-concentration in the U.S. is extraordinary (except for underdeveloped countries).

With disparities like these, there can be no justice nor equal opportunity.

In 1956 when I was just a boy, the maximum federal income tax rate was 91% and it applied to income over $200,000.  In 1966, when I had just stopped being a teenager, the maximum federal income tax rate was 70% and it applied to income over $200,000. In 1976, when I turned 30, the maximum federal income tax rate was 50% and it applied to income over $203,200.  The maximum rate has essentially dropped ever since until now when it is 39.6% on income over $400,000 or so depending on filing status.  During that same period the wealth disparity in the United States has climbed dramatically.  In 1956 the wealthiest 0.1% owned about 10% of the wealth.  Now the wealthiest 0.1% own about 22%.  (See).

The wealthiest among us, those who have received the most economic benefits from this great country need to pay their fair share, and they are not doing so.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal