As Zuccotti Park’s protesters prepare for winter, determined to carry the Occupy Wall Street movement’s message through the cold season and beyond, a perfect political storm is forming that might help Democrats keep the White House in 2012 – despite stubbornly high unemployment and a frustratingly slow economic recovery.
The storm stems from the OWS movement’s growing popular appeal, as a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll finds that an overwhelming majority of Americans (over three quarters) think the country's current economic structure “favors a very small portion of the rich over the rest of the country” – echoing the protesters’ calls to reduce the power of major banks and end tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.
The finding comes after a new census measure found that a new record number of Americans (49.1 million) now live in poverty, after accounting for rising medical costs and other expenses. In addition, a Congressional Budget Office study recently corroborated the historic exacerbation of the country’s income inequality (or widening gap between the so-called 1% and 99%). Both developments are likely to stir new debate over changes to Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that assist the poor as a congressional Super Committee approaches the November 23 deadline to make cuts of over $1 trillion to the federal budget.
This spells trouble for Republicans who so far have campaigned on repealing financial regulation, opposing any form of tax increase on the wealthiest Americans, and slashing public spending. President Barack Obama and the Democrats seem to have taken note of it since the president’s Labor Day populist makeover and have lost no time hammering the GOP for their opposition to the jobs bill and other initiatives put forward to relieve the American middle class – a core message with broadening appeals as the country’s growing income gap is increasingly seen as one of our main economic ailments.
But there’s a silver lining for the GOP. The same WSJ/NBC poll also found that 53% of Americans believe the national debt and size of government must be cut “significantly.” This poses a challenge for Democrats as it may renew pressure to address the politically toxic issue of entitlement reform. So, even as the OWS movement’s popular appeal offers “glimmers of hope” to Obama’s uphill reelection battle, the president’s ultimate success will depend on how well he convinces his base that he is determined to save Medicare and Social Security while convincing vital centrist voters that he is serious about tackling our country’s pressing fiscal problems.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
Good grief. This one's not going to go away; is it? How DID y'all get out into the weeds of Charter Schools?
And what, Ms. Jeffords, is intrinsically wrong with taxes? We pay a portion of our income - in lieu of "in kind" contributions or our own forced labor to the government - as our contribution to the "general welfare." In return, the government provides for our defense and security, regulates interstate commerce, dispenses justice, etc. If our budget is unbalanced because a previous administration CUT tax rates; it doesn't seem too far a stretch to restore them, does it? OK, now, I bet I'm going to be mobbed by the
Austrian economists. [heavy sigh]
I think both sides are right. But slashing government spending isn't the answer. What we need is a way for the government to get more money without levying more taxes. In Han China iron and salt were gov. monopolies. Why not something like that?
2 Replies
After putting more thought into the topic I have come to conclude inequality isn't the real problem, its a problem but its not whats provoked such an outcry.
Despite the lip service we give to championing equality,America has always been a very unequal place, but we tolerated it because there has always been great potential for social mobility. We all picture ourselves leaders of tomorrow to some extent.
Lately though it seems that's not the case, that the system in place does a better job at making the rich even more so while making it harder for every one else who is not and that's where the problem is, our problem isn't that the rich are wealthy, but that they are using their wealth to become even more so at our expense.
4 Replies
This account has been disabled.
This account has been disabled.
4 Replies
This account has been disabled.
5 Replies
On the jobs bill, where are the jobs?
On income disparity, CEO incentive pay can be traced to a fix on income disparity by then President Clinton. OWS wants to fix it some more?
Once you fix income inequality, who will there be to do any work, and why would they want to?
On SSI and a widening scent of entitlement. If you want a Safety net then define the obligation. A business subsidy should not be an entitlement. Less Tax as subsidy?
2 Replies
This story and others are why corporate tax revenues plummeted in 2009 to their lowest level in years (like, before WWII) - I mean "revenues" as in "cash received."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/business/energy-environment/a-cornucopia-of-help-for-renewable-energy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
By all means, continue protesting.
9 Replies
This account has been disabled.
I would also note that it seems the more recent press on OWS has been focusing on the seedy underbelly of the movement; rapes, suicides, drug use, etc. . . It's going to get more and more difficult for the country to maintain interest when there are no central message or policy recommendations.
The public believes that government debt causes unemployment (over the short term). They actually believe that deficit spending decreases employment...like it's a zero sum game or something. It's an odd and unshakable belief that's hard to fight. Fortunately, I think people are now fatigued by the deficit talk. OWS and the various self-inflicted wounds of the GOP presidential candidates have dominated the discussion over the last few weeks.
4 Replies
Interesting perspective that I would suggest indicates a certain bias towards the Left. First we have the fact that we have a sitting President, and his Party, who recently controlled both houses of Congress, essentially attempting to present themselves as the opposition. Strange?
Then we have the spin regarding the conflation of support for certain policies with support for the OWS, when the pure strain is represented by the T-Party. Timeout.
If the poorest among us had a yacht and 3000 sq ft house, would it matter if the wealthiest among us had 100 yachts and 20 houses? Why does the income inequality matter? Isn't it the quality of life that matters? In that regard, quality of life has clearly improved over the past few decades.
Moreover, there hasn't been any appreciable increase in income inequality over the past 15 years.
http://blog.american.com/2011/10/census-data-show-income-inequality-in-the-u-s-has-been-flat-since-1994/
21 Replies
This account has been disabled.
10 Replies
If 49.1 million Americans live in poverty, aside from the ones that prefer it, I think we should seriously take a look at the public education system that obviously didn't prepare them very well to make it in the economic world.
14 Replies
I think the key for Obama is to address both issues, income disparity and government bloat, then put forth a plan to resolve first one and then the other. Choosing which one to go after first is going to be crucial and is likely to be different for each party. This is where the GOP can get into trouble.
If the govt bloat is attacked before the income disparity, then its possible that the disparity issue cannot be addressed without "undoing" the bloat fix. That, of course, is what the GOP backers want dealt with more than the disparity problem. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans want the disparity problem resolved first and that is the one shot that Obama has.
11 Replies
Alex, your article belies its heading. As you rightly point out the apparent opportunities create internal conflicts within both parties as well as between them. This has been the case for some time now and I can’t see the election making much difference. I’ve been watching our local incumbent candidate and challengers and they are at a loss to come up with anything coherent other than “we’re not them”, “see what we’ve done already” and repetition of catchphrases that are supposed to represent policy but are actually just empty slogans. OWS’s storm won’t penetrate the corporate levies, will miss the mainland and dissipate over the Apathetic Ocean, no harm done to the status quo.
1 Replies
"Both developments are likely to stir new debate over changes to Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that assist the poor"
Both Medicare and Social Security are regressive. Wealthier people tend to start working later (spend less time paying in) and live longer (spend more time receiving benefits).
This account has been disabled.
4 Replies
This account has been disabled.
1 Replies
Here's another article on income inequality:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/07/the-facts-about-income-inequality
"What matters is not one’s position relative to the richest, but one’s absolute position and its improvement year to year. Studies demonstrate that for decades the time it takes the average worker to earn the money to buy any given consumer good has been shrinking. (And the goods are often of much better quality.)"
Here's another article on poverty in the US.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor
The poor live far better today than they did 40 yrs ago. Not even close.
Furthermore:
You can't collect enough $ from the rich and corporations to pay for our spending:
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/04/13/eat_the_rich/page/full/
If you took every cent from those making over $250K, you would get $1.4 trillion. We spent $3.7 trillion last year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
As for the entitlements, every reasonable person (including Obama) has come to the conclusion that Medicare is currently unsustainable. Social Security is now drawing less than it pays out. We can continue to stick our heads in the sand, but in the end, the bills will come due. Just ask Greece and Italy.
A few points: Giving the total number living in poverty is misleading. We also have more people, so it's no surprise that the raw number has risen. We are at 15.1% poverty, roughly in line with the rate for the past 50 years.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-09-16/wall_street/30094733_1_poverty-census-highest-level
The "explosion in income inequality" is also a myth:
http://blog.american.com/2011/10/census-data-show-income-inequality-in-the-u-s-has-been-flat-since-1994/
The "size" of government can be altered significantly by removing entitlements from the federal budget.
They should be redesigned, perhaps with means testing, funded so they are stable, then protected - absolutely - and depoliticized by being parked somewhere outside of government. Somewhere between the private and public sectors.
That will reduce the size of government (by over half), and Uncle Sam can then turn his attention to other matters as needed.
17 Replies