The Income Gap: Unfair, Or Are We Just Jealous?

I found the following story on the NPR iPhone App:
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/14/145213421/the-income-gap-unfair-or-are-we-just-jealous?sc=17&f=1001

The Income Gap: Unfair, Or Are We Just Jealous?
by Scott Horsley

- January 14, 2012

The widening gulf between the rich and everyone else is a growing source of tension in America.

A new survey from the Pew Research Center finds the income gap is now seen as a bigger source of conflict in the U.S. than race, age or national origin. That's why some believe the issue could matter in the presidential campaign, and others worry it could warp the national debate.

Two out of three Americans now perceive strong social conflicts over the income gap — up sharply from two years ago. Paul Taylor of the Pew Research Center has an idea what's behind the increase.

"The Occupy Wall Street movement kind of crystallized the issue: 1 versus 99. [It's] arguably the most successful slogan since 'Hell no, we won't go,' going back to the Vietnam era," he says. "[It] certainly triggered a lot of coverage about economic inequality."

Over the last three decades, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans more than doubled their share of national income, while the bottom 80 percent saw their share shrink. Taylor says majorities of Democrats, independents and even Republicans now see the income gap as a cause of friction.

"There's no question that there is rising inequality in this country, and I think those perceptions are part of the national agenda in a way that they weren't," he says. "And certainly they are in times like this, where we've had this very, very difficult economy and a lot of people are struggling."

The 'Politics Of Envy'

The rise of the issue has not been welcomed by Mitt Romney, the front-running Republican presidential candidate. Romney, who made millions as a private equity investor, has accused President Obama and others of engaging in what he calls "the bitter politics of envy."

"I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like, but the president has made this part of his campaign rally," Romney says. "We hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It's a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach. And I think it will fail."

Romney was challenged by Today Show host Matt Lauer, who asked if envy is the only reason someone might question the increasingly skewed distribution of wealth. Lauer asked if it was instead about fairness.

"I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare," Romney responded. "I think when you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the idea of 99 percent versus 1 percent, and those people who've been most successful will be in the 1 percent, you've opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of 'one nation under God.'"

Nothing Wrong With Being Rich

Even as the Pew survey found more conflict over the income gap, it did not find evidence that Americans are growing more resentful of the rich. A separate Gallup poll found Americans far more concerned with growing the economic pie rather than changing the way it's divided.

Conservatives have long argued that growth trumps inequality, and a rising tide lifts all boats, even if some are yachts and others dinghies. But Obama's top economist, Alan Krueger, gave a speech this week arguing that severe inequality can actually threaten growth, as well as hobble the "opportunity society" that Romney says he wants to promote.

"There's a cost to the economy and society if children from low-income families do not have anything close to the opportunities to develop and use their talents as the more fortunate kin from better-off families, who can attend better schools and draw on a network of family connections," he said.

Krueger argues the economy as a whole would be in better shape if income and buying power were not so concentrated among the very rich. Obama made the same case in December in Osawatomie, Kan.

"When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy — from top to bottom," he said.

Krueger notes that since World War II, income growth has tended to be strongest when it's most widespread — when rich, poor and middle-class Americans are growing together, instead of growing apart. [Copyright 2012 National Public Radio]

To learn more about the NPR iPhone app, go to http://iphone.npr.org/recommendnprnews

Sent from my iPod

Dear Congress

Dear Congress,

I want someone to explain to me the contradicting positions of American conservatives. They want to cut government spending, but want government to do something when disaster strikes. They want to deregulate, but haven't said how deregulation helps preserve consumer confidence. They want small government, but only in areas that benefit their causes. They don't like redistribution of wealth, but don't mind getting government subsidies themselves. Help me understand.

CUT THIS
Conservatives say that the President's economic policies aren't working. In all honesty, with a 9.1%unemployment rate, there is obviously a problem. They say that spending wantonly has increased the deficit while the unemployment rate continues to rise. They site these facts as proof that Obama isn't the "economist-in-chief" we elected him to be.

But no one has explained why the Congress (specifically, the House of Representatives), which has the power of the purse as per the US Constitution, didn't do anything about the deficit or deficit spending before. Where were the fiscal hawks when President Bush was racking up the debt with two wars? I didn't hear anyone complaining as loudly then as they are now about cutting spending. Where was the Tea Party then?

Social Security has come under attack. Granted, people are drawing more from it than are paying to it. That's a serious problem that needs resolution. But its called Social "Security" for a reason. People like knowing that there will be something for them in their old age regardless of the economic climate. Imagine for a moment if the Bush administration had succeeded in privatizing Social Security before the "great recession". Imagine the plight of retired, or retirement-eligible folks losing not only their 401k, but their newly privatized social security benefits. And with nothing to show for all their years of work, they would do what? Probably get on public assistance since the likelihood of going back to work for many of them would be slim. Would that not raise the financial burden on sates and municipal governments, undoing the changes made to the system? Imagine all those people from the "greatest generation" losing their homes because the social security check they were counting on to supplement their income never came. If Social Security should be private and the current income redistribution is offensive to you, then please give your social security benefit back to Uncle Sam. Withdraw your application for benefits, or don't file a claim at all. That's how I will know you are serious.

Here's an idea: those Tea Party members of congress who want to cut everything should begin by cutting their own salaries and the salaries of their staff. Show 'em you mean business.

DEREGULATION
Conservative America says they want government to stay out of their business. Well, they want "small government". They say they want federal deregulation so that economic forces can work as they textbooks say it can. But, no one has explained how the deregulation they want now is different from the deregulation that occurred under Bush? How would the deregulation and the resulting free-for-all that contributed to the financial meltdown then, be prevented now?

BIG GOVERNMENT
So, we don't want oversized government. But after 911, government increased in size exponentially. Never mind the new agencies that were created and redefined roles of the ones that existed. What about the warrant-less wire taps? Increased government scrutiny of religious groups? Is that not big government? Is that not what the conservatives say they are against? But as a nation we seemed all too willing to give up some of those freedoms for Government-provided security. Who was it that said, 'those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither'?

Look at the controversy surrounding the religious cultural center that was to be constructed in NYC. People were up in arms. Some wanted government to get involved to prevent the establishment of the center. They wanted the building designated as a historical site to prevent the imam from building the center. But, I thought we didn't want government involved in our affairs. Government involvement in this matter seemed like big government to me. Surprisingly, mayor Bloomberg felt the same way.

And what of FEMA? Its seems like FEMA is the red-headed step child in all of this. Many of those who want smaller government live in states that are prone to the type of natural and unnatural disasters that FEMA funds are used to recover from. Does the Gulf Coast and Katrina ring any bells? How about the BP oil spill? Without government regulation and involvement who would have held BP's proverbial foot to the fire to hasten the clean up? Tell me a story. How would the BP scenario have played out had there been less Government regulation?

We can't have it both ways. You want government help when it suits you, but when government needs to help others, you cry foul. When the housing bubble popped many wondered why the SEC and other government agencies didn't do anything to prevent it. Simple Answer: when you de-prioritize regulation and oversight these things tend to happen. Bernie Madoff, anyone?

GOVERNMENT HANDOUT
What's up with farm subsidies? So, some farmer lost his crop due to a drought or flood, and my Uncle Sam is supposed to pay him for the loss. At the same time, that same farmer says that government is spending too much money and taxes too much. The logic is that the subsidies keep produce prices artificially low, which is good for the country as a whole. Well, Farmer Brown, if you don't like your government hand out, give it up. Let market forces reign. If that means you take a loss and prices go up, so be it. There is no difference between a farm subsidy and a welfare check. Both payments are made to keep people from being worse off than they could be without it.

Government can't keep spending like it has. Cuts need to be made. A big portion of cuts will result in the ending of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other cuts could be made but not one person has specified where they would cut. Its always, "we have to take a scalpel to the budget" or "we still have to identify those areas". All those words to avoid saying that you don't know where to cut or don't want to say where you would cut because you don't want to piss off voters.

JUST SAY "NO"
All these fights between the Congress and the White House is like an architect and a contractor fighting over how to erect a building. Neither has a privilege of saying "no" all the time. They both have to work together to accomplish the goal. If they don't, the building doesn't get built; and we are all left looking at a big hole in the ground...kind of like our economy.

Thoughts?
Kevin Greene

"Not Guilty" Is Not The Same As Being "Innocent"

There is a lot of outrage over the recent decision in the Casey Anthony trial. The "Armchair Quarterbacks" out there feel that her acquittal is a miscarriage of justice.

I would argue that what occurred in that courtroom is exactly how our justice system should work. The same mechanisms that got her off are the same ones that keep innocent people out of jail. In order to convict someone, the evidence must not only be clear and convincing, it must be beyond all reasonable doubt.

How many times have we heard of cases where people are exonerated by DNA evidence after years in prison? How would we feel if years from now we find out Casey really didn't do this crime, but she was convicted and put to death over substandard evidence? No one like the idea of an unsolved murder; especially one involving a child. It is truly heartbreaking. But, in the words of Mr. Cochran, "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit".

In this case, the metaphorical glove didn't fit; there was reasonable doubt. There was insufficient evidence as to how the child died. If we don't know how the child died, how can we say it's murder? How can you prove who did it, if it was? Additionally, there apparently was no DNA or forensic evidence linking Casey to her daughter's remains.

We all know that her actions following the child's disappearance were highly suspect. What mother goes over a month without reporting her kid missing? What of all the partying and what not? Admittedly, Casey's actions were stupid and inhibited any opportunity to resolve the death of her child. Had she reported the death timely, a more effective autopsy could have been performed. That is, assuming she drowned as was alleged. But stupidity and shameful conduct are not crimes...at least not yet.

If Casey did kill her daughter, her spirit will not be able to rest. Look at OJ. He was also found "not guilty". But his spirit couldn't rest. After getting away with murder, he writes a book explaining how he would have done it, had he actually done it. Who does that? Then, instead of sitting down somewhere and being quiet, he becomes a stick-up man and robs some men in a hotel room (he says he was getting his stuff back). He wanted to be punished for his crimes and needed to do something to ease his conscience. The same will be true in this case. Not guilty is not the same as being innocent.

Casey may have been found not guilty, but she isn't innocent. She will be punished, in this life or the next. I am sure that is little comfort to those of us who want justice for the little girl. I like to think that the mental and spiritual torment the killer will face is much worse than any punishment the legal system could have given.

Kevin Greene

2011 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner | C-SPAN

2011 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner C-SPAN

NPR.org - Medicares Math Problem: Taxes - Benefits = Trouble

Kevin thought you would be interested in this story: Medicares Math Problem: Taxes - Benefits = Trouble
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/30/135844222/medicares-math-problem-taxes-benefits-trouble?sc=emaf

This message was included:

Medicare and you.

*Listen/Watch on NPR.org*
Many stories at NPR.org have audio or visual content. When you visit the link
above, look for a "Listen" or "Watch" button.
For technical support, please visit NPR's Audio/Visual Help page:
http://help.npr.org/npr/consumer/kbdetail.asp?kbid=152

In Defense of Obama

This whole Birther issue is a BIG distraction while the elephant in the room is being ignored. Has President Obama been the best president ever? Certainly not. Has he made concessions and compromises? Yes. Many of us wish he would have stuck to his guns on many an issue. The issue here is that the wise leader is consultative, deliberative and even-handed. Obama has been all of these things. And with Republicans saying "no" at every turn, its hard to get things done as fast as folks would like. Like him or don't like him, we all have to admit that he is President during a very difficult time and no decision he has made or will make will please everybody. That's what living in a democracy is all about: people expressing their differing views with the majority winning out. But that only works when we stay on target and focus on the issues at hand.  But when leaders in Congress cloud budget debates with anti-abortion rhetoric and official statements that weren't meant to be 'factual', how can the work of the people be done? Let's not let facts get in the way of the truth.

Now, even though many liberals and conservatives don't like the the recent budget deal (I know I don't), I think it is the best deal for the country at this time. The reason I say that is the same reason people don't like the deal: that is, compromises were made. In a democracy (especially one this size), compromises must be made. That's how things get done; we all give a little so that business can move forward.  Ask yourself: how much time was wasted with birth certificate and abortion issues that could have ben spent dealing with the budget and the nation's debt ceiling? Why didn't those so-called leaders calling for government shut-down also vote in favor of stopping their own checks if the government shut down?

When Bush was in charge it was almost treasonous to question him. Only a brave few questioned him when he told us going into Iraq was the right thing to do. And they were quickly silenced and branded as unpatriotic.  I actually had a college classmate say that to me. Me?!! I gave this country 9 years of my life in the Army (all without being a Citizen) and some clown questions my patriotism?  I, along with many others, served unquestionably and my honor is doubted? Patriotism is not about blind compliance, it's about reasoned thought. Now it has become common place to say the most insulting things about our leader.  Never mind that the "real" reasons for the invasion of Iraq are still unclear. Never mind that a significant reason for the large deficit is the fact that the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were kept off the budget, hidden under Bush-Cheney. Never mind that a federal government shut-down was instigated by people who say they love America, but who clearly can't stand Americans.

That brings to mind a quote from one of my favorite movies, The American President with Michael Douglas. I have included it here and replaced some of the movie-specific references and inserted references to the current debates:

"...America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight.      It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free". [...The] problem isn't that [Obama's opponents don't] get it. [Their] problem is that [they] can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, [certain people are] not the least bit interested in solving it. [They are] interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character. And wave an old photo of the President [...] and you scream about patriotism and you tell them, [he's] to blame for their lot in life [...]"


------transcribed from The American President 1995


President Obama didn't cause the problems we are facing...he is trying to fix them. Why don't we help him?

A Boy and His Daddy

This past week I went to Barbados on vacation. I went expecting to spend a lot of time on the beach and to support my father in his quest to reconnect with his long lost uncle. His uncle Vernon left Guyana when my father was 2 years old; so my father never knew him.  I went on vacation and I got so much more.

I don’t really know much about my father’s side of the family; and I guess I didn’t really know much about my father by extension. My father has always been a mystery to me. He was an immovable force that, until now, has been a tough nut to crack. I was deeply honored that he asked me to join him in Barbados to re-connect with his uncle.  To hear him tell it, he has been meaning to visit his uncle and connect with him since he came to America 20 years ago. It was one of those things that he was “planning” to do, but never got around to it. I don’t know what made him decide to do it this year, but I am glad he did.  I am glad because I saw my father differently on this trip. I also glad because I know he would have been truly hurt if Uncle Vernon died before he met him, knowing he had all this time to do so.

On the day we set out to visit uncle Vernon, I could tell something was different about my father. At the time I didn’t know what it was. There was pep in his step; there was a different air about him. He seemed more relaxed than I have known him to be. Our friend, Jermaine drove us from our lodging to the quiet street in Saint Michael, Barbados. The house stood out in that it had a very tall, not-so-green evergreen and a public phone booth in the front yard (weird combination). As we exited the car and walked up to the house, I didn’t know what to expect. We rapped at the door and young lady who I didn’t know answered and let us in without really knowing who we were. It was as if she recognized that we were family.  The ‘New York” in me was cautious, though.

We entered the home and a shirtless man, named Oral, emerged from a back room holding a baby. The woman that answered the door was his wife, Crystal.  There was a 3 year old boy in is underoos running about and playing; I later learned his name was Caleb.  My father’s uncle came out from the kitchen area looking very much like a man who had spent some time in the Caribbean.  He had on a loud orange, short sleeve buttoned-down shirt and plaid shorts. He was barefooted, of course. The resemblance to my father was uncanny. He had the same hairline as my father and the same shaped forehead.  My father, a man who I have always known to be stern and stone-faced, lit up like a kid on Christmas day. A small tear welled up in my left eye. My father had always seemed to keep his emotions in check and wasn’t known to me to be loose with his affections. But here he was, excited to see a stranger as if he had known him all his life. It warmed my heart to the point of tears.  I was proud to be there for my old man. Those who know me know that have a savior complex.  My daddy needed me, and I was there.

We sat down and talked. Before we came, my father told me that his uncle was in his 80’s and didn’t see or hear well. There was also the implication that Uncle Vernon may have mild Alzheimer’s.  None of that was evident this day. My father and his uncle sat and carried on a conversation about the family bush (our family is a bush not a tree) and long lost relatives. Uncle Vernon’s recollection of past events was spot on and I think that made my father even happier. I think knowing that his uncle remembered the same family and places he knew solidified the kinship my father felt. I almost forgot that my father had these types of feelings.

There were several moments where my father repeated how glad he was that he came and met Vernon; a rare moment indeed. I took many pictures of them conversing, but most of the time I was playing with little Caleb. He likes being upside-down. Some time later I asked my father what his favorite moment was of our little vacation. Not surprisingly, he said his favorite moment was meeting his uncle.  For him, the vacation was over; he did what he set out to do.  I was touched to hear my father describe his feelings about the trip that way. For so long I had thought I had our dynamic figured out. As my parent, he was supposed to be there for me. It never really occurred to me that there could be a time that I could be there for him, to support him in one of his life goals. I tell you, I have never felt closer to my father as I did then. For the first time, he wasn’t just my daddy; he was Gladstone, a man looking for a connection to his family and to his past. In that moment, my father seemed more human to me than I had ever known him. 

Thank you, daddy. Thank you for allowing me to share that moment with you. Thank you for showing me that side of you.  I love you.