Romney is rich. He is very rich. He is fifty times richer than Obama, ten times richer than George Washington and 1,800 times richer than me. He also pays less taxes than you or I. How is that possible? Don't we live in a country with a (somewhat) progressive tax code?
I know what you are going to say: it's because he gets his income from dividends rather than from honest, hard work. Thanks to former President George W. Bush, the capital gains tax was lowered to 15%. If paying 15% taxes instead of the usual 30% isn't bad enough, Romney accuses people who are not in his league of suffering from envy. **
Every month or so I hear a report that income inequality is still increasing in this country. I am supposed to accept it, as if it was a law of nature. But I know that the majority of Americans are against such extreme inequality. Don't we live in a democracy? Isn't universal suffrage what this political system is supposed to be based on? Since the 99% wants more economic equality, why is the reverse taking place?
The democratic process is supposed to guarantee that everyone participates in who gets elected, but I realize now that it doesn't automatically mean that we have the power to influence political decision making.
What you and I are up against is the power of money that the few rich have. And it looks like the power of money is winning out. Big time. No matter how many 99%-ers there are, if your net worth is only 1,800th of the net worth of the likes of a Romney you can kiss your income equality dream good-bye. In his brilliant essay on Oligarchy and Democracy, Professor Jeffrey Winters explains that there are two types of power at play in a democracy like ours. The more money you have, the more 'Material Power' you can wield in politics, pitting it against 'Participation Power' of the many. The Material Power Index shows that people with extreme wealth have an MPI 10,000 higher than an average citizen.
They have used this power to rewrite the tax code. When taxes were first introduced in this country, only the richest 10% of Americans were being taxed but they have managed to shift the burden of taxation downward ever since. This is where Mr. Romney comes in. He makes no bones about what he stands for: protecting the interests of his class.
What makes me even more upset is having to witness the battle between the rich and the super-rich during the Republican debates over the past weeks. Romney, the 'super-rich' (net worth $250 million), battling Gingrich, the 'merely rich' (net worth $6.7 million). One being accused of vulture capitalism, the other of having profited as a 'lobbyist' for Freddie Mac. How exactly, pray tell, does that help me and the rest of the non-rich?
This infighting in the Republican party gives the excesses of capitalism a bad rap which it deserves, but it mainly shows that, whereas in the past the rich and the super-rich were in the same camp, they are now finally starting to attack each other. The mountain top is not that big and everybody wants to stand on it.
Let's face it, America is an Oligarchy and oligarchies are bad for democracy. I think this country should adopt the ancient Athenian system of 'Sortition', the drawing of lots from a large group of adult volunteers for selecting government officials in order to counteract a tendency toward oligarchy in government. We do this when we select juries. Why not do it to select our government?
As the situation stands now, no matter how many crooks in high places we expose, there are no repercussions for them. What is the point of exposing the bad guys if we don't have the power to do anything about it?
It is said that Americans do not hate the rich, but admire them. That they see them as a role model. But who wants to be governed by someone whose net worth is 2000 times more than yours? There is a limit to what even Americans will tolerate in terms of inequality. Up to now, the very rich have been smart enough to not be too much in the political limelight. It is much more effective to use your money in the background to influence politics. But with someone like Romney in the White House, things would be different. He would become the new Royalty and we, the 99% would be the serfs and farmers, like in ancient Rome. Is that what we want this country to become? leave comment here
** Whenever the 99% (we) criticize the 1% (them), their pat reply is that we are engaging in “class warfare.” This works very effectively, because in America, anyone accused of “class warfare” is considered as evil as a socialist. But President Obama had a great reply to this: he said that it’s not “class warfare,” it’s math!
10 comments:
Point well made. I am surprised that Romney is in the lead in Florida. The rich diversity and immigration of people to Florida makes me surprised that Romney would have the lead. But, who knows. Maybe the Republicans, thos super rich conservatives, will make it highly possible for Obama to get reelected. I am all for a redistribution of wealth but the wealthy make a good argument. They feel as if they are being penalized for having lots of money. What a mess.
Gail, I don't understand why the claim of the rich that they are being "penalized for being rich" is a good argument. Much of the reason that they are rich is because they have received special treatment by our capitalist society--such as lower tax rates for capital gains, encouragement to postpone taxes by making offshore profits,lack of enforcement of monopoly laws,bailouts when they make bad decisions, etc. Of course, they argue that their wealth is all due to "hard work," but the facts are otherwise.In his book, "Outliers," Malcolm Gladwell shows just how important the support of society (and luck)are in achieving success. Few wealthy people want to even acknowledge this debt--let alone try to repay it.
moymenzySo, Madeleine, it all comes down to the hard fact that you can vote for the president of your choice or you can buy the president of your choice. If the rich were to buy votes directly in stead of squandering their money on tv ads and spin doctors, the 99% would at least have a little share in the wealth.
The Supreme Court has already invented 'free speech' for corporations, now it should grant them the right to buy votes for the going price. That's taking the free market seriously.
Abram de Swaan
I agree with Gene. But even if taxes are regarded as a punishment by the rich, then we are all being penalized, and the penalty should be proportional, which it is not right now.
I love your idea Bram. It would be calling a spade a spade, and we would cut out the middle man.
We could have 'vote' pantries, where people could come and exchange their vote for money or vegetables. Like they do in Iran. Excellent suggestion.
Regarding what Gail and Gene wrote:
The Republican refrain about Mitt Romney, specifically, is that he is "meritoriously" rich. Allegedly he is rich because he worked hard and because he is a great businessman.
But what about the head start he got by being the son of George Romney, CEO of American Motors, governor of Michigan and also a presidential candidate? With such a head start, even I could be worth $250 million by now.
So there is the additional factor of FAMILY, which Gene didn’t touch upon. Sociologists call it the “reproduction of social class.”
And of course Republicans want to hang on to this, and that’s why they favor further reduction in the inheritance tax to practically zero.
And speaking of taxes: the oft repeated hoax that half the populace doesn’t pay any taxes? I suppose this may be true if we limit the meaning of “tax” to “income tax.” But what about sales taxes, plus the innumerable forms of taxes attached to all the services we get, from telephone to garbage collection and the water bill? Do you ever examine your monthly bills? Don’t we ALL pay sales tax and all those local utility taxes, regardless of our income? These taxes are regressive, hitting the lower classes the hardest. In California, they can easily amount to 10% of your expenses.
...and here is another interesting tidbit:
four US Presidents were richer than Mitt Romney: George Washington, Herbert Hoover, Thomas Jefferson and John Kennedy.
You’ll agree that three of these were among our great Presidents.
Another great President, Abraham Lincoln, was one of the poorest. He was only worth one million dollars.
So what does this tell us?
1. That it is the quality of the man and of his politics that matter, more than his wealth.
2. Even Lincoln shows us that if you are REALLY poor, you don’t qualify.
Romney likes to remind Latino voters that his father was born in Mexico. But he never mentions the fact that his great grandfather, Miles Park Romney, was deported to Mexico because he was practicing polygamy.
The revolution in Mexico forced his family to move back to the US. How does that bit of trivia square with his stance on immigration?
And which one of these many wives is Mitt Romney's great grandmother exactly?
ovThanks, Madeleine, for starting such a great discussion! And thanks, Tom, for your important additions to my remarks. I want to build on Tom's reasonable comment that wealth should not a priori disqualify a person from being president (or any other job, for that matter.) I imagine that FDR was also quite wealthy--and most people now consider him to have been a very good president.The problem is that so few people can afford to run for president--as you know. If, as Abram suggests, you can "buy the president of your choice," and if corporations are people, why not just buy a corporation for president and eliminate all the middle men? Or have we already done that and just don't know it?
Gene brings up a point I was mulling over, too, after our previous exchange:
The necessity for candidates to be personally wealthy is one factor which is eroding democracy.
Another one is this “corporations-are-people” business - a concept ratified by the Supreme Court’s recent disastrous decision. The super pacs are going to complete our country’s transition from a democracy to a plutocracy.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!