RECENT RESEARCH DEMONSTRATES VERY CLEARLY THAT THE U.S. IS A SOCIALLY UNJUST AS (very sadly) IT IS
BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE ULTRA-RICH (who currently control Congress) WANT IT THAT WAY.
Why should we be remotely surprised?
Simply put, again and again, the data—both what they say and, more importantly, what they do—demonstrate most don’t give a damn about their fellow Americans.
The world is such a fascinating and invigorating place (intellectually, physically, and emotionally) that I find it a sad thing that so many of us have allowed money—and materialism generally—to become so pre-eminent.
Let me stress ‘pre-eminent.’
Yes, money and things are useful—and some of both are essential—but they seem to have been culturally elevated out of all proportion.
When I grew up, we lived in a big house, filled full (to excess) of expensive antiques, had servants, drove a Bentley and were wealthy by most standards of the time—but I have to say it didn’t make for a happy home. In fact, life at home was wretched in many ways—though not without its compensations.
It was. at least, creatively stimulating—my charismatic writer/painter mother had a knack for attracting interesting people, and there was rarely a day without some drama or other.
That background didn’t stop me being comparatively materialistic for a while—not something I am proud of. My mother lived in hopes that I would re-build the fast declining family fortune, and pretty much conditioned me to go into business initially. Business meant money—that, after all, is supposedly what it is all about.
It really isn’t. Business has to make a profit—because it is a necessary requirement for survival, let alone growth (and it is a key metric)—but the the best business people don’t regard profit, in itself, as being the objective. They normally want to accomplish something. They have a higher purpose—and want to change the world in some way, big or small. In truth, they seek creative satisfaction—because few other activities are more fulfilling.
Creativity isn’t a monopoly of the arts. And they also want to have some fun—and business can be (a significant qualification) a lot of fun.
I remained a businessman for some years (with considerable success eventually) but, though I liked the people I worked with and for, I wasn’t fulfilled by it. I had the strongest sense that it wasn’t my mission in life—and that I needed a higher purpose.
I needed to create in some some way—and do some social good. Running a profitable business was fine—as far as it went—but it wasn’t enough. I wasn’t fully utilizing my talents, such as they were. I felt a desperate need to stretch myself intellectually—yet I didn’t think I was destined to be an academic.
So, after a decade or so, I left my financially secure, materially rewarding life for the precarious existence of a writer.
I didn’t so much make a decision to give up my CEO job as follow an imperative. An inner voice virtually ordered me to make the move—despite share options which would would, I was told, have made me a millionaire within five years being dangled in my way (though in the end the company never did go public—a betrayal that subsequently caused my immediate boss at the time, my mentor and friend, Art Damschen to leave the corporation.
It wasn’t the president and chief shareholder of the company, Jack Clary’s finest hour. I liked the man a great deal—and he was, by and large, a decent man—but he broke his word.
“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
Psalm 146:3-5King James Version (KJV)
Perhaps my instincts told me that Jack was incapable of giving up control—and that his promises were hollow. Integrity is in woefully short supply in business, particularly at the top. Far too many American CEOs behave miserably. The current American Business Model doesn’t seem to have a place for ethics.
Either way, I wasn’t tempted. I took the view that I couldn’t buy time—and have never regretted my decision.
At various stages of my writing career, I have practically starved—in fact, I have gone without food entirely entirely on occasions, though never for longer than a few days at a time.
It is, as we writers say, all material.
Nonetheless, overall I have been lucky enough to have done better than most of my writing peers—and have been downright affluent at times—but have never personally found much relationship between income and contentment.
It is certainly pleasant not to to have financial concerns, but there are plenty of other pressures in life—learning how to write being one of them (a long and desperately difficult business), and having one’s books rejected being another—and then there are such things as personal relationships, health issues, and the doubts and fears that grip most of us. If you are a glass half-empty person—as I was for a considerable period (I have learned otherwise)—you will not be short of matters of concern.
Fortunately, the cerebral compensations of writing are so enormous that practically everything else pales in comparison. In fact, writing every day—seven days a week—has now has become so important to me that I feel somewhat disoriented if I don’t write (even if I am doing something else I enjoy).
I just have to write. It’s so damn hard. But, It’s a joy.
From my perspective, writing is wealth beyond avarice. And by writing, I mean the process itself rather than any financial rewards, or even the pleasure one gets from knowing one is being read and appreciated.
I just love thinking—the challenge—and then the rush you get when you begin to understand. Then there is the fresh challenge of converting one’s thoughts into the written word.
Such a simple transition theoretically—after all we speak our thoughts relatively effortlessly—yet so hard in practice when writing is involved.
Why should this be so? The physical aspect aside, what differentiates the spoken from the written word—except, perhaps, the level of commitment. The spoken word, unless recorded—and normally it is not, is lost in the ether. It’s a transient, ephemeral, thing—easy to forget or deny.
Writing is, or can be, permanent. It takes a stand. It—you—can be judged, sometime harshly. It requires a certain courage. You have to battle with your fears—and you have to trust your inner voice. It is your only guide.
Put not your trust in editors either—for they have their own agendas—and truly hate the fact that if you are a successful author, you are earning more than they do (and write better).
Confessions of a Book-Writing Man. Victor O’Reilly.
The one downside of the extraordinary satisfaction I get from writing may be that it makes it harder for me to empathize where some other mindsets are concerned—greed being a foremost example. I can understand greed intellectually, of course, but after that I am just plain puzzled particularly because greed is, so often, self-defeating. It tends towards the short-sighted, evokes resentment, and—above all—undermines clarity of thought.
One of the more unpleasant aspects of greed is that it seems to be insatiable—even to the point of wanting the socially disadvantaged to have even less. It’s a viciously mean-spirited quality—and not one you want those in power to possess.
For that reason, I found the following article particularly disturbing. Clearly some of the ultra-rich like Bill and Melinda Gates, Nick Hanauer, and Warren Buffet, are socially concerned—and do wonderful things with their money. But, the prevailing ethos of the ultra-rich seems to be otherwise.
I don’t grudge financial success for a second—but the issue is not being rich, or ultra-rich—more power to your elbow (as we say in Ireland)—but what you do with your money, and the power and influence it gives you.
If you lack social concern, buy politicians, and focus solely on advancing your own interests—regardless of the costs to others (which is pretty much the pattern) then you are part of the problem.
Such egregious greed and corruption of the U.S. political system is now so entrenched it seems unlikely to be remedied by the 2016 elections. It has become the norm. It has become part of the culture—even though many Americans hate it. Just not enough.
Sooner or later, there is going to have to be a reckoning—and it may not be pretty. It is long overdue. Meanwhile, the American Tragedy continues.
8 Ways the Super Wealthy Show Their Cruel Values and Desire to Destroy the Public’s Safety Net
By Steven Rosenfeld [1] / AlterNet [2]
November 30, 2015
The richest Americans increasingly are taking over the levers of power and shaping the political debate, despite opposing views held by a majority of Americans, a new and unprecedented academic study of the top 1 percent has confirmed.
The super-rich are more politically active than average Americans, financing and contacting elected officials and knowing many on a first-name basis. Their agenda, which is often cited by public officials across the country, emphasizes private profit-making and is skeptical of almost every public program to address economic inequality, the study [3] by Chicago-based university researchers found.
The top 1 percent’s social agenda, while “more liberal than others on religious and moral issues, including abortion, gay rights, and prayer in school,” is still “much more conservative than the non-affluent on issues of taxes, economic regulation, and social welfare,” the researchers found.
Put another way, today’s top 1 percent generally do not believe the longtime conservative line that a rising economic tide will lift all Americans, but have a darker view in which one’s fate is tied to the survival of the fittest. They consider climate change a non-issue and most would cut federal and state safety nets and anti-poverty programs, shift taxpayer dollars into privatized education and do little to ensure access to higher education.
“We speculate that the striking contrast concerning core social welfare programs between our wealthy respondents and the general public may reveal something important about the current state of American politics,” the report [3] says. “If wealthy Americans wield an extra measure of influence over policy making, and if they strongly favor deficit reductions through spending cuts—including cuts in Social Security and Medicare—this may help explain why a number of public officials have advocated deep cuts in the very social welfare programs that are most popular among ordinary Americans.”
The report’s authors take a neutral tone and protect the confidentiality of those interviewed. As they note in their opening, “there have been no scientific, representative surveys of the broader social and political attitudes and behavior of top U.S. income earners or wealth holders.” However, their data comparing the views of more than 100 super-wealthy Chicagoans and the general public leads to unmistakable conclusions about the presence of an American soft fascism placating today’s wealthy.
This is not to say that the super-rich get everything they want. There are many federal programs and activities they dislike that have been around for decades and cannot easily be dismantled. But if those interviewed by Northwestern University and University of Chicago typify the wealthiest Americans—and the researchers say they do—it is clear that today’s elite are somewhat aware of the plight of ordinary Americans, yet reluctant to personally sacrifice to improve society’s fortunes.
“Most of our respondents fell into or near the top 1 percent of US wealth-holders,” the survey says. “Their average (mean) wealth was $14,006,338; the median was $7,500,000… To give a further idea of their economic standing: respondents’ average income was $1,040,140. About one third of them (32.4 percent) reported incomes of $1,000,000 or more.”
What follows are eight takeaways from the report [3], ”Democracy and The Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans,” starting with the fact that the top 1 percent are very politically active, which accounts for their outsized influence on what the federal government’s role should be and the resulting rhetoric by many elected officials in Congress and Republican-controlled state governments.
1. The wealthy are more politically active than typical citizens. Ninety-nine percent vote in presidential elections and “a large majority (84 percent) said they pay attention to politics ‘most of the time.’ Asked how many days of the week they talk politics, the median response was five days.” Moreover, they give money to political campaigns and organize fundraising events in ways that dwarf average Americans and yield access and influence.
From the report:
“Fully two-thirds contributed money to politics, giving an average of $4,633 to political campaigns or organizations over the previous twelve months. (By comparison, in the American National Election Study survey conducted shortly after the 2008 presidential election, just 14 percent of the general-population respondents reported having contributed money to a candidate, party, or Political Action Committee.) A remarkable 21 percent of our wealthy respondents solicited or ‘bundled’ other peoples’ political contributions—not an activity that is common among ordinary citizens.”
2. The wealthy want government to act on their behalf. It would be wrong to suggest that the top 1 percent hate all government. Instead, as the report shows, they want it to do their bidding and adopt policies and laws that benefit their bottom line.
“The wealthy were particularly likely to initiate contacts with members of Congress,” the report said, adding that many know their elected officials. “Most of our respondents supplied the title or position of the federal government official with whom they had their most important recent contact. Several offered the officials’ names. We see no particular reason why their high frequency of contacts with congressional representatives should be atypical of wealthy Americans elsewhere in the country.”
Probing deeper, the report said that economic self-interest was the primary reason for being involved in the political process:
“They want to know how government policy will affect their businesses and investments. One key finding is that, for contacts that could be coded, just under half (44 percent) acknowledged a focus on fairly narrow economic self interest: ‘to try to get the Treasury to honor their commitment to extend TARP funds to a particular bank in Chicago;’ ‘to better understand the new regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act and how it will affect my business [banking/finance];’ ‘Fish and Wildlife…permitting on development land;’ ‘on behalf of clients, seeking regulatory approvals;’ ‘I own stock in several banks. I was concerned about legislation he was drafting that I think could be harmful for the banks.’”
3. Their agenda reflects wealth creation. When asked to prioritize their concerns, the list of issues reflects the factors they perceive affecting wealth creation, not the general welfare of most Americans. When asked what issues were “very important,” 87 percent said the federal budget deficit; 84 percent said unemployment; 79 percent said education; 74 percent said international terrorism; 70 percent said energy supply; 57 percent said health care; 56 percent said child poverty; 52 percent said loss of traditional values; 36 percent said trade deficits; 26 percent said inflation; and 16 percent said climate change.
Mostly, the top 1 percent are obsessed with federal spending. “One-third (32 percent) of all open-ended responses mentioned budget deficits or excessive government spending, far more than mentioned any other issue. Furthermore, at various points in their interviews many respondents spontaneously mentioned ‘government over-spending.’”
One finding that sums up this attitude is that 58 percent favored “cuts in spending on domestic programs like Medicare, education, and highways in order to cut federal budget deficits,” compared to 27 percent of the general public.
4. Biggest schisms on economic issues.Some of the biggest differences between the top 1 percent and average Americans concern economic insecurity. Only 43 percent agreed that “government must see that no one is without food, clothing, or shelter,” compared to 68 percent of the general public. Only 40 percent support a living minimum wage, “so that no family with a full-time worker falls below official poverty line,” compared to 78 percent of the general public. Only 23 percent agree “the government should provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed,” compared to 50 percent of the general public. Only 19 percent agree that “the government in Washington ought to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job,” compared to 68 percent of the general public. Only 8 percent agree that “the federal government should provide jobs for everyone able and willing to work who cannot find a job in private employment,” compared to 53 percent of the public.
5. The wealthy support education, but not public schools. The very rich and the general public both support investing in education, but diverge on key specifics. The researchers found that a majority of the 1 percent and the general public would pay more taxes for pre-K and kindergarten; support merit pay for teachers; support charter public schools; support taxpayer-funded vouchers so parents can send their kids to private or religious schools; and support giving high school students the option of vocational training to start work immediately after graduating.
Where they differ, however, is notable.
The top 1 percent have a strong bias against public schools, with only 35 percent agreeing that “the federal government should spend whatever is necessary to ensure that all children have really good public schools they can go to,” compared to 87 percent of the general public. On affirmative action in education, a slight majority of the wealthy, 53 percent, agreed that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that minorities have schools equal in quality to whites, even if it means you will have to pay more in taxes,” compared to 71 percent of the general public. Only a small slice, 28 percent, agreed “the federal government should make sure that everyone who wants to go to college can do so,” compared to 78 percent of the general public.
6. Social Security and other safety nets. Some agree that the most popular government safety net, Social Security, is needed but there is a reluctance among the super rich to raise benefits for recipients or to pay higher taxes to expand benefits.
Fifty-five percent agreed that “the Social Security system should ensure a minimum standard of living to all contributors, even if some receive benefits exceeding the value of their contribution,” compared to 68 percent of the general public. Yet only 47 percent said that the income tax cap funding Social Security—where people only pay taxes on the first $118,000 of their incomes—should be raised, compared to 60 percent of the general public. When it comes to privatizing some Social Security savings, 55 percent said people under age 55 should be able to invest some of these government-held funds, compared to 47 percent of the public. Notably, 33 percent would cut back on Social Security benefits, while 46 percent of the public would expand them.
There was a similar ambivalence on ensuring access to health care. Forty-one percent of the top 1 percent agreed that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,” compared to 48 percent of all Americans. The same number of the super rich, 41 percent, were “willing to pay more taxes in order to provide health coverage for everyone,” compared to 59 percent of the general public. Yet only 32 percent favored a “national health insurance, which would be financed by tax money, paying for most forms of health care,” compared to 61 percent of the general public. And 19 percent would cut back federal health care spending, while 44 percent of the general public would expand it.
On other anti-poverty safety nets, 28 percent would cut back spending on food stamps and 80 percent would cut farm subsidies. No number was given for general public support of these programs.
7. Government should protect their wealth. On taxation and regulating capitalist excesses, the top 1 percent weren’t uniform anti-government libertarians, with 55 percent agreeing that, “the government has an essential role to play in regulating the market,” compared to 71 percent of the general public. But it seemed they favored regulation where it positively affected their investments.
Only 18 percent said that Wall Street needed “more federal government regulation,” compared to 45 percent of the public. Twenty percent of the super rich said “big corporations” needed “less federal regulation,” compared to 45 percent of the public. In contrast, 70 percent of the super rich that said “small business” needed less regulation, compared to 42 percent of the general public.
The responses also reflect their view that government should leave profitable industries alone. Only 5 percent said the oil industry needs more regulation, compared to 50 percent of the public. Only 4 percent said the health insurance industry needs more regulation, compared to 26 percent of the public. The remaining percentages—reflecting most respondents—replied, “don’t know.”
8. Military interventions overseas not wanted. In general, the wealthy want the federal government to pick up the slack where the private sector does not invest—with the exception of overseas military involvement. The respondents “leaned toward expanding rather than cutting back only three of the 12 federal government programs we asked about: improving public infrastructure such as highways, bridges and airports; scientific research; and aid to education. Implicitly, at least, our wealthy respondents appear to appreciate governmental production of certain public goods. At a time when the U.S. was engaged in two costly wars and faced a relatively quiescent terror threat, however, they were much less enthusiastic about military or anti-terror spending. And they tilted toward cutting all the income-redistributive or social insurance programs we asked about.”
Money, Power and Influence
The findings of the University of Chicago and Northwestern University researchers underscore that not only do the wealthiest Americans have a different and more self-interested agenda than the general public, but they have been able to push the national political discussion—especially from Republicans and pro-corporate Democrats—toward the political right.
The result is what can be called a soft fascism. For the most part, the wealthiest people and industries in America have been able to go about their business unimpeded by government, even as they complain about over-regulation and federal constraints. While there are some super-wealthy individuals who told the researchers that they support social safety nets, as a group they are unwilling to divert some of their personal wealth into social programs that benefit less fortunate Americans.
Instead, they are active participants in a political culture whose rhetoric and policy agenda largely reflects their wealth-generating and pro-corporate concerns. Most Americans, in contrast, seem to be treading water wherever they are on the economic ladder and have diminished political influence.
Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America’s retirement crisis, democracy and voting rights, and campaigns and elections. He is the author of “Count My Vote: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting” (AlterNet Books, 2008).
No comments:
Post a Comment