Archive for January, 2010

The Effects of Inequality

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

It is not hard to see the effects of inequality; just go to any inner city neighborhood and the consequences of low income and few prospects are obvious. But the effects are much broader and deeper than a few run-down housing tracts. As British epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett point out in their new book The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, in societies with less inequality, people do better on every measure of human well-being.

In commenting on the book, Sam Pizzigati, of the Institute for Policy Studies writes:

“If you want to know why one country does better or worse than another,” as Wilkinson and Pickett note simply, “the first thing to look at is the extent of inequality.”

The United States, the developed world’s most unequal major nation, ranks at or near the bottom on every quality-of-life indicator that Wilkinson and Pickett examine. Portugal and the UK, nations with levels of inequality that rival the United States, rank near that same bottom.

Japan and the Scandinavian nations, the world’s most equal major developed nations, show the exact opposite trend line. They all rank, on yardstick after yardstick, at or near the top.

And we see the same pattern within the United States. America’s most equal states — New Hampshire, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Vermont — all consistently outperform the least equal, states like Mississippi and Alabama.

People in more equal societies simply live longer, healthier, and happier lives than people in more unequal societies. And not just poor people in these societies, Wilkinson and Pickett emphasize continually, but all people.

If you have a middle class income in an unequal society, you’re going to be more stressed and less healthy — mentally and physically — than someone with the same income in a more equal society. […]

Over the past 30 years, the income of the top 1%, adjusted for inflation, doubled: the top one-tenth of 1% tripled, and the one-one-hundredth quadrupled,” says Pizzigati. “Meanwhile, the average income of the bottom 90% has gone down slightly. This is a stunning transformation.”

The United States has not always been a country of massive inequalities. These statistics are the product of deliberate policies on the part of conservative politicians supported by their propagandists and apologists in the media who have steadily gained influence over the past 30 years.

And it can be reversed if liberals are willing to fight—or they can stay home and sit on their hands as they did in Massachusetts two weeks ago.

Rational About Taxes

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

The conventional wisdom says that Americans will never vote to raise taxes. If the conventional wisdom is right, we will never have an adequate supply of public goods such as environmental health, infrastructure, or education. It is palpably obvious to anyone who is paying attention that we don’t invest enough in public goods, because we refuse to consider taxes.

Happily, the conventional wisdom is wrong!

Oregon voters  approved Measures 66 and 67, raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 and large corporations in order to close the state’s budget deficit. Although the Oregon legislature had already approved these taxes, an alliance of corporations and teabaggers put it to voters in a referendum—and they lost.

This is at least as important as the Republican victory in Massachusetts but I will guess you won’t here much about it from the national media.

Is California paying attention?

 

 

 

 

Will He Fight?

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

I was unfortunately unable to watch Obama’s State of the Union Speech. I will have to watch it tomorrow.

This is a crucial time in his presidency and he needed to be at his best—and the immediate response suggests to be that he was.

But there is a sense in which the speech is inconsequential. I agree with Jonathan Zasloff:

I care what happens over the next few days and weeks.

When the likes of Bayh, Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Holy Joe, and Rahm start saying, “let’s go slow and not try to do too much,” will the President listen to them?

When Congressional leaders ask the President to give them leadership and direction on health care, will he provide it?

When they try to hollow out financial regulation, or destroy the bank tax, will the White House go along?

When Lisa Murkowski tries to attach her egregious rider to an appropriations bill to stop EPA from regulating climate change, will Obama threaten a veto?

When the going gets tough in Washington, will Obama take to the hustings and campaign as if his Presidency and the nation depend upon him winning (because it does)?

Will he fight?

Obama has done a lot of good things—especially the stimulus package which has saved jobs and stabilizing the banking system, which has saved a whole lot of jobs. He has made a few mistakes—but then he has the most difficult job in the world. Who wouldn’t make mistakes?

The question is will he provide the kind of extraordinary leadership we need in this extraordinary time. Or will he succumb to the inside-the-beltway inertia that swallows any good idea and regurgitates it as patronage for oligarchs.