Carv's Thinky Blog I'm an author with a focus on satirical science fiction.

Follow the Money

I don't talk about politics on this blog as often as my friends might expect, and there's a reason. Every time I express my viewpoint, I have a handful of readers who feel compelled to contradict me, usually with arguments I've heard before--because I watch Fox News, too--and could dispel with brutal speed were I in the mood to do so. I don't enjoy hurting people's feelings, and if comments and emails are any indication, liberalism offends some people even more than agnosticism. Perhaps it's because their God isn't as physically close to them, nor as important from day to day, as their money. I'm really just speculating here.

But be that as it may, every once in a while, my opponents on the greedy nut-bar right push me farther than I'm willing to be pushed. Case in point: This morning, the GOP announced...well, I'll let CNN tell you the rest.

"Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.

"All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, vowing to prevent a vote on 'any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers.'

"'With little time left in this congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike,' the letter said."

And you can read the rest. Look, there are two big problems with this. First, there are, in fact, pressing matters that might, rather sooner than "ultimately," be "worthy of the Senate's attention." Among those matters are "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which bans people from serving their country as soldiers for the sole reason that they're gay; a plan to give illegal immigrants citizenship if they join the military or get into college; and oh yeah, a food safety bill. Hey, good luck, burger fans! Daddy Warbucks needs a new pair of silverback gorilla fur shoes!

But the much bigger problem is this idea that somehow, preserving the Bush tax cuts will create jobs. They haven't yet, so why would they magically do so now?

I'm going to do something I try never to do here, which is speak in generalities. One of my core philosophical beliefs is that all generalities are wrong (cough, cough). But I also have to hand it to the GOP: Republicans are really good at talking to undecided, mostly uninformed voters in sweeping over-generalizations that look good on bumper stickers. Remember "Death Panels?" The Democrats have tried it, too, but halfheartedly and with minimal success. I'm thinking of Representative Alan Grayson, who was lambasted for saying, "The Republican health care plan for America: Don't get sick....If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly." The only significant difference here is that Grayson's over-generalization was only mostly accurate, while the phrase "Death Panels" was accurate to the extent that there will be some sort of panels.

Anyway, here's a sweeping, demonstrably untrue oversimplification: Rich people want to keep their money. Here's another: And that doesn't leave any for you. Look, I realize there are exceptions to this statement. I saw four of them (Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, and Bill and Melinda Gates) being touted for their generosity on CNN this weekend. I imagine Turner's ownership of CNN was somehow relevant, but perhaps that's just cynical. On the other hand, surely they were being congratulated because their generous contributions of billions of dollars make them the exception that proves the rule? Also worth noting is the fact that after those generous donations were made, they still had billions of dollars. Ted Turner laments the fact that he lost eight billion dollars in the recession, which elicited quite a bit of sympathy in me until I discovered that he now has a mere two billion left. Gosh, I hope his kids will eat.

See, what amazes me is how blatant the GOP gets to be in this country. It makes no secret whatsoever of its goal to retain all the wealth. At no point do Republican leaders offer more than lip service to the idea of their elite constituents (dare I say "bosses") sharing their vast wealth with you; rather, they denounce such Christian sharing as--and I hate to lower this conversation with the newest American swear word--"socialist." If only we could erase all the vestiges of socialism in this country! Oh, but wait, that would actually cost us forty-hour workweeks, snail mail, and our volunteer military.

When people think about the economy and how to fix it, they seem to labor under an understandable misconception. We think of our boss as a bit richer than us, his boss a bit wealthier than him, and so on. We forget this isn't Mom and Pop's Grocery World anymore. This is the twentieth-century corporatocracy, where CEOs are paid outrageous multiples of their bottom-tier employees' salaries. My boss at Warner Bros. made something like thirty times my salary, and he wasn't even a CEO. I know he believes he deserves his stratospheric wages by virtue of working harder and knowing more. Fine. Except we arrived at work the same time each day, and we left at the same time, and while he does know more than me it's largely by virtue of experience he gained working in his daddy's theater chain. In point of fact, only about thirty percent of folks on the Forbes 400 list are truly self-made. True wealth is usually inherited rather than earned. So here we have men--almost all men, in fact, a point for another day--who were born on third base but laugh at us for an occasional walk onto first.

For several years now, a third of the country's money has been in the hands of a single percent of its citizens. More disturbingly, the least wealthy ninety percent of Americans own less than thirty percent of all its wealth.

Consider the following graph:

That's the distribution of income in America by percentile for the year 2005. Notice the median income, the average American pay for a year, is somewhere around $50,000. Notice also that both pre- and post-tax data are provided. If we look closely at the graph, we notice that the horizontal axis is somewhat deceptive. It doesn't move smoothly from increment to increment. Rather, it bunches eighty percent of us together, than starts breaking us down by five percent, then one. Even so, there's one hell of a spike around the ninety-ninth percentile. Even after taxes, the orange bar representing that top percentile of Americans outmasses all the other bars put together. The ninety-ninth percentile starts at $250,000 a year, but it doesn't stop there. There are only about a hundred billionaires in America, but those hundred people make more money between them than hundreds of millions of the rest of us put together. It isn't fair. So here's my next sweeping generalization:

You are outvoted, and to a depressingly large extent owned, by the rich.

For one thing, you're in debt to corporations owned by the rich. The average American is $11,000 in debt to credit cards alone. Ask yourself how much help the Bush tax cuts have been with that. This is also the argument against blowhards who say, "I have to balance my budget, so why shouldn't the government?" You don't balance your budget, meathead. You owe on your credit cards and your house and your car and your kids' education, and you do so because you're gambling on a better tomorrow. Guess who decides the outcome of that roulette wheel? Hint: It isn't you or me or the poorest ninety percent of us. Does that help narrow it down?

By the way, the Obama administration plans to repeal the tax cuts only for that top percentile, and that's if the Democrats don't fold under pressure, which they almost always do. But if we only correct the tax rate on that single wealthiest percentile of Americans, meaning people who make a quarter of a million dollars a year and up, well, their rates will indeed go up by...less than five percent.

Now. The next time some GOP politician or commentator tries to tell you we need to "get off the backs" of people making $250,000 a year, please remind him that no one makes a ladder high enough to reach those backs. An income of $250,000 a year, let alone anything higher, is five times higher than the average income in America. I've actually heard people claiming "a million dollars isn't that much in America anymore." Really? Then give it to me. I'll do my best to get by on it.

So who's working for you, America? Who's looking out for you and your family? Follow the money. Then you tell me.

I said at the beginning I don't discuss politics as often as I might because I don't want to argue about it with those who feel duty-bound to contradict me. Well, this is one of the few times I don't want to debate you in comments. Please don't tell me to be nicer to rich people. Seriously. I doubt you're even in that top percentile, and if you are, then I'd happily trade problems with you in a New York nanosecond, and you know that. So if you disagree with me on this one, then the truth is I'll have to believe you're just a pretty lousy person. And I don't want that.