The Rise of the Non-Working Rich (is the Death of the Republic)

Robert Reich (The Rise of the Non-Working Rich):

... [W]e’re on the cusp of the largest inter-generational wealth transfer in history.

The wealth is coming from those who over the last three decades earned huge amounts on Wall Street, in corporate boardrooms, or as high-tech entrepreneurs.

It’s going to their children, who did nothing except be born into the right family.

The chief objection we here from the Right is: The person who earned the fortune has the right to determine what is done with it. It's theirs to do with as they please.

On the surface, this is a compelling argument, because there's truth in it. Those of us without immense fortunes certainly understand the desire to protect what we have and do the best we can by our progeny.

However, this asserted Right to Pass On Vast Fortunes to Create Unfair Advantage for Children Who Were Born on Third Base is problematic for a democratic society that believes in some degree of meritocracy, equality of opportunity, and social safety net. It assumes that the right to control wealth is absolute and illimitable.

It is not.

We are a wealthy enough society to provide a minimum degree of security and quality of life to every citizen. We can, and should, have a floor under which we should not let any citizen fall. This necessarily entails a system of taxation -- a mix of progressive taxation on income and tax on capital being the fairest mode -- which ensures the wealth of our society is put to that purpose.

Likewise, our national security and the infrastructure of the nation simply can't be funded by the charitable whims of plutocrats. To live in a civil society, every member must be willing to pay for the cost of its maintenance. Allowing wealth to accumulate in families, passing un-taxed from generation to generation undermines the American principles of promoting the general welfare, establishing justice, and insuring domestic tranquility. Those are the core American values, the guidelines spelled out in the Preamble which the rest of the Constitution is designed to support.

Every floor entails a ceiling; every minimum, a maximum. Without guardrails, we're at risk of careening off the cliff. Would-be plutocrats would do well to remember extreme inequality requires more and more brutally repressive measures over time to prevent those who produce wealth benefiting from the fruits of their labor. The more repressive the society, the more pressure put on the bottom levels of a society by the top, the bigger and bloodier the conflict when the peasants decide they've had enough.

Have you subscribed to Sparky's List by @tomtomorrow yet?

About SPARKY'S LIST

I just subscribed, and eagerly await the ability to see new This Modern World comics before they're published, so satire like this hits my inbox piping hot from the brain oven!

Daily Kos: Boxed in

Mr. Tomorrow, if you happen to see this, what's the policy on sharing a snippet (such as the above) of one of the list comics to entice any readers I might have to subscribe as well? Will the email from the list say one way or the other whether some limited form of sharing is allowed or encouraged?

I won't share anything until it's published unless I understand from you or from the list terms (if there are any?) that it's OK to do.

If sharing a snip from a comic is permissible, I'd appreciate a "you go, boyo," so I know I'm in the clear.

Warm regards,

Chris (@cdogzilla)

Of gay-hating chicken sandwich slingers and free speech ...

Rahm Emanuel’s dangerous free speech attack - Salon.com: 

"You can shove your over-rated chicken sandwich up
your ass and stay the fuck out of my city."
 - Rahm Emanuel [paraphrased, by me]

Greenwald writes:

Obviously, it’s perfectly legitimate for private citizens to decide not to patronize a business with executives who have such views (I’d likely refrain from doing so in this case). Beyond that, if a business is engaging in discriminatory hiring or service practices in violation of the law — refusing to hire gay employees or serve gay patrons in cities which have made sexual orientation discrimination illegal — then it is perfectly legitimate to take action against them. 

But that is not the case here; the actions are purely in retribution against the views of the business’ top executive on the desirability of same-sex marriage ...

Well, I blogged in general support of Menino telling Chick-fil-A to get bent, so I should own up if I've gone off the deep end and stepped on the top of the slippery slide into Liberal Fascism. Let's see if I need to walk it back.

I still eat at Chick-fil-A; I just make sure to fuck my sandwich lovingly in its asshole before I eat it.
— rob delaney (@robdelaney) July 27, 2012

First, I should explain my assumption was Menino's letter was basically political grandstanding, not a ban on Chick-fil-A with the force of law. Just like I am fond of shaming Chick-fil-A's founder and current CEO, I see no problem with a politician doing so. The article read at Boston.com didn't report that he had actually forbidden Chick-fil-A from opening, or that he was saying he would. Menino's most forceful statement was: "I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston." An urging is not a ban, or even a threat to ban. A threat to ban would look like this: "I will ban you."

Let's take a side step and answer the hypothetical, what if Menino had banned Chick-fil-A, assuming he has the authority to do so.

If a community doesn't a want a non-essential, commercial enterprise, do they have the right say, "Not here"?
— cdogzilla (@cdogzilla) July 27, 2012

Greenwald, sagely, points out:

If you support what Emanuel is doing here, then you should be equally supportive of a Mayor in Texas or a Governor in Idaho who blocks businesses from opening if they are run by those who support same-sex marriage — or who oppose American wars, or who support reproductive rights, or who favor single-payer health care, or which donates to LGBT groups and Planned Parenthood, on the ground that such views are offensive to Christian or conservative residents.

Yes. No dispute here. If this were Governor Romney of Massachusetts saying, "I urge Hippie Vegan Fake Burgers-R-US to stay out of my commonwealth because their support of Planned Parenthood which the good Christians I represent find offensive," I'd say, "Whatever, asshole." But I wouldn't say he has no right to say that. However, if he said, "I forbid Hippie Vegan Fake Burgers-R-Us from opening a store here," then I'd have a problem.

Back to what politicians are really saying and doing about Chick-fil-A. The difference between Menino and Emanuel is that Emanuel, from what I've read, is supporting an alderman who does in fact want to ban Chick-fil-A from his neighborhood. There seems to be real intent to say, because of your support for hate groups, your business can't open here. (And, make no mistake, the Family Research Council, despite its protestations, is a hate group.)  So, while I encourage and support them in calling out Chick-fil-A for supporting the Family Research Council and other groups I think are either openly hateful or just silly and irrelevant, I don't think they can ban those businesses on those grounds.

To answer my own question, communities do have the right to say "not here" to businesses, but they need a valid reason, some identifiable violation of zoning rules, or support of illegal groups ("terrorist" organizations, organized crime families), being hateful idiots is not reason enough.

Even hateful idiots have the right to make a living. We have the right to call them hateful idiots and not spend money at their businesses. Let's do that.

[Update 7/27/12]

"If a man can't manage his own life, he can't manage a business," says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members." 

The parent company asks people who apply for an operator license to disclose marital status, number of dependents and involvement in "community, civic, social, church and/or professional organizations." ["The Cult of Chick-fil-A," by Emily Schmall in Forbes, 7/23/2007]

We already know they consider being gay "sinful," so it raises the question, do they discriminate in hiring and firing? Did "probably fire" ever become "fired"?

"Chick-Fil-A Faced 12 Employment Discrimination Suits Since 1988" | Liberaland

Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston [who] sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn’t participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.

OK, you guys, now how do we feel about Rahm Emanuel's position?

Since when is $250,000 a year 'middle class?'

Since when is $250,000 a year 'middle class?' - Lean Forward: 

Image via Minding the Campus

So who is middle class? A good place to start is with the "third quintile." The Census Bureau divides income earners by five, so those in the middle—the third quintile—are those who earn more than the bottom 40% and less than the top 40%. As of 2009, that meant household (not individual) income of $39,000 to $60,000. The American middle class, it turns out, is, well, poor. 

Where do those Washington politicos and Manhattan media types get the idea that a salary in the low six-figures—which means you're well into the top quintile—qualifies you as middle class?

#NC #RTP not well-positioned for growth?

RTP seeks to be more inviting for smaller companies | Mark Turner dot Net:

ᔥ AARoads.com

Skyrocketing gas prices and different priorities among today’s younger workforce are what dooms RTP. Yes, RTP could survive if it can become a place where one can not just work but also live and play, but it’s an uphill battle that RTP cannot win. Durham and Raleigh are light years ahead of RTP in this regard and that’s where the job growth will go.

It's not just the younger workers that want to rely less on their cars and work close to where they live and play.     If I ever change careers, a key factor in my decision will be in how much commute time (dispiriting, environmentally damaging) I can eliminate.

Rude calls 'em like he sees 'em and Romney looks like a sociopath.

The Rude Pundit: 

Romney ᔥ Salon

The thing that President Obama needs to keep in mind about Mitt Romney is that he is a ruthless, amoral son of a bitch. Like Bain Capital, he makes promises that are lies when they get in the way of his greater good or his bottom line. With his polished smile and primped hair, Romney is one of the most outright depraved and evil sociopaths ever to run for office, and that's including Richard Nixon and Pat Robertson. 

Beware the man who presents himself as honorable when his actions have demonstrated nothing but disgrace.

I pulled the final assessment, the examples of Romney behavior that formed the basis of that assessment are in Rude's post for the reading.

Those pesky shareholders.

Vikram Pandit Raise - Obscene Pay and the Masters of the Universe - Esquire:

Vikram Pandit
via Zimbio

About 55 percent of the shareholders voting were against the plan, which laid out compensation for the bank's five top executives, including Mr. Pandit. "C.E.O.'s deserve good pay but there's good pay and there's obscene pay," said Brian Wenzinger, a principal at Aronson Johnson Ortiz, a Philadelphia money management company that voted against the pay package. Mr. Wenzinger's firm owns more than 5 million shares of Citigroup.

Oh noes! However will Citigroup retain and attract "job creators" without obscene pay?!

When Google's split was announced, I was a little surprised shareholder reaction seemed to be universally positive, as if they didn't give a crap about being able to vote their shares. Mr. Pandit must be pretty jealous his shareholders proved less docile in this instance.

Mr. Neff's New Rule makes sense to me ...

New Rule: Healthcare | goblin cartoons: 

"Let them die, be illiterate, and drive 4x4s."
Image ᔥ ABC News

If you’re opposed to the government being involved in healthcare, you have to propose an alternative that will guarantee that all citizens get the healthcare they need, regardless of their income or pre-existing conditions. Or you have to come clean and admit that you don’t think all citizens should get the healthcare they need, but then you have to explain why you think some people don’t deserve healthcare and why healthcare is different than education, public libraries, police protection and road maintenance (all of which people get regardless of their income). 

Or you have to shut the fuck up.

Why the Health Care Challenge Is Wrong by Ronald Dworkin | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

Why the Health Care Challenge Is Wrong by Ronald Dworkin | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books:

Image via NYRB

Every American already has health insurance; the mandate only requires that he pay for his insurance rather than free-loading on those who do pay. A federal statute and several state statutes require hospitals to provide emergency medical care to people who cannot pay for it, and America’s traditions of compassion mean that doctors will not let people die in pain when they can easily save or help them. In practice, this means that the uninsured will go to costly ER facilities when they need medical help. Congress found that health care for uninsured patients cost $43 billion in 2008; these costs were paid, through higher premiums, by those who do buy insurance. 

Congress surely has the power to make people pay for what, out of human decency, the law and practice provide for them.

Dworkin makes a very strong case here; I could have pulled any number of quotes from the article supporting the argument for the mandate, whatever you may think of it, being Constitutionally acceptable.

That said, I think we are getting an improved health care system as a result of the ACA. However, it is an improvement on a massive failure by only being a mitigated failure. National health insurance was the correct answer and we missed, I think, an opportunity to get it. What we have instead is, to a large degree, a gift to the insurance companies. [Update: Lawrence O'Donnell makes the case more eloquently than I ever could. ↬ PNHP.org]

I don't think it will be the end of the world if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate. Not-so-secretly, I hope it re-opens the door for us to look at the major overhaul that was our missed opportunity. A ruling against the mandate though will be the end of the myth of an apolitical Supreme Court. Or, it ought to be. That myth really should have died when the Supreme Court effectively installed George W. Bush as President.

Late Update:

Quick #TenYearsLater check on Talisman Ethnic Cleansing, Inc.

cryptonaut-in-exile: Compare and Contrast

What the frack, Talsiman?!
Image via propane.pro

Ten years ago I was furious reading about the actions of Talisman. Ten years later, I wish our Supreme Court's fetish for corporate personhood had a correspondent desire for corporate accountability. Talisman, to this day, is doing just fine, thank you very much.

Trying to get at the root of the problem ...

Is Our Republic Lost? | John Battelle's Search Blog:

Despite Lessig’s avowed liberal views (combined with his conservative, Reagan-era past), I could imagine that Republic Lost could as easily be embraced by Tea Party fanatics as by Occupy Wall Street organizers. He focuses chapters on how “so damn much money” defeats the ends of both the left and the right, for example. And at times the book reads like an indictment of the Obama administration – Lessig, like many of us, believed that Obama was truly going to change Washington, then watched aghast as the new administration executed the same political playbook as every other career politician.


In the final section of his book, Lessig offers several plans to force fundamental campaign finance reform – the kind of reform that the majority of us seem to want, but that never seems to actually happen. Lessig acknowledges how unlikely it is that Congress would vote itself out of a system to which it is addicted, and offers some political gymnastics that have almost no chance of working (running a candidate for President who vetoes everything until campaign finance reform is passed, then promises to quit, for example).

$1 million bill, y'all!

Walmart shopper tries to use $1 million bill - Boing Boing:

A gentleman from Lexington, North Carolina was arrested for trying to pay for his purchases at Walmart with a $1 million bill.

And who's gone to jail for packaging up garbage loans, hoodwinking (complicit?) credit agencies, and selling investors giant turd bombs they then proceeded to bet would blow up on their dupes?

And what does it say when a Wal-Mart cashier has more sense than the sophisticated investors that bought up those juicy mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations then expected us to bail them out of their poor decisions?  Well, since we did bail them out, what does that say about us? 

Hint: A government is neither a family nor a business.

NYT: Nobody Understands Debt

Image via flickr user chensformers

There was a 'gotcha' post at Marginal Revolution which followed Krugman's first piece. Krugman then responded. I'm sure there's lots of econoflame throwing in the comments of all three pieces but, back to the title of my post, I'm not so much concerned with how Krugman has talked about debt over the years and whether or not economists are lousy at predicting things as much as I am with glib, facile, and misleading analogies about debt and deficit spending.

From the first linked post:

... Washington isn't just confused about the short run; it's also confused about the long run. For while debt can be a problem, the way our politicians and pundits think about debt is all wrong, and exaggerates the problem's size. 

Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we're impoverished by the need to pay back money we've been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments. 

This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways. 

First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don't - all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. [Emphasis mine.] The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation. 

Second - and this is the point almost nobody seems to get - an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.

Spending should be responsible. For instance, we should not be spending billions upon billions of dollars on foreign wars that have gained us, near as I can tell, next-to-nothing. We should not be spending money propping up client states run by genocidal monsters anywhere, ever. We should be investing in our education and infrastructure so we get the benefit of the money we spend. These things should be obvious to even the most craven dimwit.

The height of irresponsibility is to continue spending unwisely while refusing to collect the taxes to pay for that wasteful spending. Want to build bridges, schools, an efficient energy grid, rail networks, and things we can actually use to be productive? By all means, borrow to do what we can't pay for out-of-pocket. Want to pick a side in a nasty regional conflict and throw good money after bad supporting one group of crooks as they seek to exterminate another? It's a horrible idea, but if you can't be stopped, at least have the decency to tax your millionaires and billionaires to pay for the mess you're getting the rest of us into.

Was this The Rude Pundit's best post of the year? Possibly.

The Rude Pundit | The Case for Using Predator Drone Strikes Against Wall Street Executives:

Since it is now the policy of our administration to target American citizens for killing by missiles delivered by Predator drone aircraft, I am proposing an expansion of the program to include targets beyond our ongoing conflict with al-Qaeda and its affiliates. I propose that we now target executives and others in the finance industry who so far have not been prosecuted for potential crimes that forced the economy of the United States into a long-term decline.

There is stiff competition for the title ...

Maximizing shareholder value is "the dumbest idea in the world"

Compassion and ... taxes? Yes, taxes. More importantly, their best use.

Videos Posted by Mèetha Prantha: This video blew me away.... [HQ]

I bet most of you are seeing this in your facebook stream this morning. It's powerful ... and puzzling. So many people seem to be saying, "Yes, more of this," see for example:

I've read dozens of the comments and they go on in the same vein as far as the eye can see. I want to say, to folks like Brenda, and all who say "If we ALL just gave a little," that we already do; we've structured our society so we can do this efficiently and still allow people to work and care for themselves and their own families. It's the social safety net we all pay for with our taxes.

Look, if I I quit my job and said, "I'm going to feed the poor full time," you know what would happen? I'd be poor. I'd have nothing to give to anyone and I'd have put my family out of house and home. You know how I can feed, clothe, provide medicine, and shelter to the old, infirm, disabled, sick, and impoverished? By paying taxes to a government that provides Medicare, Social Security, funds medical research, reacts to natural disasters, provides low income housing, provides unemployment insurance, and should provide universal health care to every citizen.  It's more efficient to do it this way than deciding big government is no good, so let's all just do what we can when we can. We can develop those dreaded bureaucracies that divide the labor and provide these services at an overall lower cost than if every person simply tried to reinvent the wheel and do it themselves. By having government (it's useful in this context to think of "government" as "the things we decide to do together because they're too important to leave to the whims of the wealthy") perform the bulk of these services, we can guarantee them, properly allocate resources nationally to deal with shortfalls where they occur instead of asking people in economically depressed areas, or perhaps suffering from a natural disaster, to do it all themselves when their resources are scarce or simply unavailable.

This should be the first goal of our society -- to practice compassion and help one another. We all seem to know this when presented with this sort of example; however, we forget it when it comes time to weigh the cost of Medicare against the cost of cutting taxes on the wealthy and invading Middle Eastern countries.

We can afford to provide these services. We can afford it by pooling our resources and creating efficient systems to serve the underprivileged, not by expecting some selfless hero to step up and do it himself. We can afford it if we stop dicking around and pretending the free market will magically provide all these services when history shows it certainly will not.

That's my 2¢, anways.

S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating to AA+

S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time - The Washington Post:

Standard & Poor’s announced Friday night that it has downgraded the United States credit rating for the first time, dealing a huge symbolic blow to the world’s economic superpower in what was a sharply worded critique of the American political system.

I'm not an economist, but neither are most expressing opinions right now, so what the heck: (1) if we refuse to collect the revenue to pay our bills, should we be AAA rated, and (2) do you give any credence to any ratings agency anyways?

def shepherd: Ann Coulter Would Like All Gays Back In The Closet | blogger: we'd like to promote Ann Coulter on your site

def shepherd: Ann Coulter Would Like All Gays Back In The Closet

The problem with allowing ads.

I love the def shepherd blog, he consistently posts engaging, well-written, thoughtful commentary. Now, I have a groupon box on my blog that has never netted me so much as a red cent, but I leave it there in case one day I get a nickel thrown in the tin cup I've discreetly placed near my figurative soapbox. I'm conflicted about even that because I don't really need a nickel, although if I got eighty of them I might treat myself to latte at Starbucks and think how kind the masses were to repay my efforts. Also, I'm not sure groupon is actually good for businesses they sign, but I figure that's for the businesses to figure out, not for me to decide for them. However, if I hear one of the local businesses I support complain about them, the ad comes down.

So when I saw the ad above on def's post about vicious [expletive deleted] Ann Coulter, I laughed, but I also got a little angry on his behalf. Not that I expect him or anyone to care that I did, it's just I can easily imagine how pissed I would be if blogger put an Ann Coulter ad on my blog without my consent. I mean, sure it's really their blog and they're letting me use their service for free (thanks!) but, man, it really would be a slap in the face. I know it's not personal, it's algorithms and key words and money, but still ... ewwwww ... the thought of it.

Prefer polls to leaving comments? There's this:

 

DoD panel calls for radical retirement overhaul

DoD panel calls for radical retirement overhaul - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times:

Image via Outside the Beltway

In a massive change that could affect today’s troops, the plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.

All troops would receive the yearly retirement contributions, regardless of whether they stay for 20 years. Those contributions might amount to about 16.5 percent of a member’s annual pay and would be deposited into a mandatory version of the Thrift Savings Plan, the military’s existing 401(k)-style account that now does not include government matching contributions.

If we're going to tolerate scumbag politicians sending troops overseas on false pretenses to fight bullshit wars, can we at least not threaten to gut the pensions of the men and women sent into harm's way to fight those wars? 

The cost of efficiency

The Problem With Work — North Carolina Public Radio WUNC:

More of us are eating lunch at our desks than ever. (Image via ssplprints)

Economists say the recession is officially over, but many people remain out of work and the unemployed are still feeling the effects of the down economy. But new research suggests that those who never lost their jobs are also still suffering. Some took on twice the responsibilities for no new pay or reduced pay. The effect of that kind of pressure has yet to be studied but experts suspect we will feel the strain at work and at home for years to come. Host Frank Stasio examines what work is like right now in America with Kathi Weeks, professor of Women’s Studies at Duke University and the author of a new book called “The Problem With Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries.'