Tonight, IMHO, we have three new pieces from the MSM and the blogosphere which provide us with great (albeit inconvenient) contrasts and greater political context concerning our country's record-breaking economic inequality.
Charles Blow has a must-read column (it might just be the best piece I've ever read from him) in Saturday's NY Times: "Hard-Knock (Hardly Acknowledged) Life." He points out some incisive political facts about poverty and the current state of our economy and he contrasts that with the President's SOTU address. Blow provides us with analysis and commentary as to why the present trajectory of the President's wordsmithing might be "shrewd" politics for a successful re-election win, but in the process of it all, Blow wonders if ignoring the base is good for the well-being of basic, traditional Democratic ideology.
And, speaking of "must-read," do not miss teacherken's outstanding post on Blow's column, as well: "What about the poor?"
Spanning the globe, blogger
George Washington points out--with the support of basic statistics from our own Central Intelligence Agency--the incredibly inconvenient economic fact that: "
Inequality In America Is Worse Than In Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen." Damn! I don't recall NBC's Brian Williams pointing this out to me in his narrative on civil unrest in Egypt last night. Did I miss it?
Adding political fuel to the U.S. economic inequality fire, there's this little tidbit which was, rather obviously, dumped to coincide with Friday's cocktail hour, judging from its 6:43PM timestamp: "Goldman Sachs Boosts Pay For CEO Blankfein, 4 Others." A 200% increase in Blankfein's base salary? That's a hell of a lot more than a "boost." In fact, considering that just over six months ago Goldman paid the highest civil penalty that the Securities and Exchange Commission has ever levied upon a Wall Street firm, I'd call tonight's announcement a pretty big freakin' insult to Main Street's sensibilities.
Yes, extreme economic contrasts and enlightening political context seem to be just about everywhere you look these days...now that we're in a "recovery."
# # #
First, Charles Blow's Op-Ed In Saturday's NY Times points out that the current economic realities of certain demographic groups--most notably, his base--and poverty conflict with the president's well-being...
Hard-Knock (Hardly Acknowledged) Life
By CHARLES M. BLOW
New York Times
January 29, 2011
...For the poor, this is the Obama Conundrum. He was obviously the best choice in 2008. And judging by the current cast of Republican presidential contenders, he could well be the best choice in 2012. But does that give him license to obviate his moral responsibility to his electoral devotees? Can and should they take his snubs as a necessary consequence of political warfare as he makes every effort to tack back to the middle and reconnect with those whose opinion of him vacillates between contempt on a bad day and sufferance on a good one? Does keeping him in the White House dictate keeping them in the shadows?
And things could get even worse for the poor if the president feels the need to cut too many deals with the new Republican-led House in order to appear more centrist.
According to Brian Miller, the executive director of the nonpartisan and Boston-based group United for a Fair Economy and co-author of the group's report entitled "State of the Dream 2011: Austerity for Whom?" released earlier this month, "austerity measures based on the conservative tenets of less government and lower taxes will ratchet down the standard of living for all Americans, while simultaneously widening our nation's racial and economic divide."
As Miller put it, deficits that tax cuts for the rich helped to create "are being used to justify a host of austerity measures that will harm Americans of all races but will hit blacks and Latinos the hardest..."
Blow later notes: "Even as my respect for this president as a shrewd politician has begun to rebound, my faith in him as a fervent crusader for the poor and disenfranchised has taken yet another nose dive."
# # #
Then there's this wake-up call from blogger George Washington tonight...
Diarist's Note: Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith has provided written authorization to the diarist to reprint her blog's posts in their entirety for the benefit of the DKos community.
Guest Post: Inequality In America Is Worse Than In Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen
George Washington
Washington's Blog
via Naked Capitalism
January 28, 2011 9:01PM
Egyptian, Tunisian and Yemeni protesters all say that inequality is one of the main reasons they're protesting.
However, the U.S. actually has much greater inequality than in any of those countries.
Specifically, the "Gini Coefficient" -- the figure economists use to measure inequality -- is higher in the U.S.
MAP/GRAPHIC: GINI Coefficient World CIA Report 2009
Gini Coefficients are like golf - the lower the score, the better (i.e. the more equality).
According to the [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html CIA World Fact Book], the U.S. is ranked as the 42nd most unequal country in the world, with a Gini Coefficient of 45.
In contrast:
* Tunisia is ranked the 62nd most unequal country, with a Gini Coefficient of 40.
* And Yemen is ranked 76th most unequal, with a Gini Coefficient of 37.7.
* Egypt is ranked as the 90th most unequal country, with a Gini Coefficient of around 34.4.
And inequality in the U.S. has soared in the last couple of years, since the Gini Coefficient was last calculated, so it is undoubtedly currently much higher.)
So why are Egyptians rioting, while the Americans are complacent?
Well, Americans -- until recently -- have been some of the wealthiest
people in the world, with most having plenty of comforts (and/or
entertainment) and more than enough to eat.
But another reason is that -- as Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School demonstrate -- Americans consistently underestimate the amount of inequality in our nation.
As William Alden wrote last September:
Americans vastly underestimate the degree of wealth inequality in America, and we believe that the distribution should be far more equitable than it actually is, according to a new study.
Or, as the study's authors put it: "All demographic groups -- even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy -- desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo."
The report ... "Building a Better America -- One Wealth Quintile At A Time" by Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School ... shows that across ideological, economic and gender groups, Americans thought the richest 20 percent of our society controlled about 59 percent of the wealth, while the real number is closer to 84 percent.
Here's the study.
# # #
Over the past 48 hours, we've learned that the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has forwarded massive amounts of testimony and related information over to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice for prosecutorial review concerning alleged crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by many of our nation's senior financial services executives in the run-up to the implosion of Wall Street in September 2008.
Almost certainly among those many, highly-detailed and extremely damning Wall Street actions purportedly now under the microscopic scrutiny of spineless judicial inquiry, and as also noted by the FCIC, are the myriad of financial services' transgressions which led up to the record-breaking, $550 million fine levied upon Goldman-Sachs--equivalent to roughly a 4% "nuisance tax" on their 2009 net income--by the Securities and Exchange Commission, just a little over six months ago. (SEE: "Goldman Pays $550 Million to Settle Fraud Case.")
Earlier Friday evening, we read that Goldman-Sachs' Compensation Committee was so upset with the behavior of their company's senior managers over the past year that, along with substantial raises for four other top GS executives, (via HuffPo) they tripled CEO Lloyd Blankfein's base salary. (Of course, this 200% raise does not account for any of those notoriously excessive bonuses, in-kind benefits or stock options which he will, inevitably, receive above and beyond that increased base salary.)
That'll teach 'em!