Which shall rule, wealth or man? Which shall lead, money or intellect? Who shall fill public stations, educated and patriotic freeman, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?...(Chief Justice Edward Ryan, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1873)...great question infused into John Nichols article: "the Wisconsin model" in this months "the progressive". This is the question that lit the fire in Robert La Follette's political career according to Nichols. These three simple questions, will be asked in recall elections in that state, in the coming weeks, and on the national stage next November.
This is a philosophical question, that leads to the heart of the progressive movement. With the ever widening gap between wealth in our nation, it becomes harder to see the power of men/women; in the face of wealth. The labor movement, helps bridge that gap; unity is the wealth of the worker.
Corporations may after all create jobs, however, workers still have to work them. The workers are the wealth creators for the corporations. The power of these wealth creators is in their unity. A fairer distribution of the wealth they help to create,will lead to a better society.
This gap is brought to better light by one of the governors of the federal reserve bank, Sarah Bloom Raskin. According to NPR, Ms. Raskin stated: "This inequality is destabilizing and undermines the ability of the economy to grow sustainably and efficiently," she said. Income inequality, she continued, "is "anathema to the social progress that is part and parcel of such growth."....(http://m.npr.org/story/137744694?url=/2011/07/10/137744694/as-income-gap-balloons-is-it-holding-back-growth). The article goes even further, stating that the gap in income today, is wider then 1928; in the days before the stock crash.
In our society, today with the ever burgeoning gap in income, seems to be insurmountable. Politicians are seeming more likely to enhance their own interests; at the expense of their constituents. This is a issue that crosses party lines; no party is clean in this respects. The question we are seeing answered in Wisconsin, Ohio and other battleground states on this issue is: Can organized labor stand up to organized wealth.
I believe by answering the first question, I have answered all three. Wealth appears to be leading, however, god willing, workers will be able to reassert themselves in the face of wealth. Americans will not allow themselves to be serfs, to the landed gentry of big business. That's what I predict these recall elections in Wisconsin, and votes in Ohio, when the governors bill stripping collective bargaining hits the ballot box. The people have spoken to get the power to reverse these changes. The democratic process will prevail.
A
This seems like a battle between the ideas of "the rich keep getting richer" and socialism (looking for income equality for all).
ReplyDeleteI'm obviously not one to support the rich keep getting richer to building an "elite" population of monitory success. But what is the alternate solution without going as far as adopting a socialists state of mind.
What happened to good old hard work? Being paid based on your work ethic?
I might not be the most informed respondent, but I do value the voice I have in America.
(I like the spell check feature too )
First, I'd like to thank Steph, for being the first contributor to this article. I hope I can answer your question, especially in alleviating, your thought that bridging the income gap, would require a socialist state of mind.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an excellent point that good old fashion hard work is the answer, as well as being paid based on your work ethic. Hard work is the key; organized labor is the way to guarantee that your hard work is rewarded. Unions have played a major role in bridging the gap in income. In an article from the Washington Independent "With Income Gap at 80 year high, solutions remain elusive" by Martha C. White, the parallel is drawn that the decline in union membership has led to this gap: “Union contracts helped bolster wages across the distribution, and the manufacturing sector was historically a highly unionized sector,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank. Declining union membership since the 1950s has eroded manufacturing wages."
The article, goes further to explain how an unfair federal tax code, the failure of the minimum wage keeping up with the cost of living, the shift to a more service based economy has lead to a greater inequality of wealth. The article can be found at (http://washingtonindependent.com/91038/with-income-gap-at-80-year-high-solutions-remain-elusive)
As far as your socialist mind set claim..I feel that a answer to that can be best said by John P. Badgerow, a blogger for the South County Democratic Club: ""Socialism" is another inflammatory term in common use these days. Heavier taxation of the wealthy is not socialism. It's not the redistribution of wealth. The poor should not be made wealthier at the expense of the rich. The rich should not pay taxes to support the poor. The rich should pay taxes to support America. It is the middle class and the working poor who have built and sustained America. It is the middle class to which the poor aspire and from which the wealthy arise. Now it is the middle class that falls increasingly into poverty while the already wealthy become increasingly more so." (http://www.southcountydems.com/b2evolution/blog4.php/2011/04/07/increase-taxes-on-the-wealthy-to-bridge-)
The voice you value in America is being threatened by this gap. If money can be equated to power, and the top 1% in our country, controls 42% of the wealth; how can your voice keep up with that. In 2010, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision declared that "corporations have the same 1st amendment rights as individuals." This decision was a major setback for campaign finance reform, stating that "the campaign finance reform law amounted to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech stated that corporations should be able to spend freely to support the candidate of their choice." (http://www.alllaw.com/articles/In-The-News/article2.asp) With that much control over all that wealth, whose interest do you feel corporations will protect? theirs, or societies as a whole.
One last comment, the fact that you claim not to be a informed respondent; troubles me. These are your rights that are being threatened, your interests and your families. Do you think that top 1% is uninformed of these issues?
to agree with Richard which I hate to do socialism as a politcal philosophy and socialism as a buzz word used by the right are not remotely the same thing, asking hte wealthies 1% to pay the same in taces that I do is not socialism, in fact prior to Reagan the welathies paid upwards of 40% regularly under republican presidents (Nixon , Ford, etc) during times of extreme budget issues it was seen as patriotic to pay up to 70% in taxes to help the country that gave them so much. Also, when did SOcialism become a synonym for communism there are many places that practice socialism with no issues and a very wealthy and happy populace think Denmark, Sweden, France, etc..
ReplyDeleteI agree and admire the way John P. Badgerow stated his perspective. It is right on point with how I feel. Taxes should be proportioned to your income.
ReplyDeleteGood find Rich :)