I agree with Elliot Spitzer when he asks the all important question of: “… why we have socialized the risk of failure but allowed the rewards of success to remain private.”
The debate about bank bailouts and health care is missing a critical piece of context: The American economy hasn’t been working for the working- and middle class for decades. It is impossible to determine who should pay for what or whether it is “fair” to ask the wealthy to contribute more to the health care of those who are uninsured, without better understanding the winners and losers in the U.S. economy over the past several decades.
One of the great accomplishments of the American economy, or at least the mythology so claims, is the creation of an enormous middle class after World War II. Americans all shared in the wealth generated by the most dynamic economy the world had ever seen. At one end of the economic spectrum, we reduced the number of people living in poverty, while at the other end, we applauded those whose work benefited the entire economy.
Between 1947 and 1967, this was a somewhat accurate image, as the distribution of income made the population look more and more like a bell curve with each passing year. Yet since 1967, this story has reversed course. For more than 40 years, income has been distributed less equitably. As we consider the policy remedies to crises that are of immediate impact—such as the crisis in health care or in our financial system—it is critical to understand the larger arc of this socioeconomic narrative. How we think of distributing the costs of reform should be informed by this larger story.
It’s no secret that the rich keep getting richer, while the rest of us struggle to keep the bills paid. It’s one of the reasons the public is so ready for true health care reform. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear we are going to get it.
Before 1987, it might have been reasonable to argue that overall income growth was softening the effects of rising inequality. But since then, the rate of overall growth for all but the top quintile has slowed dramatically, with the lowest quintile seeing its income grow by only 7.8 percent in the last two decades, while income for the top quintile grew by 28 percent. And looking at after-tax income, which factors in the impact of favorable tax policy for the rich, the numbers are even starker: Between 1979 and 2004, the top 1 percent of all earners saw their income grow by an astounding 176 percent.
So what does this have to do with the current health care debate?
It points to the justification for asking the wealthy to step up to the plate and give a little back!
The outcry over Wall Street salaries and bonuses is more understandable when you realize that, over the last 40 years, there has been an inexorable shift of wealth and income toward the upper end of the income spectrum. With the return to profitability of many of the institutions that needed bailouts, taxpayers are wondering why we have socialized the risk of failure but allowed the rewards of success to remain private. Where is the public’s fair payback for playing banker to the bankers?
But the significance of this 40-year cycle of income distribution may be playing out most clearly in the context of health care. One of the current debates is how to pay for the costs of expanded access to health insurance. A restructuring of the system will save some money, but more will be needed, and one proposal is to get it from a higher tax on the upper strata of income earners. Given income distribution trends over the past four decades, it is difficult not to support asking wealthier Americans for some help in closing the gap in our effort to give all Americans health insurance.
The first video is adorable — and SO true! The next one announces a national march on Washington — VERY exciting! And I loved the passion in the final video.
She isn’t a noted Harvard Professor, or a personal friend of the president, but what happened to a little girl in Phoenix is tragic and deserves our attention, too.
Four boys in Phoenix, ranging in age from 9 to 14, raped an eight year old girl. They lured her behind a shed with the promise of chewing gum, and then sexually assaulted her.
To make matters worse, the girl is now under the care of Child Protective Services in Arizona because her family has shunned her. They claim “she brought shame on the family.”
Police Sgt. Andy Hill says the father “told the case worker and an officer in the girl’s presence that he didn’t want her back.” The 14-year-old boy has been charged as an adult with two counts of sexual assault and kidnapping.
The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office says the other boys ages 9, 10, and 13 were charged as juveniles with sexual assault. The 10- and 13-year-old boys also were charged with kidnapping.
Authorities cited the family’s Liberian background, noting that in some parts of Africa, girls who are raped often are shunned by their families.
My sister had a better idea: “Let’s shame the father for his treatment of his daughter.”
In a Facebook post Margot Friedman asks: “When will we protect girls from sexual abuse? When will this issue be important enough to be raised at a presidential press conference? Where is the outrage? The national conversation?”
I actually like my title better: “Why I Love Jimmy Carter!”
Ria Misra, at Politics Daily, writes:
After more than 60 years together, Jimmy Carter has announced himself at odds with the Southern Baptist Church — and he’s decided it’s time they go their separate ways. Via Feministing, the former president called the decision “unavoidable” after church leaders prohibited women from being ordained and insisted women be “subservient to their husbands.” Said Carter in an essay in The Age:
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
And, later:
The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.
After watching everyone from philandering politicians to Iran’s president taking a sudden look heavenwards when the roof starts to come down on them, it’s refreshing to see Carter calling out the role of religion in the mistreatment of women.
President Jimmy Carter deserves our praise for speaking out. Now, when are other men of faith going to follow suit?
A few years ago I had the great honor to meet Walter Cronkite. He had graciously volunteered to help promote First Freedom First, a special project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation.
He took part in an event in San Jose, which provided an opportunity for me to also meet my good friend Tengrain from Mock, Paper, Scissors for the first time.
Walter Cronkite was a true journalist — something desperately needed today.
Walter Cronkite, who pioneered and then mastered the role of television news anchorman with such plain-spoken grace that he was called the most trusted man in America, died Friday, his family said. He was 92. [...]
From 1962 to 1981, Mr. Cronkite was a nightly presence in American homes and always a reassuring one, guiding viewers through national triumphs and tragedies alike, from moonwalks to war, in an era when network news was central to many people’s lives.
He became something of a national institution, with an unflappable delivery, a distinctively avuncular voice and a daily benediction: “And that’s the way it is.” He was Uncle Walter to many: respected, liked and listened to. With his trimmed mustache and calm manner, he even bore a resemblance to another trusted American fixture, another Walter — Walt Disney. [...]
As anchorman and reporter, Mr. Cronkite described wars, natural disasters, nuclear explosions, social upheavals and space flights, from Alan Shepard’s 15-minute ride to lunar landings. On July 20, 1969, when the Eagle touched down on the moon, Mr. Cronkite exclaimed, “Oh, boy!”
On the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Mr. Cronkite briefly lost his composure in announcing that the president had been pronounced dead at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. Taking off his black-framed glasses and blinking back tears, he registered the emotions of millions.
It was an uncharacteristically personal note from a newsman who was uncomfortable expressing opinion.
There will never be another Walter Cronkite — Uncle Walter to some. As he would so famously say at the end of each broadcast: “And that’s the way it is.”
It’s no secret that the rich keep getting richer, while the rest of us struggle to keep the bills paid. It’s one of the reasons the public is so ready for true health care reform. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear we are going to get it.
