It’s hard to remember a better time for politicians to talk about the issue of income inequality. But according to the Associated Press (1/24/14), Barack Obama’s State of the Union address will attempt to shift away that issue–too divisive, apparently–and opt instead for some discussion of economic opportunity. As Jim Kuhnhenn writes:
The adjustment reflects an awareness that Obama’s earlier language put him at risk of being perceived as divisive and exposed him to criticism that his rhetoric was exploiting the gap between haves and have-nots.
He also noted:
Obama’s December speech was well received by Democrats and liberals, but conservatives jumped on it, arguing that Obama was laying a foundation for economic redistribution.
Now, it’s not exactly surprising that Republicans would be mad at something Obama said. Would that really cause Obama to apparently shift his message on this issue? After a quote from Republican strategist Karl Rove, the AP offers a poll that shows Obama might be right to rein in this talk about inequality (see bold):
A new poll by the Pew Research Center and USA Today illustrates Obama’s message challenge. The poll found that nearly two out of three surveyed believe that the gap between the rich and everyone else has grown in the last 10 years, a view held by majorities across political party lines. But the poll found that Democrats and Republicans disagreed sharply on whether the government should intervene to close the gap. Among Democrats 90 percent said government should act whereas only 45 percent of Republicans said the same thing.
So it would appear that Obama needs to be careful–Democrats overwhelmingly support government action to combat inequality, Republicans do not. The problem is that the country is not just made up of Democrats and Republicans. As the Pew survey pretty clearly shows, Democrats and self-described independents both support government doing more to combat inequality. Together they account for close to 70 percent of respondents; that’s probably why when USA Today (1/23/14) wrote about their poll this way :
Seven in 10 say the government should take steps to reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else. There is considerable faith that it could have a significant effect.
The findings of the poll are pretty clear: People generally think inequality is a problem and they think the government should do more about it (hence the cheeky Slate headline, “America Embraces Class Warfare”).
Perhaps the White House really believes this would be a divisive message. That seems like a political miscalculation, at the very least; but AP‘s misunderstanding of a poll in order to buttress the White House is bad journalism.
“[H]is rhetoric” isn’t “exploiting the gap between haves and have-nots”
But his actions are expanding that gulf.
Under clinton the top 1% had 40% of the wealth.Under Bush around 54%.Under Obama 90%!THAT is why he cant push it.Because he HAS diversified wealth.UPWARD!!!!!He did this by printing money to float the stock market.And who owns 90% of that market?The top 1%!See he talks all day about raising taxes a bit on the rich.But while you are watching that hand…with the other he prints money as fast as he can.Just as Paul Ryan told you would happen.Wanna fix it?Flat fair tax and stop printing borrowing and spending money we don’t have.Just as we told you.Just as we are telling you.Like talking to a wall.
The president only addressed the wage gap, not income inequality itself. He reframed “income inequality” in the manner established by Bill Clinton, restricting it to the gap between the better off (those who are able to work and still have jobs) and the rich. This quite powerfully reaffirms the decision of the US government that only those who are of use to employers are recognized as full and equal citizens/humans. Democrats, of course, once again targeted the elderly, disabled and poor, as they are of marginal use to employers. The Obama administration will reduce inequality by reducing the percentage of the population factored into the equation — much the way Clinton cut people off from welfare aid, then claimed that the plunging welfare rolls were proof of a reduction of poverty. Extreme US poverty will continue to deepen, of course, but Democrats, by shrinking the number of people included in the statistics, will “prove” the opposite. Of course, implicitly supporting the philosophy that human worth itself is determined by one’s employment status is profoundly dangerous, and strengthens American comfort with the most socially-dangerous ideas about equality and human worth (effectively dehumanizing those who are not of use to employers).
DHfabia.Good catch .Politicians are quite adept at twisting figures to prove that things are going along swimmingly,no matter how bad it is.As far as diversification of wealth …that is a fuzzy math argument.Because it takes as its foundation the idea that there is a finite amount of money.Let wealth recreate itself.Allow people to open a business without prohibitive taxes.Recently a quorum of billion aires got together..They all agreed that in todays government controlled tax and regulation departments….that they could never repeat their success.Horrifying.Even our best and brightest admit they have screwed the pooch.Stop trying to steal and diversify known assets.Take your hands off the taps AFTER you turn them on full!
Time for The Theory And PRACTICE Of Quantum Euthenics, on the Oligarch 1%: Depose the DEM plutocratic DESPOTUS, put the RepublicHuns to The PILL; and pre-emptively Pillory Billary!