Kicked off my wishlist platform yesterday with my thoughts to reform campaigns and elections. Started with that mostly because it seemed like the chronologically appropriate thing to do. I mean, gotta elect leaders before the governing begins. But that’s out of the way now, so I figured it’s on to the next step: we’ve elected a government, and it’s time to take it out for a test drive. Of course, for this little exercise, I get to be President, Congress, and the Court, so I may end up on a bit of a power trip. Hmm… I think I’ll start my Administration by closing the income/wealth gap, preserving the middle class, and restoring an actual working class.
Closing the income gap
First, a quick preemptive defense: Yes, my ideas can be considered by some to be pseudo-socialist (actually, strike the pseudo part, people will jump straight to the “socialist” tag), and yes, they really are policies that create a more just distribution of wealth. I don’t really see it as that big a jump though – this country has always had some balance of laissez-faire policies tempered by some kind of euphemism for socialism – be it social safety net, economic justice, whatever… I just want to move the sliding scale a bit more toward the latter, not upend our entire economic system. This is probably the only major area of policy where I don’t really have any interesting quirks; I’m a good David Sirota-reading, “Campaign for America’s Future” type lefty across the board.
A report out earlier this month found that the wealthiest fifth in the nation earn an average of $132,131 while the lowest fifth bring in a little over $18,000. The gap grows substantially when you move it to top and bottom 10%, or 5% or 1% — but these statistics are about 20% of the population. The richest 20% earn in seven weeks what the poorest 20% earn in a year. To make matters worse, throughout this decade, the income for the top 20% has increased by 9%, while the income for the poorest has fallen by 2.5%.
Number One: Make trade fair
I generally have economically protectionist instincts, but the “reason” side of my brain (left side?) tempers it a bit, and focuses on solutions. So, okay, if we’re going to have free trade, it’d better be fair… really fair. First of all, it’s the globally responsible thing to do, forcing international improvements for the environment and worker conditions. But more specifically to the discussion of narrowing the income gap in the U.S., fair trade levels the playing field for American producers. Unlike absolute protectionism though, fair trade keeps prices on goods for consumers relatively low (obviously higher than unfettered trade, but not unreasonably so).
Seems like in recent years, after a decade of free-trading liberals in office, skepticism of free trade has popped up again on the Left. Probably a safe assumption that it has something to do with the U.S. bleeding manufacturing jobs and with the declining economy for the working and middle classes. Now, while Obama and Clinton try to out-protectionist each other, it is John McCain parroting the old Bill Clinton line about “retraining” the workforce for the new economy. That always struck me as pretty unrealistic. I have absolutely nothing against continuing education and training, and believe opportunities to do so should be available to anyone who chooses. But that’s just not the solution for everyone.
Number Two: Make taxation more progressive
A. Inheritance Tax. Frank Luntz must be some kind of miracle worker, because I cannot figure out how it is possible that the Left has lost the framing debate over the estate tax. I really can’t think of anything that should naturally appeal to Americans’ sense of fairness, equal opportunity, and scrappy boot-strappism than the idea of limiting huge amounts of unearned wealth, and increasing mobility of economic status. But wow – that whole “death tax” label along with the imagery of people losing the family farm as a consequence argument really did take hold. Forget the fact that it’s a complete myth, and has never actually happened, and forget the fact that most Americans don’t have the luxury of worrying about what happens to the family estate when grandma and grandpa pass on. (Interesting sidenote: as I’m writing this, I flipped over to C-Span, and Grover Norquist is speaking right now. That’s a nice motivator for me.)
B. Income Tax. It’s popular to describe every euphemism as Orwellian, and that’s true on a lot of counts: a troop build-up without end is not a “surge” any more than that pesky old death tax robs average Americans of their family’s farm. But moving toward a much more progressive income tax is not raising taxes; it really is just shifting the burden. Yes, it results in an increase in the total amount of revenue, but if done properly, it also lowers taxes for the vast majority of Americans. Soaking the rich? Well, that wouldn’t be the phrase I’d use, but hey, why search for the right euphemism…
C. Lift the cap on payroll taxes. Currently, payroll taxes are capped at $97,500, meaning that millionaire CEOs pay the same in payroll taxes as someone earning $100,000 a year. Eliminating the cap would solve the future potential problem of funding social security without having to raise the retirement age.
Number Six: Universal health care.
Universal health care might not sound like it belongs as a platform plank for reducing income inequality, and in all honesty, I have a hard time reducing something so independently important to idea “number six” of a questionably related topic. But the high cost of health insurance, or worse, the insane cost of medical care without health insurance, are two of the major causes of falling down the economic ladder. I’m personally in favor of single-payer health care, but I’d certainly be willing to settle for any proposal that would lead to universal coverage.
Number Seven: Enact a living wage
Makes me a bit proud of my home state for being the first state in the union to sign this into law…
Number Eight: Oppose right-to-work laws
Right-to-work laws prohibit requiring union membership or membership dues as a condition of employment; they are the current law in 22 states. Unlike the debate over the estate tax, this is an argument that is just plain tough to explain. Opposing these laws is also what I consider to be one of the only counter-intuitive arguments that is actually worth making – usually when something is tough to justify, there’s a good reason for it. But regardless of the seeming logic of right-to-work laws, their only real purpose is to undermine organized labor at a time when unions are most needed.
Say a new employee begins a job in a unionized company. Any pay increase or extra benefit negotiated by the union will also apply to that individual, even though they have chosen not to pay their dues. It won’t take long before very few people opt in to union dues – the union ultimately starves, and the employees probably won’t be seeing another pay increase for quite some time.
Number Nine: Establish anti-poverty programs.
A. Faith-based initiatives. Okay, I guess I lied earlier when I said that I had no “quirks” in my wealth equality views. I’m actually one of the few liberals I know to strongly support allowing government funds to support social services provided by religious institutions. I’ve written about this before, but I really am a bit disturbed that so many liberals dismiss this idea so easily (although Obama recently stated that he supported and I believe that Clinton does as well). I mean, the success of faith groups within the communities they serve is irrefutable, so to oppose the funding is to accept a trade-off: ensuring a strict separation of church and state is more important than using all available means to fight poverty. I just don’t agree.
B. Community development programs. One of the planks of LBJ’s War on Poverty (itself a plank of the “Great Society”) included the Model Cities Program. The Department of Housing and Urban Development was established, and provided government funds for local and community needs. Unlike earlier urban renewal programs, which basically just pushed the poor out of targeted areas, Model Cities required community participation. In the decades since, it has really been unwisely de-prioritized. Rebuilding city neighborhoods also increases environmental sustainability, as it cuts down on urban sprawl.
C. Increase incentives to teach in poorest school districts. Eh, pretty self-explanatory.
D. Accessibility to Vo-Tech schools. College isn’t for everyone. Increasing accessibility and quality of vo-tech programs provides a path for a productive career with or without a college degree. It also decreases the drop-out rate by giving students more freedom to choose their area of study.
Alright – economic platform, check! Part 3 of 450,278 or something like that to come…
