Wednesday, April 03, 2019

What Has Produced Widening Economic Inequality And Stagnating Wages In America?

>




The answer to the question in the title is simple: a change in political power dynamics in this country in favor of conservatives, primarily Republicans, but also the Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. The 2020 presidential candidates who are credibly advocating real systemic changes to that dynamic-- basically Bernie, Elizabeth Warren and Marianne Williamson, with some degree of me-too-ism from more traditional opportunist careerist characters like Kamala Harris, Beto, Cory Booker, Julian Castro and possibly Mayor Pete-- talk about how the system is rigged and how they plan to unrig it. (Candidates who have proven they prefer to keep it rigged-- Biden, Bennet, Delaney, Frackenlooper, McAuliffe and possibly Amy Klobuchar-- have more in common with traditional pre-Trump Republicans than with FDR-Democrat.

I hope you've taken the time to watch Robert Reich explaining this in the video above. I just want to add one thing. If we manage to elect Bernie or Elizabeth Warren or-- better yet-- the two of them as a team, we still have an immense number of Democrats in Congress who oppose their profound fundamental approach to build countervailing power. We haven't had a transformational president in the U.S. since FDR (unless you want to count the reactionary Reagan presidency) and this is the time. But we're going to need members of Congress who are eager to go along with what Bernie is trying to do, with what Elizabeth Warren is trying to do, with what Reich is talking about in the video above. We need more men and women like Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Rashida Tlaib, Ted Lieu, Ilhan Omar, Jan Schakowsky, Jim McGovern, Judy Chu, Matt Cartwright, Mark DeSaulnier-- leaders, fighters, organizers, not just good voters on issues put before them.

Goal ThermometerWhomever the next president is, if we're serious about passing Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, a livable minimum wage, free state colleges, etc. we need to be serious about electing more committed progressive leaders in Congress, not more status quo DCCC concoctions. No more Blue Dogs. No more New Dems. They are part of the problem, NOT part of the solution. We're busy vetting candidates all over the country. So far we've talked to dozens but only endorsed 5 for House seats. Please consider getting to know them and contributing what you can to their campaigns. I'm sure you know you can do that by tapping on the Blue America ActBlue thermometer on the right... right? Right!

Mike Siegel is exactly the kind of progressive warrior progressives need in Congress. His "job" as an Austin city attorney was basically to sue the governor, something he was happy to do on behalf of the needs of Texas' working families. He'll be a great voter-- but that's not the main reason we're so excited about getting him into Congress. This morning he told us that "We are at an inflection point as a nation, similar to the 1930s and 1940s, with dramatic wealth inequality and an economy failing to provide working people with a path to middle class stability. The New Deal and Works Progress Administration provide a roadmap for how the government must intervene. We need massive jobs programs that build our national infrastructure for the next 50 or 100 years, and that in the process provide a living wage for American workers and their families. And we need to rebuild our safety net to ensure equal opportunity, with guarantees for universal healthcare, access to higher education, and a retirement with dignity. Texas voters are ready for these programs-- some people forget we have a strong populist tradition here, and 2020 will be a great time to bring it back."

Eva Putzova, the progressive Democrat running for the AZ-01 congressional seat held by "ex"-Republican, now-Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran, was a Bernie delegate to the Democratic National Convention. But more than just being a solid progressive voter, there are reasons to look at her and see a future leader. This morning she told me that "In Flagstaff I led a successful local citizen initiative to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour and the subminimum tipped wage to the full minimum wage. People around the country organize ballot measures to raise the wage floor because lawmakers have not acted in decades. In 18 states, tipped workers still earn only $2.13 per hour because our Congress cares more about the interests of the 'other' NRA (National Restaurant Association). Because tipped workers are mostly women and many are women of color, the subminimum tipped wage is nothing more than legislated gender and racial inequality. We have a moral responsibility to require from employers to pay at least the full minimum wage to all their employees. When in Congress I will proudly support a living wage for all. Nobody should be forced to live in poverty."

Omaha progressive Kara Eastman has been thinking about this for a while. She asks, rhetorically, "What has produced widening inequality? In addition to historic racial and social injustices, we don't generate enough tax revenue to help level the playing field and provide equal opportunity to hard-working Americans. Even though US companies represent almost half of the top corporations in the world, according to Forbes, we collect less corporate tax revenue than our peer trading partners. That’s been true for years, even though the older top corporate tax rate of 35% was higher than in many other countries. One Pew Research survey showed that 62% of Americans are bothered “a lot” because corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes. A 2015 Gallup poll said only 11% of Americans said upper-income households pay “too much” and only 9% said corporations pay “too much.” We should reward hard work and incentivize working and middle-class Americans rather than allowing fast-food executives to make as much as 1,200 times what workers do in a year or other top CEOs to make more than 300 times the average worker's salary."

Labels: , , , , ,

2 Comments:

At 10:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As is constantly brought up, the House will only be as progressive as Pelosi allows it to be - which isn't much. The democraptic donors wouldn't like it.

 
At 6:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

DWT, how about you quit this cherry-picking sheepdoggery and do an honest piece on the democrap party and congress.

list the heirs to the speakershit and the senate leadershit.
list all the genuine-ish progressive members (it'll fit easily in a tenth of a column)
or just do numbers: of the 535 congresswhores, how many are progressive (hint: barely into double-digits).

list every single GENUINELY progressive piece of lege that the democraps have passed since 1980. (would also fit into a tenth of a column).

then the readers (who are sentient) could extrapolate how your party cannot ever be fixed from within. the numbers don't work; the corruption is too systemic; the party rules prevent any such takeover; and the donors always have more money to buy more members.

Or you could actually and honestly address that.

Naturally, that piece will not be forthcoming. Your inevitable exhortation in November of 2020 would be so obviously hypocritical then, wouldn't it?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home