Inequality and the Common Good

Joe the Plumber has since largely faded from view . . . And the issue that lent him celebrity status has more or less disappeared. In the 2012 presidential debates, we’ve had not one mention of America’s incredibly top-heavy distribution of income and wealth.

[A] typical Japanese household today sports more than triple the wealth of a typical U.S. household, and typical French households have twice as much.

Average Japanese and French don’t work any harder than average people in the United States. They just live in societies that do a much better job of sharing the wealth that their work creates.

Maybe one day Americans will live in a society that shares. Maybe one day our presidential candidates will even talk about sharing.

Four years ago, a plumber by the name of Joe Wurzelbacher injected a bit of a debate over inequality right into the heart of the 2008 presidential race.

Now four years later Joe the Plumber has largely faded from view. He's running a lackluster campaign for Congress, as a conservative Republican. And the issue that gave Joe the Plumber celebrity status -- wealth redistribution -- has more or less totally disappeared.

Last week, the second presidential debate of 2012 came and went without a single mention of the word "inequality" or America's incredibly top-heavy distribution of income and wealth.

Maybe one day Americans will live in a society that shares. Maybe one day our presidential candidates will even talk about sharing.

“The growing gap between the rich and the rest of us didn’t just happen by chance,” notes Sam Pizzigati, IPS Associate Fellow. “Conscious political decisions—on taxes, on trade policy, on regulations—have all been driving the divide.”

“Members of Congress have the capacity to make sure all Americans, not just a privileged few, share in the wealth that we all together create,” adds IPS Associate Fellow Sam Klinger. “With this new report card, voters can see for themselves how well their elected lawmakers are meeting that responsibility.”

Campaign strategists are placing these anti-Wall Street ads for an obvious reason. Wall Street's greed grab, they understand, has deeply angered America.

A growing number of lawmakers in Congress are aiming to change this 1 percent-friendly status quo. They've introduced over a dozen different financial transaction tax bills. The latest -- from Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota -- would place a 0.5 percent tax on every stock trade and somewhat smaller taxes on every trade of bonds, derivatives, and currencies.

These Robin Hood campaigners don't have a fraction of the cash spent so far on all those anti-Wall Street political campaign ads. But they do now have solid legislation to push -- and an equally solid determination to keep all those anti-Wall Street candidates honest.

Los billonarios norteamericanos se han dado cuenta de que no tienen porqué preocuparse de convencer a una mayoría de la población de que voten según sus intereses. En vez de esto pueden poner su dinero en campañas para evitar que voten los duros de convencer.

Nuestros dos principales candidatos a la presidencia estuvieron en Ohio la semana pasada y legiones de periodistas les siguieron los pasos. Estos periodistas llenaron miles de páginas con lo que vieron y oyeron en su rápida excursión de ida y vuelta a Ohio.

Pero ninguno de estos periodistas dijo ni una sola palabra sobre lo que podría ser la noticia nacional más significativa que salió de Ohio la semana pasada: la publicación por el Banco de la Reserva Federal de Cleveland de un nuevo análisis sobre las desigualdades de la renta.

“No se puede impedir que los billonarios se gasten sus billones” nos indica su nuevo libro. “ La única forma de acabar con que los billonarios compren nuestras elecciones es acabar con los billonarios”.

Hasta este final, la renta del trabajo continuará decreciendo y la de la riqueza continuará aumentando.