Share the Wealth; a message from Ralph Nader
I was riding in a car last week with an old friend.
He worked with me many years ago to set up a nationwide network of student run citizen groups.
Now, he is organizing in Ohio for congressional redistricting reform.
We were talking about New Orleans.
And his snap observation?
Those people in New Orleans should have gotten out when they were told to evacuate.
Many did, but what if some 100,000 couldn’t, I asked?
If it were me, I would have crawled out, he said.
What if there was no way out – no car, sickness, caring for ailing relatives, no seats on public transportation, streets blocked, nowhere to go, fear of the unknown?
There always is a way, he said.
And this from a highly educated and accomplished “liberal.”
Many in America are in denial.
Especially “highly educated” America is in denial.
They know, but still are in denial, about the deep poverty of tens of millions in our midst.
Ancient Chinese proverb – To know and not to act is not to know.
Even after television showed the poor – day after day – being left behind in New Orleans, many in America remained in denial.
How else to explain the poverty of response from both the Democrats and Republicans?
Watching the disaster in New Orleans made me think back over 80 years to Huey Long, the former Governor and Senator from Louisiana.
Long’s mission – defend the people against the avarice of corporate America.
He taxed the oil companies to pay for text books for the children of Louisiana.
His response to poverty?
Share the wealth – with those who worked to create it.
Long’s was a detailed program – during the 1930s Depression – which would impose a capital tax that would prevent any family from owning a fortune of more than $5 million or more 350 times that of the average family.
And it would have imposed an income tax that would prohibit a family from earning more than one million dollars a year, or more than 300 times the income of the average family.
The income from these taxes would provide every family in the country with a home valued at not less than $5,000.
The government would further guarantee that every family would receive an annual income of $2,000 to $3,000.
He knew that defending the people meant a showdown with the greed of corporations and their super-rich bosses.
His expected run for the Presidency on a wave of popular support for his Share the Wealth platform pushed Franklin Roosevelt and the Democrats to enact more of the New Deal.
With his dramatic proposals, Long got people thinking about the concentration of wealth.
That was then.
Now, Katrina has exposed to all the mass poverty in our midst.
A quarter of America’s working families are living in poverty.
And yet, the ratio of average annual large company CEO pay (now $11.8 million) to average worker pay (now $27,460) spiked up last year from 301-to-1 in 2003 to 431-to-1 in 2004.
If the minimum wage had risen as fast as CEO pay since 1990, the lowest paid workers in the US would be earning $23.03 an hour today, not $5.15 an hour.
Some of the nation’s most enlightened wealthy are fearful of what these numbers portend.
Led by William Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins, more than 1,000 of these wealthy Americans have organized to defend taxes on the super wealthy.
Gates and Collins argue that individual wealth is a product not only of hard work and smart choices but of the society that provides the fertile soil for success.
They don’t subscribe to the “Great Man” theory of wealth creation but contend that society’s investments – such as public works, government research, economic development, education, and health care – all contribute to any individual’s good fortune.
They have written a blockbuster book – Wealth and Our Commonwealth – Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes.
In response to New Orleans, will the Democratic Party stand up with William Gates Sr. and say out loud – tax accumulated fortunes, defend the estate tax, and defend our progressive income tax structure?
Will the Democratic Party stand against the massive redistribution of wealth and income upward over the past twenty years from the many to the few?
The corporate Democrats fear opening up this topic of fair return for hard work done – staying silent on a living wage demand.
They want the business campaign money too much.
This despite the falling median household income, now in its fifth straight year, and the widening gap between rich and poor.
And so, the issue of the rising poverty rate and the widening gap between rich and poor will remain untouched.
The wealth gap, the income gap and mass poverty are too hot to handle by the corporate Democrats and Republicans alike.
Nader for President 2004
www.votenader.org
PO Box 18002
Washington, DC 20036
USA
posted by tabitha jane @ 1:49 PM
20 comments
20 Comments:
hey again! Not very many people comment on your site even though it is well written and somewhat ensightful. So its my responsiblity to get it going, right? lol, these ideals are not new. This is communism in its purest form. We all know that communism is a great unreachable dream. Would be great to spread the wealth to all that all can prosper. Nice ideal! But this is reality and we know that the money will in no way reach the lower classes. Instead it goes to pay for special interest programs that the Dems are notorious for. The 'New Deal' has in the long run just encouraged the poor to stay poor. Its hurting the very people its designed to help. You cant just give money to people and not expect something in return. where is the need to improve your situation when if you just stay poor or have more bastard children you can get FREE money. This may sound harsh but its not. If you have a disability then make up a 'chore' for them to do. Anything thats feasible for 'them'. The social programs all should be revamped or thrown out. As for the progressive tax plan.... socialist. Penalize the rich for being rich? This will discourage ingenuity and probably stimulate more outsourcing overseas. Why start a new business here and get taxed out the ass if you do well when you could just go overseas and keep more of your money. we already have a lax progressive tax we surely dont need to make it any worse. Have you read up on the Fair Tax plan? Its a pretty good idea. If implimented we could get rid of the IRS. That alone would save the country something like 8 + billion per year.Some states already have embraced some of its ideals and have prospered because of it.
And i also agree that the rich are helped by the country they prosper in but lets not forget the benefit they are to the country as far as jobs and taxes that are already paid by them. The top 1 percent in this country pay the majority of the taxes anyways. This Govt needs them more than they need the Govt.
People forget that this Govt was set up for the defense of its borders and not for providing for the ever whim of the population. State govt should be more concerned for these issues you address. Let the states tax the companies. Then if a company doesnt like the tax plan in one state then they could just go to another. States have the power in this country ( at least thay are supposed to) not the Fed Govt.
oh and lets not also forget that Huey Long has a very bad Reputation for corruption and was assassinated! Just wanted to help put it all in perspective.
S&C: sorry i haven't had time to repsond to your comments (things have been crazy in my life lately!)
i just have one question real quick--you are a christian right? from some things you've said it sounds like you are. what does this sound like to you:
"42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."
having everything in common? selling their possessions and giving to those who had need? communism in its purest form? maybe it is the christian way to relate to the world. what was a huge part of jesus' time spent on the world if it wasn't meeting people's needs? hanging out with the poor and their "bastard children" and making sure that their flour and oil did not run out?
aren't christians called to live as jesus lived? maybe that includeds giving "free" money with no expectations . . . yeah, it seems totally against what we know of human nature, greed, laziness and selfishness, but maybe that's just the radical way followers of christ are supposed to live in the world . . .
*i may have just opened a can of worms*
Yes completely true, every word!! BUT lets recall history for one moment. What happened next? do you remember? Soon the apostles were being thrown out of cities persecuted and eventually everyone was martyred. So yes Jesus lived a Perfect life. One of service and love and we all should try to emulate that. I also agreed that in a perfect world were everyone is RIGHTOUS and lives to the priciples taught by jesus then communism is great and would work. BUT! you know just as much as i do that pure communism doesnt work. We as individuals are responsible to live like jesus taught, that doent mean the govt you live in will do the same. But if you read the bible jesus also teaches the importants of work and not being idol. Isnt that what we are promoting by giving out hand outs. In a pure communist society everyone works for the greater good. You plant beans i raise sheep and we share. How is that the same as giving money to people and not expecting some kind of action in return. Anything to there ability. You are arguing one point then leaving out the core principle. They should give in return, thats communism. If you like it so much you should stay consistent on its principles. This govt wasnt set up to cater to the every whim of the people. It was meant to have little power and the states were to have greater power. If you want social programs get it from your local govt then state not from the fed. Thats my argument. How is that different from jesus' teaching? I believe the bible also says that "idolness are the hands of the devil". Ill have to look up exactly were that is for you.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was advocating giving free handouts to “lazy, non-working” people* . . . here are a few things that the article said that I am actually advocating for:
“share the wealth with those who worked to create it”
“a quarter of America’s working families are living in poverty”
“fair return for hard work done”
advocating for a “living wage.”
These are all statements concerning those who work hard, but aren’t making enough to even survive in one of the richest countries in the world. These are the people that I am advocating for help for. People like my parents who both have college degrees, who work hard, who love their children, but have been living under the poverty line for as long as I have been aware of. If it weren’t for the people at the church that they attend giving them support and help and never expecting a dime in return, I’m not sure how they would have made it this far. This summer when my dad lost his job (due to Oregon’s horrible economy and unemployment rate) the church got together and painted my parent’s house for them and did not expect a thing in return. From what I’ve read of your words, this sounds like something you would whole-heartedly disagree with. This church was giving a “hand out” to my parents and their “bastard children.”*
I work for a non-profit organization. I hardly make enough money to support my husband and I, as he goes through college. The government wont raise the cost of living for the population of people that we serve (developmentally disables individuals) so my organization cannot afford to give anyone raises. Yet, we continue to serve these people who have no way to support themselves and we expect nothing in return from them. We understand that we cannot get a raise and be properly reimbursed for our work, but we continue to serve these people anyway because they are people. They are worth something—especially in your God’s eyes. He says (in Jeremiah?) that true religion is to take care of the widow and the orphan, to fast and give to the poor. I never heard anything about expecting something in return. Also, weren’t the Jews prohibited from charging interest of others when they lent them money? if that’s not giving and expecting no gain, I don’t know what is.
Is Psalms there is a very passionate article that expresses how God feels we should protect the weak and fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. In Louisiana the poor and weak (those in nursing homes and the developmentally disabled) were left behind. They did not have the resources to help and protect themselves and their families. Many times, the poor are those who have the jobs that no one else is willing to do. They are the janitors, those who harvest in the fields, the ones who cook your meals when you go through the drive through. And for some reason, they are viewed as less than human. This should not be so. As the article said “individual wealth is a product not only of hard work and smart choices [on your part] but of the society that provides the fertile soil for success.” Starbucks would not be the wealthy corporation that it is if it weren’t for the coffee farmers who worked their assess of every day. They probably make less in a year than you make in a day. They are human just like you and deserve to be treated as such. They work HARD. They still can’t support themselves. And you say they don’t deserve a little help from people who can afford to be picky about which brand of toilet paper they buy?
Next time you are choosing between two-ply quilted or non-quilted, think of those [like me] who struggle to even afford toilet paper at times. Then tell me I’m not equally human and don’t deserve a little grace now and then. Tell me you expect every penny back, with interest. All I’m asking for is a wage I can survive on. When I have a little extra, I hope I am not too greedy to give a little of it to those who are struggling as well.
Yeah, maybe that will get me martyred like the people who followed your Jesus. But that’s a life they chose to live—it seems like they even advocated for that kind of a live from what I understand of the new testament. I think that’s a better existence than dying old, alone, and rich. I’d have to leave all my wealth behind anyway, so why not share a little of it? I’m, not supporting laziness. Anyone who knows me knows I am far from lazy. But there are times when we wonder how we are going to eat and afford gas until the next paycheck comes. If someone gave me a “hand out”* I wouldn’t be angry. I don’t think you would either if that happened to you.
That’s all I’m saying here.
I never said I liked communism “so much.”* I just said that that small segment of Acts could be interpreted as communism in its purest form. I emphasized “purest” because it would only work if people were pure in their intentions. I know this. I understand human nature and why communism failed. I was a history major in college. Don’t get me wrong.
Sorry if I was misunderstood.
I don’t mean to sound mean or judgmental, I just get sort of worked up when it comes to issues of social justice. If someone can help out another human being, I just think they should. And they shouldn’t expect anything in return. Whether that means they end up getting walked all over or not, I don’t think that should matter.
Aren’t you supposed to turn the other cheek?
*these are phrases that you used that offended me, actually.
Tabs...your last reply is a thing of beauty and places a real human face on very hard-working Americans, some of whom pay more taxes every year than their rich neighbors. The Rightists always try and go for the worst case scenario...not people like yourself or your parent. I live inthe most afflueny county in the US (Marin) and I cannot afford health insurance. Gee, I wonder whose controlled by that lobby?
OH my, how you have distorted my point. Because you have misunderstood it i will try to restate it. The point is this, Social Programs should be left up to the churches, communities, individuals and states. Not the fed. I am , and stated that i am, for the "pure ideal" of communism but that they are out of reach for govt. And i also fully agreed that people should serve others. I even stated that all should be trying to live like jesus did. You seem to have gotten the impression that i am not in the same situation that you find yourself in. Thats completely false, me and my wife are both in college. The difference though is i dont expect the govt to have to help me. I am paying for it myself through hard work. My only gripe is that there are to many people (not saying you) in this country that expect the govt to take care of them. And if they knew what principles this country was founded on (which you should being a history major) then they would know where to find the help they need, i.e local govt.
Refering to the "bastard children" statement that you have brought up twice so far. I was trying to show how govt programs have encouraged such behavior. people on welfare recieve more payout for the amount of children they have. Now that is good because each child comes with additional cost but there is no incentive for these people to go out and get a job (and many of them could). It only promotes the state that they are in. For example (i know its only a movie but) in Million Dollar Baby her mother was pissed that her daughter bought her a new home because she would lose her welfare. She was also sending her money to live on. Now this is a movie but it paints a pretty accurate picture of the realities of social programs.
I also never said that i only want something in return for my service. I only said that it should be left up to again to indivduals, churches, local govt. I hope that is clear!
To get personal, I believe in charity, service, love for my fellowmen! I give 10 percent of all that i dont have to help others. Many times have i gone to Louisiana to help rebuild (some pics on my Blog). So to say i would be against these type of things is wrong! I am only arguing that people shouldnt expect there "Federal" Govt. to give out hand outs.
Think about it for a bit. Wouldnt it be better if the Govt helped find them a job or gave them some kind of chore. And payed them for there work. Maybe even helped enroll them in a school to learn a trade. "Give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish you feed him for a life time." This in essence is what i am advocating! Quit giving money away and start REALLY helping the people. Give them something they can pass down to there children, give them a REAL chance to succeed instead of holding them down like our current social programs are doing.
If Liberals were really concerned for the poor this is the kind of welfare program that they would have set up.
In reply to Maugham, what worse case senario have i used? I have only argued the prinicples of this constitution.
oh you kids...
let's all smile and have a beer!
no?
I don't know why people have to hate the poor. Is it fear of being poor oneself? If welfare was such a great deal, we'd all be on it. My god, how ignorant to actually believe the New Deal didn't help save this country and its citizens. What the hell kind of education you getting down there? I hope Scotty's not taking any government subsidized loans to pay for his college. He should be knocking on the churches door.
Peng, your narrow sightedness ( is that a word, lol) is intruiging. When did i ever say or illude to the fact that i hate poor people? Maybe you should reread the previous post a little more carefully.
FDR's New Deal was only meant to be temporary in the first place. To help get us out of the depression. We are Obviously not in a Great Depression so there is no need for it. In your thinking people before the Great Depresion could of never survived! How in the world did these people cope without Big Brother helping them?
And the education i am recieving is one of learning facts and researching them myself, not just believing whatever the liberal california professors feed my by the spoon full.
THe misconception people like you, Peng have is that i am advocating the complete closer of all welfare programs. That is obviously not correct since i have stated (in the previous post that you glazed over) that the States, and local communities should be helping the poor through Welfare programs. The only ones i want to see stopped are the ones on the Federal level.
ok friends, this blog is for open and honest discussion. not fighting. i'm feeling a little naseous right now about parts of this conversation. opinions may be freely expressed here, but let's be respectful, please.
i meant to spell it nauseous. oops!
i am absolutely fascinated by this discussion. wanna know why?
BECAUSE SCOTT AND TABITHA, YOU ARE BOTH RIGHT.
now, lets play nice for a moment, while we talk about someone like me. i am middle class america. i live in a beautiful duplex/townhome. i drive a four door sedan, asian made car that we have a loan for. my husband drives an 11 year old SUV that we have no payments on. we have three computers in our home, two televisions, two dvd players, blah blah blah. our eight year old son goes to school and plays sports, and our three year old daughter stays home with mommy and watches disney channel and colors and plays outside in our fenced back yard. my husband makes better than average money with out a college education, and we have a butt load of money in his 401(k).
we WISH we lived paycheck to paycheck. it's more like paycheck to two-days-before the next paycheck. i paid our phone bill last friday, only because they were going to disconnect on monday if i didn't. i bought 40 dollars worth of groceries at Winco, and hope to only buy milk before Scott gets paid again. we are living on meals like rice with one chicken breast divided between four people and a can of green beans. or a 79 cent jar of spaghetti sauce (mostly sugar) and 50 cent noodles. my daughter and i stay home most days rather than going and doing fun "stay at home mom" stuff because i can't afford the gas to go out and about.
would i LOVE to get some aid? do i feel that i am a deserving candidate? does it drive me batty to see the "foodstamp people" buying steak and soda each month on the first? HELL YES.
but you know what? we make too much money.
so here i am, stuck in the middle. desperately wanting my children to grow up healthy and strong by eating something other than simple carbs for every meal, and desperately hating the people who are poorer and living high on the freaking hog. i've seen secion 8 housing nicer than mine.
i don't want to be poor and feed my kids steak and doritos and kiss my husband goodbye when he leaves for his shift at taco bell, and i don't want to be rich and unsympathetic. but i am awfully damn sick of being stuck in the middle.
*this should not be meant as an attack on ANY previously stated view point. this is just a view point from middle class america*
You gots to heat it up to make it tasty! I like to use personal examples because it hits home better. I've found that most people only hate the government programs that don't benefit them. Hence my reference to subsidized education vs. welfare. They're both supposed to be temporary. That's why Clinton changed it years ago as a block grant program to states - to fit their citizen's needs. I feel just as strongly that it should be a federal program to make sure all Americans are being served. Plus, the more contributors, the smaller the overall burden.
Scott, give us a good military spending waste blast and we'll be able to agree on something.
And why not shoot for the ideal instead of always saying 'it won't work unless...' Be a socialist now, don't wait for the political winds to change.
thanks for the forum Tabby.
RM, you snuck in while i was commenting. Again, if welfare was such a great deal, we'd all be on it. If people cheat, they cheat. Its such a drop in the bucket compared to all the government subsidizing of farms and industry. I guess its less personal though so its not as maddenning.
and you know what, you're investing in your children and will have many many more years of peace and harmony that the welfare people won't have. If you feel angry about their cheating, take solice in their later struggles.
How come no ones gets so worked up about Halliburton 'living high off the hog' on our tax dollars. Those military contracts are cost PLUS 10%, guaranteeing a profit for untested weapon systems.
One of Ronald Reagan's goals as president was to run up the deficit so high that we'd be forced to severely cut social programs in the future to pay off his military deficit and tax cuts. We seemed to just be pulling out of that when this administration decides to do the same thing.
We're all right about these issues. We just choose different things to be frustrated about.
for more info on dick cheney, read this.
Hey everyone! peng, this converstaion was never about people cheating the 'Federal' welfare system but whether or not it is working or good for the country. I would like to see one of two things; first for people to quit expecting the Fed govt to wait on there every need, or second for the Fed welfare to require people on the system to improve there life to get them off. This is being done but not very well.
I am in no way upset that i dont receive Fed money or scared of being poor, since i am poor already. This is a discusion of big govt. These issues should be left up to the states.
And peng welfare isnt a "great deal" to you because you probually will or never have needed it but to poor people or lazy (for that matter) it is easier to just collect a check each month for doing nothing than going and getting a job a McDonalds making about the same. Which would you choose? Me, i would choose the free easy money. That is a good deal! I would be for helping people out in those situations if the recipient did something good in return, like cleaned a section of road or was actively looking for a job. There must be some kind of a accountability for the recipient.
Scott, everyone hates a cheat. Of course they wouldn't take the McDonald's job because they wouldn't pay enough for you to also pay for day care.
I still haven't seen you make the case for state vs. federal except that you don't like it? How would the state better help people transition for welfare to work than the federal government. The states are given the grants from the feds right now and you don't seem to think its working.
As for churches and charities, we tried that before FDR instituted the New Deal. It took the efforts of big government to get people back to work and working. How have things changed since then that you think the churches will just step in? In fact, i would argue that most people would rather they pay through their taxes than give to a church in hopes that they will use the money appropriately. I don't see how they could handle the problem better.
My case is this Peng. First the Fed govt is too big. We pay way to much in taxes and the govt has its hands in to many dealings they shouldnt. One of those is Welfare. Fed govts main job is defense. Beyond that not much more, othre than assuring that people obey law and that the market stays fair. The REAL power lies in the hands of the states themselves. If we all payed a considerable amount less to the Fed we could pay more to the states. There they could provide the health care you want. If you dont like what one state has to offer there is always a choice to be made.
The New DEal was to help ease the burdens of a society going through a Great Depression! We are in no way in a great drepression. THis govt is a Republic not a Democracy and not socialist. The New Deal was nothing but a socialist driven agenda.
People should look first to there church (if they have one) then to local communities and then to the state. That is what i am saying. Not that the churches have to take over the entire burden of welfare that the govt is providing.
I do not understand why you would disagree with my assertion that the Welfare sysytem should provide a way to get people off of it. Why do you want to see so many people dependent on govt? Why do you want to see these people stay in there poor state?
I get it, you're Mormon. Why didn't you just say that to begin with. That system works great for you tight little community.
You still haven't given me any examples of the state system working better. You just say its your opinion. You give me no reason to change my mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home