Update: The Bill did not pass.  Nevertheless, the games are expected to resume soon.

I recently read an article in the New York Times titled, “The Rise of the Super-Rich.”  Journalist Teresa Tritich reports, under the auspices of a Compassionately Conservative Administration even the affluent are not doing well.  She states that the axiom, “The rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer,” is no longer completely accurate.  Currently, the super-rich, the upper crust is profiting; all others are left behind.

As I read this information, I was reminded of a two-pronged topic that I think needs discussing, “Abundance and Scarcity.”  Apparently, there is a belief amongst Americans, that there is only so much wealth to go around.  We must divide what there is.  Some will prosper and the others must suffer.  I think this notion contrary, as does the natural world.  Mother nature does not deplete her resources; she regularly replenishes these.  On occasion, there are circumstances that seem contrary.  Droughts, a horde of locust, or a spontaneous fire might reduce the wealth within the ecosystem temporarily.  However, these occurrences serve to protect nature.  They restore the environment.  Nature returns to its balance.  Only man makes long-term deficits, imbalances.  While shortage need not be, man continues to actively create these.  Please consider the passage of a convoluted Bill that boosts the minimum wage while leaving low-wage workers with less.
This weekend in the still of night or was it early morn, man again chose to design a shortfall.  Congress concluded it would be best to create a greater disparity between the rich and the poor.  They were intent on doing this.  House Republicans, prompted by their fears for the fall election decided to do something benevolent.  They skillfully shaped a bill that they had been reluctant to pass.  After ten years of refusing to raise the minimum wage, these House members at 1:30 AM on Saturday morning, voted to increase the disgraceful hourly minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25.  

The change will not occur all at once; it will evolve incrementally.  Over the next three years, three distinct intervals will be implemented.  Wages will gradually grow.  This, on the surface, sounds wonderful, well, maybe not wonderful, but good.  However, think again.  Attached to this initiative is an extremely generous estate tax cut for the super rich.  The middle class will not receives a reduction in levies, nor will those that have less than the median does, reap more.  Even the wealthy will not reap a greater reward.  No, only those living extremely lavish lives will benefit.

In the decade that passed since Congress last increased the minimum wage, senators and congressional representatives improved their station.  In vote after vote, members of the Legislative branch have raised their own salaries by a “slight” $31,000.  Members of Congress may not be among the enormously affluent; nevertheless, they have connections.  They have power and benefits, more than most.  Therefore, they work well with the wealthiest among us.

Many among the most affluent believe that in order for there to be rich, there must be poor.  An individual with an abundance of dollars said to me with impunity `The poor are necessary, for there must be poor people to serve the rich.’  At the time I thought, `How odd.’  I had not realized that much of what is was part of a well-calculated, thought-out scheme.  It was my understanding that we were all here to serve and support each other.  Unlike this mega-multi-millionaire, I believe in the greater good.  I always have and I thought everyone did.  Imagine my surprise when I learned I was so very wrong.  However, I digress.

In today’s American, the “super-rich,” which comprise one percent of population, are earning wealth that exceeds their needs.  They are extremely well off, while others are suffering.

From 2003 to 2004, the latest year for which there is data, the richest Americans pulled far ahead of everyone else.  In the space of that one-year, real average income for the top 1 percent of households — those making more than $315,000 in 2004 — grew by nearly 17 percent.  For the remaining 99 percent, the average gain was less than 3 percent, and that probably makes things look better than they really are, since other data, most notably from the Census Bureau, indicate that the average is bolstered by large gains among the top 20 percent of households.  In all, the top 1 percent of households enjoyed 36 percent of all income gains in 2004, on top of an already stunning 30 percent in 2003.

There is less than a three percent gain among ninety-nine percent of the population; yet, traditionally, and conservatively speaking, the cost of living increases by an estimated annual rate of three percent.  Thus, the “gain” is a loss or at best, a wash for most of America.

With the possible passage of this newer “Rich Plan, Poor Plan,” the losses will be greater.  The estate tax will be virtually eliminated.  This will result in an overall government income loss of $753 billion in the first 10 years.  According to Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, new research released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has concluded the estate tax reduction would force “lower spending for Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment insurance, all of which assist low-wage workers.”

This drastic loss in federal income and hence the reduction in federal assistance programs make the minimum wage increase a moot point.  Once again, the silver spoon sponsors are going away with the gold.  That is fine for the exercise was never meant to be benevolent; it was for these in the Grand Old Party a battle of wits, a gimmick.  The purpose of this plan was to coerce and influence; while appearing to be generous and giving.  The Repugnant Republicans wanted to find a way to abolish the estate tax with Democratic support.

Thus, we had midnight orations in favor of raising the wage given by those that rather not do so.  Still, their true tenor was revealed. Tennessee Representative Zach Wamp could not resist telling the reason for the Bill.  This rancorous, revengeful lollygag could not restrain himself.  He said to the House Democrats, “You have seen us really outfox you on this issue tonight.”  However, I ask, who is outfoxing whom.

Journalist, Bob Herbert of the New York Times asks the same.  He offers,

As the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget pointed out in their study: ”Each year that Congress fails to raise the wage floor, its purchasing power erodes. The fact that the minimum wage has remained the same for nearly nine years means that its real value has declined considerably over that period. As inflation has accelerated recently due to higher energy costs, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen faster.”

If purchasing power is reduced for the masses, the super-rich, the “classy chic” may suffer.  In truth, they will.

Poorly paid workers, while available to “serve” the mega-moneyed bring all of society down.  In truth, if one suffers, we all do.  Susan Mayer, of the Joint Center for Poverty Research Director explains,

Social scientists do not understand all the potential effects of poverty on either children or adults.  We do know that children who grow up in poor families are much more likely to fair worse than children who grow up in more affluent families on just about everything that social scientists measure.  They are more likely to have poor health and to do worse in school.  They are more likely to drop out of high school, have a baby as a teenager, and to be poor themselves once they grow up.

In part, the impoverished are often without hope.  Their race, color, or creed may hinder their capacity to dream.  Children realize at an early age, discrimination is rampant.  It is evident, even on the playground.  Young persons from families with few resources, have fewer opportunities.  Often their parents are unavailable or unable to teach them prior to formal schooling.  By the time the progeny of the poor reach school age, they are far behind their peers.  They fall farther behind because of conditions at home.

In “The Future of Children; Children and Poverty,” researchers Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Greg J. Duncan write of “The Effects of Poverty on Children.”  They state

it is through inadequate nutrition; fewer learning experiences; instability of residence; lower quality of schools; exposure to environmental toxins, family violence, and homelessness; dangerous streets; or less access to friends, services, and, for adolescents, jobs.

 These impact society as a whole.  Young persons without hope or dreams do not fare well.  They stagnant and barely survive.

One of the social issues facing children of poverty is emotional trauma.  The emotional climate can often be very stressful and emotionally depriving.  The lack of emotional nurturing can lead to feelings of alienation, inadequacy, depression, and anxiety.  Aggressive or impulsive behavior and social withdrawal can also result.  Emotional security and self-esteem are often lacking.  There is a craving for attention and a need to belong (Ciaccio, 2000; Brophy, 2000).  The characteristics that are lacking in the poverty environment are those that help foster effective learning and academic success.  Emotional draining and negative self-status can literally zap the motivation to learn out of children.

Likely, young persons born to such circumstances become “a burden on the community as a whole.”

As they age, the consequences of scarcity worsen.  All is amplified.  Stress sets in.  Without an adequate education, people are left feeling powerless.  In fact they are.  This too takes a toll.  Many become ill.  People with little capital and in need, turn to those with more for help.  At times the impoverished do not ask for assistance they take it.  Crime increases as the number of poor rise.

The underprivileged resent the rich.  They rise up against those that keep them down.  Throughout history, this has been so.  Dr. Tom O’Connor and and Dr. Paula Baker discuss this phenomenon.  They profess,

Theoretically, the relationship between inequality and crime is believed to operate through a person’s individual assessment of the equity of a particular distribution of economic resources.  Their assessment is partially shaped by the sociocultural environment, but there is no isomorphic (one-to-one) relationship between aggregate (national statistic) measures and psychological factors; this is called making the ecological fallacy.  

If inequity is perceived, there must be some interpretive or intervening mechanism that channels or diffuses the effect in different directions.  In criminology, that intervening mechanism is referred to as relative deprivation, and some individuals respond by resorting to property crime to address their grievances, and other people develop a deep anger which can be manifested in violent ways.  Relative deprivation is illustrated in the following quotation:
Karl Marx once said: “A house can be large or small; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small it satisfies all social demands.  But if a palace rises beside the little house, the little house shrinks into a hut.”

Not all people who perceive wage inequality resort to crime.  Some become entrepreneurs, others get involved in political action, and still others direct the feelings of anger and frustration toward themselves.  The type of crime traditionally associated with economic inequality is property crime, but this may be simply an “opportunity” explanation (since when poor people live side by side with rich people, there’s more opportunity).  

In recent years, however, the “deep anger” explanation has become more popular, and many criminologists now associate economic inequality with violent crime.  Perhaps the most common association is with “conventional” or street crime.  For example, when unemployment goes up 1%, there’s a 4% increase in homicides, a 6% increase in robberies, a 2% increase in burglaries, and measurable effects on rape and other crimes.

Nevertheless, the super-rich, Congress, and the neoconservative multi-millionaires and billionaire Bush Bunch choose to ignore this well researched information.  They prefer to know what they know, prosperity and the good old boy and girl network.  They rather ignore inequity in favor of the super-rich becoming richer.  Therefore, they tell average Americans that they will benefit if the Estate Tax is eliminated.  The super-rich title the bill a “death tax,” and convince the public that if they inherit a dime, they will have to pay for such a privilege.

It is not true.

The bill would exempt from taxation all estates worth up to $5 million — or $10 million for a married couple — and apply a 15 percent tax rate to inheritances above that threshold to as much as $25 million.  Estate values exceeding $25 million would be taxed at 30 percent.

In fact, the rich will not benefit from the reduction in estate taxes, only the ultra-exclusive will.

However, to garner greater support, the “super-rich” is indulging their friends.  Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican from Tennessee and an extremely wealthy entrepreneur himself is doling out rewards to Democrats that wish to assist him in eradicating the “death tax.”

The bill is sprinkled with incentives drafted with particular lawmakers in mind.  A rural bonds provision is aimed at Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).  A tax break for timber interests is a possible lure for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).  A provision benefiting coalmines is targeted at Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.).

 The Bill is expected to pass.  Imbalance will be preserved.

Throughout the world, and particularly in the United States there are the very well-to-do and the poor that provide for them.  It is fascinating to me that the poor give to the rich.  One would think in a benevolent, “compassionate” and civilized society, one that harbors a “thousand points of light,” the prosperous, those that have much more than they could possibly need, would be willing and wanting to help the less well-off. A thinking person might recognize that if there are impoverished amongst the populace problems will result, inevitably!  Yet, that is not the case.  The “super-rich” seem to think that they can control the universe or at least their slice of the world.

They believe that the poor can be deprived, weakened into submission, and all will be well.  Those born with a silver spoon in their mouths believe that they can create circumstances that leave the destitute with little strength or the courage to revolt.  While wallowing in their creature comforts, the profoundly prosperous think they can ignore those that serve them.  They cannot.  Trouble will brew among those in need and it will directly affect the affluent.  It does.

Uneducated or undereducated people do not care for themselves well; they cannot truly.  Taking care of these person’s costs the community dearly.  We all must pay for the medical care, or eventual burial of those that are without.  We will pay for the children they bare.

The ultra-wealthy can wish for the death of the underprivileged, the broke, and pitiful.  They can hope that once used, these persons will just lie down, die, and decompose.  That will not happen, besides the rich need those that serve them or so they believe.  They ignore principles of abundance that guide nature.  The super-rich are stuck.  They only think of their own plethora of plenty and they want more.

Some saw the super-rich is an inspiration.  Numerous believed in this land of opportunity thought if they worked hard, that they might one day be among the exclusive and opulent.  Now studies show the chances of being luxuriantly wealthy are poor.  Those with dollars, though less, are not faring well under this administration.  Therefore, we must consider the circumstances.

The well-to-do often pass on their treasure.  Children and charities are the recipients.  They, their progeny, and peer associates continually have access to opportunities; they are able to expand their means.  The billionaires and mega-multi-millionaires receive the best of educations; they make the best of connections.  These societal darlings partner with the finest.  They know and are among the elite.  If you, dear reader, are not among them now, you will not likely be among them later.  Bush and his rich Republican right-winged wranglers are making sure of that.

Peruse the possibilities.  The Rich Reach Heights and the Poor Plunge Further into Poverty.

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

0 0 votes
Article Rating