They still don't get it on inequality
by David Atkins
I suppose we should all be heartened that income inequality is on the mainstream political menu these days. But the tenor of the conversation shows that they really still don't get it:
Democrats aren’t wasting any time tackling an issue they are convinced will help them this election year: income inequality.
One of the Senate’s first votes upon returning to Washington from their holiday break Monday will be on a bill reviving emergency unemployment benefits that lapsed at the end of 2013.
The vote marks the first concrete step by Democrats toward a populist economic platform ahead of the November elections. The inequality campaign will intensify later in the year with a push in the Senate to raise the federal minimum wage that will be synced with President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech expected to dig heavily into the issue of economic disparity.
The focus on income inequality builds on the economic themes Obama successfully harnessed to beat Mitt Romney in 2012. Democrats believe they can win again by spotlighting the growing divides between the rich and poor and daring Republicans to oppose legislation aimed at benefiting low-income Americans.
“Our Republican colleagues should take note. Certainly we’re going to build on the progress we’ve made to reduce the deficit, but it is no longer the most important issue that we face,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in laying out Senate Democrats’ agenda for the coming year. “Issues like job creation, minimum wage, and unemployment insurance are going to weigh on the minds of voters far more than Obamacare by the time the 2014 elections roll around.”
Obviously, raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits are crucial not only to those affected but also to the broader economy. But even this misses the point. Income inequality isn't just about the poor and those who are most vulnerable. It's about the broad middle class, too, and the fact that the top 1% have hollowed it out.
The entire neoliberal project can be described as hollowing out the wage earning middle class to benefit the wealthy asset class, while throwing the destitute enough social safety crumbs to avoid starvation and riots. The difference between the neoliberal and the conservative, beyond social issues, is that the neoliberal wants those worst off taken care of enough to prevent bloody revolution, while conservatives count on fear of police and religion to keep the sick and starving poor in line.
The treatment of the poor and unemployed isn't where the economic progressive line is drawn. Ensuring that the most vulnerable are well taken care of in society is a bare minimum standard. The energy behind the cause of income inequality is about increasing the negotiating power of workers across the spectrum while disincentivizing the hollowing out and rent-seeking of the economy by the parasitic asset classes. Progressive action on income inequality is about expanding Social Security, reinvesting in pensions, eliminating student loan debt, raising the capital gains tax, instituting a financial transaction tax, reinstating Glass Steagall, expanding labor unions, enhancing worker protections, and a host of similar issues designed to maximize middle class negotiating power.
Dealing with the long-term unemployed and the minimum wage only barely scratches the surface of the conversation on income inequality. It's a conversation to which the comfortable asset classes would like to limit the conversation, because it allows them to wedge the middle class against the poor, when the real divide is between the 1% and 99%.
.