Millionaires Who Rule Us

"The very rich," observed F. Scott Fitzgerald, "are different from you and me." And nowhere is this so-called difference more apparent than in the growing divide between poor and working class Americans and the rich who rule over us.

While working class Americans are getting poorer (there are five million more poor people today than in 2005), studies show that the rich are indeed getting richer. According to the Center for American Progress, 37 million Americans, a size roughly equivalent to the population of California, live below the official poverty line. Thus, in a nation of almost 297 million people, 12.6 percent are poor (for instance, a family of four that makes less than $19,971 is considered poor). And one out of every three Americans is considered low-income.

At the other end of the spectrum, 19 percent of the nation's income is held by the richest one percent of Americans who, according to former New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston, have gotten richer as a result of taxes, subsidies and regulatory policies that "take from the many to give to the already superrich."

In his latest book, Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With the Bill, Johnston explains that the trend of government policies favoring the superrich began when Ronald Reagan became president and has continued through the Clinton and Bush administrations. "The 400 highest-income Americans--people who on average make well over $100 million a year--were paying 30 cents on the dollar when (Bill) Clinton came to office, 22 cents when he left," said Johnston. "Under (George W.) Bush, they're paying 17."

A number of America's wealthy elite are also on the government's payroll, serving in the U.S. Congress. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics reported in 2006 that about half of the Senate's 100 members are also millionaires and their average net worth is $8.9 million.

Even those members of Congress who do not belong to the so-called "Millionaire's Club" enjoy a host of congressional perks. In addition to their six-figure salaries, our representatives also receive millions to maintain offices in their home state and in the nation's capital, as well as other benefits such as free life insurance, a generous retirement plan for life, 32 fully reimbursed road trips home a year, as well as travel to foreign lands--all of which comes at taxpayer expense. And then there are the "extras" ranging from discounts in Capitol Hill tax-free shops and restaurants, $10 haircuts at the Congressional barbershop and free reserved parking at Washington National Airport to use of the House gym or Senate baths for $100 a year, free fresh-cut flowers from the Botanic Gardens and free assistance in the preparation of income taxes.

Little wonder with such entitlement that elected officials who have, and have in abundance, are ill-equipped to relate to the struggles of those who have little to nothing at all. We see this in a multitude of ways, from hastily passed laws that infringe on our rights to pork barrel legislation that primarily caters to special interest groups. How else to explain the fact that taxpayers who live from paycheck to paycheck have, in years past, found themselves paying $50 million for an indoor rainforest in Iowa, $500,000 for a teapot museum in North Carolina and another $500,000 for a national wild turkey federation in South Carolina?

This disconnect became particularly evident in 2005 when those in Congress who had no trouble voting themselves pay increases rejected a minimum wage hike from $5.15 an hour to $6.25 for blue-collar workers. Such self-serving behavior arises in part out of the privileged, rarefied world in which our elected representatives reside. Fast forward to the present day, with the nation in a recession and Americans losing jobs at an alarming rate, and we find President Bush, born to wealth, seemingly surprised to find gas prices hurtling toward the $4 a gallon mark.

This brings me to the 2008 bid for the White House, where the leading contenders are no strangers to wealth. Indeed, John McCain boasts an individual net worth of $29.21 million, while Hillary Clinton's personal fortune is in the $10 million range (combined with her husband, her assets are between $10 million and $50 million). And Barack Obama, the "poor man" of the lot, has assets valued up to $1.1 million. However, his $1.9 million book advance in 2005 puts him on track to catch up with McCain and Clinton.

So what does this mean for "we the people"?

It means that the once-cherished idea that any American citizen, no matter their station in life, could someday become president of the United States has been reduced to little more than a pipedream. Only the wealthy, or those connected to great wealth, have much chance of holding high office anymore. This is illustrated by the fact that Clinton, Obama and McCain have already spent nearly $300 million for the privilege of sitting in the Oval Office.

But it is the common person--you and I--who, by participation in government, not just voting, should determine governmental policy. As Abraham Lincoln observed, "Wise men established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity should look up again at the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began."

Comments

[DHFabian]

Actually, this country is even more fractured than that. Until the 1980's, the very poor and working-to-middle classes were pretty united. It makes sense in that the poor ARE the working class in between jobs/jobs that pay a living wage, or who are no longer able to work due to circumstances/health.
This unity no longer exists. That's unfortunate because, if it did, it would be possible to bring about changes that would stop this country's determined march toward becoming a modern feudal state.
Divisions between the economic classes are severe and increasingly bitter. And, as Americans have always said, "United we stand, divided we fall."

[mbafromharvard]

... and yet "working class Americans" are buying HD TVs at Best Buy in droves. I know when I walk in there, all those people aren't the "richest Americans". This post demonstrates exactly why a little more discipline needs to be applied, possibly in the form of more tax cuts. Maybe then libs will stop playing the fake class warfare game.

[1dogs2]

Your blog name certainly explains your attitude.

[DHFabian]

Just curious -- you say that when you walk into Best Buy, you see working class people coming in "in droves" to buy these HD TVs. How often do you go to Best Buy? More importantly, how do you determine the financial status of customers? Do you ask fellow customers where they work, and how much they make? How about their other financial responsibilities? Are they buying with cash or credit cards? Where is the Best Buy store located that brings in these droves of HDTV buyers? I think the big guys at Best Buy would be eager to find out how this particular store can be selling HDTVs to droves of any people, since Americans aren't doing a whole lot of spending these days.

[Doofus]

'While working class Americans are getting poorer (there are five million more poor people today than in 2005), studies show that the rich are indeed getting richer.'

I KNEW there was a reason to be rich, here in America. Now it has been revealed: to get richer.

Long time ago I remember learning that America is the 'land of opportunity'. I still believe that's
true, though I'm not particularly wealthy. The advice to 'Quit yer bitchin' applies. If you don't want
to be poor, go get rich. It's still possible, with some brains & (indeed) some luck. There is
a reason why so many people still want to get into this country, as it turns out.

Turns out it's also true, though, that the Repos have gone way too far to see about enhancing
the wealth of the Wealthy, but that's a different story. Vote 'em out, why don't you? Please!

[DHFabian]

The problem there is that we have two viable parties, Republican and Democratic, and both legislate ONLY for the wealthy. I'm still trying to figure out why billions of tax dollars from the working class have gone into covering the costs of "tax relief" for the very wealthy while the US ended aid for our poor. Or why are government gives corporations billions of taxpayer dollars to move our jobs to foreign nations.

I personally think that the "land of opportunities" notion is as antiquated as the Statue of Liberty welcoming all people -- especially the poor and working class -- from distant lands! It's as foolish an idea as rambling on about our shining freedom while building a massive prison system that makes the old Soviet gulag look puny in comparison. Today, one must be either rich or truly gifted to have the means to access opportunity. The great majority of us are just average, obviously. We don't all have the health, stamina or opportunity to work two or three jobs to try to pay for college, and college is essential for getting beyond a low wage job today. "Back in the day", it really was true that if you "worked hard and played by all the rules", you had a good chance at settling into a middle class life with a secure retirement. We are now a nation of disposable workers with no chance for advancement, no future. (I should add that "Back in the day", the minimum wage was quite adequate to meet basic needs unless you had a large family, and those days are long gone, too.)

[ndolomar]

i second joann -- john edwards represented something very threatening to the powers that be. i still have my theories: it's a lot like baseball. the batter and the pitcher may be on opposite teams, but a good hit -- and a good game -- rest on how good the pitch is and how well the hitter hits it. now, before you scream conspiracy, please indulge me: bush 1 sets it up for a democratic takeover in the white house; clinton (despite overseeing such an economic boom) sets it up for another, worse bush 2; bush2 sets it up for another clinton. now, aside form the superficial dynastic imagery, all the parties at play, just like mlb players, are making a killing financially. the average value of the earned dollar DID fall under clinton, and it continued to fall under bush2. and regardless how much clinton's presidency was a welcome from 12 years of reagan politics, there were people who suffered more during the '90s, but the distraction of the internet kept many of clinton's lesser qualities and policies out of public scrutiny. why is it so hard for some people to believe that the only purpose of having power switch party hands is so some of us will actually believe the candidates' motives are separate? they all dine at the same trough, and as long as they can pass the ball back and forth between each other, the "average" american never truly will get in the game. and, no, it's not a conspiracy -- i gave those up months ago...too many calories.

[Henry]

I think the political homily of "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" needs to be replaced by the grapical depiction of how much income the top 10% take compared to the bottom 20% of Americans on a moving four year basis. America was not intended to become a bananna republic with filthy rich treating the relative poor like peons! If this is what the repuclicans want, expose them.

[JoAnnCr]

So you see why these rich folks ousted John Edwards from the campaign through their control of the media.

[joebaggadonuts]

Right on!