"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."