Have you ever wondered why it's become almost a hobby of billionaires to scapegoat our public schools for the widening inequality of our society? The answer is that if the problem is schools, then we don't have to think about all the other drivers of inequality. And if we can weaken a public institution along the way, so much the better. The fact is that in the late 1990s, when we had full employment, inequality narrowed and people at the bottom made the biggest gains. And we had the same schools; in fact, the test scores and graduation rates were worse back then than the ones we have today. In the 1950s and 1960s, when we had strong unions and near-full employment, the society became more equal. Face it, we could improve our test scores, and send everyone to college, but until we address the other sources of inequality, we will just have more frustrated graduates.

Only by setting in motion policies to reverse inequality can a vibrant and sustainable recovery become possible. And doing so would bring along much-sought-after side benefits.

Although most Americans are earning a bit more than their parents, only a meager one-third of the current generation will surpass their parents in wealth and income and climb to a new rung on the economic ladder.

While President Obama and Mitt Romney have very different ideas about how to promote progress for those at the bottom of the economic ladder, the fact that prominent Democrats and Republicans are now debating inequality and social mobility is a welcome sign.

Without the restoration of middle class jobs for Americans, the lights will not go back on and support for education will continue to fade.

Chris Christie isn't the Republican Party's "bad boy." He's its Id. He expresses the emotions they all feel but which most of them are too judicious to say out loud. That's clear by the way the party has embraced him.

American decline is real, though the apocalyptic vision reflects the familiar ruling class perception that anything short of total control amounts to total disaster.

It's pity: pity of your desperation, of your personal purgatory over the issues, your lack of true understanding, of your feckless attempts at convincing the American people you're the answer to their struggles.

Prices may be low, but the Republic's economy is slow and there are hundreds of thousands who can't keep up. "Jobs exist," insist local experts. "But our workforce isn't trained." In fact, many high school graduates here have a hard time reading and doing basic math.

Ultimately, the current debate about more or less government is a distraction from the real question: What combination of government and industry is most likely to restore Americans' sense of a shared future?

Too many of those playing a partisan game of chicken are turning a deaf ear and cold eye to child suffering. It is time to let them hear from us with our voices and votes.

Occupy Wall Street could not have happened if large swaths of the 99% had not begun to discover some common interests, or at least to put aside some of the divisions among themselves.

In 1729, Jonathan Swift's idea was simple: the starving Irish should sell their own children to the rich as food. I want to suggest that we put in motion a similar undertaking. The basic idea is that we offer ourselves up as a sacrifice to the bond markets.