Hatfields & McCoys & Democrats & Republicans

Media & history, corporate style—

By Charles M. Young, thiscantbehappening.net

The History Channel mini-series “Hatfields & McCoys” reminded me of Clint Eastwood’s “The Unforgiven.” Both productions showed a lot of violence in all its fascination while making it squalid, absurd, arbitrary and devastating to the victims and everyone around the victims. Both productions take as their theme men creating theaters of heroism for themselves out of their own hatred and sense of honor. Both productions show the theaters crumbling in the end as the violence becomes too stupid and meaningless even for the prime agents to continue.

“Hatfields & McCoys” also reminded me of football. You’ve got two well-defined teams who place group loyalty above all other values, even as they claim the ethics of Christianity, which does not place group loyalty above all other values. So there is no substantive moral difference between the Hatfields and McCoys any more than there is a substantive moral difference between the Minnesota Vikings and the Arizona Cardinals. The only reason to join or root for one side over the other is because it makes you feel good to be part of something bigger than yourself. That’s attractive, and indeed the series attracted huge numbers of viewers. “Hatfields & McCoys” is reported to be the second biggest non-sports event on basic cable ever with over 13 million viewers.

I myself sat through all three two-hour segments, even though that meant watching about 20 commercials for every sordid killing. It’s hard keeping your head in a 19th century family feud when somebody is touting car insurance or credit cards every eight minutes, just as it is hard to keep your head in the game when someone is touting car insurance or credit cards with every change of possession.

Does the United States make anything besides car insurance and credit cards?

What if Shakespeare was interrupted by a talking lizard every eight minutes?

“Hatfields & McCoys” reminded me not only of football but of Democrats & Republicans, who also have very little substantive moral difference and a need to believe that there is a substantive moral difference, or else no one would pay attention to them.

The patriarch of the McCoys (Bill Paxton) looked to Christianity for justice and predictably descended into nihilistic alcoholism and madness, ultimately dying in a house fire of his own making. He seemed like a parable for the Tea Party. The patriarch of the Hatfields (Kevin Costner) looked to Christianity for forgiveness. He ended up a sadder but wiser old man in the tradition of Jimmy Carter and Al Gore who improved on morally substantive issues immediately upon leaving power.
Johnse Hatfield, circa 1882 and 2012, hated by both sides

Neither the Hatfields nor the McCoys were led by sociopaths. They were cult-like families led by the foremost of the true believers who didn’t care that much about money and power. They cared about being right and were willing to kill for it. The only sociopath in the mini-series was Bad Frank Phillips, a tough-talking hired killer who went into law enforcement. Bad Frank Phillips is pretty much everyone at the top of both political parties, although Bad Frank Phillips was man enough to kill by his own hand and not with predator drones. Bad Frank Phillips did not pose as a tough guy. He was a tough guy. Barack Obama is Bad Frank without courage.

Law enforcement was biased, corrupt and subject to manipulation, then as now.
 
While the Hatfields and McCoys did hate each other, they were in complete agreement that violence was a great way to solve problems and therefore had everything in common, just like Democrats and Republicans. The guy who most annoyed both sides was Johnse Hatfield, who didn’t care much for the war. He preferred to sit out by his still in the woods, drink corn liquor and get involved with forbidden McCoy women. His father had to twist his arm to get him to fight. Both clans hated him more than they hated each other. He was the Dennis Kucinich of the story. If the New York Times was writing it, they would leave him out, because there was substantive moral difference between him and the two warring tribes.

That’s why historical fiction is important. You can acknowledge the existence of Dennis Kucinich if you disguise him and have him live 130 years ago.

The History Channel is an odd operation. Years ago, it showed documentaries about American history. Now its programming is mostly reality shows about people who sell priceless family heirlooms to a Las Vegas pawn shop so they can go gambling in the casinos. It’s oddly engaging to watch, but when you think about it afterwards, you want to kill yourself. The History Channel’s twin, H2, used to show documentaries about world history. It still shows documentaries but most of them are about the influence of space aliens on the ancient Egyptians, or the influence of Satan in politics.

Maybe as sequel, the History Channel could have a flying saucer land on the Kentucky/West Virginia border in 1880 and a bunch of space aliens from Occupy Earth could explain to the Hatfields and the McCoys that their true enemy is not each other but the coal mining companies. That’s something I’d sit through even if I had to watch a talking lizard sell me car insurance every eight minutes.

The author is a member of the writers & reporters collective, This Can’t Be Happening.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?

If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.

 
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




It’s Complicated

By Timothy V. Gatto, Countercurrents.org

There is a stir in the air. Something is changing but I don’t think that anyone can actually put their finger on it. People are just tired, tired and disgusted. They don’t seem to believe anyone or anything anymore. The trustful population of a sleeping nation is starting to realize that their trust was put into the wrong hands.

It’s about time. What’s so sad about this situation is that people don’t want to wake up. They would rather close their eyes and dream on. Reality sucks, but sooner or later it comes around to bite you. The bankers, the politician and the media have become dangerous. People have had so much taken from them in the last few decades, remaining asleep is no longer an option. The people have lost their homes, their savings and most importantly, their freedom.

The question that everyone has is what can they do about it? Who can they go to in order to put everything back together? The answer that the people are starting to figure out is that there is no one to go to. Everything is controlled and manipulated by the very same people that are committing all of the atrocities. The answer they get to their question of who to go to is that the only person that can help them change their reality is the one asking the question. The answer, the person to trust, the one who can right these wrongs society faces is themselves.

This is when things become serious. This is the beginning of revolution. A revolution starts with an awareness that things have gotten out of hand. No one revolts when everything is just great. Revolutions start when people find themselves with their backs against a wall. Revolutions start when there are no answers. Revolutions start when people lose hope.

Americans are losing hope. The questions are too complicated. The issues are too complicated. Like every civilization that has preceded this one, the people have gone to the well once too often. The well is dry. The answers they get from those “in authority”are convoluted and border in the absurd. There is an old maxim that says “Those that can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities” (Voltaire). The absurdities have been believed, and the atrocities have been committed. There is no more justification for the behavior, no more reasons to support the absurdities.

How many people must die in order to declare the fight was won? How many explanations do we need to excuse ourselves for their murders? No one seems to care anyway. We are at war. We are always at war. I was born during a war and I expect to die during one. War is the American way of life. Support the troops, support their leaders and reject anything you don’t understand. Issues’ that are just too complicated to understand must be suspect. Anything that is not understandable must be killed. That is something everyone can understand.

We fight everywhere, Europe, Africa, Asia, North America and South America…everywhere. Everyone is our enemy, yet everyone is our friend. Myanmar (Burma) was a totalitarian dictatorship just a few years ago. The government killed their own people with impunity. It was regarded as a pariah state and had no allies. Last year it became an ally of the United States. It still kills their own people with impunity and rules with an iron fist, but now it is our friend. Our other “friends” are Saudi Arabia, The Congo, Sudan, and Columbia just to name a few. We supported the ouster of President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay last month. The Army installed a new President. This was sanctioned by The United States. The Mercosur trade bloc has suspended Paraguay over the impeachment of President Fernando Lugo on 22 June. Paraguay is once again “our friend”.

Bahrain is another “friend”, and the home of the Fifth Fleet anchored outside Manama, the capital. With the help of Saudi Arabia and Qatar (among other nations), they ruthlessly kill protesting citizens and kill and torture Doctors and medics that treat the injured. Bahrain is our “friend”. Iran, a nation that has not committed a war of aggression in over two centuries, and holds democratic elections, is our “enemy”. Meanwhile, in the same region, Azerbaijan, a ruthless petro-state run by BP, is our “friend”.

Corporations now run the nation. They serve their shareholders and no one else. They provide funds for every major political campaign in the United States. They have “First Amendment” rights, giving them the same protections as any ordinary American citizen, even though in reality, American citizens have lost most of their “rights” under the Constitution. I have already told you about complicated explanations most issues face. It is all complicated.

Radiation from the nuclear facilities affected by the Earthquake and tsunami that followed in Fukishima, Japan, is polluting the Pacific. The reactors there need to be shut down and “contained” to stop deadly radiation from entering the ocean and poisoning the western half of America. The Japanese government claims that they don’t have the funds to contain them. Estimates of five Billion dollars are the average estimate of the cost. No government, including the United States, will help, even though this nuclear waste could contaminate the entire West Coast with deadly levels of ionizing radiation. Just one day of military spending could cap off all six reactors affected in Fukishima. It’s complicated.

We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. We export more military hardware than anything else we export. We torture, assassinate and overthrow other governments. We do this in the name of freedom.

So yes, the American people are finding themselves in a quandary. There is no one that will explain why we do these things. Questions are being asked, but no answers are forthcoming. Soon we will eliminate the President of Syria. Then we will attack Iran. We have an agenda that General Wesley Clarktold us about in 2008.

Yes its complicated. So is revolution.

Tim Gatto is former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. He is the author of “Complicity to Contempt” and “Kimchee Days” available at Oliver Arts and Open Press.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?

If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.

 
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




Too Much: Inequality Monitor [July 2, 2012]

Should we rent or should we buy? Middle-income families ask themselves that question all the time. But these days so do the fabulously rich. The rise of “the increasingly itinerant global rich,” notes CNBC analyst Robert Frank, has sent the demand for luxury rentals to record heights. How high do these heights go? In hot spots like Manhattan, Miami, and Beverly Hills, units renting for $100,000 per month now raise few luxury realtor eyebrows. New York currently hosts at least seven $100,000 publicly listed rentals. Some run higher into the six figures. One apartment that composer Cole Porter called home in the 1930s comes with five bedrooms and twice-daily maid service. Only $150,000 at the monthly rate . . .

Carlos Ghosn, the CEO of the Nissan autoworks since 2001, has become the highest-paid corporate exec in Japan. Ghosn last week announced that he took home $12.38 million in 2011, an enormous windfall by Japanese standards. Ghosn’s top competitor, Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda, only earned $1.7 million last year. Ghosn’s Nissan paycheck in 2011 totaled more than the entire combined pay that went to the top 21 executives at Sony. But Ghosn apparently feels underpaid. His top U.S. automaker rival, Ford’s Alan Mulally, pulled in over twice his pay, $29.5 million, and nine other U.S. CEOs grabbed over $30 million in 2011. Japan, says Ghosn, is “going to have to make more investments in executive compensation” to remain “competitive” in world markets . . .

If stuffing CEO pockets made economies more “competitive,” then the most competitive nation on Earth ought to be the United States, home to the world’s most highly compensated CEOs. But a new report from the OECD, the economic research agency for developed nations, says the United States is “stagnating” on the innovation front and “slowly slipping down the global rankings” for coming up with “valuable new products or processes.” The OECD study, released last week, rates the U.S. capacity to innovate as no better than “average.” Where the United States remains distinctly above average: its level of economic inequality. That level, says the OECD, “has continuously increased over the last four decades.” High-income Americans, the OECD urges, should pay more in taxes.

Quote of the Week

“Apple is rapidly becoming the symbol of what’s wrong with our economy: a highly profitable enterprise where all the gains go to those at the top and the vast majority, including those with college degrees, struggle to get by.”
Larry Mishel, Working Economics, June 25, 2012

Too Much
THIS WEEK  July 2, 2012

In July 1776, only about 2.5 million souls lived within the confines of the newly independent 13 American colonies, about the population of today’s Denver area.

But a great deal more than population size, of course, separates all of us from the generation of 1776 we fete this week. We live, for instance, in one of the world’s most unequal nations. They didn’t.

This week in Too Much we explore the egalitarian back story to the original red, white, and blue. Our contemporary fans of grand fortune always do their best to blur this story. The rest of us can’t afford to let them.

So this Fourth of July holiday week, why not share this issue of Too Much with a friend who could use a little hidden history. Too Much, by the way, will be going on a little holiday break the next two weeks. We’ll be returning later this month. In the mewantime, keep cool — and stay committed!

 
PETULANT PLUTOCRAT OF THE WEEK

The American who runs the British banking giant Barclays chose to play offense when he testified last year before a UK parliamentary panel. Barclays CEO Bob Diamond called for an end to banker bashing and pointedly declared that his bank “never took a single penny of taxpayer money anywhere in the world.” But Barclays, we now know, was taking plenty, skimming “off the top” in an interest rate manipulation scheme that helped the bank score billions in phony profits — and helped make Diamond the UK’s highest-paid CEO. Barclays last week agreed to pay $450 million in fines to regulators in Britain and the United States, and Diamond says he won’t take a bonus this year. Back in 1980, the top Barclays executive took home the equivalent of $210,000. Diamond last year walked off with $32.6 million.

Stat of the Week

Business Insider is giving the title of world’s most unequal city to Hong Kong, with New York the first runner-up. One metric in the Business Insider analysis: Full-time domestic servants make up 4 percent of Hong Kong residents and only 0.01 percent in New York.

 

 

 

inequality by the numbers

1776 legacy

Take Action
on Inequality

Urge the national groups that count you as a member to endorse Americans for Tax Fairness, a new drive to end the Bush-era tax breaks on income over $250,000.

Urge the SEC to require companies to report their CEO-to-worker pay ratios.

New Wisdom
on Wealth

Richard Wolff, Mondragon shows the wayGuardian, June 24, 2012. In Spain’s massine Mondragon cooperative industrial and retail cooperative network, no boss makes over 6.5 times the pay of any cooperative worker member.

Yves Smith, France Pushing for a Maximum Wage; Will Others Follow? Naked Capitalism, July 1, 2012. The newly elected Hollande government is moving ahead on pledges to crack down on executive pay excess.

 

 

 

IN FOCUS

The Tea Party’s 1776 Shtick: History Mangled

America’s revolutionary generation, new research documents, lived in a society much more equal than our own. And early Americans prized that equality, an inconvenient reality for conservatives today.

Not too long ago, Americans only dressed up in George Washington wigs, waistcoats, and tri-corner hats on the Fourth of July. But then the Tea Party came along, and colonial garb started turning up at rallies all year around.

In quick order, the legacy of 1776 started “belonging” to the anti-“Big Government” Tea Party crowd. The Founders, claimed Tea Party types, wouldn’t abide government interference in their lives. And neither should we. If we today just stayed true to 1776, the United States would remain forever “exceptional.”

And how do we stay true? The Tea Party — and like-minded GOP leaders in Congress — had a ready answer. No new taxes. Ever. Not even on the super rich. Forget that fussing about inequality. Starve the beast. Keep government small.

This basic Tea Party line has now become the reigning mantra within conservative circles. But this mantra totally mangles the historical record. The patriots of 1776 didn’t stage a revolution to keep government small. They revolted to keep their America relatively equal.

Those colonists, new archival research by economists Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson documents quite dramatically, lived in a society that sported far more equality than mother England. In 1774, on the eve of the American Revolution, the 13 American colonies enjoyed what appears to be “a more egalitarian income distribution” than “any other place on the planet.”

Our colonial top 1 percent, Lindert and Williamson calculate in research published last year, took in just 8.9 percent of colonial household income. Back in England, the richest 1 percent were raking in 17.5 percent, nearly twice that share.

Free American colonists — from average working families — had significantly higher incomes than their English counterparts. But the rich in the colonies had significantly smaller incomes than England’s richest.

What explained the difference? In mother England, American patriots saw clearly, wealthy aristocrats were manipulating the levers of government to enrich themselves and deny average people the “fruits of their labor.”

Our generation of 1776 considered aristocracy a direct threat. They struggled to free themselves from it. Their new nation, they pledged, would be a republic.

Our founders, adds historian James Huston, believed their new republic would endure only so long as they kept “an equal or nearly equal distribution of landed wealth among its citizens.” These early Americans had read their history. Previous attempts to establish republican rule — in Athens, Rome, Venice, and Florence — had all failed. Inequality had wrecked them.

Our generation of 1776 would not repeat that mistake. They would celebrate the relative equality of their young nation as a bulwark of republican liberty.

“We have no paupers,” Thomas Jefferson would write. “The great mass of our population is of laborers; our rich, who can live without labor, either manual or professional, being few, and of moderate wealth.”

Added Jefferson: “Can any condition of society be more desirable than this?”

To Jefferson and his generation, equity seemed nature’s way. Most colonials lived on small family farms. The earth they farmed could yield only so much wealth. If government just let the economy alone, America’s original revolutionaries believed, gross inequality would never appear.

No one could ever become fabulously wealthy in an economy where labor, and labor alone, determined a citizen’s worth.

This advocacy for “limited government” seemed to make sense in an agrarian nation. But the United States would not remain agrarian. A century after 1776, giant corporations lorded over America’s economic landscape, and new industrial elites were enriching themselves at the expense of average Americans.

But average Americans would fight back over the first half of the 1900s. They would use government to limit the corporate power to exploit. They would put in place progressive tax systems that cut the new corporate rich down to democratic size. They would, in short, stay true to Jefferson’s original egalitarian vision.

Over recent decades, we’ve lost sight of that vision. Our top 1 percent are now expropriating a greater share of national income than did the aristocrats back in old mother England.

The tea partisans and their pals, meanwhile, advise us to pay no heed. The founders would not agree. They cared deeply about the link between democracy and equality. And not just on the Fourth of July.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Review

No Paine, No Gain: A Legacy Worth Renewing

Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 1797.

Every American school kid encounters Thomas Paine. Early in 1776, the familiar story goes, Paine authored a rousing pamphlet that most all historians agree had a “powerful influence” on the Declaration of Independence.

In his Common Sense pamphlet, Paine railed against a Europe “too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace” and called eloquently for separation and a new age of representative rule.

Thomas Paine would never, after the American Revolution, stop battling for that “new age.” But that part of life his story that  seldom gets much attention today. A shame. His later life offers us insights aplenty.

In the 1790s, a decade after the American revolutionary struggle, Paine would find himself in France, right in the middle of the French Revolution. Paine’s focus by then had broadened. The United States, he believed, had introduced the world to “liberty.” Now revolutionary France had placed “equality” front and center.

But equality, Paine would note, appears “often misunderstood.” Midway through the 1790s, He wrote a new pamphlet, entitled Agrarian Justice, to help overcome that misunderstanding.

By “agrarian” justice, Paine actually meant “economic” justice. Paine lived before the industrial age. Wealth in his time came mainly from rural land, and control over that land had all over the civilized world fallen to “landed monopoly.”

In our “natural and primitive state,” Paine relates in Agrarian Justice, the earth had been “the common property of the human race.” With civilization, much of humanity had been dispossessed — without “indemnification for that loss.”

The resulting inequality had left “spectacles of human misery” plainly visible “in all the towns and streets in Europe.”

Paine had a solution. He spells out in Agrarian Justice a plan that would tax away from 10 to 20 percent of the wealth the rich leave behind when they die and use that revenue to fund a one-time cash grant to every person who turns 21 and an annual old-age stipend for everyone who turns 50.

Paine’s Agrarian Justice. widely available today online, makes for fascinating Fourth of July reading in our unequal times. Paine’s sensibilities come across as appealingly contemporary and pragmatic. He expends considerable effort, for instance, explaining how inequality leaves all of us poorer, even the rich.

No one, Paine writes, can “enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is mingled in the scene.”  

The “contrast of affluence and wretchedness” would strike Paine as “like dead and living bodies chained together.”

We still chafe from those chains. Our new age has not yet arrived.

 

 

 

 

 

About Too Much

Too Much, an online weekly publication of the Institute for Policy Studies | 1112 16th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 234-9382 | Editor: Sam Pizzigati. | E-mail: editor@toomuchonline.org | Unsubscribe.

Inequality Links

Inequality.org

Common Security Clubs/Resilience Circles

99% Power

United for a Fair Economy

Wealth for the 
Common Good

OccupyWallStreet

Occupy the Board Room

The Other 98%

US Uncut

The Equality Trust

New Economy 
Working Group

Class Action

Mind the Gap

Tax Justice Network

The Robin Hood Tax

Us Against Greed

Make Wall Street Pay

Patriotic Millionaires
for Fiscal Strength

We Are the 99 Percent

 

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?

If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.

 
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




Dismal Jobs Report Reflects Economic Decline

by Stephen Lendman

Years ago, America’s economy was a job creation machine. Today it’s rusted, wheezing, and sputtering on the way to collapsing.  In June, America added 80,000 jobs. U-3 unemployment remained at 8.2%. Based on 1980 calculations, it tops 22%.

Most jobs created are part-time, low-pay temp ones. The nation’s manufacturing base largely exists offshore. So do many high-pay service jobs.

Expectations were missed for the fourth straight month. Typically at this stage of the economic cycle, around a quarter million monthly jobs are created. Moreover, 36 months after an alleged recovery, U-3 unemployment is 3.6% below the pre-recession high.

The household survey adjusted on a comparable basis to the headline payroll one showed 153,000 June job losses. It was the third decline in the past four months. In total, 666,000 jobs are gone.

Average hours worked fell to 0.4% year-over year down from 4.3% in Q 1. It suggests downward GDP forecast revisions anywhere from 1.5% to contraction.

The University of Michigan “favorable (employment) news” index plunged to 27 in June from 34 in April and May. In March it was 38.

It reached a 2012 low. Since 1980, a decline of seven points month-over-month occurred only six times. In contrast, unfavorable employment new rose five points to 28. It hit a yearly high.

The Conference Board’s “jobs hard to get” index rose to 41.5 in June. It reflected a five-month high. In May it increased to 40.9 from 38.1 in April. The ISM jobs index fell slightly from 56.9 to 56.6 month-over-month.

Initial jobless claims averaged 387,000 in June. They rose 3% over May. In the past decade, months in which they increased this much saw declining payrolls over 70% of the time.

Average hours worked fell to 0.4% year-over year down from 4.3% in Q 1. It suggests downward GDP forecast revisions anywhere from 1.5% to contraction.

By any measure employment is weak. The private payrolls diffusion index measures the degree to which companies expand or contract them. It fell 1.9 points to 57.9. It dropped twice in the last three months. It’s the lowest read since last November.

The manufacturing diffusion index declined to 51.2 from 53.7. It hit a 2012 low. Average unemployment duration rose for the second straight month. It’s at 39.9 weeks up from 39.7 in May.

Part-time workers are growing at the expense of lost full-time jobs. The protracted trend shows the downsizing of American jobs, their quality, and future prospects.

The service sector diffusion index also fell. It’s down from 53.7 in May to 52.1. It’s the lowest figure since January 2010. Its forward looking indicators flashed weakness. Backlogs dropped from 53 to 47.5. It’s another 2012 low.

New orders fell to 53.5. Vendor performance slipped to 51 from 53. Export numbers declined to 49.5 from 53 in May and 58 in April. It’s the second lowest read since August 2010.

Prices plunged for five straight months from 68.4 in February to June’s 48.9. It’s the lowest level since July 2009. Overall, nominal non-manufacturing stands at a three-year low. Indications suggest considerably more downside.

Combining manufacturing and non-manufacturing indices, the composite dropped to 51.8 from 53.7 in April and May and 56.7 in February. It now stands where it did in January 2010.

The Conference Board’s measure of CEO confidence plunged in Q2 to 47 from 63 in Q1. Under 50 reflects negative sentiment. Only three times in the past decade did a decline this great occur. Each time it reflected the economy in recession or about to roll over.

Claiming the recession ended is more illusion than reality. Economic conditions are awful. Half or more of US households are impoverished or borderline.

Expect much worse ahead. Protracted Depression harshness shows no signs of abating.

Economist Jack Rasmus is a Progressive Radio News Hour regular. He explained that winter months job numbers “were grossly overestimated.”

They were boosted by highly suspect statistical adjustments. They were more relevant pre-2007 than today.

April, May and June reports were dismal. Putting a brave face on them doesn’t wash. They reflect economic decline, not growth. Later downward revisions may show they’re worse than now reported.

Recovery is nowhere in sight. Conditions are going from bad to worse. Main Street remains in protracted Depression.

On the Progressive Radio Network, economist Paul Craig Roberts called America a “third world economy.” Conditions are worse now than when crisis conditions erupted in fall 2007.

According to Rasmus:

Since the September 2008 banking crash, “the weakest (so-called) recovery on record followed. Over $3 trillion was pumped into the economy. Bankers got over $9 trillion in free money.” Some analysts estimate more than double that amount.

Money they got went for speculating and consolidating to greater size. Little went for economic growth. What’s reported is illusory. Weak official numbers are softening.

Bipartisan complicity to cut trillions of dollars in domestic spending post-election in addition to scheduled $2.2 trillion effective January 2013 promises to make tough times much harder.

A so-called “grand bargain” includes more corporate handouts, business tax cuts, and continuing the ones Bush instituted for rich elites. Doing so will increase the federal deficit by $4 trillion or more over the next decade.

At the same time, massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security disability, education, and virtually all other social spending are planned. Bipartisan agreement assures it.

Defense and homeland security are safe. So are intelligence and Pentagon black budgets believed to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Expect increased corporate handouts. Their interests are prioritized over vital popular needs gone begging.

America is becoming banana republicanized. Disproportionally small numbers have enormous wealth. Ordinary people are exploited. Profits are privatized. Public pain is socialized.

Complicit corporate and political kleptocrats run the country. Gangsterism defines their agenda. Freedom and other democratic values are absent.

Social benefits are disappearing. Austerity replaced them. Code language calls it “grand bargain/fiscal cliff” priorities.

Crackdowns target protesters knowing the ruse and complaining publicly.

Today’s America reflects the worst of all possible worlds. Hard times indicate tougher ones coming.

America and other global economies are weakening at an alarming rate. Over 80% show declining industrial activity. Economist David Rosenberg called EU summit results “more bones than meat.” Reality replaced initial euphoria.

Analysts and media scoundrels praised the outcome. Deception is the name of their game. New ways to reverse economic decline weren’t proposed. Cutting near zero interest rates solves nothing.

Nor does central bank money creation for banks, not economic growth. America’s in deep trouble. So is Europe. Recession conditions are worsening. Manufacturing in Germany and France are declining. So is Germany’s service sector. Spanish bond yields again hit 7%. Depression conditions are deepening.

A Bank of England statement said:

“(A) weaker outlook for UK output growth means that the margin of economic slack is likely to be greater and more persistent.”

In other words, BoE governor Mervy King said Britain’s economy is lousy.

On July 6, the Wall Street Journal headlined “Jobs Report Revives Fears for Recovery,” saying:

Weak job numbers were reported for the third consecutive month. The quarter was the weakest since 2010. Nomura economist Ellen Zentner said soft data reflects a growing sense of uncertainty. What’s ahead “could be the beginning of a (significant) downshift in economic activity.”

US manufacturing is contracting. Household spending is down. Retail sales declined. The Redbook survey finished June with sales activity way below target year-over-year expectations. Instead of 2.9%, it registered 2.2%. Month-over-month gains were weaker. Instead of forecast 0.9%, it came in at 0.2%.

University of Michigan and Conference Board auto buying intentions show readings well off earlier year highs. Housing is in protracted Depression. Almost 30% of US homeowners are under water or have no equity in their homes. Recovery remains distant.

Consumer confidence reflects crisis conditions. The Fed, IMF and mainstream economics cut US 2012 growth forecasts. They still reflect overestimates.

Officially recession ended in mid-2009. Unofficially things are much worse now than then and heading south.

Political Washington bears full responsibility. Instead of dealing responsibly with crisis conditions, bipartisan complicity turned hard times into worse ones. Expect voters to be unforgiving in November.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?

If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.

 
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




Amber Waves of Green: Income Disparity in the United States

Big Issues
We commend the editors of GQ for commissioning this important article.
Thank you.

Guess what, compatriots? The gap between  the richest and the poorest among us is now wider than it has been since we all nose-dived into the  Great Depression. So GQ sent Jon Ronson on a journey into the secret financial lives of six different people on the ladder, from a guy washing dishes for 200 bucks a week in Miami to a self-storage gazillionaire. What he found are some surprising truths about class, money, and making it in America
BY JON RONSON PHOTOGRAPHS BY JAMES MOLLISON, GQ
Thank you, GQ

How to Live on $625,000 a Week

As I drive along the Pacific Coast Highway into Malibu, I catch glimpses of incredible cliff-top mansions discreetly obscured from the road, which is littered with abandoned gas stations and run-down mini-marts. The office building I pull up to is quite drab and utilitarian. There are no ornaments on the conference-room shelves—just a bottle of hand sanitizer. An elderly, broad-shouldered man greets me. He’s wearing jogging pants. They don’t look expensive. His name is B. Wayne Hughes.


You almost definitely won’t have heard of him. He hardly ever gives interviews. He only agreed to this one because—as his people explained to me—income disparity is a hugely important topic for him. They didn’t explain how it was important, so I assumed he thought it was bad.

I approached Wayne, as he’s known, for wholly mathematical reasons. I’d worked out that there are six degrees of economic separation between a guy making ten bucks an hour and a Forbes billionaire, if you multiply each person’s income by five. So I decided to journey across America to meet one representative of each multiple. By connecting these income brackets to actual people, I hoped to understand how money shapes their lives—and the life of the country—at a moment when the gap between rich and poor is such a combustible issue. Everyone in this story, then, makes roughly five times more than the last person makes. There’s a dishwasher in Miami with an unbelievably stressful life, some nice middle-class Iowans with quite difficult lives, me with a perfectly fine if frequently anxiety-inducing life, a millionaire with an annoyingly happy life, a multimillionaire with a stunningly amazing life, and then, finally, at the summit, this great American eagle, Wayne, who tells me he’s “pissed off” right now.

“I live my life paying my taxes and taking care of my responsibilities, and I’m a little surprised to find out that I’m an enemy of the state at this time in my life,” he says.

He has a big, booming voice like an old-school billionaire, not one of those nerdy new billionaires.

“Has anyone said that to your face?” I ask him.

“Nobody has to,” says Wayne. “Just watch what they’re doing.”

“You mean the Occupy Wall Street crowd?”

“Those guys are a bunch of jerks,” Wayne mutters, giving a dismissive wave that says, They’re just a sideshow. “Politically I’m on the enemy list. I’ve lived my whole life doing what I thought was right, and now I’m an enemy of the state.”

Is he, though? It’s true that income inequality is a reliable applause line on the campaign trail. Here’s Obama in a recent speech: “What drags down our entire economy is when there’s an ever widening chasm between the ultrarich and everybody else.” Romney, meanwhile, likes to call this rhetoric “the bitter politics of envy.” As he told a receptive crowd in West Palm Beach, Florida, “I believe in a merit nation, an opportunity nation, where people by virtue of their education and hard work and risk-taking and their dreams—and maybe a little luck—could achieve great things.”

But the reality is that rarely are enemies of the state treated so well. Except for a brief stint in the late ’80s and early ’90s, their tax rate is at an eighty-year low. In the 1940s and 1950s, the top tax bracket paid more than 80 percent. It was 70 percent when Reagan took office, 40 percent under Clinton, and now, under Obama, it’s 35 percent. But the very, very rich don’t pay even that. By taking full advantage of an investor-friendly tax code, which takes a much smaller bite out of capital gains and dividends than it does for salaried income, the 400 richest Americans pay, on average, 18 percent tax.

Wayne won’t reveal exactly what he pays now that he’s at the top, but he’s happy to tell me he began at the bottom.

“Have you read The Grapes of Wrath?” he asks. “That was my family. My dad was a sharecropper in western Oklahoma. When the dust storms came and everything got wiped out, they came to California. The guys with the mattresses on the tops of their cars in the movie? That was the way it was.”

They had nothing. His father got a job winding coils that went into refrigeration units. Wayne grew up in east Los Angeles, went to college, joined the navy, got married. For a while he worked for unglamorous-sounding businesses with names like the Frieden Corporation, but nothing stuck. He had a couple of children. He wasn’t thriving. He had to do something.

And then, in 1972, he had an idea: People have too much stuff and nowhere to keep it. So he bought some land in San Diego and put up a building with 200 self-storage spaces. “After that it was just building the units up, one at a time. For years and years. That’s all. You don’t get money unless you have a lot of talent, which I don’t have, or you work hard, which is what I do. We don’t have any golden touch here.”

“How many buildings have you got now?” I ask.

“Maybe 2,300,” he says. “With 500 or 600 units inside each.”

Wayne says he never once stopped to contemplate the amount of money he was making. “I was just looking at getting the best locations I could and getting the buildings opened and getting the tenants and getting the cash flow and on and on,” he says.

“You never once thought, ‘This money is cascading in. I am worth 4 BILLION DOLLARS’?” I ask.

He shakes his head. “I don’t spend any time at all thinking about my personal wealth. I suppose if I had nothing, I might think, ‘I have nothing.’ But when we decided to go public and I saw how much money there was, I was very surprised.”

In 2006, Wayne was America’s sixty-first-richest man, according to Forbes, with $4.1 billion. Today he’s the 242nd richest (and the 683rd richest in the world), with $1.9 billion. He’s among the least famous people on the list. In fact, he once asked the magazine to remove his name. “I said, ‘It’s an imposition. Forbes should not be doing that. It’s the wrong thing to do. It puts my children and my grandchildren at risk.’ “

“And what did they say?” I ask.

“They said when Trump called up, he said the number next to his name was too small.”

When Wayne is in Malibu, he stays in his daughter’s spare room. His home is a three-bedroom farmhouse on a working stud farm in Lexington, Kentucky.

“I have no fancy living at all,” he says. “Well, I have a house in Sun Valley. Five acres in the woods. I guess that’s fancy.”

I like Wayne very much. He’s avuncular and salt of the earth. I admire how far he has risen from the Grapes of Wrath circumstances into which he was born; he’s the very embodiment of the American Dream. I’m surprised, though, and a little taken aback, by his anger. I’ll return to Wayne—and the curiously aggrieved way he views his place in the world—a bit later.

But first let’s plummet all the way down to the very, very bottom, as if we’re falling down a well, to a concrete slab of a house in a downtrodden Miami neighborhood called Little Haiti.

How to Live on $200 a Week

A young man peers into a crack of sunlight that emerges from behind one of the sheets that block out all his windows. His name is Maurose Frantz, but he goes by Frantz. He can’t afford air-conditioning, hence the sheets, so it’s very dark and stuffy in here. Frantz lives with five other people—his mom, stepdad, grandparents, and little brother—and the entire house is the size of a typical suburban living room. As it happens, the view down the dusty, potholed street includes not only used-car lots but also self-storage facilities—the idea that made Wayne his billions.

“Outside is dangerous,” Frantz says. “One time someone pulled up and said to me, ‘Do you need a gun?’ He showed me a gun! I said, ‘I can’t hear you, man.’ Another time my grandpa—they jumped him. They took his wallet. They slotted him. He cried, he cried, he cried.”

Frantz is Haitian. His accent is very strong, and I’m constantly asking him to repeat what he said: “They did what to your grandpa? They slotted him? Slattered him? Sorry?”

“Slapped him,” Frantz replies. “Slapped.”

Frantz washes dishes at the Capital Grille restaurant, a posh steak house near the harbor in Miami’s financial district. He nets $200 for a twenty-seven-hour week and receives no food stamps or government assistance of any kind. That means he makes in an hour what I make in five minutes and Wayne makes pretty much every time he breathes in and out.

At the end of the week, Frantz gets an ATM card with his pay already loaded onto it. Sometimes when he clocks out at the end of the night, he says, he finds he’s already been mysteriously clocked out by someone else. Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, a restaurant workers’ advocacy group, launched a class-action suit against Darden—the restaurant conglomerate that owns the Capital Grille—for this and other alleged improprieties. Frantz says he’s repeatedly requested some kind of paper breakdown of how many hours he’s been paid for and how much tax has come off, but they never give it to him, so he’s stopped asking. He’s also stopped asking for a promotion to busboy. He says they told him they’d let him know, but they never did. According to ROC United, the Capital Grille regularly denies promotions to dark-skinned people. It’s possible for a black worker to become a busboy, Frantz says, but he’s never seen a black server. Darden, for its part, maintains that the Capital Grille pays its employees fairly and that the claims of discrimination are baseless.

Last night, one of Frantz’s co-workers threw away his shoes.

“I checked everywhere,” Frantz says. “I checked in the garbage, but I couldn’t find them. I called the sous-chef and I told him, ‘I put down my shoes. Somebody threw them away.’ He said, ‘Frantz, you know me. I’m cool with you. I treat you like a man. I give you all the respect you need. I talk to you about your life.’ I said, ‘I know, chef.’ He respects me, the sous-chef. He said, ‘I don’t know what happened to your shoes. I can’t tell you nothing.’ “

Frantz talks a lot about respect and the opposite of respect—humiliation. It’s as if he’s lowered his ambitions to the level that he can take all sorts of awfulness as long as people talk to him with a little respect. It occurs to me that his life might be better if he spent less time worrying about feeling disrespected and more time actively working to improve his conditions, but then I realize he is doing all he can. Putting his head above the parapet to talk to me is a brave step. (ROC United asked for volunteers on my behalf, and he was the one to agree.) But I can’t see how his life will improve anytime soon. He’s so far down America’s financial pecking order he barely registers on it.

I ask Frantz to show me his neighborhood. He says there’s nothing really to see. He rarely goes out—only to work and to church and to play soccer. Everywhere else is too dangerous. When we head outside, I scurry from his front door to the car. A smashed-up police cruiser lies abandoned on the corner. We take a drive past the one place on earth he has some fun: the soccer field in the public park.

Six miles later, we reach the Capital Grille. Usually he catches the bus, which takes an hour. When he works late and misses the 1 a.m. bus home, he has to stand there until the next one comes at 4 a.m.

“Do you ever wonder what the customers’ lives are like?” I ask.

“I don’t know nothing about the customers,” says Frantz. “I’ve never seen them.”

I look at him. “You’ve never seen a customer?” I ask.

“Never,” he says.

“Do you know how much the steaks cost?” I ask.

“I never saw a menu,” he says. “They’re in the restaurant, not the kitchen.”

His last words to me, before I head off to visit someone who makes five times what he does, are “If I get money, I’m going to leave.”

Pallwitz scrapes by on $900 a week—enough to qualify as middle-class but not to take his wife away for an anniversary weekend.

How to Live on $900 a Week

Fifteen hundred miles from Frantz’s neighborhood is a lovely leafy middle-class Des Moines suburb called Urbandale. There’s mist and dew, and the lawns are so green they look painted. It’s 7 a.m. and deserted and unseasonably chilly—a tornado warning will be issued in a few hours—but I’m sure in warmer circumstances I’d see children running around, in and out of one another’s homes, and riding their bikes to school. The $900-a-week family who live here—Dennis and Rebecca Pallwitz and their two toddlers—have a ground-floor apartment in a tidy complex with a communal pool. Most of the properties here are detached family homes; theirs is an exception. I sit in their kitchen and tell them about Frantz.

“Oh,” gasps Rebecca sympathetically.

“I know,” I say. “Imagine living in Miami and earning a fifth of what you earn. The stress must be unbelievable.”

“It’s another world,” says Rebecca.

The Pallwitzes’ fifth anniversary is approaching. “We’d like to go to the east of the state where we had our honeymoon,” Dennis says. “But—” he glances at Rebecca—”that would cost gas and food and a bed-and-breakfast stay, so maybe we’ll stick around here, save the gas money, and get a hotel room for a couple of days.”

“You can’t afford to drive across the state?” I say in a startled screech. I sound like the Dowager Countess of Grantham from Downton Abbey. Speaking of which, last night in New York City, I got to see something Frantz has never seen: the inside of a Capital Grille restaurant. (I’m guessing Dennis and Rebecca have never been to one, either.) There were stag heads and sculptures of horses and fine oil paintings of generic earls and lords and fox hunts. The milieu was very English country gentleman, although an English country gentleman would never put an e at the end of the word grill. It was delicious, and I didn’t even think about what it cost. Almost every waiter was light-skinned, but I did see one dark-skinned man serving. So that was nice.

“But there’s lots of stuff to do here in the Des Moines area that we still haven’t done,” Dennis says, brightening. “So…”

“I know what I want to do,” says Rebecca.

“What’s that?” says Dennis.

“The drive-in movie theater and then the Incredible Pizza,” she says. “The Incredible Pizza’s got games and a buffet. You can pay $30, eat as much as you want, then play games until the money runs out. They have this tunnel thing going on. That doesn’t cost anything. Our son can take his shoes off and run in there for a while….”

Dennis smiles, but I can tell he thinks Rebecca has evoked a crappy way to spend a fifth anniversary.

Dennis installs, maintains, and repairs “a wide variety of home medical equipment, oxygen equipment, wheelchairs, a smattering of everything.” Rebecca stays home with the children. She says their problems are twofold: taxes and health insurance.

“He gets paid every two weeks,” says Rebecca. “For state and federal taxes they take about $180. Then for health insurance they take about $375.”

“The health costs go up every year,” says Dennis. “And not just the regular 4 percent for inflation. It could be 10 percent, 17 percent…”

I ask them if they feel worse off than they did a few years ago. Rebecca says, “Yes, a little. The cost of everything, like health insurance, gas, and groceries, has been going up by leaps and bounds. Some things have even seemed to double. Versus our income not changing that much.”

I tell them about the health system in my native UK—free health care for everyone. I say I remember Glenn Beck trying to scare America by saying that if ObamaCare went through, things would end up like Britain, with a savage, failing socialist health care system. “But it’s not failing,” I say. “It’s great. And nobody has to pay anything.” (Actually, it’s funded by taxes, and some parts of it work more efflciently than others, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a Brit who doesn’t feel proud of the system.)

Dennis and Rebecca look at me warily, as if I might be pretending for some nefarious European socialist reason that the UK’s National Health Service is a functional thing. But I’m not a socialist, and it really is.

The Pallwitzes have started seeking help at the local Food Pantry, a charity offering food to the needy. Rebecca says she was amazed that somewhere like Urbandale even needed a Food Pantry. But it does. And when she lines up, she doesn’t see only derelicts. She sees middle-class families just like them.

Dennis says he wishes they were better off, but there are positives about being poor. It makes people community-spirited, he says. Plus, money can turn a man wayward. He runs a church support group for sex and drug and alcohol addicts. Why did some of those men fall into a hedonistic abyss? “Because they could afford to,” he says.

This is a little heartbreaking to hear. It reminds me of Frantz. He rationalizes his place in America’s economic ecosystem by saying it’s manageable as long as people talk to him respectfully. Dennis rationalizes his position by saying that if he had more, who knows what pleasure-seeking temptations he might succumb to?

And there’s something else the Pallwitzes have in common with Frantz. They, too, say they leave the house only for work and church and to go to the park. They haven’t been to the movies in a year.

“I hope you’re not offended,” I say, “but your lives seem unexpectedly similar to Frantz’s.”

“I’m not surprised that we have the same struggles,” says Rebecca.

“How do you feel when you hear stories of the superrich getting away with paying hardly any tax?” I ask them.

There’s a short silence.

“I’d probably do it, too, if I could,” Dennis shrugs. “But I can’t.” He pauses and shrugs. “So.”

____


How to Live on $5,000 a Week
Five times Dennis and Rebecca, there is me.
I make about $250,000, double that in a good year—if, say, Hollywood is turning one of my books into a movie. Which doesn’t happen often. Just the once, in fact (The Men Who Stare at Goats). Being a panicker, I live my life convinced poverty and disaster lie just around the corner unless I constantly and frantically work. Which I do.

But I have none of Dennis and Rebecca’s struggles. I can vacation anywhere. I haven’t noticed rising gas and grocery prices other than hearing myself murmur a vague, “Oh. That seems a bit more,” and then forgetting all about it. I have never felt so rich and so fortunate as I do when I drive away from Urbandale that morning. But the feeling doesn’t last.

···
How to Live on $125,000 a Week

How to Live on $625,000 a Week

And so I journey to a place where that free-market ideal is imagined in a soft, warm glow: the unassuming office where B. Wayne Hughes works when he’s in Malibu. As it happens, Wayne is a substantial donor to Republican causes. For example, he has given $3.25 million to American Crossroads, a super PAC started by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie that pays for GOP campaign ads. You’ll see a lot of “Paid for by American Crossroads” on your TV in the coming months. But I didn’t know his politics when I approached him. My first inkling that his philosophy is practically spiritualist in its passion comes when he happens to mention some old novel from 1939.

“Read Dr. Hudson’s Secret Journal,” he says. “It’ll tell you how to make your life a very satisfying thing. But it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with money.”

“Oh, okay, thanks, I will,” I reply politely. Then I instantly forget about it. The recommendation of a silly-sounding novel doesn’t seem at all relevant to my story. But later, just as I’m about to wind down the interview, a weird thing happens. It’s when I ask him if he has any advice for wannabe billionaires.

“I don’t know anything worth knowing,” he says. Then he pauses. A mischievous look crosses his face. “I gave you a secret in this interview already on how to make your life way better, and you went right by it.”

I look at him, befuddled.

“Hahahahaha!” he says.

I furrow my brow. “Was it that thing you said about Mister Hudson and the…?” I say.

“Exactly right!” he replies, delighted. “Dr. Hudson’s Secret Journal. Read it! You’ll see!”

And so I order it from some secondhand-book place. It’s out of print. It arrives, ancient and battered. It’s kind of pulpy, the story of a Dr. Hudson who encounters a mysterious gravestone engraver named Randolph.

“I now have everything I want and can do anything I wish!” Randolph tells the doctor. “So can you! So can anybody! All you have to do is follow the rules!” Randolph hands Dr. Hudson a “magic page” upon which is written the secret, the rules for “generating that mysterious power I mentioned.”

You can imagine how excited I am when I get to this part of the novel. But the secret turns out to be underwhelming. It is this: If you perform anonymous good deeds, greatness will visit you. But the philanthropy must be carried out with “absolute secrecy.” That’s the key.

When I reread my B. Wayne Hughes transcript, I see that it’s peppered with veiled references to the teachings of Dr. Hudson’s Secret Journal. When I asked Wayne which charities he donates to, he said, “I have over the years supported charities.” Then he fell mysteriously silent. Then he said, “If you talk about things you’ve done that you think are worthwhile, you subtract from yourself. And so therefore I will only say my principal charity is children’s cancer, and I’ve been doing it for twenty-two years.”

“You don’t want to say how much you’ve given away?” I asked.

“I don’t want to subtract from my pleasure,” he said. “I especially don’t want it written up. It would be a disaster for me. It would hurt me.”

“Why?” I asked.

“It would subtract from me,” he repeated.

Then, later, he said, with an anguished look, “Don’t you think I have an urge to say, ‘I did this and I did that and I got studies going in twenty hospitals…’? I have an urge to say that, but I’m sitting on it. Why? Because once I say it, I’ve lost it! It’s gone. Forever. The whale doesn’t get harpooned until it rises to the surface to blow. If you do a good deed, a deed you’re proud of, and you don’t tell anybody, it will be the most difficult thing you’ve ever accomplished, but with the highest payoff. You feel good about yourself. It gives you happiness and satisfaction. It makes you different to other people in ways people don’t realize. If you follow the rule, I promise you it is a life-changing event.”

It was a lovely, engaging, strange philosophy. But there’s another side to it. Dr. Hudson (and Wayne) choose whom to bestow their graciousness onto. It’s entirely their choice. Taxation takes that decision out of their hands and gives it to the state. It screws up the formula completely.

Wayne’s avuncular manner deserted him when he talked about what to do about the have-nots. “I remember an advertisement with an Indian in a canoe in a river,” he said, “and tears are running down his face because he sees all the trash in the water, and he sees what’s happening. That’s how I feel about America. It’s an emotional thing for me.” He paused, and that’s when he said, “I’m a little surprised to find out that I’m an enemy of the state at this time in my life. They talk about your ‘fair share.’ ‘Are you paying your fair share?’ Fair is in the eyes of the beholder.” He paused. “I hope I don’t come off like some big person…so conservative…. I believe in spreading it around, but I believe in doing it myself.”

“So the trash in the river is higher taxes?” I asked.

“It’s the idea of entitlement,” he snapped. “That idea wasn’t there in the history of this country. When the politicians said, ‘Everybody is entitled to a house,’ you saw what happened. And now you have ‘Everybody is entitled to go to college.’ Which is stupid! When I went to college, I had to drive a truck to pay. I had a partial scholarship, but I took care of myself.”

“So you’re saying everybody is entitled to college but should have to pay his or her own way?” I asked.

“Some people don’t belong in college!” he said. “That should occur to you.”

I understand why Wayne’s great love in life is his stud farm. There’s something very thoroughbred-horses about his view of the world. Perhaps the different ways Nick and Wayne made their money helps explain their politics. Nick sees an economy of luck. He got lucky, and he understands that fragility for what it is. Wayne sees an economy of earning, where those with exceptional talent or exceptional grit rise, as they should, to the top.

Wayne talked to me about “derelicts on welfare” who check themselves into the hospital because they’re “bored” and “want feeding,” and “we’re paying for all that activity.” He said too much tax money is spent on “guys going to chiropractors, guys getting massages! On us! Give me a break. Guys getting Viagra!” He talked about “Los Angeles bus drivers who are on permanent stress leave because someone spat on them when they got on the bus, and now they’re emotionally upside down. More than half the bus drivers are out on stress leave! Systems like that cannot work!” It seemed as if, for Wayne’s philosophy to work, he needed to believe that those who don’t make it deserve their ill fortune.

Later, I hunt for data that back up Wayne’s feckless-bus-driver nightmare scenario. I can’t find any. I do find something else, though—plenty of statistics showing that a guy with Wayne’s level of wealth has never had it so good in America. And yet of all the people I interview, Wayne is the only one who seems angry about the politics of his situation. Frantz, Rebecca, Dennis—those at the bottom looking up showed no animosity for the rich at all.

The government used to tell people like Wayne exactly what to do with huge chunks of their income: Hand it over and we’ll decide how to use it. Today, America’s richest citizens have won the right to control most of these decisions themselves, and that’s a big reason why income inequality is so dire. For every secret philanthropist like Wayne, there are presumably countless who give little or nothing back. Meanwhile, Dennis and Rebecca continue to tread water—and might even drown—in a rising red tide of health costs, groceries, and five-bucks-a-gallon gasoline.

Wayne isn’t some selfish monster. He’s not parsimonious. He started from nothing and he wants to give back; he just wants to choose how. He genuinely believes that higher taxes ruin society. But I can’t help thinking that when he talks about bored derelicts and emotionally weak bus drivers, he’s really—even if he doesn’t know it—talking about Frantz.

Jon Ronson’s latest book is The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry.
<
PAGE OF 6

4 COMMENTS | add yours | Original thread
For every secret philanthropist like Wayne Hughes – there are dozens of public philanthropists, including, but not limited to the 69 super-wealthy families who signed the Buffet giving pledge to donate more than 50% of their wealth to charity.
Posted 7/4/2012 10:49:07amby JMaimon

Good article… glad to see you exposed the atrocities that, not only Haitian immigrants face, but most African Americans face in this country. Good read indeed.
Posted 7/1/2012 7:35:12pmby TruthSnead

Im curious to know if Wayne claims these charities on his taxes … If so, as we all are thinking now, he isn’t the only one that knows
Posted 7/1/2012 5:02:57pmby openeyes

Would have been nice to see the income disparity within one geographic region like New York City or Los Angeles, as the definition of “poor” is obviously relative to the area.
Posted 6/29/2012 9:48:28pmby tonytonytony

Read More http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201207/amber-waves-of-green-jon-ronson-gq-july-2012#ixzz1zwgSTha7

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?

If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.

 
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.