Monday Reading

As always, please go to the links for the full articles/ op eds.

The New York Times had several interrelated articles over the weekend on the use/ abuse of Twitter by the Twit- in- Chief, Donald "The Dumb Don" Trump.  Although we already sense much of what the Times is reporting, there's some exhaustive analysis of Trump's Twitter habits, including what kinds of things the moron is absorbing into his Very Good Brain:

...Mr. Trump, whose own tweets have warned of deep-state plots against him, accused the House speaker of treason and labeled Republican critics “human scum,” has helped spread a culture of suspicion and distrust of facts into the political mainstream.

The president is also awash in an often toxic torrent that sluices into his Twitter account — roughly 1,000 tweets per minute, many intended for his eyes. Tweets that tag his handle, @realDonaldTrump, can be found with hashtags like #HitlerDidNothingWrong, #IslamIsSatanism and #WhiteGenocide. While filters can block offensive material, the president clearly sees some of it, because he dips into the frothing currents and serves up noxious bits to the rest of the world.

By retweeting suspect accounts, seemingly without regard for their identity or motives, he has lent credibility to white nationalists, anti-Muslim bigots and obscure QAnon adherents like VB Nationalist, an anonymous account that has promoted a hoax about top Democrats worshiping the Devil and engaging in child sex trafficking.  [snip]

Authentic or not, the most fervent MAGA and QAnon accounts — at least 23,000 of his followers have QAnon references in their profiles — form a dependable Greek chorus that exploits the tricks of the medium to amplify the president’s message. Mr. Trump benefits from the activism of his online supporters and the platform’s algorithms, which tend to reward the most partisan content within digital communities.

But the constant exposure to the worst elements of social media poses risks. Clint Watts, a former F.B.I. agent and a cybersecurity expert who studies propaganda campaigns on social media, said the time Mr. Trump spent on Twitter “gives you an amazing opportunity to game the president.”

It's easy to game a narcissistic moron, it turns out. The other related articles are here and here.

Will Bunch has a good read about what's going on with the riots in Chile over it's world- highest level of income inequality (the U.S. is second), and how the decades- long influence of the right- wing economists of the "Chicago school" has brought their economy to this point.  He then ties it in to current U.S. politics:

And what about Chile’s rival for income inequality, the United States? While there have been significant protest movements over income inequality (Occupy Wall Street) and its symptoms (the March for Our Lives, climate strikes, the Women’s March), the last few years have shown that Americans remain a people who pin a lot of our hopes, for better or worse, on the ballot box, not on the street. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren rises in the Democratic polls and her ideological cousin Sen. Bernie Sanders enjoys something of a bounce back, the chances are growing in the United States for a political revolution that could undo Chicago Boys-style governance here at home, without damaging any subway stations in the process.

And yet this nonviolent revolution still has America’s billionaire class in a total panic.

In recent weeks, Wall Street and other big-money political funders have run to their favorite journalists -- who’ve responded with headlines like Politico’s “Corporate America freaks out over Elizabeth Warren” -- and floated delusional, desperation theories that some benevolent billionaire like former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or some other plutocrat could still enter the 2020 race at 11:58 and somehow save their pampered skins.

“Ninety-seven percent of the people I know in my world are really, really fearful of her,” billionaire Michael Novogratz told Bloomberg (heh) News recently of Warren, but the wealthy acknowledge that every time they attack Warren, Sanders, or their proposals such as a wealth tax to fund social programs like universal prekindergarten, eliminating college debt or universal health care, it only makes the chances for their victory stronger.

That’s because you don’t need to fly a helicopter over the streets of Santiago to see that there’s a lot more of us than there are of them. The Milton Friedmans and the James Buchanans of this world were able to get away for decades with their ridiculous theories that freedom for billionaires would eventually trickle down dollars on regular folks -- until the day we woke up and discovered we didn’t even have enough change for the subway. The fires may have started in the shadow of the Andes, but you can already smell the smoke up on Wall Street.

That's a long excerpt, but there's much more at the link that deserves a read.

Eric Boehlert explores why Facebook's Mark Suckerberg Zuckerberg is so resistant to policing or removing lies being spread by Republicans on his platform:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been on a GOP charm offensive, and it seems to be working for the social media behemoth as it makes its allegiance to the Republican Party more open. In the days preceding his latest testimony before Congress, Zuckerberg had been "hosting a series of dinners with conservative journalists, right-wing celebrities, and at least one Republican lawmaker, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who grilled Zuckerberg about Facebook’s market dominance when he testified in a Senate hearing last year," Politico reported. Among those who attended the conservative-only dinners at Zuckerberg’s home were Fox News' Tucker Carlson, the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro, radio host Hugh Hewitt, Guy Benson of Townhall, and Byron York of the Washington Examiner. All of them function as public apologists for Donald Trump, who has spent years bullying Facebook for supposedly trying to "censor" conservative voices.

Facebook's reward for that outreach effort came last week when "Republican members of the committee were generally more supportive of Mr. Zuckerberg," when he appeared before Congress, The New York Times reported.

Indeed, Facebook's political transformation from a quasi-progressive outpost that revolutionized information sharing into a bullied GOP lapdog now seems complete, as the company gives Republicans a green light to use the social media platform to lie their way through Trump's re-election campaign next year and create a sea of online disinformation. "Facebook is actively helping Trump spread lies and misinformation," Elizabeth Warren warned this month. "Facebook already helped elect Donald Trump once. They might do it again—and profit off of it."

There's no question about the profit part. "Trump’s reelection campaign is far outspending other candidates on Facebook ads and boosted posts—to the tune of more than $20.7 million between May 2018 and October 2019, more than all the Democratic presidential candidates combined," Slate reports.

Zuckerberg is an image- conscious phony, so it's possible the blowback he's getting, including from his own employees, plus Twitter's decision not to have political ads on its platform, will cause him to change course. Recode's Kara Swisher is one who thinks so.  The pressure needs to stay on, though.

Our neighbors in Virginia have an important off- year election tomorrow that will determine the composition of the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate. We need three seats in the House and two in the Senate to take control.  Here's some of what that would mean:

Democratic takeovers in both legislative chambers would have far-reaching implications for the state’s policies and politics. The party, which also controls the governor’s office, would have the chance to pursue a host of liberal priorities like an increase in the state’s minimum wage, laws protecting LGBTQ rights and abortion rights and tougher gun safety regulations.

It would also mark the culmination of Virginia’s yearslong transformation from a conservative state ― which once was the seat of the Confederacy ― to a progressive one that is not only reliably Democratic in presidential elections, but whose state politics are heavily influenced by a cohort of liberal Democrats that would have been unrecognizable even a decade ago.

Vote!

As usual, we are recommending you take time to check out Infidel 753's link round- up (where we found that piece on Facebook/Zuckerberg).  His blog is worth bookmarking, if you haven't already done so!

Senate Republicans Pass Their "Wealthfare" Bill, Get Ready To Gut Entitlement Programs

They just couldn't help themselves.

Once un-principled weasels like Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, and Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake capitulated one by one to their tribal instincts to afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable, the Republican wealthfare tax bill was sure to pass.  And it did in the wee hours this morning by a 51-49 party line vote, with no "regular order" or time to review what was in the bill. Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker was the only Republican who voted no, due to his "concerns" about blowing up the deficit.

Here's a very brief summary of the lowlights:

Senate Republicans passed a $1.5 trillion tax bill early Saturday morning that bestows massive benefits on corporate America and the wealthy while delivering mixed blessings to everybody else. [snip] 

The centerpiece of the GOP plan is a move to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, starting in 2019. The Senate tax bill would also temporarily cut tax rates for families and individuals until 2025. 

But the bill would kill a number of tax benefits. It would subject fewer people to the estate tax, a levy charged on massive inheritances, but stop short of eliminating that tax altogether. 

The most recent review of the bill by the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s nonpartisan tax analysts, found that only 44 percent of taxpayers would see their burden reduced by more than $500 in 2019 but that high earners would fare much better than the poor under the bill. 

And the bill makes other changes that reach far beyond the tax code itself. It repeals the individual mandate from the Affordable Care Act, a major change that was added in recent weeks as part of a broader GOP effort to dismantle the Obama-era law. The individual mandate creates penalties for many Americans who don’t have health insurance, but the repeal would leave 13 million more people uninsured. It authorizes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. And by curtailing deductions for state and local taxes, it will put pressure on some state and local spending on education, transportation and public health programs. (our emphasis)

But, as sweet as this pile of steaming sociopathy is to Republicans, it's just an appetizer for the main course:

High-ranking Republicans are hinting that, after their tax overhaul, the party intends to look at cutting spending on welfare, entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and other parts of the social safety net. [snip]

While whipping votes for a GOP tax bill on Thursday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) attacked “liberal programs” for the poor and said Congress needed to stop wasting Americans' money. 

“We're spending ourselves into bankruptcy,” Hatch said. “Now, let's just be honest about it: We're in trouble. This country is in deep debt. You don't help the poor by not solving the problems of debt, and you don't help the poor by continually pushing more and more liberal programs through.” (our emphasis)

Yes, those damn liberal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Affordable Care Act, etc.! Hatch* wouldn't want to waste more money on that stuff when it can be given to corporations and the wealthy as tax cuts. It's feed- the- fat- cats- and- hope- something- trickles- down- but- it- never- does  economics.  Or, as the wonderful John Dingell put it before the final vote:

Back in the 1800s, supply-side economics was called the “horse & sparrow” theory, the belief that if you fed the horse plenty of oats, enough would pass through onto the road to feed the sparrows.

A perfect descriptor for this horseshit idea.

— John Dingell (@JohnDingell) November 30, 2017

99% of you are in no way horses in this metaphor. You’re the damn birds. Call and yell at your Senator NOW. The number is 202-224-3121. #GOPTaxScam https://t.co/Ngdq3uWqji

— John Dingell (@JohnDingell) December 2, 2017

Make no mistake: this is Class Warfare at its most cruel.  This monstrous piece of reactionary wealth distribution needs to be hung around the necks of Republicans at every level, just as the Trump- Russia scandal and Roy Moore should be. It's another perfect example of their rotted- out core.

(Photo: You know where you can stick that thumb, right?)

*BONUS:  In case you don't know him, Hatch is this semi- mummified octogenarian millionaire --



Recent Hatch quote:  Rump is "one of the best I've served under."

BONUS II:  Here's a little more demonstrating Hatch's capacity for inhumanity.

BONUS III:  Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog looks at uber- hypocrite Jeff Flake in "a conservative and his conscience." 

The Warren-de Blasio Progressive Agenda

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-NYC) have published "A New Agenda For Prosperity" in today's once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle.  We'd like to refer to it as the "Agenda of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party." After highlighting the problems we face with income inequality and a struggling middle and working class, Warren and de Blasio offer their agenda:

"● Make work pay by increasing the minimum wage, empowering unions to bargain collectively, ending abusive scheduling practices for hourly workers, getting people the overtime pay they deserve, ensuring equal pay for equal work and making sure employers follow the law and respect the rights of workers.

● End the squeeze on working parents by passing a paid family leave requirement and investing in child care, after-school programs and extended learning days. Let families with children have a chance to balance careers with quality time together.

● Ensure everyone can get a great education without drowning in debt. Rein in the cost of college and allow families to refinance student loans at lower rates. Give every child access to full-day pre-kindergarten. Education is still the best ticket to the middle class.

● Focus on research and innovation needed to develop the technologies of the future. Investments in medical and scientific research let us build whole new industries and give us the chance to create good jobs right here in ­America. 

● Invest in infrastructure — in roads, bridges, rail, water, power and broadband. Businesses can’t grow if the foundation crumbles beneath them. A 21st-century economy needs 21st-century infrastructure.

● Strengthen and expand Social Security, not just for today’s seniors but also for today’s young people. Work is changing. A strong Social Security system will ensure that all workers, no matter the number of jobs they piece together during their careers, can count on a secure retirement.

● Strengthen the rules of the marketplace. We don’t build a future by turning the biggest banks loose to do whatever they want, and markets don’t create value when corporations can cheat people or roll over their upstart competition.

● Promote fair trade by embracing only those trade policies that strengthen our economy, create good jobs with good wages and establish fair rules of the road for companies around the world. Our trade agreements shouldn’t help multinational companies gut environmental, health and safety standards here and abroad under the guise of promoting commerce.

● Reform the tax code by ending the billions in tax breaks for corporations shipping jobs overseas and big oil companies, while leveling the playing field so that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share."

Combined with Hillary Clinton's already-expressed positions on climate change, immigration and criminal justice reform, that looks like the core of the platform Democrats should run on (and win with) in 2016. 

The Income Inequality Republicans Are Really Concerned About

As we noted the other day, the House Crackpot Caucus Republican "slumlord" budget proposal for 2016 (essentially the "compromise" passed yesterday) manifested the party's commitment to tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and blasting a hole in the social safety net for low- and middle-income Americans, a plan that would continue to grow the gap between, as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Galt's Gulch) would put it, the "makers" and "takers."

But there is an income inequality issue Republicans are concerned about.  Consider the plight of  Oklahoma entrepreneur Terry Neese, a Dumbya bundler in 2000 and a major Republican contributor in 2012:

This year, no potential White House contender has called — not even Bush’s brother, Jeb. As of early Wednesday, the only contacts she had received were e-mails from staffers for two other likely candidates; both went to her spam folder.

“They are only going to people who are multi-multimillionaires and billionaires and raising big money first,” said Neese, who founded a successful employment agency.

“Most of the people I talk to are kind of rolling their eyes and saying, ‘You know, we just don’t count anymore.’ ”

It’s the lament of the rich who are not quite rich enough for 2016.

Yes, it must be heartbreaking not to be grifted stroked by the various Republican hopefuls up to this point, just because you're only a lousy millionaire!  It's all because of those billionaire Republican contributors =cough= Kochs Menard Adelson =cough= that are millionaire-shaming you!

That's income inequality, Republican-style, for you!

BONUS:  As if on cue, far-right Republican Tory George "Quill Pen" Will tells us why income inequality is good for us.  Smug, incorrigible wanker.

Wisconsin Median Household Incomes Have Declined Most Since 2000

Koch brothers Menard employee of the year Gov. Scott "This Space Available For Rent" Walker (R-Dystopia) has a record as Governor of Wisconsin Dystopia, one that we're sure he will be proud to run away from on:

Wisconsin ranks worst among the 50 states in terms of a shrinking middle class, with real median household incomes here falling 14.7 percent since 2000, according to a new report.

The Pew Charitable Trust report showed Wisconsin with the largest decline in the percentage of families considered "middle class," or those earning between 67 and 200 percent of their state’s median income.

In 2000, 54.6 percent of Wisconsin families fell into the middle class category but that has fallen to 48.9 percent in 2013, according to U.S. Census figures compiled by Pew.
All other states showed some decline but none as great as Wisconsin’s 5.7 percent figure.

Since 2000, three out of the last four governors of Wisconsin were Republicans (Tommy Thompson, Scott McCallum and, for the last 5 ugly years, Walker).  Not only has his assault on labor unions, his undermining of environmental protections, and his tax breaks for plutocrat Republican patrons not stopped Walker's political rise, it's been part of his pitch to the mouth-breathers in the Republican base.  Now we can see the actual results.

Today's Cartoon And Reading - The Republican Budget "Tell"

(Tom Toles, once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle)

How can you tell Republicans are lying when they talk about easing income inequality?  Their lips are moving (heh - rimshot).

As noted the other day, the House Crackpot Caucus Republican produced a "slumlord budget" that promotes a plutocratic dystopia of winners (the 1 per centers) and losers (the rest of us), using "magical asterisks" and blatant dishonesty (surprise!) in  the process.

Today, E.J. Dionne, Jr., shows how Republicans are pushing policies and budget priorities that exacerbate income inequality rather than ease it:

The wholesale assault on efforts to provide lower-income Americans with health insurance is the clearest sign that Republicans don’t want to deal with inequality. The inability to get health insurance is one of the biggest burdens on low-income families, particularly those working for low wages and few or no benefits. 

Obamacare has helped 16.4 million Americans get health insurance. Where would they turn? And Republicans would compound the damage: The Senate proposes cutting an additional $400 billion from Medicaid over a decade, the House more than double that. Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that on other low-income programs, the Senate budget cuts even more than the House’s. The vagueness of these plans makes it hard to tally how much damage would be done to food stamps, Pell Grants for low-income college students and the like, but Greenstein estimates that about two-thirds of the cuts in both plans come “from programs for the less fortunate, thereby exacerbating poverty and inequality.” 

Greenstein concludes that under such proposals — here’s hoping President Obama is relentless in blocking them — “ours would be a coarser and less humane nation with higher levels of poverty and inequality, less opportunity” and an “inadequately prepared” workforce.  

The "tell" in all of this budget smoke and mirrors is what Republicans would do to affordable health care and other programs for low- and middle-class Americans if given the chance.  It's been there for all to see not just in this year's Republican budget proposals, but ever since St. Ronnie of Hollywood and his acolytes took over the party with their promises of "trickle down" prosperity, busting unions, shrinking government, tax cuts for the wealthy and "pain-free" cuts to social programs.  Every single one of the putative Republican candidates for president continue to bow down at the altar of this smiling sociopath, the former corporate pitchman.  They're not even trying hard to hide their true goals;  they know they won't be challenged by the "mainstream media," and they continue to hope that there are enough plutocrat bucks, gullible voters and fellow sociopaths* out there to keep them in power until they can finish America the job.

*UPDATE:  And let's not forget Supreme Court-abetted voter suppression.

Today's Cartoon - The Rich Getting Richer

(click on image to enlarge)

(Stuart Carlson, via gocomics.com)

Here are some salient data from the Oxfam report (our emphasis):

A new report released on Monday by Oxfam warns that this deepening global inequality is unlike anything seen in recent years. 

Using research from Credit Suisse and Forbes' annual billionaires list, the anti-poverty charity was able to determine that the richest 1 percent of the world's population currently controls 48 percent of the world's total wealth. 

If trends continue, Oxfam predicts that the most-affluent will possess more wealth than the remaining 99 percent by 2016, The New York Times reported. 

Drill down the numbers even more and you'll learn that the 80 wealthiest people in the world possess $1.9 trillion, which is almost the same amount shared by some 3.5 billion people at the bottom half of the world's income scale. 

Thirty-five of the lucky 80 were Americans with a combined wealth of $941 billion. 

Nearly half of the richest 80 wealth hoarders in the world are Americans.  We're so proud.

SOTU Preview: Obama To Propose Working Families Relief

In Tuesday's State of the Union address, President Obama is expected to propose raising taxes on the wealthy and big banks to support programs to help working families.  Specifically,

... Obama will propose raising the capital gains and dividend tax rates to 28 percent for high earners; imposing a fee on the liabilities of about 100 big financial institutions; and greatly broadening the amount of inherited money subject to taxes. 

Obama will also seek to boost private retirement savings by requiring employers without 401(k) plans to make it easier for full-time and part-time workers to save in individual retirement accounts, which could assist as many as 30 million people. The administration would provide small employers tax credits to cover costs.

The administration estimates that the tax rate proposals would raise $320 billion over the next 10 years.  Ninety-nine percent of the impact of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent (i.e., the "establishment Republican" base). The funds would be used for supporting such programs as the President's free community college tuition initiative and child care tax credits for working families. Boosting private retirement savings might help partially restore a social safety net that Republicans (and conservaDems) have been working to weaken for three decades by union-busting and Wall Street's gambling with other peoples' money (i.e., middle class savings) -- another reason why the Wall Street reforms, as imperfect as they were, must not be allowed to be rolled back by Republicans eager to please their plutocrat backers.

It should be noted that this has to be considered an ideological marker for the administration to clarify which party's on the side of working families, since it's not a proposal that the Wall Street plutocrat/ reactionary Republicans in Congress would enact in whole or in part.  It should also be noted that raising the capital gains tax rate to 28 percent would put it at the same rate as it was when Republican St. Ronnie of Rodeo Drive left office in 1988, so big gummint socialism!

Once again, Democrats must keep aggressively pushing a "Share the Growth" agenda that includes these proposals, as well as raising the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, paid sick leave, etc., to help America's working families take part in the benefits of the growing economy. It's no time to cower;  it's time to be staying on offense.

The Right Wing Poverty Meme Punctured

Enjoy the beat-down of Fox "News" and the right wing meme on "makers and takers" in two parts, courtesy of Jon Stewart (with apologies for slow buffering):

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

Quote of the Day

"It’s no surprise then that the United States has at least three times more billionaires on the Forbes list than any other country.  But make no mistake, that’s not necessarily a reflection of the United States leading the globe on corporate innovation and ingenuity.  We have rigged the rules of the game in the United States to disproportionately benefit the rich and the super-rich— and we are exporting that rigged system around the globe."  -- Sally Kohn writing in the Daily Beast.  She points to statistics that the combined wealth of the bottom half of the world's population -- some 3.5 billion people -- is equal to the wealth of the top 85 billionaires.  Her article is worth the read.

Today's Tomorrow Cartoon

(click to enlarge)

Billionaire plutocrats like Tom Perkins (see our post on February 14) are drawing ridiculous and desperate analogies between broad public support for reducing income inequality and the Holocaust.  The true danger to our democracy is the concentration of enormous wealth in the hands of a relative few, who then use that wealth to purchase politicians and policies that further enrich them and to suppress middle class counter-action through voter suppression and union busting.  A political system that is awash in the money of tycoons will produce outcomes that further erode the middle and working class in this country.

(cartoon: Tom Tomorrow, via Daily Kos)

Wanker of the Week

AOL's $12 million man, CEO Tim "I Am John Galt" Armstrong:

It should have been a glorious week for AOL chief executive Tim Armstrong. His company’s quarterly earnings, announced Thursday, were the best in a decade. “Olympian,” he declared. 

Instead, he angered employees, insulted parents with sick babies and shined a light on a practice seeping its way into corporate America that threatens to rob workers of thousands of dollars in 401(k) savings.  [snip]

The strange turn of events began Tuesday, when employees began learning that AOL was switching its 401(k) match to an annual lump sum, rather than distributing the money throughout the year with every paycheck as it had done before. Only employees who remain at the company through Dec. 31 are eligible, meaning that anyone who leaves midyear won’t see any of the pay. [snip]

The changes undercut a central virtue of the 401(k) system, which in theory should make it easier for employees to switch companies and take their savings with them. Instead, with people changing jobs more frequently during the course of their careers, the loss in matches can add up to thousands of dollars each time a worker switches employers.  [snip]

Many at AOL did not know about the company’s new 401(k) policy until it was reported by The Washington Post this week. At first, after The Post report, Armstrong blamed the change on the new health-care law during an interview with CNBC. Then, on a conference call with employees, he added another reason: two workers had “distressed babies” in 2012, each costing the company $1 million.  (our emphasis)

This Randian "maker" douchenozzle earns a $12 million salary, or 12 "distressed-babies-worth" in Armstrong's calculation.  Is his the image you'd want to project if you were a 21st Century tech company?

UPDATE:  The wanker, responding to an uproar by AOL employees and management, reversed his decision in an email last night.

MUST READ BONUS:  He's still a wanker in our book.

(Photo:   "Distressed" AOL CEO Tim Armstrong)

Letters We Wish We'd Written - Income Inequality and Immigration Twofer

From today's once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle (our emphasis):

In his Feb. 3 op-ed column, “Inequality misunderstood,” Robert J. Samuelson wrote that from 1980 to 2010, “the top 1 percent outdid everyone” as “their inflation-adjusted pretax incomes grew a spectacular 190 percent, almost tripling,” an outcome that prompted him to observe: “It’s hard not to be disturbed by today’s huge economic inequality.” But as to whether this was a preventable or predictable outcome of political programs, Mr. Samuelson offered no opinion.  

Between 1980 and 2010, I don’t recall 99 percent of Americans becoming lazier or stupider. What I do recall is the ascendancy of Reaganomics, a.k.a. “trickle-down economics,” wherein laws were enacted to enrich the rich because, so the 99 percent were told, such changes would result in gains for all Americans. Free-trade agreements were enacted, which we were told would not push wages down. And labor unions were diminished under the guise of “right-to-work” laws. 

Could any of these political decisions have contributed to today’s economic inequality? My answer is yes, and it was entirely predictable. 

Kirt Suomela, Bethesda

And:

Regarding the Jan. 31 news article “House Republicans say they are open to legal status for illegal immigrants”: 

House Republicans’ new immigration reform principles are not much of a step forward. They promote the lie that the main problem with undocumented immigration is a porous border. This ignores two facts: First, about half of all undocumented immigrants did not cross the border illegally but rather overstayed legal visas. Second, the border with Mexico has never been more secure. As evidence, we know that current migration into the United States from Mexico roughly equals migration in the other direction.

I believe the Republicans’ main goal is to prevent new Latino and Asian voters by blocking a path to citizenship for the undocumented. This is shortsighted and, ultimately, doomed to failure, since the children of these immigrants will eventually vote. 

David Strauss, Rockville

No need to worry about those Republican "principles"...

Republican House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday poured cold water on hopes that an immigration bill could finally pass this year, saying that his restive conservative caucus did not have confidence the president would implement any legislation.

... because they have none.

The President's Weekly Address - Opportunity and Income Inequality

Today's Cartoon - Plutocrat Pity Party

(click to enlarge)

(Jack Ohman, The Sacramento Bee)

Note the Republican elephant bust and the portrait of St. Ronnie Reagan - lol.

Yes, we have plutocrats crying in their Chateau Lafite Rothschilds about the abuse they're getting! Wah!  Also, wah!  Right-wing media to the rescue!

Monday Morning Reading - Of Fox and Rich Men

You might call this the "get out of your crouch, progressives!" morning reading:

-- Frank Rich has a long, provocative piece on why liberals should see Fox "News" as roadkill, and that, "Rather than waste time bemoaning Fox's bogus journalism, liberals should encourage it."  We must admit, noting the constant crazy coming from Fox is like catnip to us.  But rather than reacting to every Fox dropping, Rich makes the point that we should be focused on promoting bread- and- butter economic issues where we have the wind at our back (i.e., raising the minimum wage, income inequality, job creation).

-- Speaking of economic issues, Paul Krugman writes about the paranoia of the plutocrats, and why progressives should see it as a sign we're doing something right.

BONUS:  Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog has a bracing rejoinder to the Rich article.

Factoid of the Day - Income Inequality Dept.

From Oxfam:  the 85 richest people have as much wealth as the lowest income half of the world. That's $110 trillion and 3.5 billion people.  If anyone thinks that's alright, there's something wrong with him (like he's "hard-core right wing").

Poll: Two-Thirds of Americans Dissatisfied With Income Inequality

A new Gallup Poll is showing that two-thirds of Americans are dissatisfied with growing income inequality.  (Note how closely Democrats and Independents track.)  Click to enlarge:

Applying our keen analytical skillz, we're detecting a winning political issue here (that has the benefit of being a highly moral one, too):

Attitudes about the distribution of income and wealth are highly related to partisanship. Republicans, at 45% very or somewhat satisfied, express the highest satisfaction with the current wealth disparity in the U.S. Democrats are much less satisfied, at 24%, with independents closer in satisfaction to Democrats, at 28%. Furthermore, almost half (43%) of Democrats and independents express strong dissatisfaction with the current state of wealth and income distribution.  [our emphasis]

We should also mention the upcoming meeting in March between President Obama and Pope Francis, who has taken a refreshing turn from his two most recent predecessors in aligning himself - and the Church - unequivocally with the poor and against "unfettered capitalism."  That could provide yet another opportunity to highlight the problem of the accelerating income gap between the poor and the super rich (possibly causing the heads of "Sweaty Bill" Donohue, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto and all the other "Catholics" over at Fox "News" to explode).

Report: Income Inequality The Biggest World-wide Risk

Prior to next week's economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum has released its Global Risks report.  The consensus greatest risk to the global community in the opinion of the leaders surveyed?

The large and growing income gap between rich and poor is the biggest risk to the global community in the next decade, the World Economic Forum said on Thursday as politicians, business leaders and academics prepared to gather in Davos.

Reflecting mounting concern about the risk to societies from inequality, the WEF said the need to tackle disparities in income and wealth had to be addressed at WEF's annual gathering in the Swiss ski resort of Davos next week.

Extreme weather events and unemployment/underemployment were the next two projected greatest risks.

(Pro tip to the organizers:  maybe the "Swiss ski resort of Davos" doesn't provide the best optics if you're going to be talking about the growing income gap between the rich and the poor.  Just sayin'.)

Monday Morning Reads - Poverty of Ideas Edition

Contrary to what some Republican-wired Beltway f**knozzles =cough=Cillizza=cough= would have you believe, Republicans trying to play on the Democrats' anti-poverty turf, like Sen. Marco "Glug Glug" Rubio (R-Hooverville) is attempting,  just doesn't work.  First, let's hear from Ana Marie Cox on Glug Glug:

Senator Marco Rubio's office hyped his speech Wednesday as an "Address on the 50th Anniversary of the 'War on Poverty'", a rather grand billing given its familiar proposals. Rubio has slipped in and out of a few different presidential wrappers since he appeared in the US Capitol. He used to be "The Republicans' Obama". His proposals suggest that now he is the Latino Rick Santorum.

In 2012, Santorum outlined the exact same three-point anti-poverty plan: promote marriage, eliminate federal poverty programs in favor of block grants to states, and "something something America hope-dream-optimism something".

Paul Krugman has a more general point to make about the ideology that propels Republican attitudes toward income inequality and the poor:

Suddenly it’s O.K., even mandatory, for politicians with national ambitions to talk about helping the poor. This is easy for Democrats, who can go back to being the party of F.D.R. and L.B.J. It’s much more difficult for Republicans, who are having a hard time shaking their reputation for reverse Robin-Hoodism, for being the party that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

And the reason that reputation is so hard to shake is that it’s justified. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that right now Republicans are doing all they can to hurt the poor, and they would have inflicted vast additional harm if they had won the 2012 election. Moreover, G.O.P. harshness toward the less fortunate isn’t just a matter of spite (although that’s part of it); it’s deeply rooted in the party’s ideology, which is why recent speeches by leading Republicans declaring that they do too care about the poor have been almost completely devoid of policy specifics.

Give both pieces a read today, please.