The rich get richer and the rest of us…well, we struggle along. Shouldn’t those with more money be spreading it out a bit more? My coffers clink with spare change; I sure could use some of that money. It only seems fair, right?
Peter Morici, at Breitbart News, tackles the truth of income inequality. Those of us in the “rest of us” category are getting crushed by monopolies, unjust taxation, and political corruption. That, Morici says, is the truth of income inequality. It’s so bad that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I) compared our situation to that of Russia, and a lot of folks nodded their heads in agreement.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I) recently asked Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen “are we still a capitalist democracy or have we gone over into an oligarchic form of society in which incredible economic and political power now rests with the billionaire class?”
Russia’s oligarchy has two salient characteristics. The government uses its power to regulate markets to concentrate wealth in the hands of an influential few, while most of its citizens stay poor by western standards.
Morici examines, as an example, Comcast. This company acts as a monopoly, and the federal government greased the wheels by prohibiting any regulation by local governments. To make matters worse, Comcast is proposing a purchase of Time Warner Cable; the monopoly grows.
Our banking system is suffering much the same fate. Dodd-Frank reforms have put so much financial strain on small banks that they can’t afford to operate, and thus sell out to larger banks. That means we not only lose our friendly local banker, but CDs don’t get us much, and it’s harder and harder to get a mortgage or loan. Obamacare, Morici points out, is the same: the creation of a monopoly – a huge national healthcare business, overseen by the federal government, with little or no local control. It is also pushing the cost of health care and medications higher and higher.
But it’s all okay, our politicians tell us: they’ll make up for it all by generously giving out food stamps and subsidized health care. We can’t own a home, but we won’t go hungry. No worries.
The “rest of us” aren’t happy with President Obama and his economic leadership, but the professionals tell us not to dwell on it too much. They know what they’re doing:
The economics profession–composed mostly of left leaning academics–is enamored with French economist and author Thomas Piketty’s thesis, in the new bestseller, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” that growing inequality is the natural outcome of capitalism and confiscatory taxes are the answer.
Both notions are wrong.
Washington corruption–in the pattern of Vladimir Putin–is driving inequality and sinking family incomes. Higher taxes may catch your family doctor in the near future but politicians will still find a way to exempt their supporters among the very wealthy.
Politicians offering ordinary voters a free ride on taxes, subsidized health care and other enticements are really picking their pockets by giving the country away to the oligarchs.
The truth about income inequality? It’s not greedy business folks hoarding their money from the rest of us. It’s a carefully constructed political plan meant to serve power-hungry pols. The “rest of us” need to remember this lesson when we head to the voting booths the next time.
In Tea Party Catholic, Samuel Gregg draws upon Catholic teaching, natural law theory, and the thought of the only Catholic Signer of America's Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll of Carrollton—the first “Tea Party Catholic”—to develop a Catholic case for the values and institutions associated with the free economy, limited government, and America's experiment in ordered liberty. Beginning with the nature of freedom and human flourishing, Gregg underscores the moral and economic benefits of business and markets as well as the welfare state's problems. Gregg then addresses several related issues that divide Catholics in America. These include the demands of social justice, the role of unions, immigration, poverty, and the relationship between secularism and big government.