Chris Christie Distorts Democratic Views On Income Inequality

Pinoccio

As Chris Christie’s popularity has fallen following recent scandals, his popularity has picked up to a degree on the far right now that they see him as a “victim” of the liberal media. There’s almost nothing the far right loves better than to see themselves as victims.

In return Christie is pandering to the Tea Party  and far right, using their tactic of distorting the views of the left. I was listening to an excerpt of a speech by Chris Christie over XM earlier. While I cannot find a full transcript, this report from The Guardian provides the gist of what I objected to:

“You want income equality? That’s mediocrity,” said Christie, in an apparent attempt to bolster his conservative credentials during a discussion at the Economic Club of Chicago on Wednesday. “Everybody can have an equal mediocre salary. That’s what we can afford.”

He argued that by pursuing income equality, left-leaning Democrats such as Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio misjudged the American spirit, which he defined as: “How do I get a little more?”

“I don’t think the American people want income equality. What they want is income opportunity,” said Christie, who also used the talk to heap praise on former president George W Bush. He added: “I grew up in an America that said life isn’t fair – but opportunity is.”

He is making two major errors here. First, Democrats do not believe everyone should have equal incomes. When speaking of income inequality they are speaking of the unprecedented concentration of wealth by the top one tenth of one percent and how this is damaging to the middle class and the economy. Secondly, they object to the system being rigged for the benefit of the top one tenth of one percent and it is the Democrats who support greater opportunity.

It is also interesting that Christie thinks it would help himself to bring up George Bush.

In related items, The Hill looks at Bill de Blasio.  Alec McGillis writes that Chris Christie’s entire career reeks. You can read all the details, but he says it all with this picture:

Chris Christie Tony Soprano

The article concludes:

What Bridgegate has laid bare is the skill and audacity with which Christie constructed his public image. “It’s almost like people were in a trance,” Buono told me. Christie may have been misunderstood for so long because his transactionalism diverted from the standard New Jersey model. He wasn’t out to line his own pockets, or build a business empire. He wasn’t even seeking to advance a partisan agenda. And yet it was transactionalism all the same. Christie used a corrupt system to expand his own power and burnish his own image, and he did it so artfully that he nearly came within striking distance of the White House. When he got cozy with Democratic bosses, people only saw a man willing to work across the aisle. When he bullied his opponents, they only saw a truth-teller. It was one of the most effective optical illusions in American politics—until it wasn’t.

Quote of the Day: David Letterman on Bill de Blasio

“Here in New York City we have a new mayor, Bill de Blasio. He’s 6 feet, 7 inches tall and his wife is a former lesbian. She’s a former lesbian although she can be called back to active duty on a moment’s notice.

“The new mayor is not to be confused with current Mayor Bloomberg, the outgoing mayor. He’s a former leprechaun.” –David Letterman

Republicans Who Gag Over Interracial Marriages And Dream Of The Good Times Are Racist

Richard Cohen explained why Chris Christie will have a hard time winning the Republican presidential nomination:

From a Web site called the Iowa Republican, I learned that part of the problem with John McCain and Mitt Romney, seriatim losers to Barack Obama, “is they were deemed too moderate by many Iowa conservatives.” The sort of candidates Iowa Republicans prefer have already been in the state. The blog cited Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah (considered to the right of Cruz, if such a thing is possible), Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the party’s recent vice presidential candidate and its resident abacus, and the inevitable Sarah Palin, the Alaska quitter who, I think, actually now lives in Arizona. If this is the future of the GOP, then it’s in the past.

None of these candidates bears the slightest resemblance to Christie. And the more literate of them — that’s not you, Palin — must have chortled over post-election newspaper columns extolling Christie as precisely the sort of candidate the GOP ought to run in 2016. This is the dream of moderate Republicans, but not many of them vote in the Iowa caucuses or the South Carolina primary, two of the early nominating contests.

I agree so far with Cohen, except that the major problem Chris Christie faces is not that he isn’t conservative but that he has been willing to compromise in the manner which has been necessary to succeed in New Jersey. To Republican primary voters, compromise is evil, and to compromise on conservative principles is as bad as not believing in conservative principles.

Cohen gave this description of how the Tea Party sees the world:

Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.

As with the Dixiecrats, the fight is not over a particular program — although Obamacare comes close — but about a tectonic shift of attitudes. I thank Dennis J. Goldford, professor of politics and international relations at Drake University in Des Moines, for leading me to a live performance on YouTube of Merle Haggard singing “Are the Good Times Really Over.” This chestnut, a lament for a lost America, has been viewed well more than 2 million times. It could be the tea party’s anthem.

I might agree if not for the statement that today’s GOP is not racist. If they gag when they see a white man married to a black woman and if they gag over biracial children,  they are racist. When they dream of the Good Times, they are dreaming of a time when minorities were kept in their place. Their views on immigration are based upon the racist desire to keep out people of other races. Their economic policies are based upon scaring low-information white males into thinking that if they don’t vote Republican, minorities will take what they are entitled to. The Southern strategy of Lee Atwater remains in place:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Beyond this rather major error, Cohen is right that the Tea Party cannot handle the modern world, and will not support a conservative such as Chris Christie who, unlike them, is not totally out of touch with reality.

A Return To The Roaring Twenties

This information from USA Today surprises virtually nobody:

Top 1% take biggest income slice on record

The gulf between the richest 1% of the USA and the rest of the country got to its widest level in history last year.

The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of total income in more than 100 years, according to a an analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford University.

The richest Americans haven’t claimed this large of a slice of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%. The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service data.

One of the economists behind the research, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, is a top researcher in the topic of wealth and income inequality. He won the John Bates Clark medal last year. The Clark medal is awarded to the most promising economists under the age of 40. Past winners have includes Paul Krugman of Princeton University, Lawrence Summers and Steve Levitt, co-author of “Freakonomics.”

In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000. Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of earnings rose 6.6%.

The United States is a center-right country regarding economic matters and Americans typically do not object a sizable portion of wealth being in the hands of a minority. The problem is when such record disparity leads to economic stagnation, along with the other problems seen after we had a similar situation in the 1930’s. I doubt that many people buy the conservative/libertarian economic argument that the top one percent is richer due to working harder and deserving more. There is a growing realization that the rules are rigged in favor of the ultra-wealthy. Ed Kilgore sums it up:

So the economic “recovery” we are in is for most Americans at best a return to the stagnant real wages and treading-water living standards of the 2000s, along with a decline in wealth and in economic insecurity, not to mention a continuing calamity for the long-term unemployed. But for all the endless and incessant and redundant whining from the political representatives of the wealthy about “class warfare” and “socialism” and the impending extinction of “makers” by “takers,” the rich are “recovering” just fine. Lord, they might even somehow survive the implementation of Obamacare.

Perhaps this is why Bill de Blasio came in first place in the New York Democratic primary. (It is still not clear if he received enough votes to avoid a run-off).

Posted in Economy. Tags: . No Comments »