Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Setting Sights at the Top is the Key to Governing from the Middle

By Sam Pizzigati, Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality. Posted November 13, 2008.


To govern effectively for the middle of America's economic ladder, Obama is going to have to take aim at the top.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Hard to Believe: 73 U.S. Kids Sentenced to Life Without Parole at 14 or Younger, and All Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Sam Pizzigati

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The new Obama administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pronounced last week, "must govern from the middle." What exactly did she mean by that? Governing from the middle, Pelosi explained, demands a focus on priorities like "growing the economy" and "expanding health care."

For Pelosi, in other words, governing from the middle means governing for the middle.

In a nation as deeply divided economically as the United States, that's not easy. In America today, an administration can govern effectively for the middle -- but only if that administration stands willing to take on power and greed at the top.

Barack Obama seems to understand this reality more clearly than any Democratic candidate for the White House since Harry Truman in 1948. "I think when you spread the wealth around," as Obama famously said to Joe the Plumber, "it's good for everybody."

Historically, in the United States, the most effective spreading has come via the progressive income tax, and Obama has pledged to make the tax system more progressive -- by raising the tax rate on top-bracket income from 35 percent to the 39.6 percent rate of the Clinton years.

This increase, if enacted, would subject America's richest to a tax rate still far below the 70 percent top rate in place when Ronald Reagan entered the White House back in 1980. Would an Obama administration eventually be willing to move closer to that pre-Reagan rate? That remains to be seen.

But the incoming Obama administration has another powerful tool, besides income tax rates, for restraining the concentration of wealth at America's economic summit. That tool: the billions of taxpayer dollars that are going into bailing out the nation's financial and corporate giants.

By insisting on meaningful limits on executive pay at bailed-out companies, the Obama administration could change Corporate America's entire executive compensation culture -- and, in the process, put the brakes on American inequality's single most powerful engine.

For the new Obama administration, one outspoken business leader said last week, jamming on these brakes needs to be job one from day one. In a Business Week column, that leader -- Leo Hindery, the former CEO of AT &T Broadband and a current private equity fund managing partner -- called "excessive executive compensation" a "cancer" that sits "at the core of many of our nation's economic ills."

Top executives, Hindery points out, now make around 400 times what their average workers take home. In 1971, his first year out of business school, top execs rarely made over 20 times worker pay.

"With the ills of our broken executive compensation system rippling through so many" of the critical issues that face the new President and Congress, Hindery contends, lawmakers should early in 2009 start "fixing the system and reestablishing its fairness."

The bailout could be an ideal vehicle for that fix-it -- because the bailout now appears likely to involve not just banks and insurance companies, but America's most dominant manufacturing corporations as well. Without bailout help, news reports last week indicated, General Motors may actually run out of cash in three months.

Candidate Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to make sure CEOs don't make out like bandits in the course of the bailout. So far they are. The executive pay limits in the original bailout legislation do little to end the windfalls cascading into America's executive suites.

The financial giants now getting bailout dollars, Wall Street Journal research last week revealed, "owed their executives more than $40 billion for past years' pay and pensions," as of the end of last year, and the current bailout rules "won't affect" these sums that banks "already owe their executives."

Changing all this -- taking steps to end the bailout's status as an executive pay protection program -- may emerge as the first big battle royale of the Obama administration. Middle class Americans know where they stand in this battle. If Congress and the new White House truly want to govern from the middle, they'll stand with them.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, progressive, progressive tax, financial crisis, wealth inequality

Sam Pizzigati is the editor of the online weekly Too Much, and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Take Aim at the Primary Cause of Income Inequality
Posted by: DrGeneNelson on Nov 13, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The massive economic problems that now face the US have as one underlying cause the massive substitution of "fresh young (inexpensive, imported, and effectively indentured) blood" for experienced American citizen workers.

This substitution has been driven by the economic elite, who benefit in two ways. First, labor gluts drive down middle - class wages. Second, increased demand for the necessaries of life bids up the price for food, shelter, transportation, medical care and the like. The economic elite pocket huge sums as a result.

I'm passionately interested in this topic. I have twice testified in the U.S. House of Representatives and twice to the National Academy of Sciences regarding the adverse impacts of high levels of immigration in highly-skilled labor markets. However, the problem affects workers at all skill levels in the U.S. I direct your attention to a 2005 article I wrote which includes a graph of the U.S. Census Bureau tabulation of GINI ratios from 1960 - 2001. Income inequality increased once immigration was liberalized in 1965. Dr Nelson's article

If U.S. immigration is not restricted, my predictions include massive riots of millions of Americans forced from their homes by mortgage foreclosures caused by job losses. Even liberal analyst James Fallows predicted this outcome in his prescient July, 2005 Atlantic Monthly article, "Countdown to a Meltdown." http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507/fallows (The graphics were much more compelling in the article that appeared in the magazine. Please obtain a back issue to see what I mean.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement