‘INEQUALITY FOR ALL’
Last night (27 Feb 14) commenced a nationally coordinated showing of this film by former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton Presidency—Robert Reich. A discussion was to follow. All three local libraries were involved and, since I live in Cortez, I was one of a dozen to attend there.
Reich’s premise seemed to focus on three areas which he said had an impact on the INEQUALITY of WEALTH: LOWER UNIONIZATION NUMBERS, NOT ENOUGH SPENDING ON EDUCATION, and of course, the ever popular, THE RICH ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING THEIR FAIR SHARE. He never mentioned bankruptcies caused by unions, the lack of results in our education system, nor the confiscatory rates already paid by the hated rich.
Reich used many charts and graphs to highlight the disparities in income, starting in 1928 through 2010. Let’s accept that his statistical analyses were correct. What he failed to do was connect any of the ‘inequalities’ to Federal and State laws, rules, and regulations. Also missing was any analysis relating to education (except for doctors, engineers, lawyers), opportunity, ambition, talent, skill level, or societal expectations.
One example: During Clinton’s first term (1993), Congress passed a limitation on the salary deduction for corporate executives at $1 million. Immediately following that rule (IRC 162), CEO’s reduced or limited their direct compensation to less than the limit. Instead, the companies started issuing annuities or stock options in the executive’s name. Since there was no immediate income increase, and in some cases there was a reduction, Federal tax revenues from this source declined. Coincidently, news reports started referring to CEO’s ‘total compensation’ rather than salary. Reich hinted around at this but failed to draw a direct connection. This was consistent throughout.
The discussion period which was to follow was a total failure due to a lack of a moderator and two persons with a differing agenda. One was there simply to promote Hillary for President. The other delivered a treatise on why we need an even greater “mix of Socialism and Communism in our free market system”. He said this was to provide a greater and more inclusive welfare benefit–provide free healthcare, housing, and groceries to those ‘in need’. Two glaring errors in his presentation: 1. it ain’t free, 2.it also is not Socialism. I think he was the epitome of the mis-education and indoctrination going on today.
In the context of our goal of Constitutionalism and less Government (and taxation) at all levels, this presentation was woefully lacking.