Carrie Madden
Our supposedly great country exhibits wider disparities between the rich and the poor than any other developed nation, and when you compare us with a nation such as Sweden or Denmark, it is a dismaying sight indeed.
The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is drastically shrinking, and our democracy gets weaker and weaker.
A healthy democracy relies on both political and economic justice, and there is absolutely no economic justice if some people are making $100 million a year while the vast majority struggles just to get by.
In our country, 50 million people live in poverty, which is about 20 percent of the population and the highest rate known in the developed world. However, if you also include the 97.3 million Americans who fall into a very-low-income category, the poor number an enormous 146.4 million, or almost half of the population, who are either living in poverty or struggling to get by on a very low income.
This number keeps rising, creating a greater and greater wealth gap.
For example, in 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to that of the average worker was about 30 to 1. Since 2000, this ratio has risen to an astounding 300 (or sometimes higher) to 1.
From 1967 to 2004, the 20th percentile (the poorest people) had a total wealth gain of about $3,982, while the 95th percentile (the richest people) had a total wealth gain of $65,442.
There are countless other examples of this absurd inequality, but no matter what way you look at it, there's no denying that it's about as far from economic justice as you can possibly get.
In Sweden, the top one-fifth owns 36 percent of the wealth and the bottom one-fifth owns 11 percent, while in the U.S., the top one-fifth owns 84 percent and the bottom one-fifth owns less than 1 percent.
In the 1930s, Sweden realized that “with the 1 percent in charge, electoral democracy was stacked against them, so nonviolent direct action was needed to exert the power for change,” writes George Lakey, a visiting professor at Swarthmore College.
The Swedes “fired' the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different. Then, under the leadership of the working class, Lakey writes that they “built a robust and successful economy that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right, and created a system of full employment.”
They managed to build for themselves an enviable standard of living, and the question more people should be asking is: If they could do it, why can't we?
Carrie Madden lives in Brattleboro.
Tilden Remerleitch
People say money talks. Money certainly makes a great deal of noise during an election.
In January 2010, the Supreme Court vote ruled 5–4 that, under the First Amendment of the Constitution (the right to free speech), corporate funding for election campaigns cannot be limited.
Their ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case came along with the creation of super PACs, which, as the progressive website CommonDreams.org explains, are “independent political action committees that can accept unlimited and often undisclosed financial contributions from donors to campaign for or against candidates or issues during an election.”
These super PACs allow donors to remain anonymous and to give an unlimited amount of money to their preferred candidate, possibly even swaying the president's actions while in office.
When election funding is not equally distributed, politicians are susceptible to the wishes of the top 1 percent who are supplying the big bucks rather than the 99 percent of the population. Should the wishes of the minority be able to outweigh the wishes of the majority?
We no longer live in a democracy, we live in a plutocracy.
The general election season has not even started, yet there have already been plenty of corporations donating money to politicians in the hopes of lawful personal gain. All presidential campaigns stated that they would not trade election money for political favors. But it seems as though some political campaigns, mainly Newt Gingrich's and Mitt Romney's, have not kept their promise.
A casino company run by billionaire Sheldon Adelson contributed $11 million to a super PAC that supports Gingrich. It's now acknowledged that this situation is under federal investigation by the Justice Department for possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Also, $150,000 was donated to a pro-Romney group by Consol Energy Inc., a Pennsylvania coal producer, which paid a $5.5 million fine for violations of the Clean Water Act at six of its mines last year.
Romney avidly supported the theory that climate change has increased as a result of human exploitation until suddenly the candidate backed off from the issue and said he would oppose spending high amounts of federal money to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Guess what corporation is lobbying for less regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
Yes, that's right - Consol Energy Inc.
In the upcoming elections, it will be nearly impossible for any candidate to run if he or she does not have super PACs or associate with them.
President Obama has recently stated that he will be forming super PACs even though he has been against them his entire time in the oval office. He can't afford not to use them.
Back in the late 1970s, donations were legally limited to political parties and individual candidates. Donations were more broadly divided among the candidates.
Going back to this system might be one step in the right direction.
Another solution would be to empower citizens to make small donations whose value would be multiplied by public funds.
Another - a bill stemming from the DISCLOSE Act of 2010, which tried to prohibit foreign influence in elections - would make it unlawful for government contractors to contribute to election campaigns and would add disclosure requirements for any spending in elections.
This new bill would require that the source of contributions always be revealed. Voters should have the right to know who is funding attack ads to influence their vote.
Legislation is also being drafted that would eliminate candidate-specific super PACs.
The bottom line is that there needs to be an alternative way for candidates to finance their campaigns. The best thing an individual can do is help raise awareness: write to their representatives in Congress, sign and circulate petitions, and join those working on this issue.
The election of 2012 will reveal new challenges and, maybe, some new solutions. This election will be a true test of not only our democracy but also of the people in power. The influence of money in political campaigns must be solved or else our democratic process will be compromised.
Tilden Remerleitch writes from Guilford.
Kellie Schiller
The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, once said, “There can be no peace as long as there is grinding poverty, social injustice, inequality, oppression, environmental degradation, and as long as the weak and small continue to be trodden by the mighty and powerful.”
To this day, this statement appears to be true, shown in the power and influence the wealthy hold in our society. Yet, even as our economy continues in a downward spiral, this elite group - the wealthy 1 percent of our nation - grows in prosperity, gaining benefits that millions of others desperately need and are being deprived of.
Statistics of our country's economy show that the top 1 percent of the population owns 43 percent of the wealth. In comparison, this is more than the amount of wealth that is owned by the entire bottom 90 percent.
Why is it becoming increasingly difficult for the lower and middle class to thrive in this nation and continually easier for those on top to stay there and grow their fortunes?
For one thing, education plays a part in our nation's income inequality. This year's College Board report showed an average increase of 6.5 percent for in-state college tuition and 4.4 percent for private.
Increasingly elevated college tuition costs are making it more difficult for students to acquire a higher level of education, resulting in diminished job opportunities or unemployment.
In addition, as technology becomes more advanced, we increasingly need educated and skilled workers to handle complex jobs. Therefore, only those who can afford the high costs of college receive the education required in more technologically advanced occupations.
Thus, these higher educated individuals obtain increased income due to more job opportunities, resulting in a shrinking middle class and a larger distinction between the working class and the wealthy.
So, who are the wealthy 1 percent of our country, and how are they able to stay on top?
The answer is clear: wealth equals power and authority, and many of those rich individuals are often the politicians of our society - the ones who create the rules. Wealth can also be used as a means of persuasion in our society.
Columnist Ana Veciana-Suarez points out that politicians are able to multiply their millions “through avenues not available to the average American, through loopholes, credits and deductions passed into law at the urging of the people who stand to benefit from them.”
So the rich population of our country is becoming richer, and the 1 percent of our nation is able to influence and shape the political aspect of our country through donations to political parties and candidates, who then make our nation's rules, which benefit the wealthy.
William Domhoff, a research professor at the University of California, states that “wealth can be seen as a 'resource' that is useful in exercising power.” So let's take another look at our country whose top 1 percent of the population owns more wealth than the entire bottom 90 percent.
It's a perfect example of Domhoff's statement, because in the end it's all about the money.
Kellie Schiller is a resident of Brattleboro.