Molti politici democratici stanno centrando la campagna
elettorale mid-term sul crescente divario ricchi/poveri.
Tesi WSJ (e repubblicani):
la tendenza è reale e dura da 25
anni;
la campagna trova ascolto in alcuni
strati sociali,
ma in passato non ha mai pagato
elettoralmente,
perché una quota degli strati
medio-bassi spera di salire ai piani alti,
e diffida dei livellatori.
- Cronache di assemblee elettorali DEM, ad es. in North
Carolina, in distretto ex tessile dove molti sono stati licenziati e hanno
dovuto accontentarsi di posti con salari inferiori, con meno benefits (sanità,
pensione ecc.). -
Tesi comune: l’economia cresce, ma i poveri e la middle
class non ne trae beneficio, -
c’è l’America che produce la ricchezza e quella che
raccoglie i frutti (John Edwards). -
Clinton aumentò tassazione sui ricchi, ma anche la sua
amministrazione era divisa sull’utilizzo del tasto ricchi/poveri. -
Molti dem. pensano che questo sia l’anno buono, per
l’aumento di benzina, costi sanità ecc. Dalla fine dell’ultima recessione
(2001) economia USA è cresciuta di quasi 15% in termini reali, ma reddito
familiare mediano (della famiglia che sta sopra il 50% e sotto il 50%, non
medio) è diminuito per 5 anni di seguito ed ha ripreso a crescere solo nel
2005, ma resta sotto il livello 1999. Il 20% superiore nel 2005 ha avuto il
50,4% del reddito totale (45,6% nel 1985). -
WSJ collega l’aumento dell’ineguaglianza sociale
all’indebolimento dei sindacati a seguito della “globalizzazione”; anche la
psicologia sociale oggi tollera maggiori divari anche tra i salari in uno
stessa azienda. -
Candidati DEM: aumentare salario minimo, fornire
crediti fiscali per figli all’università e per cura dei bambini, inversione dei
tagli alle imposte dei redditi alti. Gruppo DEM Leadership Council, centrista
(con Hillary Clinton) propone che a ogni nato sia dato un titolo da $500 alla
nascita. -
Campagna DEM non si incentra sui poveri [che non
votano], ma sul concetto che i lavoratori della “classe media” producono di più
ma senza compenso. Perdono assicurazione sanitaria e pensione, mentre i CEO
hanno retribuzione media di $14milioni l’anno.
[Tabella di distretto elettorale della N. Carolina: notare come i lav.
indipendenti sono solo 17 mila su 329 mila occupati, poco più del 5%. La
“classe media” qui significa quindi lavoratori dipendenti con retribuzioni
medie, plurireddito, non piccola borghesia all’italiana, pressoché
inesistente].Political
Divide
Democrats’
Risky Strategy: Trumpeting the Wealth Gap
Candidates Blame Republicans
For Economic Inequality,
Woes of the Middle Class
Tactic Could Alienate Voters
By DEBORAH SOLOMON
October 2,
2006; Page A1
WENTWORTH, N.C. — Many Democratic
politicians, shrugging off lessons of recent political history, see this as the
year when the widening gap between the rich and the rest of America will help
win them votes.
As a group of his constituents munched on pot
roast and buttered green beans in a school cafeteria here, Rep. Brad Miller
— a two-term Democrat seeking re-election in a district spanning rural,
suburban and urban communities — launched into what he believes is a winning
pitch.
"People who are doing well are doing very
well," he said into a handheld microphone, his tie loosened as he walked
among the tables. "The rich are doing just fine. But wages aren’t
budging for the majority of Americans."
The congressman’s words resonate here.
Although some voters are prosperous suburbanites, others in this district along
the Virginia border have lost textile-mill jobs. They’ve been forced into lower-paying positions with fewer benefits and scant prospect for raises.
Pamela Tucker, a mental-health worker from nearby Reidsville, says she can barely keep up. "Things are worse. The taxes, the price of health care,
gas," she says. "People don’t have the means."
Other Democrats —
including Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow in a tough re-election fight and Claire
McCaskill in her challenge to Missouri incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Talent —
are sounding similar themes: The U.S. economy is growing, but the poor and
especially the middle class aren’t benefiting. The rich are. And President
George W. Bush and a Republican Congress are to blame, they argue.
It’s a risky bet. Government data do
show an unambiguous trend toward a widening gap between the rich and
everyone else, a trend that pre-dates Mr. Bush’s election in 2000. And yet U.S.
electoral history is littered with Democrats who tried to use the inequality
issue only to find voters unswayed and Republicans accusing them of
"class warfare" or business-bashing.
"The language of income distribution
and income inequality is rarely effective in American politics," says
political scientist William Galston, a domestic-policy adviser in the
Clinton White House now at the Democratic-leaning Brookings Institution.
While Americans may be unhappy that the rich are getting ahead while they’re
not, most still aspire to be rich and are turned off by candidates who
demonize wealth, he says.
"There is little doubt that there has
been a 25-year trend of a growing gap, sometimes called income inequality,
between the wages of the skilled and the unskilled," says Edward
Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
"While that trend shows no obvious signs of abating in the near future, by
some measures inequality has slowed a bit in recent years."
Former Vice President Al Gore touched
upon a "people versus the powerful" theme in his unsuccessful 2000
presidential bid. Some strategists say it failed because he didn’t push it hard
enough. Others say it failed because voters found the message polarizing.
During a Democratic Leadership Council forum in 2002, Mr. Gore’s running mate,
Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, said the strategy made it "more
difficult for us to gain support of the middle class, independent voters
who don’t see America as ‘us versus them.’"
Four years later, Massachusetts Sen. John
Kerry’s running mate, then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, spoke
frequently about "two Americas" in which "one America
does the work, while another America reaps the reward." They lost,
too.
The one recent Democratic candidate to tap
economic angst most successfully was Bill Clinton. He talked often in
the 1992 campaign about how well the top 1% were doing while others were
falling behind. After winning office, he persuaded Congress to raise taxes on
the rich. But even his administration divided on how hard to push the issue
after Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994. Two close advisers,
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Labor Secretary Robert Reich,
sparred over the populist message.
"I had sat in on enough discussions about swing
voters to feel that this crucial section of the electorate reacted badly
to anything that sounded like class warfare," Mr. Rubin wrote in
his book, "In an Uncertain World." Terms like "corporate
welfare," a favorite of then Labor Secretary Reich, could inflame voters,
Mr. Rubin said.
Many Democrats say this year the message could
draw voters. "This is an issue they [Democrats] are
talking about and should be talking about," says Stan Greenberg, a
Democratic pollster.
While the war in Iraq continues to be a big
issue, Mr. Greenberg and other strategists are advising Democratic candidates
to talk often about the economic squeeze on their middle-class base. "Most
people are seeing continuing financial pressure — gas prices, health-care
costs — symbols that, when contrasted with the perception that the
macro-economy is doing great and CEOs and others are doing very well, help to
underscore what’s happening and what’s not happening," says Mr. Greenberg.
Some Republicans try to debunk the statistics
Democrats cite, arguing that they overstate the income gap by looking at wages,
while ignoring health and retirement benefits and tax breaks that help the
working poor. Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the
Republican-leaning American Enterprise Institute, points to an increase in
consumer spending as evidence that Americans are doing better than
Democratic campaign themes suggest.
Winning Argument
But other Republicans concede that Democrats
may have a winning argument when it comes to economic issues this year —
inequality included. "We get clobbered among economy voters," says
Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio. "The reason [Democrats] are doing this
is they see the people who are uncomfortable about the economy as people who are
more likely to vote for them in real numbers."
Since the last recession ended in 2001, the
U.S. economy has grown nearly 15%, after inflation. Corporate profits have
skyrocketed and the stock market has rebounded. Yet many Americans haven’t seen
paychecks grow fast enough to keep up with rising prices. While incomes at the top rose, adjusted for inflation, the median
household income fell for five years in a row before turning up in 2005. It
remains below its 1999 ak. The Census Bureau reports that the top 20% of households claimed
50.4% of all the income in 2005, up from 45.6% in 1985.
Even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has
acknowledged the gap. "Amid this country’s strong economic expansion, many
Americans simply aren’t feeling the benefits. Many aren’t seeing significant
gains in their take-home pay," he said in an August speech. In another
talk, in September, he added, "I believe it is the responsibility for all
nations to search for ways to moderate income disparities."
Voters are beginning to take notice of the
trend. In early September, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found the
"gap between rich and poor" ranked as the No. 2 economic issue —
after "gas prices and energy costs." Voters most often blamed the gap
on "excessive salaries and bonuses" and competition from companies
and workers overseas. More than half said they disapproved of the way President
Bush was handling the economy.
Economists cite a variety of factors for
widening inequality. Technology has favored the most skilled and most educated,
and hurt the less qualified.
Globalization has brought competition from
millions of new workers around the globe, crimping wages for some workers while
boosting demand for others. American unions have grown steadily weaker. And
social mores have changed, tolerating much wider pay disparities within the
same workplace, be it a manufacturer or a law firm.
Figuring out how to reverse the trend poses a
problem for policy makers. Most Democratic candidates favor an increase in the
minimum wage, modest proposals for college and child-care tax credits, rolling
back some of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, and finding ways to shield Americans against
rising gas prices. But beyond that, Democrats candidates haven’t fleshed
out a program for reversing inequality.
The centrist Democratic Leadership Council
is pushing what it has dubbed the American Dream Initiative to counter
the "mistaken belief that when the wealthy do even better, the middle
class will eventually get their share." The plan, championed by New York
Sen. Hillary Clinton, among others, also calls for giving every child
a $500 savings bond at birth so every American adult will have a nest egg.
While most candidates aren’t citing income
statistics on the stump, stagnant paychecks are a subtle, yet constant, thread
in many campaigns. To skirt accusations of class warfare and business-bashing
— and to court swing voters — Democrats focus not on the plight of the
poor, but on the notion that middle class workers, despite being more
productive than ever before, aren’t being rewarded for their hard work.
"Unemployment has been low for some time
now and it’s pretty clear that the working man and woman is pretty unhappy with
their lot and it’s not because they’re unemployed," says Alan Blinder,
a Princeton University economist who worked in the Clinton White House and
later was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. "It’s a combination
of wages aren’t going anywhere, people are losing health insurance and their
pensions are under threat. And people are feeling it. At the same time,
they’re reading about this CEO or that CEO walking off with $100 million for
managing their company badly."
Most Outspoken
Among the most outspoken on the issue of
inequality is Rep. Miller, a 53-year-old lawyer and former North Carolina state
legislator. He has seized on the issue in stump speeches. He has peppered
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Chairman Alan Greenspan with
questions about inequality at House hearings. He frequently mentions the names
and salaries of highly-paid CEOs in speeches and on the House floor.
Mr. Miller told the Wentworth crowd, for
instance, that CEOs make an average of $14 million a year. "Do we see the
world through the eyes of Lee Raymond, who just left Exxon Mobil, making
$145,000 per day or do we see it through the eyes of the guys working for $545
per week?" he asked. "That’s the difference between Republicans
and Democrats."
While Mr. Miller is talking about wages, the conservative
Republican underdog, Vernon Robinson, a former Winston-Salem city
councilman dubbed by the local press as "the black Jesse Helms," is
focusing on social issues — particularly illegal immigration and making
English the official U.S. language. He says he hasn’t heard much concern
from voters about wages, and terms Mr. Miller’s focus on CEO pay "pretty
esoteric," adding, "He’s saying ‘vote for me. I’ll make sure your
boss gets paid less.’ "
Other Democratic candidates are doing much the
same as Mr. Miller, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, where the economy
is a big issue. In central Ohio, Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, challenging
Republican incumbent Rep. Deborah Pryce, talks frequently on the stump about
gas prices, health-care costs and the minimum wage.
North Carolina’s 13th
Congressional District
2005 Data
|
Population over age 16 |
509,778 |
|
employed |
329,515 |
|
unemployed |
25,176 |
|
armed forces |
231 |
|
not in labor force |
154,856 |
|
unemployment rate |
7.10% |
|
Mean travel time to work |
23.9 min |
|
Jobs |
|
|
private wage & salary |
262,129 |
|
government |
49,431 |
|
self-employed |
17,417 |
|
unpaid family workers |
538 |
|
Income |
|
|
median family income |redd. fam. mediano |
$50,645 |
|
% families with income over $100,000 |
17.90% |
|
% families with income under $25,000 |
20.50% |
|
Race |
|
|
White |
433,137 |
|
Black |
175,218 |
|
Asian |
17,528 |
|
Other |
39910 |
|
Place of Birth |
|
|
Born in North Carolina |
368,848 |
|
Born elsewhere in U.S. |
217535 |
|
Born outside U.S. |
66940 |
Source: Census Bureau’s
American Community Survey
"I know how parents feel trying to put
their kids through college. I hear all the time how it costs $60 a week to fill
up my car and how health care is an enormous cost for all people," Ms.
Kilroy, a Franklin County commissioner, said in an interview. Ohioans, she
said, are "upset with the economy and Congress and their willingness to
give these tax breaks for the super wealthy and burden future generations with
the deficit."
At a rally at Ohio State University earlier
this year, Ms. Kilroy accused Ms. Pryce of "supporting deep cuts to
student loans that will put college out of reach for some lower- and
middle-class students."
Ms. Pryce’s office says she has never supported
cuts to student-loan programs. "Kilroy’s campaign has been consistently
negative on everything," says her spokesman, George Rasley. "So the
fact that they would be negative on the economic situation in Columbus — by
some measures the seventh-best economy in the country — is no surprise even
though it’s a big lie." Polls show Ms. Kilroy and Ms. Pryce neck-and-neck.
On the stump in Missouri, Ms. McCaskill, in a
stiff race to unseat Sen. Talent, railed against Washington policies that
protect "millionaires" at the expense of the middle class. She has
proposed a middle-class tax-relief package, arguing that
"Missouri’s middle class has been overlooked while the Bush administration
has given billions in tax cuts to big corporations and millionaires." She
has called for an increase in the minimum wage, and criticized Republicans’
eagerness to cut the estate tax.
Her campaign rhetoric sums up her message.
"Washington should stop taking care of millionaires and start taking care
of the middle class."