"Democracy is based on the ideal of political equity. Every citizen is supposed to have the same potential to influence what government does -- even if, in practice, some choose not to exercise that potential or exercise it poorly. Money should not matter in this calculus: the rich and poor are equal before government... In the marketplace, by contrast, money matters a great deal. Markets respond to what economists call "effective demand" -- that is, preferences backed by dollars. The rich and poor may be equal politically. They are not equal economically." -- pg. 74
"...in a democratic society the existence of large centers of private power is dangerous to the continuing vitality of a free people." -- pg. 81
"Property and markets rest on government and law....They had to be restrained and limited by government and law. Without such restraints and limits, greater economic inequality would lead to greater political inequality, which in turn would lead to government policies that reflected the interests of those at the top. Swamped by tides of inequality, democracy would give way to oligarchy -- the very concern that recent economic events have cast in stark relief." -- pg. 82
"More than most societies, Americans believe that people rise or fall as a result of their own efforts, and therefore get what they deserve... Underpinning this ethic is a tendency to interpret the world in highly individualistic terms. We distribute blame and praise to individuals because we believe that it is their individual actions, for better or worse, that matter. People get what they deserve." -- pg. 103
"Most of the famous 'swing voters,' whom journalists tend to idealize as standing above the fray, carefully sorting among the strengths and weaknesses of each party's offerings, are actually the least engaged, least well-informed citizens, reaching a final decision (if at all) on the flimsiest grounds." -- pg. 109
"Are the opinions of wealthier Americans more likely to be heard and heeded than those of less affluent Americans? ... When the opinions of the poor diverged from those of the well-off, the opinions of the poor ceased to have any apparent influence: If 90 percent of poor Americans supported a policy change, it was no more likely to happen than if 10 percent did. By contrast, when more of the well-off supported a change, it was substantially more likely to happen." -- pg. 112
"I believe leaders of the business community, with few exceptions, have chosen to wage a one-sided class war...against working people...and even many in the middle class of our society. The leaders of industry, commerce and finance in the United States have broken and discarded the fragile, unwritten compact previously existing during a past period of growth and progress...Our tax laws are a scandal, yet corporate America wants even wider inequalities...The wealthy seek not to close loopholes, but to widen them by advocating the capital gains tax rollback that will bring them a huge bonanza." -- pg. 132
"Republicans had criticized Democrats during the 2000 campaign for only supporting "targeted tax cuts." "Targeted" was GOP code for tax cuts that were smaller and more focused on the middle class. But the GOP's 2001 tax cuts were also targeted -- on the rich. First, they focused only on the progressive income tax, rather than payroll taxes, which hit the working and middle classes much harder. Then GOP leaders said that an "across-the-board tax cut" meant that everyone should receive a proportional reduction in their tax rate, which meant in practice a much larger tax cut for people in the highest brackets. Then they insisted on the elimination of the estate tax, new incentives for high-income Americans to save, and the elimination of limits on itemized deductions for those at the top. (In 2003, they would add to these goodies for high-income taxpayers steep cuts in the capital gains and dividends taxes.) All told, more than a third of the 2001 tax cuts went to the richest 1 percent of Americans -- a staggering $38,500 per household per year when the tax cuts took effect. The average taxpayer in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution received a slightly more modest $600." -- pg. 214
"By front-loading benefits to average Americans while back-loading benefits to the well-to-do, they could also camouflage the winner-take-all nature of the new laws." -- pg. 215
"Without an organized, persistent capacity to pressure officials, outrage alone was unlikely to produce fundamental change." -- pg. 220
"Within months of triggering the greatest economic crisis in three-quarters of a century, an obscenely profitable financial sector had reinstated many of its standard lavish practices, once again backed by explicit and implicit taxpayer subsidies. Recessions, it turned out, were for suckers, not bankers." -- pg. 292
"Political reform geared at diminishing the advantages of the privileged will also be essential. The aims should be threefold: to reduce the capacity of entrenched elites to block needed reform; to facilitate broader participation among those whose voices are currently drowned out; and to encourage the development of groups that can provide a continuing, organized capacity to mobilize middle-class voters and monitor government and politics on their behalf." pg. 303Read this book.
34 down plus 18 to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment