Dirt poor you (and me): Wealth Inequality - is there a role for government?

Video on wealth inequality in America. What we think it is, should be, and actually is are vastly different. Is this OK? Are you OK with it? Do you think you'll be able to move up into another wealth category? The statistics indicate no. Does government have a role to play here? Perhaps redistribution (such a vilified word for half of Americans)? Or maybe implementing Ross Perot's flat tax idea? See some good Mashable discussions on wealth inequality, then watch the video below. What do YOU think about wealth inequality?

Lest you think, in a momentary lapse of quasi-(in)sanity, that you actually CAN work your way into something of a top 20 percenter, this New York Times article (Ambition at a Cost) does a good job of illustrating just how deep the division is between the haves and have-nots.

And yet, for some strange reason, I keep striving to "lift myself up by my bootstraps" and attain greater wealth...

Is efficiency the most important thing?

From InvestingThesis.com

As I work my way through the OSU's Master of Public Policy (MPP) program, I'm struck at how much emphasis - at least in the early program coursework - is given to economic efficiency for solving problems (or rather, prioritizing solutions to problems). I can't help but wonder...is efficiency really the most important variable in valuation of a thing? In a capitalist society, it certainly seems to be. World-renowned economist Bjorn Lomborg illustrates this well with his work on the Copenhagen Consensus (around the 12 minute mark you get his interpretation of what's most important) - we should be spending our money to influence problems of immediate concern rather than focusing on problems with longer-term affects. I can't be the only one that finds discounted present value - the concept that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow - an insidious notion...


Access larger versions of Lomborg's TED talk.

But what of non-capitalist ways of living (thinking)? What of making decisions now with an eye toward how current decisions will impact future generations? The Iroquois, Onandaga and other indigenous peoples understood the importance of thinking down the road. Why can't we? Is money really that corrupting an influence? Has economics ruined (clouded, at best) our long-term thinking? How can we dial back this myopic economic viewpoint and return to generational planning? Is it possible? I'd argue we're near a (Malcom Gladwell-ian) tipping point.

Political Typologies - don't box me, bro!

How do you identify yourself politically? How does it align with the results from this Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey/analysis? I consider myself a liberal Republican turned moderate Democrat (a centrist, really...something we've lost in our current political divisiveness). And, indeed, that's where my typology fell ("Post- Moderns" to "New Coalition Democrat", depending on my answer to one question) - socially liberal but generally fiscally conservative. I find it silly to try to label people along a continuum as they can simultaneously hold multiple "positions" along that spectrum - that is to say, being at one place along a spectrum isn't mutually exclusive from simultaneously being at another place along the same spectrum. 

Why do I consider myself centrist? I hold some socially liberal perspectives but also consider myself fiscally conservative. The results from that fun-to-take-but-not-too-insightful Pew Research survey landed me pretty much where I expected, too. BUT...I did not like answering many of the questions as the two options presented often did not capture my position. I took the survey several times, changing one question each time to see where it would place me and was not surprised to learn that changing one answer was often enough to move the label assigned me to another category. For instance, when I first took it, I landed in the "New Coalition Democrat" but when I changed my answer to the question about people whose skin color is of the darker persuasion and racial discrimination from "racial discrimination is the main reason people can't get ahead these days" to people of the darker skin persuasion "can't get ahead and are mostly responsible for their own condition", I was assigned to the "Post-Modern" category. In reality, I don't agree with either of these statements. But I did find it apropos that the name of the survey was "Going beyond red and blue" and yet the answer options were so restrictive, forcing you into one of two answers with no grey area between them. Guess that's the tradeoff between having too few people answer the questions (too complex and long) and a survey short enough to hold people's attention. No matter, it's just a quick-n-dirty survey/analysis. I am a complex onion with many layers. Some are so sweet and others might make you cry. I am secure in it.

I am an onion... (art by favianna.com)

Nevertheless, the utility in these sorts of "analyses" (if we can call them that) and of public policy theories in general is in helping us structure how we view the world. Indeed, these sorts of typologies offer some insights into how groups of people might loosely be clustered. But what value does that have in and of itself? How about for deciding how allocating government funds? Or deliberating on cutting, expanding, or creating new programs? Is it useful for getting understanding how to get elected? Certainly. How much utility beyond that? I believe the real utility is in illuminating where similarities exists and where the potential for commonalities/overlap can help advance or arrest particular policies.

This Pew Research survey/analysis claims to go "beyond Red vs. Blue". I don't think it goes far enough in identifying commonalities among differing political ideologies. Do you?

Gun rights, NRA and the diametrically opposed

Or used to be, anyway...

Writer, photographer and and avid bird hunter Pat Wray wrote a wonderful piece in this morning's Gazette Times newspaper that really resonated with me, in part because I used to be a long-time dues paying member of the NRA but have struggled in recent years with their fear-mongering and heavy handedness. I'm a strong supporter of our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms...but also believe the pendulum has swung too far, perpetuated in large part by the NRA's fear mongering and extremism. And I've long had difficulties resolving my support of the two seemingly opposite viewpoints.

Find more FoxTrot

So when Pat's column came out this morning, and I realized what he was writing about, I sat transfixed, absorbing every word of his story. And I felt like FINALLY!, finally someone else feels like I do, sitting in both sides of the fence, if you will, on a contentious issue. And I was relieved. Relieved that someone else was able to put to words, in the form of a succinct, poignant, thought-provoking "phone conversation" (whether it was real or otherwise is of no consequence), two seemingly diametrically opposed viewpoints. Well done Pat Wray. Well done. I, for one, think you'd be an excellent candidate for the NRA board. So without further ado, here's Pat's column, in it's entirety, as it appeared in today's (Feb. 2, 2012) Gazette Times Outdoors section:

Outdoors: A phone call from the NRA. by Pat Wray. (as it appeared in the Corvallis Gazette Times Outdoor section, February 2, 2012.)

“Hello, Mr. Wray. This is John from the National Rifle Association. How are you doing tonight?”

“Fine, thanks.”

“Mr. Wray, as a Life Member of the NRA I know you are concerned with our right to bear arms. Are you aware of Obama’s under-the-radar effort to destroy our 2nd Amendment rights?”

“You mean President Obama?” 

“Yes, sir.”

“Say it.”

“President Obama.”

“Good. Now for the remainder of this conversation every time you mention his name the word President will precede it. Is that clear?”

“Yes, sir.” 

“Good. Now, what were you complaining about?”

“Well, er, President Obama is conducting an under-the-radar attack on our right to bear arms.”

“What makes it under the radar?”

“His administration is not talking about it.”

“Then how do you know what he plans to do?”

“Well, Mr. Wray, you have to look no further than his appointees. Consider that Attorney General Eric Holder is on record as supporting the re-establishment of the Clinton ban on assault weapons.”

“Holder brought that up within of month of his appointment three years ago and quickly was shut down by the President. Haven’t heard a peep, since. What else you got?”

“Um, he appointed two of the most rabidly anti-gun Supreme Court justices in American history, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Given the advanced ages of several of the other judges, a second term may well give President Obama the chance to appoint three more justices.” 

“So, our liberal president appointed two liberal justices. What a surprise! You expected what, another Clarence Thomas? I guess we’ll have to hope that all of his appointees grow an independent streak and decide their cases according to our Constitution. Just like we always do. It’s hard for me to interpret Supreme Court nominees as an assault on my gun rights.”

“Mr. Wray, are you aware that this administration reversed long-standing American opposition and now supports an International Arms Trade Treaty that will ban or restrict our gun ownership in this country? O … er … President Obama knows he can’t get restrictive gun rules through the U.S. Congress so he’s going to come at us through the U.N.”

“You know, I’ve been seeing those emails and so I started doing some checking. It turns out that the U.N. treaty is aimed at restricting dealers who provide arms to insurgencies, rebellions and civil wars. There is specific wording in place, put there by the United States, to protect national sovereignty regarding firearms purchase and ownership.”

“Mr. Wray, our people have done extensive research into the administration’s goals and we know what President Obama is going to do.”

“Sure, you know because of what he said, except that all he’s ever said is that he supports the 2nd Amendment and has no plans to take anyone’s guns. You know because of what he has done, except that he’s made no move in any way to restrict gun ownership. In fact, he’s signed a law permitting guns in National Parks, signed another law allowing guns in checked baggage on Amtrak trains …”

“Those were just a diversion, Mr. Wray, a smokescreen to hide his true objectives.”

“So, even when President Obama does exactly what you guys want, signs laws that you had a hand in writing, you still don’t give him credit. Did all of you intern at Pravda, or what? Here’s what I think, John. I am worried about gun control. I’ve been in Great Britain and Australia and Canada and talked with the people there who’ve had their guns taken away. I know it can be done. I also know there are people here who want to do the same thing. That’s why I’m a life member of the NRA. But the way NRA people simplify and demonize and lie about things — the way you create crises where there are none is abhorrent to me. The NRA singlehandedly created the mass hysteria following President Obama’s election that resulted in ammunition and reloading supplies disappearing off the shelves for more than a year. You did that. And all you can say now is ‘This time he’s REALLY going after our guns! Trust us!’

“Sorry, John. Somehow the words NRA and trust don’t fit together very well for me.”

So what do you think about all of this? Do you have different, similar, or conflicting views on gun control and the right to bear arms?

And to end on a curiosity note, here are some cartoons, images, and pictures relating to these issues that I found particularly interesting. Enjoy!