Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Barack Obama won the presidency after clearly saying that he wants to spread the wealth. Let's make him do it.

100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama Has a Mandate to Spread the Wealth

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted November 6, 2008.


Barack Obama won the presidency after clearly saying that he wants to spread the wealth. Let's make him do it.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

Atrocities in Gaza: Piecing Together the Story
Liliana Segura, AlterNet

Unprecedented Numbers of Americans Question Israel's Actions in Gaza
Max Blumenthal, Huffington Post

The End of the Financial World as We Know It
Michael Lewis, David Einhorn, The New York Times

Big Booty Beauty and the New Sexual Aesthetic
Myra Mendible, American Sexuality Magazine

Should the First Lady Get a Paycheck?
Sheila Gibbons, Women's eNews

Why Colleges Are Just Not That into You
Zac Bissonette, The Daily Beast

Why Belief Isn't That Different for Atheists or Religious People
Larry Beinhart, AlterNet

More stories by Norman Solomon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Two days before he lost the election, John McCain summarized what had become the central message of his campaign: "Redistribute the wealth, spread the wealth around -- we can't do that."

Oh yes we can.

The 2008 presidential election became something of a referendum on "spreading the wealth."

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody," Barack Obama said on Oct. 12, in a conversation with an Ohio resident named Joe. The candidate quickly added: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

McCain eagerly attacked the concept, most dramatically three days later during the last debate. While instantly creating the "Joe the Plumber" everyman myth, McCain sharpened the distinctions between the two tickets while the nation watched and listened. He charged: "The whole premise behind Senator Obama's plans are class warfare -- let's spread the wealth around."

Obama has routinely reframed the issue in terms of fairness. "Exxon Mobil, which made $12 billion, record profits, over the last several quarters," he replied during the final debate, "they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there -- they're trying to figure out how they're going to afford food, how they're going to save for their kids' college education, they need a break."

This fall, the candidates and their surrogates endlessly repeated such arguments. As much as anything else, the presidential campaign turned into a dispute over the wisdom of "spreading the wealth." Most voters were comfortable enough with the concept to send its leading advocate to the Oval Office.

In the process, the top of the GOP ticket recycled attacks on the principles of the New Deal. Like Franklin Roosevelt when he first ran for president in 1932, Barack Obama put forward economic prescriptions that were hardly radical. Yet, in the next few years, Obama's administration could accomplish great things -- reminiscent of the New Deal, with its safety-net guarantees and its (redistributive) progressive income tax and its support for labor rights and its mammoth commitment to public works programs that created jobs. Today, we need green jobs that cure our economy and heal our environment.

Let's be clear: Despite their rhetoric, even McCain and Palin know that spreading the wealth from greedy elites to the masses of people is quite popular in our country. That's why their campaign emphasized how Palin "stood up to the oil industry" in Alaska. She did it by imposing a windfall profits tax on big oil that put money into the hands of every man, woman and child in the state. If it's good for Alaska, why wouldn't it be good for America as a whole?

Obama and his activist base won a mandate for strong government action on behalf of economic fairness. But since election night, countless pundits and politicians have somberly warned the president-elect to govern from "the center." Presumably, such governance would preclude doing much to spread the wealth. Before that sort of conventional wisdom further hardens like political cement, national discussions should highlight options for moving toward a more egalitarian society.

Government policies in that direction would be a sharp reversal of what's been happening over the last few decades. No matter how you slice it, more of the economic pie has been going to fewer people.

"The top 1 percent of households received 22.9 percent of all pre-tax income in 2006, more than double what that figure was in the 1970s," the Working Group on Extreme Inequality reports. "This is the greatest concentration of income since 1928." And: "Between 1979 and 2006, the top 5 percent of American families saw their real incomes increase 87 percent. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw zero increase in real income."

Current tax structures are steeply tilted to make the rich richer at the expense of others: "In the 2008 tax year, households in the bottom 20 percent will receive $26 due to the Bush tax cuts. Households in the middle 20 percent will receive $784. Households in the top 1 percent will receive $50,495. And households in the top 0.1 percent will receive $266,151."

We can reverse those trends. The time and opportunity have come to "spread the wealth."

When President Franklin Roosevelt heard pleas for bold steps to counter extreme economic inequality, he replied: "Go out and make me do it."

Barack Obama won the presidency after clearly saying that he wants to spread the wealth. Let's make him do it.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: obama, wealth, election 2008, financial crisis

Norman Solomon's latest book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State (PoliPointPress) is available now. For more information go to www.madelovegotwar.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Time Will Tell
Posted by: CaBeachBum on Nov 6, 2008 9:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Appointing Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff does not portend a new progressive era for the Democratic Party.

Whether or not Obama fulfills the hopes and aspirations of the progressive community is in doubt. Obama's pre-election track record: FISA, NAFTA, AIPAC, AFGHANISTAN, et al., does not look good.

Push the Nader agenda Norman, even if you don't like the messenger, the message is one all progressives can support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time Will Tell Posted by: katfish
Let's do something good all right!
Posted by: georgiaorwell on Nov 7, 2008 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps this seems like a small consideration among weightier issues, but after spending billions and billions of dollars on a war nobody wanted us involved in, how about loan forgiveness for students who have paid, say, for 8-10 years regularly and on time. This is what is done in the UK and it allows people to rebuild their lives rather than spending every last dime they earn on paying back an overpriced education, which is significantly higher for US students than Europeans have to pay.

Loan forgiveness would be the start of a new life for so many people. With that money, graduates would be able to spend into the economy, thereby helping businesses. Banks write off loans all the time - why not these!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'lm ecstatic about Emanuel . . .
Posted by: Scientz on Nov 10, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . because it shows that they really are trying to make Obama's White House into the eighth season of The West Wing.

Lugar or Hagel would make an excellent Arnie Vinick-like SecState, no?

And what's with the "push the Nader angle" thing? Didn't this last election show you Nader is not a force in America politics?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Nov 14, 2008 7:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can only hope this is the demise of trickle down sophistry. You can see where it's gotten us. The wealthy have been able to drive prices sky high - for everything, including housing, education, travel, etc., due to egregious and pointless tax cuts to the top. What is even worse, the tax cuts were not enough - there was unconscionable greed in the mix too - money taken but not earned in any way, by overpaid CEOs and management. Wage workers in exchange for their magnanimous gestures of taking it on the chin in the name of "free market" support simply got wage depression and usury credit to deal with the sky high senseless prices.

High home prices which have lost relation to real life earnings and average buying power are not an indicator of a good economy, obviously. They're just an indicator that the investor class was empowered to run prices up to the extreme. What is an indicator of a good economy are wages that support home purchases - not blowing up home prices and having the burdened wage worker try to keep up. Wealth from the bottom up is the only sure way to build wealth all around. If your customers don't have any money because you took it all - well, it's no surprise the economy fails when inequality of this extreme nature exists.

Mr. Obama is so thoughtful, intelligent and nuanced in his problem solving approaches; he does realize how important this is, and this is the first thing he has said he will do. Whether the impact will be great enough is anyone's guess, because by the time these last two months pass before he is inaugurated, we don't know how much farther down things will go - and any legislation won't have an effect until some time after he takes office. It will be a long climb out of a deep and pointless hole made by trickle down, at which point I hope we can declare this shell game's demise for good and get back to progressive policies which grow the economy for everyone (and with real permanence), unlike the Ponzi scheme that is supply side. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not framed well.
Posted by: Steve Scott on Nov 15, 2008 11:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Solomon has some good points, but I have to take exception to these:

Obama doesn't have a clear "mandate," nor has he claimed one. We won by a popular margin of 52.7%-46%, and it was an electoral landslide, true. Yet the economy is going to continue to tank up until the next congressional election cycle in two years, and there is no easy reversal of that. We can easily lose the Senate and House leads we have if Obama acts imprudently or with arrogance...which I don't think he will. We ought not, either.

I'd argue that "spreading the wealth" is better framed as "spreading the burden." Using the latter in these economic times is far more persuasive than the former.

Further, Solomon's tone is alienating. Two of the "greedy elites" that oppose Obama's tax plan are doctors I know with generous compassion for their clients. Each faces a tax increase with Obama's plan. One voted for Obama, the other didn't.

I can convince neither of them that "a rising tide floats all boats" were I to send them Solomon's article as is, cold. It would spark fear and resentment in them, and the outstanding facts it presents would be nullified by the adversarial flavor it has.

We have to convince such people, not inflame them.

Regards,

Steve

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]