Number of the Day

Six: The number of members of the Walton Family (as in Sam and Bud Walton, the founders of Wal-Mart) whose combined wealth as of 2007—$69.7 billion—was equal to the combined wealth of the entire bottom thirty percent of the US population.

BTW the new 2011 Forbes 400 has the inherited worth of these six Waltons at $93 billion. The 2010 [Survey of Consumer Finances] data that is slated for release spring of 2012 will almost certainly show a further widening of the wealth gap given that corporate profits, stocks, and CEO pay have all recovered while housing values & equity (the lion's share of wealth for average Americans), wages, and family incomes have yet to turn around.

So, basically, the combined fortune of these six people may now, in fact, be equivalent to more than a third of the rest of the US population.

[H/T to Iain.]

Occupy Everywhere & Economic News Round-Up

An Occupy Wall Street demonstrator is pushed out of the way by police officers as they make an arrest during what protest organizers called a day of action in New York November 17, 2011. New York police prevented protesters from shutting down Wall Street on Thursday, arresting more than 200 people in repeated clashes with an unexpectedly small but spirited Occupy Wall Street rally. [Reuters Pictures]

Here's some of what I've been reading this morning...

New York Times—200 Are Arrested as Protesters Clash With the Police:

Thousands of protesters across the country flooded streets, squares, bridges and banks on Thursday, snarling traffic and often clashing with the police in a show of support for the Occupy Wall Street movement, two months to the day after the demonstration began.

In Lower Manhattan, protesters tossed aside metal barricades to converge again on Zuccotti Park after failing in an attempt to shut down the New York Stock Exchange. In Los Angeles, more than 20 protesters were arrested after ignoring orders to vacate streets. In Denver, 100 protesters marched by government buildings and intersections, bringing traffic to a standstill.

Organized weeks ago, the so-called day of action came two days after the police cleared the Occupy Wall Street encampment from Zuccotti Park in Manhattan in an early morning raid. After the protesters were ousted from the park that had become their de facto headquarters, a judge agreed that they could return later that day, albeit without their camping gear. They looked to Thursday to gauge the support and mettle that the movement had retained.

"We failed to close the stock exchange, but we took back our park," said Adam Farooqui, 25, of Queens. "That was a real victory."

Reuters—Authorities foil NY protest bid to shut Wall Street:

After tempers among police and protesters flared throughout the day, crowds grew larger and more festive after dark.

"This is a great night for a revolution. I've never seen anything like this in my entire life," said Daniel Reynolds, 34, a financial analyst at a venture capital firm, who joined the protests for the first time on Thursday.

Democracy Now!—Paramilitary Policing of Occupy Wall Street: Excessive Use of Force amidst the New Military Urbanism: Video with transcript at link.

Aren't you just DESPERATE to know what Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich think of Occupy Wall Street?! Of course you are! Aren't you just SHOCKED to hear that they don't like it?! What a surprisey-surprise! Herman Cain naturally thinks that the Occupy Wall Street protestors are "trying to destroy the greatest nation in the world," and Newt Gingrich, professional hater of democracy, obviously took the familiar route of demonizing citizen action, suggesting protestors should be jailed, and echoing Cain's sentiment by accusing OWS protestors of wanting "to tear down our country." What a thrilling exhibition of cutting-edge conservative thought!

Speaking of which...

CNN—Bachmann gives students a 101 on issues, then gets lectured:

With the air of a college instructor, Michele Bachmann essentially gave college students a Conservative 101 on the economy, national and foreign affairs and other important issues on Thursday in Iowa. But when the Republican presidential candidate took questions, some students turned the tables on their lecturer, peppering her with tough questions.

...As she criticized specifics of the nation's health care law, one student shouted: "So screw the sick and homeless?"

"Who said that?" Bachmann asked.

"You have," the student said.

"You could not be further from the truth," Bachmann shot back. "You're looking at someone who lived below poverty. Have you ever lived at that?"

Bachmann continued: "I know what I had to do. I got a job. That's what you need to do. You need to figure out how to get a job and make your way."

BOOTSTRAPS!!!

Paul Krugman checks in with SuperCongress.

Sarah Palin talks nonsense.

Newt Gingrich is a corporate shill. Who knew!

As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to leave links to stuff you're reading/writing in comments.

United States of Austerity

So this is also going on:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Just as 55 million Social Security recipients are about to get their first benefit increase in three years, Congress is looking at reducing future raises by adopting a new measure of inflation that also would increase taxes for most families - the biggest impact falling on those with low incomes.

If adopted across the government, the inflation measure would have widespread ramifications. Future increases in veterans' benefits and pensions for federal workers and military personnel would be smaller. And over time, fewer people would qualify for Medicaid, Head Start, food stamps, school lunch programs and home heating assistance than under the current measure.

Taxes would go up by $60 billion over the next decade because annual adjustments to the tax brackets would be smaller, resulting in more people jumping into higher tax brackets because their wages rose faster than the new inflation measure. Annual increases in the standard deduction and personal exemptions would become smaller.

Despite fierce opposition from seniors groups, the proposal is gaining momentum in part because it would let policymakers gradually cut benefits and increase taxes in a way that might not be readily apparent to most Americans. Changes at first would be small - the Social Security increase would be cut by just a few dollars in the first year.

[...]

The proposal to adopt a new Consumer Price Index was floated by the Obama administration during deficit reduction talks in the summer. Now, it is one of the few options supported by both Democratic and Republican members of a joint supercommittee in Congress working to reduce government borrowing.

The committee of six Democrats and six Republicans is struggling to come up with a plan to reduce government red ink by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Changing the inflation index alone would put them a sixth of the way there.

"I think the thought process behind this is, slip this in, people won't understand it," said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

[...]

In all, adopting the chained CPI would reduce Social Security benefits by $112 billion over the next decade. Federal civilian and military pensions would be $24 billion lower, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

If adopted across the government, fewer people would be eligible for many anti-poverty programs because the poverty level also would increase at a lower rate each year. That would result in fewer people living below the official poverty line, despite having the same income.

The tax increases would hit low-income families the hardest, while high-income taxpayers would see smaller changes. The wealthiest taxpayers already pay taxes at the highest marginal rate, currently 35 percent.

For example, by 2021, taxpayers making between $10,000 and $20,000 would see a 14.5 percent increase in their federal taxes with a chained CPI, according to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Taxpayers making more than $1 million would get a tax increase of 0.1 percent.

Who are some of the taxpayers making $1 million a year (or more)?

The number of Americans who are millionaires is pretty low — about 1 percent of the population. Members of Congress who are millionaires? Nearly 50 percent.

That's according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks money in politics.

Of the 435 members of the House, "244 current members of Congress are millionaires — that's about 46 percent and that includes 138 Republicans and 106 Democrats," says Center for Responsive Politics spokesman Michael Beck.

Beckel is talking about net worth, the total amount of money and assets lawmakers have, according to their own financial disclosure forms. In fact, there are probably many more millionaires in Congress, since lawmakers don't have to include the value of their family home and other details.

Sorry apple pie, you are being replaced by bootstrap pie.

Mississippi

As you may know, today is election day in the United States. There are some ballot issues that have gained national attention, like Ohio's anti-union measure, Issue 2 (Vote no, Ohioans! Vote no!). And there's Mississippi's "personhood" issue, Prop. 26. Both Liss and I have written on the personhood nonsense previously (here and here and here and here, for example). Generally, a group called Personhood USA is out to amend constitutions everywhere to give full-person rights to fertilized eggs. In Mississippi, they have gained enough momentum to get Prop 26 on the ballot to do just that.

Mississippi voters are, apparently according to polling, nearly evenly split on the issue.

According to Public Policy Polling, Initiative 26, the so-called "Personhood" amendment in Mississippi, is currently tied, with 45 percent of voters supporting the measure and 44 percent of voters opposed to it.

That leaves over 10 percent of Mississippi residents unsure of how they will vote, and they could swing the election in either direction.

In the end, it could just come down to who shows up at the polls.

If you're in Mississippi, please go vote!

In my Twitter feed this morning I noticed that NPR reported that Mississippi is the state with the most people who rely on SNAP (nutrition assistance).

The state of Mississippi has the highest percentage of its population — 24 percent — on food stamps of any state in the country.

Now, people who have abortions do so for different reasons, given everyone has individual circumstances that lead to their decision. However, generally speaking, there is a significant commonality (emphasis mine):

• About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.

• Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).

• Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.*

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

Sometimes people just cannot afford a(nother) child. Period. How the pregnancy occurred is irrelevant (for those who may be inclined to argue only some circumstances are worthy). And, as NPR points out, Mississippi in particular has a lot of people who already need assistance--how is the state going to help these people who they will force to give birth to more children if Prop 26 passes? I'm sure the voters who approve of Prop 26 will totally be on board with paying a tax increase to be able to support a needed increase in the social safety net. Totally. Or not.

The problem with most of these people who support bullshit initiatives like Prop 26 is that they don't fucking THINK. They parade around with blinders on and fingers in their ears yelling about "BAAAAABIES!" and yet don't actually follow any logical process to look at everything else about life beyond a fetus going from conception to birth--like eating (or any of the other questions I raised in my post here or that there will be consequences like this). The rest of the people who support things like Prop 26 have thought it out and generally don't care: "Hey, eat some bootstraps kid--guess your mom should have kept her legs shut!". Bootstrap chastity belts for everyone!

It's not going to stop. Personhood USA's goal is to amend all state constitutions. MoJo has a map of where they're going and how 2012 is shaping up. I am not going to link to Personhood USA but they also have state-by-state listings on their site, if you're so inclined to wade into that cesspool.

As I said before: to Personhood USA and those who support it, I look forward to seeing you be the first one in line (if your measures pass) at the government's new Mandatory Organ Donation & Harvesting Office. After all, everyone should be forced by the government to donate their organs to "give life" to a person who needs said organ(s) to live, right?

Quote of the Day

"The latest consequence of extreme austerity is in Highland Park, Michigan, which has not only turned off all of its streetlights, but also ripped out the light poles—a telling sign that its darkening of the streets is permanent. With an unemployment rate at 22 percent and a city debt of $58 million, Highland Park could no longer afford to pay the electric bills."—Rebecca Leber, at Think Progress.

Well, maybe the citizens of Highland Park can just light some bootstraps on fire.

When Mendacious Corporate Media Shills Say With Affected Wide-Eyed Wonder That They Just Can't Figure Out What Occupy Wall Street Is All About...

...it is quite reasonably pointed out to them by patient people who indulge their manufactured ignorance that many USians are quite frustrated with the banks, and deregulation, and the erosion of workers' rights, and corporate greed. Unemployment. Student loans. Foreclosures. Bankruptcies.

Big concepts. All correct. But it's also just shit like this, wearing on people day in and day out and grinding them down until they're nothing but raw nerves, vibrating with anticipated pain from the constant attacks on their security and dignity:

Like a lot of companies, Veridian Credit Union wants its employees to be healthier. In January, the Waterloo, Iowa-company rolled out a wellness program and voluntary screenings.

It also gave workers a mandate - quit smoking, curb obesity, or you'll be paying higher healthcare costs in 2013. It doesn't yet know by how much, but one thing's for certain - the unhealthy will pay more.

The credit union, which has more than 500 employees, is not alone.

In recent years, a growing number of companies have been encouraging workers to voluntarily improve their health to control escalating insurance costs. And while workers mostly like to see an employer offer smoking cessation classes and weight loss programs, too few are signing up or showing signs of improvement.

So now more employers are trying a different strategy - they're replacing the carrot with a stick and raising costs for workers who can't seem to lower their cholesterol or tackle obesity. They're also coming down hard on smokers. For example, discount store giant Wal-Mart says that starting in 2012 it will charge tobacco users higher premiums but also offer free smoking cessation programs.

I'm not going to get into, yet again, the reality that weight is not a great indicator of health, nor the inherent disablism in a policy requiring people to lose weight irrespective of any underlying illnesses or disabilities contributing to weight gain, nor the outsized fuckery of penalizing people for eating crap like ubiquitous, fat-making HFCS or being addicted to cigarettes which our government allows tobacco companies to make increasingly more addictive, because, while those things are ALL TRUE, the average worker being subjected to this garbage isn't thinking, "This is bullshit! I am being tasked with finding an individual solution to systemic problems!" but is thinking, "Oh my god, how am I going to pay for my healthcare?" and/or "I'm a moral failure because I am fat!" and/or "CHEESUS FUCKING CHRIST THERE IS TOO MUCH PRESSURE ON ME FROM UNPAID DEBT AND UNPAID OVERTIME AT MY UNDERPAID JOB AND MY MOTHER IS COMING TO LIVE WITH ME BECAUSE SHE LOST HER HOUSE AND MY KID NEEDS NEW CLOTHES AND MY CAR'S ABOUT TO DIE AND I HAVEN'T HAD A VACATION IN TEN YEARS AND I DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ THE PAPER AND I AM GOING TO CRACK."

Hey, USians! We heard you didn't have enough stress already, so howsabout adding "quit smoking" and "lose weight" to the pile? Sound good? Great! Love, Corporate America.

That's what people are feeling. And all the arguments about "healthfulness" and "long-term costs to the collective" and whatever are not going to change the fact that hard-working and highly-stressed people are hearing, "You know that cigarette or candy bar you enjoy at the end of another shitty, soul-destroying day in the employ of a corporation who is wringing every last shred of carefreedom out of your life to maximize its profits so its CEO can have a gold-plated bidet installed in his executive bathroom? Well, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT ANYMORE. Not if you want healthcare benefits."

It doesn't matter if that thinking is right, or wrong, or ethically neutral. What matters is that's what a hell of a lot of 99 percenters are thinking. And when they think it, they aren't blaming institutional prejudice, and they're not blaming Washington, and they're sure as shit not blaming themselves for wanting the ability to exercise a little fucking control over their bodies and lives.

They're blaming corporations—their employers, and their benefits providers.

And rightfully so.

* * *

About the same article, Digby makes a related point: "Libertarians make the argument that the government is a threat to liberty because it employs 'men with guns' who can rob you of your life and freedom. Without getting into that tired debate, I would just like to make one observation: for most Americans, the greatest threat to their freedom comes from 'men with pink slips' not men with guns, particularly now. (These men with pink slips, by the way, are exalted by 'free market' worshipers of all philosophical bents.)"

Indiana Continues to Bear the Hideous Fruits of Unchecked Conservative Governance

[Trigger warning for disablism, classism, and racism.]

Me, in February, responding to Most Willfully Stupid Person in the World David Brooks' gushing boycrush on my garbage governor Mitch Daniels:

[N]aturally Daniels proudly "spoke of...the education program that will give scholarships to students in failing schools so they can choose another." And while he talks a good game about how students from low-income families should have the same chance to attend a private school as students from wealthy families (as if a scholarship program for some poor kids really levels the playing field), the Indiana Coalition for Public Education has quite rightly noted that "taxpayer money shouldn't be directed to private schools, which can deny admission to certain students." The proposal thus stands to "reverse the state's progress on desegregation efforts."

Mitch Daniels' policies are consistently rooted in the conservative pipedream (which Brooks sooooooo loves) that there's no such thing as institutional bias and everyone can achieve precisely the same things if only they work hard enough. Just give poor people the same opportunities, and failure can thus be regarded as unassailable evidence of laziness.

Except: Shitty healthcare they can't afford and competition for education vouchers that favor low-income students who come from home environments that already give them a good chance of success, despite poverty, does not the same opportunities as wealth provides make.

Especially when rerouting tax dollars to private institutions that may select for existing biases means marginalized students may end up with the choice between shitty private schools and a shitty public school system. Swell.

The Associated Press, yesterday: Indianapolis Chief: Charter Schools Turning Away Homeless, Disabled: "The superintendent of the state's largest school district requested a state investigation Monday into his allegations that charter schools are turning away homeless and disabled students in violation of state and federal laws."

This, despite the fact that the same superintendent last week swore: "We take everybody that come through the door, whether they are blind, crippled, crazy."

Yeah, he's a real charmer.

Suffice it to say that discriminatory policies that target students by wealth disproportionately affect students of color, so in addition to being explicitly disablist and classist, this alleged practice is implicitly racist, too.

Anyway. Welcome to Indiana: What happens when you let Republicans run rampant with no meaningful checks or balances. Bootstrap Paradise.

[H/T to Shaker PK.]