Why I Believe The Mandate Goes Down: Its Strictly Politics

THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE WILL GO DOWN

I am in my second year of law school.  I have been through a semester and a half of Constitutional Law.  I am but a tiny, tiny mind in comparison to many of the brilliant legal scholars that this country possesses.  But I believe, in one sense, that this gives me an advantage.  I am not bogged down by decades of legal talk.  I bring a fresh perspective to the table.  And my mind has not been deep-fried in legal academia for twenty years.  In law school we are meant to be taught to read between the lines, but when it comes to the health care bill and the individual mandate, I believe that the majority of legal scholars are wrong.  And they are wrong because they fail to read between the lines.  A majority of law professors have expressed the view that the individual mandate will be upheld.  I believe the individual mandate will be struck down for two reasons, with one reason holding more weight than the other.  The first reason is because the commerce clause has never been used to regulate inactivity and if the individual mandate is upheld in this case, the commerce clause will lack a limiting principle.  And second, it will be struck down because the Court is a highly, highly political institution, and thus the majority viewpoint, the conservative one, will win out in the end.  It is this second reason that the majority of legal scholars fail to take into account, and it is this reason, more than the other, that spells doom for the mandate

LACK OF A LIMITING PRINCIPLE

Without citing case law and making this way more boring than it already is, Congress’ commerce power has never before been used to regulate parties that aren’t already engaged in an economic activity.  It also has never before been used to force people to enter a market they aren’t already in.  The individual mandate in Obamacare does just that: it forces people to buy health insurance and enter the market.  Thus, this law breaks new ground.  It forces people that aren’t buying health insurance to buy health insurance, because, in the government’s eyes, this person’s failure to buy health insurance affects interstate commerce.  The slippery slope argument holds weight here.  If they can force you to buy health insurance, they can also force you to buy broccoli.  If this is held to be constitutional, there is no limiting principle.  The government can force you to buy a cell phone, because the fact that you haven’t bought a cell phone drives up the price of cell phones and that in turn affects interstate commerce.  This would give Congress sweeping new powers, the consequences of which we have no way of knowing. 

This argument provides ample wiggle room for conservative justices who have supported the expansion of commerce power in the past (See: Scalia) to differentiate their past decisions and vote to strike.  Therefore, the justices are unbound by stare decisis, and essentially free to vote as they please.  Also, this lack of a limiting principle will probably be troubling to most of the justices, especially the conservative ones who support a shrinking of federal power, not an expansion of it, and this brings me to my next point.

ON THE SUPREME COURT POLITICAL VIEWS RULE

You see this is what legal scholars fail to recognize and where they fail to read between the lines.  They analyze past cases and the legal reasoning behind them, and then try to predict how the justices will vote.  And in non-politically charged decisions, they may be very accurate in their predictions.  But Obamacare is perhaps the most politically charged decision since Bush v. Gore.  In Bush v. Gore the conservative justices went exactly where the average person would predict, they disallowed a re-count on the state level and put a conservative president into power.  And all five of these justices did this by flipping the script.  They ignored centuries of conservative jurisprudence which left decisions such as these to the states, and approved of federal meddling in Florida's state election procedures.  The liberal justices did the same, deferring to the state when they traditionally supported federal action.  Dozens of decisions like this litter the landscape of Supreme Court history all the way back to F.D.R. and “The switch in time that saved nine.”  That situation is remarkably similar to the current situation with Obamacare.  F.D.R. wanted to pass sweeping New Deal reforms, but the conservative justices did not want to expand Congress’ commerce power.  So what did F.D.R. do?  He threatened to change the very structure of the Court in order to win this expanded commerce power.  Fearing such a change to the Court itself, more than the expansion of the commerce power, one of the conservative justices flipped, in what can only be seen as a political move, in order to allow F.D.R.’s beloved New Deal legislation to be deemed constitutional.

All of this points to an essential truth of the Supreme Court that nobody likes to talk about and everybody wants to pretend doesn’t exist: at its core, it is a political institution.  It is in tune to every twist and turn of the political landscape.  It is not a monolithic, super-computer that mechanically applies the law.  More than anything it is a political institution. Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito were all christened by conservative, Republican presidents.  Freed from the shackles of stare decisis, as they are here, and in the midst of a political firestorm, they will retreat to their camps.  They will find conservatively and, combined, they have a majority.  They will go as the average person would predict a Republican would, just as they did in Bush v. Gore and countless other cases.  They will be troubled by the lack of a limiting principle, which expands federal power, and they will strike the mandate down.  And the liberal justices will do the same as they support the legislation passed by a liberal, Democratic president. The Court will sever if they can, and save parts of the bill, but the mandate will die, 5-4. Maybe then the legal scholars will open their eyes.  Maybe then they will break out of their shell and face reality.  The cold hard reality that we all know, but hate to admit: that our judicial system is just as political as any of our institutions. Fin.

The Republicans Best Shot to Beat Obama: Rick Santorum

The 1960 campaign between Nixon and Kennedy featured the first televised debate between presidential hopefuls.  Nixon had been campaigning all day before the debate, he refused to wear makeup before going on stage and on black and white television his beard stubble was prominent.  Kennedy, by contrast, rested and prepared extensively beforehand and appeared confident and relaxed during the debate. Immediately following it Nixon’s mother called him to ask if he was sick.  He wasn’t, but after seeing the effects of his performance he may have been, as Kennedy’s poll numbers inched ahead of Nixon going from a slight deficit to a slight lead.  The debate had 70 million viewers.   People who watched the debate on television overwhelmingly believed Kennedy had won, while radio listeners (a smaller audience) believed Nixon had won.  A stark example of how appearance and style can overwhelm substance in an election which is, at its core, a popularity contest.

Fast forward to the current Republican primary and the battle between the “front-runner” Mitt Romney and newly surging Rick Santorum.  When it comes to style versus substance, Santorum has all the style, while Romney has all the stiffness of a 1960’s Dick Nixon.  I first made this observation following the Iowa caucuses and watching the two candidates “victory” speeches.  Neither candidate used a teleprompter (a device the Republican party has tied so closely to Obama that it may equal political suicide for one of their own to use it, even though it’s a practical and useful device).  Anyways, Romney’s speech came off as a studdered mess.  He spit out catch lines about building the economy mixed with attacks on Obama, but all in an unorganized and disconnected mess.  He didn’t tell a story and he didn’t tie anything together with a theme or his vision for the country.  Contrast that with Rick Santorum’s speech.  Rick told the story of how his grandfather, an Italian immigrant, mined coal to put food on the table for his family.  How Rick grew up in a home of blue collar values and a blue collar work ethic and that those are the values that he stands for.  I’m a staunch Democrat and I found myself enthralled by Rick Santorum’s speech. 

Voters want honesty, authenticity and character.  Santorum exudes these values while Romney struggles to define what he stands for.  Rick Santorum may know that the media is going to roast him if he says what’s in his heart of hearts, but guess what, he says it anyway.  He doesn’t care what the media does.  Rick says what he believes and believes what he says.  He doesn’t stray from his values the instant a new poll comes out.  Contrast that with “Multiple Choice Mitt.”  Romney typifies the type of politician who caters every speech to his audience and always tells you what you want to hear.  Flip-flopping gold.  Rick knows his views on homosexuals and women are old fashioned and unpopular, but he believes in them and he stands by them.   I’m a Democrat and I disagree with many of his policy views, but he is an authentic man and I like him.  Mitt Romney is a robot.

So why do I think Rick is the better choice to beat Obama? A few reasons.  Let’s start with the current results: Rick’s won four states and Mitt’s won four states, but what’s more telling is that Rick leads Mitt by double digits in Michigan. Harking back to the Al Gore rule: if you can’t win your own state, you’re a loser.  Mitt was born in Michigan and his Dad was a popular governor there and now Rick’s beating him there.  This could mean that Rick would perform stronger in key Rust Belt swing states like Ohio and PA.  Next, Rick can energize the Republican base.  As I stated in a previous article, the Republican party is “severely” lacking enthusiasm for the “severely” conservative Mitt Romney.  He’s the “best of the worst” candidate.  Republicans don’t get excited over him, they just think he has a better chance to beat Obama than anybody else, but that’s exactly what they said about John McCain and we all know how that worked out.  Santorum first came to Congress running a low budget grass roots campaign and he’s done the same thing in this election, tying the Romney Campaign-machine with states won, while using half the resources.  But more importantly, Santorum can energize and capture the Tea Party enthusiasm of the 2010 elections.  If anyone is “severely” conservative it’s Rick, not Mitt.  

Now this is a strategy choice the Republican’s will have to make.  They can try to grab independents and the middle of the country by nominating Mitt or they can energize their base and nominate Rick.  Mitt isn’t gonna get anyone excited, but if Obama falters, he may be able to catch those looking to jump off the Obama ship.  Rick probably won’t catch those voters, but there is an important demographic he can grab: the Reagan Democrats.  White suburbanites who are socially conservative yet fiscally liberal.  Hillary Clinton Democrats.  Independent Catholic males.  Santorum may not get the gay vote, but let’s face it, no election has ever turned on the gay vote.  And Rick may not energize young people, but young people don’t vote anyways and once Ron Paul is gone those voters will either go to Obama, or not vote at all.  The chances of Mitt energizing young people is about the same odds as him dropping into the 99%.

So to summarize, Rick is stronger than Romney for three key reasons: 1^st, he’s authentic, while Romney is fake, 2^nd: he can energize the Republican base more than Mitt, a sound strategy in general elections especially given we are only two years removed from the Tea Party’s emergence and 3^rd: Rick can win middle class Catholics and Independents in the rust belt.  And even though he alienates young people and homosexuals, an election has never, and may never, turn on those demographics.

The true test will be what happens in Michigan.  If Mitt comes back and wins Michigan I’ll eat my words, but if Rick wins it, I will stand triumphant.  If the economy continues to improve, neither candidate will be able to beat Obama, but Rick stands a better chance.  If the economy loses energy as an issue, Mitt will not have a single leg to stand on, as he is the economic, business, candidate and if that happens the Rep’s stand a better chance of going to war with Obama on social issues and in that case Rick is the guy.  Rick is a communicator.  Even when it comes to his controversial stances he has a great ability to explain them in common sense terms. 

For better or worse, oftentimes presidential elections come down to the candidate that a regular guy would prefer to have a beer with.  The candidate that i better perceived.  The lessons of 1960 cannot be forgotten.  Romney will be painted as the 1%.  The rich guy fat cat that cant relate to the regular American.  The Wall Street Michael Douglas villain.  Rick Santorum grew up in Western PA.  The grandson of a coal miner with traditional family and religious views. The average person is gonna sit down and have a beer with the blue-collar guy.  The candidate who brings his family on stage with him and takes time off from campaigning to be with his sick daughter.  Not the guy who doesn’t care about poor people.  If the Republicans want a prayer come November, Rick is the guy.

Obama v. Romney and The Enthusiasm Gap

In 2008, when Obama won Iowa and he gave his acceptance speech the roar of the crowd drowned out the Senator for the first few words of his speech.  He didn't even talk for a number of minutes, he just clapped and smiled while the crowd went nuts.  Throughout his primary campaign, Obama supporters fainted in his presence, Obama-laden products sold out instantly, the enthusiasm was at a fever pitch. Obama aroused the nation, and in fact the world.

This time around, nobody expects that Obama will be able to match that feat, but compare and contrast the enthusiasm surrounding Obama in 08 with the enthusiasm surrounding this years winner of the Iowa Republican Caucus, Mitt Romney.  One can't even contrast because there is no comparison.  Romney backed into the Iowa caucus and won, but let's face facts: the enthusiasm behind him is low.  But the even stranger thing is that the Republican party is energized.  In 2010 the Tea Party coalition formed around the various protests throughout the country.  Thousands, perhaps millions of Republicans re-branded themselves as Tea Party Republicans.  This energy and enthusiasm led to historical gains in the the House and Senate for the Republican Party.  The energy and enthusiasm for Republicans is there, but Romney is unable to tap into it.

Perhaps its his tin-man, stiff-suit, all-business sort of personality.  Or maybe its the flip flopping on abortion, health care and gay marriage.  Its probably a combination, but this cocktail creates an image of a man without a core.  A man that doesn't stand for anything and lacks convictions.  This may or may not be true, but this is the image he portrays.  All politicians flip flop, but the ones with character and core principals can overcome it i.e. Ronald Reagan. And this lack of conviction has damaged Mitt and left him without a loyal following.

Look at Ron Paul.  His policies may teeter on the edge of lunacy, but he portrays conviction, steadfastness and principal stances on every single one of them.  Ron Paul says what he believes and believes what he says, no matter how unrealistic it may be.  And as a result Ron Paul has a cadre of core supporters that would ride with him to the very end of any election no matter what his chances are.  The same can not be said for Mitt, who says whatever he has to in order to please the person he is talking to at that particular moment.

Enter Rick Santorum.  He has a lot of knocks against him for his extreme views on Iran and social values, but one thing about Rick is that he has been consistent since day one.  Rick was a Tea Partier before there was a Tea Party.  Rick believes what he says and says what he believes no matter how unpopular it is at the time.  Though Ricks views are extreme, they are not as unpractical as Ron Pauls.  And if Rick can learn to tone down the social values stuff and harness his economic analysis and criticisms, he may gain popularity.  Rick is the grandson of a coal miner who immigrated to the U.S. from Italy and worked for the American Dream.  A huge contrast to the golden spoon childhood experienced by Romney.  Rick can deliver a killer speech, he can hug a baby with sincerity and he can look you in the eye and tell you something and you know he believes it.

Rick may not win in NH, and it may be too late for him after that, but he has tapped into the Tea Party enthusiasm that Mitt Romney will never be able to touch.  Rick has core, and he has character, even if his stance on the issues may be extreme.

The Republicans now have a choice to make.  They can choose to create enthusiasm amongst the base, by drafting Rick Santorum, or they can let the enthusiasm gap fade, make a grab for the middle and just hope that the dislike of Obama brings Rep's out to vote for Mitt. At this point, its most likely gonna be Mitt. But I wouldnt count Rick out.

Also, the Reps went for the center grab with John Mccain in 08' and we know that turned out. If the Reps do buy on Mitt, I can see a bad case of buyers remorse setting in shortly after.

We know the full potential of Mitt Romney, but we dont know what the possibilities are for Santorum.  It will be fun and fascinating to see how it plays out, but one thing is for certain: neither of those candidates will be able to reach the fever pitch that Obama did in 08.'  Im not saying that there arent Republicans out there that could do it, but Im pretty sure they chose to sit this one out. Perhaps it was the images of the 08' campaign dancing in their head that scared them away....

Nuclear Weapons: The World's Greatest Force For PEACE

PERPETUAL WAR BETWEEN GREAT NATIONS

Throughout history, warfare between great nations has been a relative constant.  In ancient times the Greek city-states were engaged in a near perpetual state of warfare.  Rome battled Carthage for decades on end until one enemy was completely destroyed.  During medieval times European monarchies fought wars so regularly that the summertime was thought of as “campaign season” and each nation would battle throughout the warm weather and replenish their forces during the winter.  This never-ending warfare between powerful nations carried into the Industrial Age.  The Napoleonic Wars of the 19^th century.  Two wars fought between the Japanese and Russians in the early 19^th century.  The culminating conflicts of WWI and WWII which wrought destruction and death on scales never before seen in the history of mankind.  But after WWII, something strange occurred.  Wars between great nations ceased.  The power rivalries in Europe were replaced by an economic Union of nations.  Japan and China found a cold, but stable, peace.  What is there to explain the non-occurrence of a massive war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union?  It wasn’t the spread of democracy or human rights.  It wasn’t the remembrance of massive damage that occurred in WWI and WWII.  If that held true, WWII would have never occurred after the destruction wrought in WWI.  It wasn’t slick negotiating and communications between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.  There is one thing that can account for this absence of war between great nations since WWII and that is the creation, and proliferation (amongst rational actors) of nuclear weapons.

TWO SUPERPOWERS: NO WAR

The U.S. and the Soviet Union did not go to war because each side knew if they attacked the other, they themselves would be destroyed in the ensuing nuclear conflict.  This is a simple concept known as mutually  assured destruction (MAD).  Sure, the U.S. and Soviet Union fought proxy wars with one another, (Vietnam, Korea) but neither ever dared to risk a nuclear battle.   Before the advent of nuclear war, such smaller conflicts would almost definitely have led to a greater conflict between the two great powers. 

Since WWII, no two nuclear armed countries have engaged each other in major conflict.  The current nuclear armed countries are: France, The U.S., Russia, Great Britain, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and probably Israel. No wars have occurred between these countries since WWII.  The most fascinating case study is between India and Pakistan.  After the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan in 1947 the two countries have been engaged in a heated rivalry and fought three wars between 1947 and 1971.  But during the 1970’s it is suspected that both sides gained nuclear weapons capabilities.  Since then, with terrorist attacks aside, the two countries have only engaged in one armed conflict, the Kargil Conflict in 1999 which was more like a minor scuffle than a war.   And even so, the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides most likely prevented the countries from escalating the Kargil Conflict even further.

THE NUCLEAR BLANKET

Pushing beyond two-country rivalries, these nuclear nations have even extended their nuclear umbrella to cover other nations.  The U.S. warmly embraces Japan in its nuclear blanket preventing any possibility of war between them and their historical rival, China.  The combined nuclear shield of the U.S., Great Britain and France guarantees the protection of all the European countries from intrusion by other nuclear powers.  Just as the U.S. extends its sphere, China and Russia’s blanket guarantees non-intervention in their zone of influence.  We didn’t see the U.S rushing to assist Georgia in their recent tit-for-tat with the Russians.  The world has essentially been divvied up by the nuclear powers and a significant portion of it is off-limits for war.  These days people are up in arms about the threat that China poses to the U.S.  You can sleep soundly at night.  There will never be war between the two countries.  Both countries would be completely wiped out.  It ain’t gonna happen.  We both have rational governments and countries full of people who value their continued existence.  All of this is thanks to the hugely destructive power of nuclear weapons and MAD. 

You see, in the past leaders could gamble with war.  And they did, especially when they thought they could win.  But now, the risk is too great.  And it doesn’t matter if you outnumber another nation two to one in terms of population, weapons or resources.  If they have nuclear backup, your'e screwed.  Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer.  Its why the little countries want them and the big countries don’t want anyone else getting them.

A HISTORY OF PEACE

Now, I’m not saying that nuclear weapons aren’t a scary thing, because they are, and in the hands of a non-rational actor they are the single greatest threat to the future of mankind.  But they have brought us peace for the last 60 years and have allowed us to develop economic and cultural ties that bind the world together.  Just remember, the next time you wish for a world without nuclear weapons, imagine the loss of human life that would have occurred if the U.S was forced to invade Japan.  Think of what a conventional war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union would have looked like.  Do you really think Europe, after all of its decades of infighting, would have been so peaceful and harmonious for the past half-century in a world without nuclear weapons.  So the next time you pine for the elimination of nuclear weapons, think hard about it, and be careful what you wish for….

Why Obama Will Win in 2012

It doesn’t matter what the talking heads are clucking about: Obama is going to win in 2012.

Here are a few indicators:

Not even the Republican Party itself thinks it can win.  This is evidenced, not by the quality of the candidates that are in the race, but by the quality of the candidates not in the race.  For example, Mitch Daniels opted out of the race. He was 2 time governor of Indiana with experience in the executive branch under Bush II.  He balanced the state’s budget, enacted stronger abortion regulations and instituted a school voucher system.  Another example: Chris Christie refused to run despite the GOP practically begging him to do so. He’s a wildly popular straight talking governor of liberal New Jersey.  His entry would surely push aside the current front-runner and give the party a shot to steal a Northeastern state.  The list goes on: Haley Barbour, Marco Rubio, John Thune, Mike Huckabee, Scott Brown, Sarah Palin.

Now I know that not all of these candidates are rock stars, but I'd be willing to bet that a field which included Daniels, Christie, Rubio and Thune would be a lot scarier to the Democrats than Romney, Cain and Perry. 

There’s a whole host of reasons one can use to explain why these people aren’t running, but I only buy one: its because they don’t think they can win.  All of them want to be president. You will see these names again and they will be on a presidential primary ticket, but it won’t be next year.  It will be in 2016, when Obama is out of office.

The next question is: why are they not confident in their chances?  Well, I don’t have the facts to back this up (thank you Herman Cain) but here goes:

1.      Obama is an incumbent.  Incumbency is the greatest  advantage that a candidate can have.  As president you can use the bully pulpit to garner all of the attention and campaign all the time. 

2.       Obama has Money.  This is essentially the same as the first.  Because incumbents represent the status quo, they garner the most donations.  They also have the forum (the Presidency) to attract the donors and the funds.  It’s a vicious circle.

3.       Obama is still very likeable.  No matter what people say about his policies and no matter how bad you may think his performance on the economy is, people still like him on a personal level.   He’s a family man, he’s funny and he has a pretty good reputation for being honest and trustworthy (as far as politicians go).  The polling backs this up and likeability is often very, very indicative of voting patterns.

4.       And despite the “lack of results” on the economic side of the coin, Obama has kicked ass on foreign policy:

·         Obama got Bin Laden.

·         Obama’s ending, literally ending, the war in Iraq.

·         Obama got Gaddafi

·         He’s kept the country safe from terrorist attacks

5.       Also, he’s supported some very popular legislation

·         Financial Reform

·         Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

He’s done some unpopular things too: mainly Healthcare Reform, but the entire universe does not revolve around one piece of legislation and the American people take a holistic approach to electing presidents.

The lesson of 2004. One last reason why the Republicans are basically opting out of this election, they remember 2004.  In 2004, Bush had lost much of the massive popularity he enjoyed early in his first term.  People were skeptical.  There was a lot of tough media coverage on him, and in better times, he may have lost.  But that’s the point exactly.  In 2004 we were mired in war and uncertainty, and during times of doubt, the American people thought it better not to change captains halfway across the ocean.  They decided to give Bush another chance.  Let him finish what he started.  This same principle applies now to Obama.  He came into office in a time of great turmoil and confusion.  The American people know that it took more than 4 years to come out of the Great Depression.  It took more than 4 years to win WWII and rebuild Europe.  It took more than 4 years to stare down the Soviet Union and end the Cold War.  Despite what people may think, the American people do not lack patience or fortitude.  We possess it in abundance.  The people will give Obama four more years to fix this mess.  They know that nothing short of superpowers could have done so sooner.  The G.O.P. knows this too, and that is why they will sit out this race, and hope that 2016 can bring them greater fortune.

Herman Who?

I see Cain as the third, or perhaps fourth, in a chain of candidates.  The chain began with Palin, but probably more accurately, with Trump, then Bachmann, now Cain.  This is the far right wing of the Republican Party, who just cannot stand Obama.  They want someone who will take it to him. And take it to him hard. They want someone with charisma (something that Romney lacks) and hard knocks.  The problem is, these people (and candidates) are out of touch with American society as a whole.  They stress these social issue that are not front and center right now and they talk about foreign policy like were living in the 18th century.  Its kind of strange and discomforting to watch.  The Republicans used to put up war veterans with decades of public service and gobs of foreign policy experience.  What happened to candidates like Bush I, Bob Dole, John McCain (i know, i know, but it was a democratic year).   With Reagan and Bush II, they were both two time governors with military experience. I dont fully understand this Palin/Trump/Bachmann/Cain affair.  Its a guttural reaction to the current state of affairs. Like I said before, I think the best candidates are out of the race, and Romney and Perry are the only serious contenders.

This Is What The 99% Are Angry About

I wrote this paper two years ago in college, so please excuse the shoddy writing and sloppy form.  And though some of my opinions expressed within have evolved, I still stand by many of the views expressed within.  But more importantly, I think that this should provide some of the answer as to what the 99% stands for.  They are protesting government policy which erodes the middle class and favors the rich. I'm not talking about socialism here, but how about a return to the tax and labor structures of the 50's and 60's.  A time when we had higher taxes, more unions and the most virulent defiance to socialism in our country's history.  We also had a booming middle class and greater buying power than we've seen in decades.  I hope this paper  makes you dig a little bit deeper....

Legislating Inequality:

How Government Policy Has Contributed to Inequality 

by: Joseph D. Pometto

            Globalization, free market forces, and changing demographics are all powerful forces in America and are often used to explain economic inequality in America (Bartels 2).  Many of these issues are complex, and difficult to tackle, but what about public policy and governmental legislation?  Does policy have a profound effect on inequality in America, and if so, what policies have contributed to the U.S. continued growth in economic inequality (Bartels 13)?  How have we come to this point while living in a democratic society where every citizen is guaranteed a vote, and therefore some influence over legislation?  A detailed look at legislative actions which have impacted inequality, the political elites who supported these acts, and the reasons why these politicians enjoy popular support, will bring us closer to answering and understanding many of these questions.

            In recent political history legislation which has favored corporate interests, lassez-faire capitalism and lower taxes have been a dominant trend in America.  Several policies can be identified which fit this criteria.  

A recent trend is the shift from taxes on wealth, to taxes on income.  Since 1980 the payroll tax rate has been cut 25% while tax rates on investment income fell 31% and taxes on large inheritances fell 79% (Reader 31).  These tax changes clearly disadvantage the poor far more than the wealthy.  Many working-class families rely on each and every paycheck in order to make ends meet and most do not receive a single penny of their income from financial investments or inheritances.  Wealthy families oftentimes receive a significant portion of their monetary resources from investment returns.  These tax changes help inequality proliferate by benefitting the already-rich and hurting those who rely solely on income to get by.

            Hand-in-hand with tax policy that reduces the burden on investment capital was the recent trend in Washington that deregulated our financial system.  The most prominent and profound deregulation was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.  This act prevented mergers between banks, trading firms and insurance corporations.  It was enacted following the Great Depression to help prevent a recurrence of the historical disaster, serve to prevent conflicts of interest and guard against corporate abuses.  This act was replaced with the Financial Modernization Act which allowed these entities to merge again into financial holding corporations.  With a lack of regulation the financial world soon resorted to the type of insider deal-making which once scattered the landscape of American business allowing these corporations to reap massive profits (Reader 34).  This deregulation occurred in several legislative occurrences and can at least be partly blamed for the current “Great Recession” which our country has recently experienced and increasing uneven distributions of wealth.

            Another critical element of government policy which has worsened inequality is the rash of laws which have discouraged and reduced labor union participation in America.  The 1935 National Labor Elections Act made it necessary for workers to complete a long and drawn out election process before they could unionize (Reader 32). Couple the 1935 law with Right-to-Work Laws and the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act which granted the president the power to break up strikes while making the organization of strikes even more difficult and is it any wonder that union participation had fallen 16% between 1970 and 2000 (Hansen 2 and Reader 32).  This erosion of labor union participation has greatly damaged the ability of low-income workers to negotiate greater wages.  While worker efficiency increases, worker’s wages stagnate, and the owners of capital accumulate wealth, feeding the cycle of inequality in America.

            With little doubt that severe inequalities exist in America it brings to mind the question of how this has occurred in a democracy where each individual is guaranteed a vote and the vast majority of the population is on the poorer end of the inequality spectrum. According to Larry Bartels much of this can be explained by the political actions of the Republican Party in America and its ability to consistently win elections (99).  The motivations of self-interest in the Republic Party to maintain the status quo can easily be seen in the party’s makeup.  Bartels states “middle- and upper-income whites lean towards the Republicans and poorer whites and African-Americans are predominantly Democratic (98).” This gives Republicans a clear incentive to maintain the status quo and or provide further benefits to their already well-off constituents.

            The electoral success of the Republican Party can be linked to the myopic tendencies of voters and the party’s ability to take advantage of this phenomenon (Bartels 99).  According to research done by Bartels the presidential incumbent party that is in office, and experiences real income growth, during an election year will see a significant jump in votes (Bartels 94).  Because voters have rather short-term outlooks, and tend to possess a “what have you done for me lately” approach to voting, the economic consequences of an election year are far more powerful than non-election years (Bartels 99-100).  Bartels suggests that because of this myopic effect, and whether through chance or manipulation, the Republican Party has benefitted greatly from election year income growth helping them in 12 of the last 14 elections (Bartels 110).  Concrete explanations aside, it pays for a political party to raise income growth during election years, regardless of past economic performance.

            Following this stream of thought, Bartels expounds on his theory by finding that voters are especially sensitive to the election year income growth of affluent families, and more specifically because of the income growth of affluent families.  These wealthy citizens are able to turn their newfound wealth into campaign contributions which find their way into the war chests of Republican Party candidates (Bartels 112-15).  Money can translate directly into votes in this manner.  Inequality therefore cycles itself in this way: Republican presidential administrations experience high income growth during election years which, coupled with myopic tendencies of voters, leads to affluent families donating more money to Republican campaigns which therefore  leads to more votes.  Once in power these Republicans are able to freely pursue policies which feed inequality, yet benefit their constituency and increase their chances of re-election.

            None of this evidence tends to suggest any change in legislative practices as long as the Republican Party can continue to take advantage of this cycle.  In fact, a new Supreme Court ruling may fan the flames in favor of this machine, making it even more difficult to break this cyrcle.  On January 21^st of this year, in a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations, labor unions and other entities are granted certain protections under the First Amendment right to free speech, t (Richey).  This ruling may allow these entities to exert much greater amounts of money and influence over political elections and campaigns that they had not previously experienced (Richey). If these corporations can go to work supporting the Republican Party in a pattern similar to that of affluent families, this ruling provides a fresh example of public policy aiding and abetting growing economic disparity within our country.

            The power of legislation to influence unequal realities in America is profound.  From the low minimum wage, to the taxation of income over wealth, to the rules which govern campaign finance, the long arm of our government has its fingerprints all over the mark of inequality.  Though there are many forces at work such as globalization and social demographic changes, legislative activity must claim a portion of the responsibility.  The logic of self-interested parties and close examination of the political workings in America only provides further evidence that much of the problem is purposefully engineered.  Through the research of scholars such as Larry Bartels a greater understanding of these realities can be had and perhaps assist the American people in either correcting, or coming to terms with, the machinated unequal divide which separates American society.

Works Cited

Richey, Warren and Linda Feldman. “Supreme Court's Campaign Finance Ruling: Just the Facts.”            CSMonitor. 2 Feb. 2010. Christian Science Monitor. 17 Feb. 2010.            csmonitor.com /USA/Justice/2010/0202/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-finance-ruling-just-     the-facts>.