Listen live to MIDDAY

Is this the election where red starts turning blue? For more than a generation, Republican dominance in the South has remained largely uncontested. Our guest, Bob Moser, Nation contributor and author of Blue Dixie: Awakening the South’s Democratic Majority, argues that the Democratic Party has an historic opportunity in the 2008 elections to build a new generation-long, nationwide majority by tapping into changing demographics below the Mason-Dixon line. For a primer on how the Obama candidacy could be altering the American political map, effecting down-ballot voting and the makeup of the next Congress, tune in after the news from NPR at 1 p.m.

WYPR-FM, 88.1

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Tuesday, October 28
Noon-1:00
Dr. Peter L. Beilenson, Howard County's health officer and former Baltimore health commissioner, visits us in Studio A to talk about the just-launched Healthy Howard program, an effort to provide health care for an estimated 20,000 uninsured county residents. This program is hailed as the first of its kind in the country, a creative and collaborative approach to helping Howard Countians stay in good health. Enrollment in Healthy Howard will take place over the next several months, and the program will be watched carefully by those in public health care circles looking for ways to help Maryland's nearly 800,000 uninsired citizens. We'll find out how Healthy Howard works when Dr. Beilenson joins us . . .

1:00-2:00
For more than a generation, Republican dominance in the South has remained largely uncontested.  Our guest Bob Moser, author of Blue Dixie: Awakening the South's Democratic Majority, argues that the Democratic Party has a historic opportunity in the 2008 elections to build a new generation-long, nationwide majority by tapping into a growing base of left-leaning Americans living below the Mason-Dixon line.

Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or online at wypr.org.  You can call during the show toll-free at 866-661-9309 or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Readers still have a lot to say about the election, Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans -- those households making more than $250,000 per year -- the record disparity gaps in income levels, the concentration of wealth among the upper classes over the last 30 years, and Republican complaints of "class warfare" every time it's mentioned. Here are two letters, both from women – Bev and Laura. Laura tries to explain the “unmet expectations” of those who make $250,000 or more, while Bev addresses the various, not-so-obvious benefits that come with being well-off in the United States. I appreciate Laura’s candor but still think the pain of “unmet expectations” is, like much of this discussion, relative to where you are in life. There are so many people who live far, far below the income level being discussed here that it’s impossible to take even qualified complaints from those at the top seriously. But we consider all, and thank our readers for the civilized discussion.

Laura:

My husband and I are in that "wealthy" category. And I have no problems with Obama's tax plans.  What's that saying? From him to whom much is given, much is expected?  I grew up poor, I'm damn lucky to be where I am now, and I have no problems paying it back.  Much as I hate the war and disagree with the bailout, someone still has to be the grownup and pay for it.  Better me than my secretary, who makes just a fraction of what I do -- or even worse, my kids.  

And yet, I don't feel "wealthy."  To me, wealthy means never having to work again -- of having enough money in the bank that I can pay the bills and have some fun and not worry.  And that's the key: the "not worry" bit, the knowing that we can survive whatever happens.  That's not us.  We are "high income," but we get that income from our two jobs.  Which means that we are dependent on those jobs continuing to exist, on our continuing to remain employed, on our continuing to bust our asses to keep that income coming in the door.  If we're really, really lucky, and work really, really hard, in another 20 years or so, we will be wealthy.  But there's a lot of "ifs" there.  And having already lived through multiple job losses and moves in the tech crash a decade ago, I know far too well that I can't take the next 20 years for granted.  

The other aspect is that, because of my income, I know I will have to pay for everything myself.  I went to college on scholarships and loans.  Because I was smart and poor and my mom knew how to work the system, I got a fair amount of scholarships and need-based aid.  But even taking out the maximum student loans, my debt for both college and law school was -- ta-dah! -- $9,500, which I was able to pay off in 2 years.  My kids, on the other hand, aren't eligible for aid (and, ummm, hello, they shouldn't be); if they borrowed their way through my old alma mater, they'd each end up owing $150K out of their own pockets.  That's not acceptable to me, so it's my responsibility to save up that $300K in the next 10-15 years -- if I want them to have the same opportunity I had.  

Same thing with social security: I don't rely on its being around, especially for folks at my income level (and frankly, I don't think it should be for folks at my income level) -- and even if it is, it will replace a much smaller percentage of income.  So again, it's up to me to put away a big chunk -- more than the 401(k) limits -- if I want to maintain my standard of living in retirement.  And pensions?  Yeah, right.  Sorry, no such luck -- it's all me and Mr. Market, which is oh-so reliable.  And God forbid one of us get sick. . . . 

I'm not bucking for sympathy -- please, even I don't have a lot of sympathy for myself.  But I just wanted to explain that I suspect the big negative reaction you're getting is due in part to the unmet expectations of the folks like me.  I make more money than I ever dreamed of when I was a kid -- but I feel far less "wealthy" than I expected to with even half that income.  Why?  Because to me, "wealth" meant safety and security, insulation from economic travails.  Wealth meant money in the bank -- not being tied to a paycheck, tied to an employer's whims, tied to how the economy performs.  Well, now I have the income -- but I'm more tied to those things than ever, because our two incomes make us twice as likely to get hit by the bad stuff.  We're lucky that a job loss would probably not mean losing the house, which already puts us ahead of a whole bunch of people.  But those savings, that future we're working so hard for for ourselves and the kids -- basically, everything I have been working for for the past 15 years -- would evaporate.  I watched that happen once already, not even 10 years ago.  I don't know how you can ever feel "wealthy" when you know how quickly everything you've worked to build can just go poof. 

It's funny, as a kid, I dreamed about all the cool stuff I could buy if I ever struck it rich.  I resented feeling ostracized at school because my mom couldn't afford $40 for an Izod shirt like everyone else was wearing; I hated always getting gifts that were "just as good" as what I really wanted (but weren't).  But now that I make a lot of money, I still shop at Target.  My husband drives a Hyundai, and we never have a car payment over $300.  We bought a house waaaay below what the bank said we could "afford."  We don't belong to the country club; we don't send our kids to private schools; we've never had a nanny (I wish!!), and a "summer home" is just sooo not in the cards it's laughable.  I clip coupons.  Oh, we don't hurt, don't get me wrong -- we took the kids skiing last winter, which was a big thrill for me (since that was one of those things that "our type" just didn't do as a kid).  And in the interest of full disclosure, I drive a TL (great deal, will drive it for 10 years, yadda yadda -- I can rationalize it all I want, but it's still fundamentally a nice car that feels very posh).  But the thing is, I don't have much of the trappings that I thought meant wealth.  Because I know how much my future self and my kids are counting on me to have that money around when they need it.  And I've seen how quickly it can all go away.  

Maybe it's because this is fairly recent for me; I've never struggled since I got out of school, but it's only in the past few years that our income increased close to 50%.  Maybe my expectations were unreasonable; my folks were both academics, so while they never made much at all, they at least had job security, and I took that for granted.  And maybe, when I was a kid, I saw only the bright, shiny outside of what "lifestyles of the rich and famous" looked like, and never noticed how fast their legs were churning underneath the water to maintain that illusion.  Maybe all of the above.  But be that as it may, I just cannot consider myself "wealthy" until I know that my family is safe and comfortable and protected.  I'll be wealthy when we can kiss our jobs goodbye any time we want and still be able to put our kids through college and pay for retirement.  But whatever you want to call it, and until I get there, I'll STILL agree with Warren Buffett: the privilege of a high income comes with a responsibility for paying more than others who have less. 

Bev:

The Republicans and the rich have obviously decided the best defense is a good offense, so they react with righteous indignation and raise the specter of "class warfare" or "socialism" whenever these subjects are brought up. 
 
Someone should point out that not only do our tax policies favor the rich, but people with higher incomes generally benefit more from our tax dollars than those with lower incomes.  A greater proportion of higher-income families send their children to colleges, which are subsidized by our tax dollars either directly (e.g., Maryland) or indirectly in the form of tax exemptions and subsidized student loans and scholarships.  All colleges, private and public, get some form of subsidy from the taxpayers.  In Maryland, the subsidy for private colleges is direct and based on number of students enrolled.  In some other states, it is indirect (e.g., tax exemptions, grants, student loans, etc.). 

Their private schools are also subsidized, in the sense that they are exempt from taxes and some receive federal and state grants.  People with higher incomes typically live in bigger houses, drive more cars, use more energy, and in general benefit more from our tax-supported infrastructure than poor people.  And just because people are in a higher tax bracket does not mean they necessarily pay more taxes than people with lower incomes.  They can take advantage of a multitude of loopholes that favor the rich. 
 
When your reader Mark states that after "taxes, mortgage, health insurance, cars, gas, college education, food" families making $250,000 are lucky to be able to save $5-10,000 a year,” he is simply saying their "comfortable" lifestyle costs a lot of money to maintain.  It's like saying you can't save money because your big SUV costs so much to run or your 4500 sq. ft. house is so expensive to heat and cool.  Your reader Terence complains that "we struggle to pay tuitions for three kids in private schools, save for their college years and save for our retirement."  Terence's expenses are an investment in the cultural capital that will ensure his children's future place among the materially "comfortable."  Why shouldn't these families pay their fair share of taxes?
 
McCain tries to frighten us all into thinking Obama's tax plan will have a disastrous impact on businesses, but neither McCain nor Obama has mentioned that most corporations pay no income taxes at all.  According to a recent report by the Government Accounting Office, two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, and about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes for that period. 
 
These issues should be brought out in the open and discussed rationally, without being hampered by free-market mythology or "class warfare" rhetoric.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 9:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)
        

Today on MIDDAY: Monday, October 27

Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or online at wypr.org.  You can call during the show toll-free at 410-662-8780 or 866-661-9309 or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org.

1:00-2:00 pm
Could Constellation Energy shareholders reject Warren Buffett, retake control of their company and keep its Fortune 500 corporate headquarters in Baltimore? It wouldn't be easy at this point, but it wouldn't be impossible, either. We'll talk about the status of the Constellation Energy-Buffett merger, along with the other major business and economic news, with Jay Hancock, columnist and blogger for the Sun, and Ken Solow, chief investment officer and founding partner in Pinnacle Advisory Group. Jay and Ken will address the most frequently asked FAQ: When will stock prices stop going down? Drawing a bead on the bottom . . ..

Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or online at wypr.org.  You can call during the show toll-free at 410-662-8780 or 866-661-9309, or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Today on MIDDAY: Monday, October 27

Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or online at wypr.org.  You can call during the show toll-free at 410-662-8780 or 866-661-9309 or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org.

Noon-1:00 pm
Today on the show, hear the story of how 900 poor, black women at a catfish plant in anti-union Mississippi organized and won better wages and working conditions from their all-white bosses. It's a case study in how unions can gain traction again after decades of declining membership. In his book State of the Unions, veteran labor reporter Phil Dine argues that, given current conditions, organized labor should be as relevant as ever. He suggests how unions can revitalize themselves to meet the challenges that working people face in the 21st Century. We'll look at legislation that would make it easier for workers to organize, and whether an Obama presidency will mean a resurgence of unionized workers in the United States.

1:00-2:00 pm
Could Constellation Energy shareholders reject Warren Buffett, retake control of their company and keep its Fortune 500 corporate headquarters in Baltimore? It wouldn't be easy at this point, but it wouldn't be impossible, either. We'll talk about the status of the Constellation Energy-Buffett merger, along with the other major business and economic news, with Jay Hancock, columnist and blogger for the Sun, and Ken Solow, chief investment officer and founding partner in Pinnacle Advisory Group. Jay and Ken will address the most frequently asked FAQ: When will stock prices stop going down? Drawing a bead on the bottom . . ..

Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or online at wypr.org.  You can call during the show toll-free at 410-662-8780 or 866-661-9309, or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 8:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

I wasn't dreaming about that magnificant field of sunflowers in northern Baltimore County last month -- the one so bright and endless and surreal it looked like it could have led to Oz. A reader named Peggy MacKenzie saw it, too:

"My husband came home from one of his early morning weekend drives in the country to get me (and the camera) for something I just had to see but he wouldn’t tell me what it was. He wanted my first reaction and oh my, what a sight it was! To come across acres of thousands of sunflowers all at their most perfect peak, leaning into glorious sunshine, literally took our breath away! It was one of those absolutely gorgeous perfect days, crystal clear with the most brilliant sun shining on what seemed to be endless rows! We were awed by the sight of something so magnificent and so unexpected. . . .  We buy produce from a farmer who lives near there and we asked him about it. He told us that the man who grows them does it to sell the sunflower seeds. The location is just off of Gibson Road which is off of Old York Rd. If you take I-83, it is the next exit after exit 33, which I believe is exit 36, Old York Road. He said he only started to do it recently so let’s hope he plants them again next year!"

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Fred Turner, the first city editor I ever worked for, way back in 1973, when I was a cub, said, "Remember kid -- if your mother says she loves ya, check it out."

Did anybody ever tell John Moody, the executive vice-president of Fox News? Maybe so, or maybe he forgot the lesson. Last Thursday, when the I-was-attacked-by-a-big-black-man story came from a 20-year-old McCain volunteer in western Pennsylvania, Moody wrote on the Fox Forum that evening that the attack had the potential of being a "watershed event in the 11 days before the election."

"Part of the appeal of, and the unspoken tension behind, Senator Obama’s campaign is his transformational status as the first African-American to win a major party’s presidential nomination. That does not mean that he has erased the mutual distrust between black and white Americans, and this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election."

A little hyperbole there, ya think? It's one thing for ridiculous right-wing bloggers to have jumped all over this; they're eager for the final days of the campaign to turn rancorous, ugly and racial. Maybe the executive vice-president of a media organization that seeks to be considered credible should have waited another news cycle before making even a speculative judgement like that.

And, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Republican candidates got in on this, too:

"The day after the purported attack, both Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin called Ms. Todd, offering words of comfort," the newspaper reported Saturday. "Yesterday, McCain-Palin campaign spokesman Peter Feldman issued a statement: 'This is a sad situation. We hope she gets the help she needs.'"

Turns out the story was a hoax. Any armchair Kojak could have looked at the facts as reported to police in Pittsburgh last Wednesday night and advised a little caution in what was said about the incident, particularly given its racial overtones and its timing. It didn't take long before the alleged victim admitted she made the whole thing up. Now she's charged with filing a false report.

Moody probably regrets even addressing the incident on the Fox Forum web site. Then again, this is Fox we're talking about, a cable "news" operation that just hasn't set the bar very high for veracity and objectivity. I'm not sure that "caution" or "careful" are words heard at story conferences in any television news operation, local or national, and least of all at one with the right-wing bias of Fox. The McCain volunteer story had all the makings of a hot, juicy, racially-charged story. In terms of its sensationalist aspect, it was too "good" to be true -- -- exactly the reason to wait to see if it was true. 

Moody went a little further with his comment on this caper:

"If [the victim's] allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator  Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

"If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting."

All of this sounds a little over-the-proverbial-top to me -- both the part about the attack being a "watershed event" and about McCain's campaign being linked to race-baiting. It's always good advice to wait a decent interval before characterizing anything as a "watershed event." That's a newspaper sensibility and standard. But in the age of all-news-all-the-time TV and the blogosphere, there's the pressure to rush pronouncements or make fierce assertions. Fox and Moody played that game and got burned with a backwards B.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 5:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)
        

Attention, people of the Emerald Isle: A question remains. The answer would be aoppreciated, and so would a photograph:

Is it true that a statue of the First Lord Baltimore (George Calvert), presented to Baltimore, Ireland by the former mayor of Baltimore, Maryland (William Donald Schaefer) stands out in some farmer's field there, surrounded by sheep, all but abandoned, and regarded as something of a joke? Once upon a time I had a photograph of the thing and was told that the Irish in your Baltimore never appreciated the gift, Calvert symbolizing the oppressive past when British lords ruled the isle. Is it so?

Please, let us know.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Russ Coburn, a certified public accountant, adds this to our ongoing discussion of wealth, taxes, disparity in income levels and the current mess:

"I ran an accounting business in Maryland for 20 years; I subsequently sold it and operated as a Controller/CFO for several years until last year when I retired.  I probably am someone who benefited from the policies you described.
 
Consider the following:
 
1.  America has been shipping its jobs overseas for decades under the banner of free trade;
    at the same time we do not have the same rule book for those shipping to us; America should be Insisting that our trade partners use the same rules they apply to us, or Vice-versa;
 
2. One impact of free trade is to ship jobs overseas and switch America from a nation that produces physical products to one that consumes others products. It is done under the banner of upgrading our work forces skills. Problem is that those jobs were out-sourced or immigration encouraged to stop the price mechanism from working here. As more was out-sourced or imported, our employees' pay scales were kept lower, thereby reducing the incentive to train new and better employees;
 
3. Since we do not produce what we consume, it will be very difficult in a bad recession to recover, because our people will not be able to obtain jobs upon which to start a true recovery.
 
4. Since our debt is so high, it will be very difficult for us to maintain our independence as a nation, and ultimately our pre-eminence in the world, if we have not already lost it.
 
5. I do not hear anyone talking about the underlying foundation upon which a recovery is to be built.  Why isn't this discussed more by our political leaders?
 
The trickle-down theory does not work; nor has anyone produced proof that it does.  Also, traditional economics suggests that incomes are taxed in good times to offset the deficit spending in bad times.
 
As a nation, we have spent more than we have in both and have been reluctant to ask anyone to pay for it, poor or rich. It seems to me that some of the spending such as defense should be weighted to the people that benefit more from it. Those with more to lose, should pay more.  If so, then they would have a greater interest in whether to spend their treasure on it.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 1:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
        

MIDDAY TODAY

Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or on line at wypr.org.  You can call during the show toll-free at 866-661-9309 or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org.

Thursday, October 23
1:00-2:00 pm
A member of one of the worlds great acting dynasties, Lynn Redgrave has appeared in films - from Tom Jones and Georgy Girl to Shine and Gods and Monsters - and Broadway plays. Lynn Redgrave was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2002 and underwent treatment for it without missing a performance or a day of filming. She and her daughter, Annabel Clark, join us to discuss Journal - A Mother and Daughter's Recovery from Breast Cancer, detailing her journey through diagnosis, treatment and recovery as seen through her daughter's photographic lens. The are both here for the Baltimore Women's Film Festival.

The BWFF 2008 is pleased to announce, among its festival-related events, a special book signing and sushi reception with acclaimed actress, playwright and breast cancer survivor Lynn Redgrave, and her daughter, photographer Annabel Clark.   The book signing and reception will take place after the screening at RA Sushi, 1390 Lancaster Street on Friday, October 24th.

The book signing/ sushi reception will follow immediately after the World Premiere screening of the film “Beyond Breast Cancer:  Stories of Survivors.”  “Beyond Breast Cancer”, which starts at 2 PM and runs 63 minutes long at Landmark’s Harbor East, highlights the experiences of nine courageous women who survive breast cancer - only to discover that their health struggles continue even after their cancer treatment ends.  This film, directed by Vivian Umino and produced by Saskia Karen Subramanian, was funded by the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

All those who attend the “Beyond Breast Cancer” film screening will, in addition to our VIP pass holders, be welcome to attend the sushi reception and book signing with Redgrave and Clark at RA Sushi after the film.   At the reception, both Redgrave and Clark will be available to sign copies of their collaborative work, “Journal:  A Mother and Daughter’s Recovery from Breast Cancer,” which narrates—through photos and print—their shared battle with Redgrave’s breast cancer, chemotherapy treatments, surgery, and beyond.  The reception is generously sponsored by RA Sushi, which will provide both delicious food and drinks gratis, from 3:30 to 4:30, to our guests.    

“Journal:  A Mother and Daughter’s Recovery from Breast Cancer” uniquely illuminates their story through thirty-seven intimate photographs which Clark took, along with Redgrave’s journal entries about her experience.   Redgrave, an avid diarist since the age of five, is perhaps better known as a highly acclaimed actress and film star from a world-famous family of actors (Redgrave, along with sister Vanessa and brother Corin, descend from five generations of celebrated thespians).  Redgrave’s film and stage credits include two Golden Globes, an Oscar nomination, two Tony nominations, an Outer Critics Circle Award, and an Obie.  Also an accomplished playwright, she has authored the plays “Shakespeare for My Father,” “The Mandrake Root” and “Nightingale.”    

Tickets for “Beyond Breast Cancer: Stories of Survivors,” like all films in the festival, are only $10 and may be purchased at the BWFF website (www.bwfilmfestival.com) or at the festival box office at Landmark-Harbor East Cinema.  VIP passes, which provide entry to twenty screenings throughout the festival and entry to special receptions and events including this one, are $80 and may also be purchased at the BWFF website or the festival box office at Landmark-Harbor East.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

A pro-Obama reader named Ed, who works in distribution management, says this is the argument he gives coworkers who have been supporting John McCain:

"I’ve been trying a more pragmatic approach with the McCain crowd and have had some success.  Maybe this is too simple but it’s based on the following assumptions:
1.  John McCain is a self-proclaimed maverick, an agent for change.
2.  The financial crisis will prohibit the next president from making any important change for the next two years while the economy is in rehab.
3.  McCain’s age or health might prevent him from even seeking a second term, and then there's Sarah Palin. 
4.  Eventually, McCain won't be able to get anything done anyway, with a Democratic Congress.
5.  All things considered, he's an impractical choice for any voter at this time."

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 9:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)
        

Here's this morning's mail -- from Dave The $31K-A-Year Guy:

I have no sympathy for people making over say $100,000/yearly, as I make $31,000/yearly (of which after tax I take home $410/weekly). I've been very lucky with a home I inherited. I go on vacations, which I must plan and save for months each year to do. I suspect many households making that $100,000 figure have husband and wife working to do that. I am lucky, as I said, my dad retired and was proud the last years he worked -- he made $25,000. Of course, that was with an average of 10-20 hours overtime weekly, and my mother never worked. They raised 3 kids well. Americans want, want, want is our problem. I'm an optimist, too. Many younger people making good salaries now have the same instincts my family seems to have had. I think they'll do well. But unfortunately they are bombarded with details of how bad they are doing and how rough things are. I do blame the wealthy for our current recession. I believe W and his peers are out of touch with people like me and you. I wish more people would realize they are not as bad off as they think . . . Thanks for listening.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 9:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)
        

MIDDAY TODAY

Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or on line at wypr.org.  You can call during the show toll-free at 866-661-9309 or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org.

Thursday, October 23
Noon-1:00
By now, you probably know it simply as "Question 2", and in twelve days Marylanders will vote on the measure, aimed at legalizing 15,000 slot machines across the state. The latest Washington Post poll indicates that, with the gloomy national picture and the state's budget shortfalls, economic concerns now outweigh any misgivings in voters' mind about social problems slots may bring here.  We'll look at whether and how slot machine gambling has paid out for Pennsylvania with Tom Barnes, State Capital Bureau Chief for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  We'll also examine how slots affect local economies with William Eadington, Professor of Economics and Director of the Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno.

1:00-2:00
A member of one of the worlds great acting dynasties, Lynn Redgrave has appeared in films - from Tom Jones and Georgy Girl to Shine and Gods and Monsters - and Broadway plays. Lynn Redgrave was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2002 and underwent treatment for it without missing a performance or a day of filming. She and her daughter, Annabel Clark, join us to discuss Journal - A Mother and Daughter's Recovery from Breast Cancer, detailing her journey through breast cancer as seen through her daughter's photographic lens. The are both here for the Baltimore Women's Film Festival.

The BWFF 2008 is pleased to announce, among its festival-related events, a special book signing and sushi reception with acclaimed actress, playwright and breast cancer survivor Lynn Redgrave, and her daughter, photographer Annabel Clark.   The book signing and reception will take place after the screening at RA Sushi, 1390 Lancaster Street on Friday, October 24th.

The book signing/ sushi reception will follow immediately after the World Premiere screening of the film “Beyond Breast Cancer:  Stories of Survivors.”  “Beyond Breast Cancer”, which starts at 2 PM and runs 63 minutes long at Landmark’s Harbor East, highlights the experiences of nine courageous women who survive breast cancer - only to discover that their health struggles continue even after their cancer treatment ends.  This film, directed by Vivian Umino and produced by Saskia Karen Subramanian, was funded by the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

All those who attend the “Beyond Breast Cancer” film screening will, in addition to our VIP pass holders, be welcome to attend the sushi reception and book signing with Redgrave and Clark at RA Sushi after the film.   At the reception, both Redgrave and Clark will be available to sign copies of their collaborative work, “Journal:  A Mother and Daughter’s Recovery from Breast Cancer,” which narrates—through photos and print—their shared battle with Redgrave’s breast cancer, chemotherapy treatments, surgery, and beyond.  The reception is generously sponsored by RA Sushi, which will provide both delicious food and drinks gratis, from 3:30 to 4:30, to our guests.    

“Journal:  A Mother and Daughter’s Recovery from Breast Cancer” uniquely illuminates their story through thirty-seven intimate photographs which Clark took, along with Redgrave’s journal entries about her experience.   Redgrave, an avid diarist since the age of five, is perhaps better known as a highly acclaimed actress and film star from a world-famous family of actors (Redgrave, along with sister Vanessa and brother Corin, descend from five generations of celebrated thespians).  Redgrave’s film and stage credits include two Golden Globes, an Oscar nomination, two Tony nominations, an Outer Critics Circle Award, and an Obie.  Also an accomplished playwright, she has authored the plays “Shakespeare for My Father,” “The Mandrake Root” and “Nightingale.”    

Copies of Redgrave’s and Clark’s “Journal:  A Mother and Daughter’s Recovery from Breast Cancer” may be purchased in advance by October 16th at the BWFF website.  Direct purchase link is here: http://www.bwfilmfestival.com/8.html.  

If you purchase the book in advance, we will have it waiting for you, under your name at the signing!

Tickets for “Beyond Breast Cancer: Stories of Survivors,” like all films in the festival, are only $10 and may be purchased at the BWFF website (www.bwfilmfestival.com) or at the festival box office at Landmark-Harbor East Cinema.  VIP passes, which provide entry to twenty screenings throughout the festival and entry to special receptions and events including this one, are $80 and may also be purchased at the BWFF website or the festival box office at Landmark-Harbor East.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Some readers of this blog and my column argue that the ever-widening gap in income levels in the United States is not a big deal -- in fact, they say, raising it constitutes a kind of phony populism that only serves as a divisive argument at a time when the nation needs unity. They also say that the disparity is not the result of Republican administration tax cuts (Reagan and, 20 years later, again with Bush) but of other factors, including stagnant wages. They also say, essentially, that life for the middle class and lower is not so bad because families are smaller and all Americans have enjoyed periods of prosperity during the last 30 years, even as the income gap between the top and bottom widened significantly. 

"The increasing gap between rich and poor is a function of the dynamism of the US economy," wrote John Sandstrom of Phoenix, Maryland. "Low-skilled high-paying work is disappearing with jobs moving out of the country and those jobs remaining requiring training and education which translates into higher pay. Furthermore, the allegation that somehow the standard of living and income of the middle class has stagnated is likewise wholly incorrect and easily disproved with readily available statistics.  Family income is confused with individual income.  Largely because of prosperity, family size had gotten smaller and therefore family income has reduced or remained the same.  Consumption levels are the easiest way of determining increases in standard of living.  It has increased 74% from 1980 to 2004."  

Mr. Sandstrom cites the conservative columnist Thomas Sowell to support his take on this.

But, given the result of the last 30 years of tax policy and economic trends, and the disparity of the last decade alone -- a 9.1 percent growth in income for the top 20 percent, a 1.3 percent growth for the middle quintile and a loss of 2.5 percent for the bottom -- it's hard to agree that "prosperity" has been for all. Any such prosperity has been financed. Middle- and low-income families have gone into increasing levels of debt to get by.

People who know a lot more about this than Thomas Sowell or I do agree.
 John Campagna, of Benchmark Asset Managers in Baltimore, is convinced income disparity does make a difference and needs to be addressed.
"We have been tracking much of the [economic] crisis at a deeper level to understand what is needed in order to correct things and get us back on track investment-wise and as a country," he says. "If you are making over $250,000 you probably have not been borrowing as consistently as most Americans have who earn less, but it is not really even a debate about who is rich and who is not.  The debate should focus on what as a country should we do to give more income to the majority of people who have lack any income growth for 20 to 30 years, and in turn help our economy."

Campagna provided a good description of what the income gap has caused for the last 20 to 30 years, and how it directly contributes to the current crisis -- from the October newsletter of GMO. That's Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo, an investor whose chairman, Jeremy Grantham, is a widely respected investment manager with about $150 billion. He is an investor bear and was among those who predicted the collapse of financial institutions, hedge funds and some private equity firms. 

Here's an excerpt from his October newsletter that addresses household income and "illusory wealth" in the American mainstream:

 “The global economy is likely to show the scars of this crisis for several years. In particular, the illusion of wealth created by over-inflated asset prices has been dramatically reduced and, though most of this effect is behind us, a substantial part of the housing decline in some European countries and the U.S. is still to occur.

"We were all spending and, in the case of the U.S., importing as if we were much richer than is in fact the case. Particularly here in the U.S., increasing household debt temporarily masked some of the pain from little or no increase in real hourly wages for 20 to 30 years. Household debt since 1982 has added over 1% a year to consumer spending. Unfortunately, this net benefit does not go on forever.

"In the first year in which you borrow 1% of your income, the interest payment barely makes a dent and your spending is close to 101% of your disposable income. But each year you borrow an incremental 1%, your interest load grows. After 15 years or so in a world of an average 7% interest rate, the interest on the accumulating debt fully offsets the new borrowing when one looks at consumers collectively.
"Well, we in the U.S. are closer to a model of 30 years of borrowing an incremental 1%, meaning that we passed through break-even years ago and now pay much more in interest than we borrow incrementally.
"This is a situation favorable to an overfed financial structure as long as everyone can and will pay their interest, but it is no longer beneficial to aggregate consumption compared with the good old-fashioned way of waiting until you had actually saved up to buy a TV set. Indeed, a visitor from Mars examining two countries, one with accumulated consumer debt of 1.5 times GDP and the other with zero, would notice no difference except for the reduced number of consumer lending outlets.
"This generally unfavorable picture gets worse when you consider that we are likely to have, for the next 10 years or so, a modest annual reduction in personal debt of, say, 0.5% of gross income per year as well as a continued interest payment. So the debt accumulation effect reverses as does the illusion of the wealth effect from overpriced stocks and housing, especially the illusion of a decent accumulated pension. As we said two years ago (embroidering on Buffett), when the tide of overpriced assets goes out, it will be revealed not only who is not wearing swimming shorts, but also who has a small pension! Our silly joke has become a sick one in just two years.
"This reversal of the illusory wealth effect added to deleveraging will be felt worldwide, but especially in the so-called Anglo-Saxon countries, and will be a permanently depressing feature of the next decade or so compared with the last decade. It is indeed the end of an era.”

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 7:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
        

Bob for a flat tax:
As a product of a Jesuit education, I learned a lot about fairness, equity and justice. Although I suspect that my high school teachers and college professors would be appalled by the manner in which I apply those concepts to taxes, I reach the following conclusions:
Fairness would dictate that, since our government is supposed to benefit all Americans, all of us should pay the same tax, a true flat tax. Although that would be "fair", many (myself included) would argue that such an arrangement would not be "equitable."
Equity would suggest that each of us should pay the same tax rate, so that if A earns 10 times what B earns A would pay 10 times the amount of tax that B does. But would that be "just"? Simply because A can afford to pay more in taxes than B does not mean that A should. A doesn't get 10 times the benefit from our government than B does.
Justice then, in my view, requires a graduated tax rate, not like the one that we have in place but a declining rate at different breakpoints. If I were constructing a tax system, I would do it like this:
1. No one pays Federal income taxes (including income, FICA and Medicare taxes) on income up to the "poverty line" to be determined by Congress at the beginning of each term. If you earn less than the "poverty line" for your family size, you would pay no Federal income taxes; and if you earn $100,000 or $1,000,000, you would pay no Federal income taxes on the amount of earnings below the "poverty line" for your family size.
2. Everyone who pays Federal income taxes pays those taxes at a flat rate to be set by Congress at the beginning of each term and most deductions (e.g. charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments) would be eliminated.
3. The flat rate would apply to all income (excluding income below the "poverty line") up to $2,000,000. The next $2,000,000 would be taxed at 80% of the established flat rate; the next $2,000,000 would be taxed at 60% of the established flat rate; the next $2,000,000 would be taxed at 40% of the established flat rate; and all income above $8,000,000 would be taxed at 20% of the established flat rate.
Under such a system, we should be able to avoid "class warfare" not only in speeches but also in fact. We would also achieve a "just" income tax system.

Dave says the Founding Fathers weren't much for "fairness"
"It won't take you long to figure out that I'm a conservative, but if you'll take a moment to read my email I would appreciate a genuine dialog on the tax issue . . . I'm not an economist, not a politician, nor anything resembling a financial expert. I'm simply a person who has owned and operated a small business for the last 20 years. My business has been through great times and very difficult times. Over the years I've employed anywhere from 5 to 60 employees. Like most any small business, during these twenty years I have always had to have my personal assets (home, savings, etc.) guarantee any loans, lines of credit, or other financing my business has needed. There have been difficult times when I was very close to losing most all my personal assets. There have been plenty of months where I've taken little or no salary with the promise that things would turn around soon. I risked it all because one, I had a lot of people working for me that depended on my business for their livelihood, and two, I looked forward to the potential reward should I make it through the hard times and succeed. Without the potential of a worthwhile reward most small business owners would have little incentive to take such risks.
Your article promotes idea of "fairness" --after all, even Warren Buffet doesn't see anything wrong with that -- of course he's in a wealth class all to himself! But who will be the arbiters of "fairness"? You...the government...Buffet? Our founding fathers did not seem to consider "fairness" to be core principal by which to govern the country. Rather, they considered life and liberty to be of utmost importance. To quote someone I heard the other day, "the purpose of our tax system should be to dole out fairness."
You spent a good deal of your article asserting why someone who makes $250k or more a year is wealthy. A discussion about taxes should not be about how much money someone needs to make to be called wealthy, but rather what tax system is best for our country. I decide this by answering the following questions:
What tax system best promotes life, liberty, individual responsibility, and the desire to pursue a better quality of life?
What tax system best incentives a person to take risks to create and grow a business, and thus create jobs?
Will the government spend the money it takes from me in taxes more wisely than I will spend it myself? To put it another way, will the government get more value for each dollar of mine than I will?
...I know there are more questions but I can't think of any at the moment!
When I've made a lot of money...I've also given a lot of money to people in need and causes that I choose to support--where are the "pro-choice" voices on this issue? I hate the thought of a bunch of bureaucrats taking my money...wasting a lot of it on "red tape"...spending a bunch on programs I probably don't support...and finally spending what's left on things that are actually necessary for the defense and government of our country.
I believe in helping those less fortunate than myself, and I believe our government should provide a safety net for those who are in great need for the basics of living. However, while I'm firmly pro-life on the abortion issue, I'm also firmly pro-choice on letting individual Americans ("wealthy" or not) decide what to do with more of their hard earned money.

Marty on the problem with American voters:
In relation to yesterday's column, I like what a letter-writer named Dan had to say in yesterday's newspaper: "When Dan the plumber looks in the mirror, he sees Dan the plumber. When Joe the plumber looks in the mirror ... he apparently sees some version of Warren E. Buffett." Therein lies the problem with many American voters. They vote for politicians and policies that are destructive to their own interests because they somehow identify with the rich, who mostly only have contempt for them."

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 5:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

THE MIDDAY SHOW

Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or online at wypr.org.  You can call during the show toll-free at 866-661-9309 or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org.

Wednesday, October 22
Noon-1:00 pm

The presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama has, inevitably, prompted discussions on the issue of race in American politics and culture. Conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh says Colin Powell, the former U.S. secretary of state, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman and national security adviser, endorsed Obama simply because he is black. Powell dismisses that assertion and gives numerous other reasons for his endorsement. But will race be a factor in the November election, or is the nation finally moving past that consideration? We'll have a talk about how it factors into the election with one of the most eloquent and thoughtful men we know, the Rev. Frank M. Reid III, pastor of Bethel AME Church in Baltimore. We'll also talk about the church's attitude toward the slot machine gambling proposal in Maryland.

 

Related to this is the next photograph. It's an "after photo." I'd show you the "before" photo, but it contains one of the worst words in human language and I avoid using it. Let's just say that, on a road in Harford County two weeks ago, someone spray-painted a racist statement against Barack Obama, in front of a home with an Obama lawn sign. This was near recreation fields in Fallston, Maryland. The man who sent me this photo lives near there and listens regularly to Midday. He saw the racist grafitti, reported it to local law enforcement, then returned to the scene and used his own can of spray paint to doctor the words on the pavement. High-fives to him for doing so. He asked that neither his name nor his address be published here. "I was not going to let one more school bus go by this sad display of ignorant hate," he explained. "So, with the permission of the sheriff's office, I fixed it with a little spray paint. I used someone's ignorant hate speech to say something better. Like Obama said at a recent rally about character attacks on McCain: 'We don't need that.'"

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
        

Readers have a lot to say about the election, Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans -- those households making more than $250,000 per year -- the record disparity gaps in income levels, the concentration of wealth among the upper classes over the last 30 years, and Republican complaints of "class warfare" every time it's mentioned. Thanks to everyone who reacted to recent columns on this subject; the civil feedback -- lacking profanity and invectiveness -- is very much appreciated. (For those who complain about the cost of government, the reason we pay federal taxes, just one thing: Welfare, as we knew it, is pretty much gone, never was a big part of the federal budget and not the reason why taxes are so high. The big-ticket items are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and then defense-related spending, now estimated at close to a trillion a year.)

Nancy owns a company:
I read, shaking my head, the comments about who is wealthy. My grandfather was a German immigrant who lost everything after 1929.  My father was born in 1920 and passed along his values to me.  I took over his precast concrete business and I work very hard for what I earn, especially now.  I can still hear my father say that he never minded paying taxes; it meant he made money that year. Can you imagine how wealthy this country would be if everyone thought that way?  He took the advice of accountants and tax planners, but he always paid his share."

Jeffrey is an executive at a big bank, supports sales tax
"Who the wealthy are, and whether they should pay more taxes is irrelevant until they actually pay the share they are supposed to now. I am constantly reminded of the scene in Cheers where Sam beats millionaire Robin in a game of chess for their respective salaries. Robin pays Sam his annual salary, one penny. The point here is that most if not all high level executives receive a lot of their pay in stock options or other perks, like $400,000 retreats, that is not taxed at the top bracket, if at all. McCain (whom I am leaning towards) foolishly wants to eliminate capital gains taxes, essentially giving these same execs a tax holiday. The uber wealthy have abusive tax trusts, or hide their money and income out of the country, and don't pay taxes either. Many corporations do the same thing. The middle and lower classes comprised of mostly honest, hardworking, tax paying citizens cannot take "advantage" of all of this and pays their full "due" of taxes. Some unfortunate souls get caught by AMT and really hammered by taxes.
"The crux of the problem is that the tax code is so Byzantine and convoluted and full of loopholes, that the upper class is either taking advantage of directly or using sleazy accountants to do it for them. There needs to be a fair and reasonable way to apportion taxes and make sure that everyone pays them, before we even begin to discuss who should pay more or less. Again, we in the US are arguing over Band-Aids rather then fixing the problem. Of course, keep in mind that the majority of tax scofflaws work in the White House or Congress, so I guess its no surprise that none of them want to actually fix it. Its better to pander to the voters. But really, we are all being screwed.
"I personally support a national sales tax. It hits everyone equally and captures income from illegal sources as well (drug dealers would pay taxes on their Escalades). There are no special breaks for any group and it is applied equally across class, gender, and race. You would continue to exempt non-prepared foods, some services, and perhaps children’s clothing to avoid it being regressive. But it would reward savers and wise spenders and capture additional income on large luxury items. It would also prevent anyone from dodging paying taxes."

Penny is wise
"After hard work through college and some beyond we are fortunate, very fortunate, to be in that lofty 2%. We have willingly coughed up our taxes and don't gripe (well, not too much) about it. We've sent our kids to private schools and have been respectful of others who cannot afford or chose not to make the same choice. We have NEVER taken a dime without adding it to the total to be taxed, so I get really bummed when I hear people glibly talk about taking "money under the table", want to be paid in cash only, and other tax-dodging practices. Tell those thieves to be honest fool. . .  We support Obama because, among many other reasons (brilliant, young, calm...NOT a maverick...who wants an out of control maverick as President?)....but because he IS trying to 'spread' things around....like making huge companies pay their share of taxes, and shredding the golden umbrellas for high rolling CEOs, and giving tax breaks to the terribly strapped middle and lower income folks.  Yes, we know our personal tax bill will not improve, and our recently ransacked 401-ks may not recover in time for our previously planned retirement years (wait 15-20 years for them to recover? We'll be 77 & 78 by then, (Lord willing). . . . Yes, those making $250K+ are comfortable. So they may have to give up the country club or horseback riding lessons. Sorry, stop your moaning & groaning."

Marc rants about other stuff:
"I will be delightfully surprised if Barack Obama wins because I have no faith in the American voter.  I think the average American voter is incredibly stupid and lazy. Examples of this include the re-election of "W" and what should be a much greater disparity between those voting for the party of change and those supporting the party of the problems we need to solve. I am a middle-aged white man and I have a great deal of trouble believing white people my age will vote for a black man. I think our founding fathers thought that since the right to vote was so precious, we would exercise that right with more deliberate judgment.  . . . NOTHING infuriates me more than being called un-patriotic because I vote Democratic."

Ellen shares Warren Buffett's views:
"So few people today counter the ridiculous fallacy passed off on us now for decades that a "trickle down"  approach to the economy is a fair one and good for us all.  Rather, it is a farce and was never intended, even by its knowledgeable proponents, to work. In short it was a scam passed off on us, a real work of class warfare,  not this phony phrase passed around by the wealthy these days when their obscene tax breaks are called into question. . . . Class warfare is when the gap between rich and poor is growing past Robber Baron standards, as it is these days.  Asking those with incomes over $250,000 to forgo some of the breaks that have put them on the nice side of the growing divide is not class warfare by any stretch of the imagination.  That is called fairness, the kind needed if a democracy is to survive, since the research on the vitality of the middle class correlating with the vitality of a democracy is clear and persuasive.  You cannot have a democracy with rich gated communities surrounded by struggling people.  That is not what our Founders dreamed of, and it's what  we are getting with trickle down tragic nonsense. . . .  For what it is worth, while I am not on the nice side of this $250,000 divide, I am not too far off.  Yet I have consistently advocated for an increased tax burden for the well-off, myself included.  That is what being part of a democracy entails. It has never been about me first.  It has always been about the common good. And a country with the income gap growing cannot be a just one with the common good enhanced."

Rocco Rotondo says they're stingy:
"The truth of the matter is people who make $250,000 are the bottom of that group. I would venture to say a great majority make well over that figure. They don't want to let any go."

Gerald, a CPA, points out Clinton factor:
"I've read with interest your columns of the past two days that each mentioned that, "The federal tax cuts of the early 2000s … were targeted primarily on wealthy families…".  While I certainly can't disagree with that statement, perhaps it is fair and balanced to mention that shortly after coming into office, the Clinton administration sponsored and pushed through Congress the "Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993" which created a new higher tax rate of 36% on incomes in excess of $140,000 for married people ($115,000 for singles) and a top rate of 39.6% for incomes in excess of $250,000 for all.  Prior to 1993, the top tax rate was 31%.  To make matters worse, the new rates were enacted in August 1993 but made retroactive to 1/1/93. . . .   So I think it's fair to say that, "The federal tax increases of the early 1990s … were targeted primarily at wealthy families."  So all the Bush tax cuts did was cut back some of the Clinton tax increases on the wealthy. In fact, the Bush tax cuts only reduced the top rate to 35%, still 4% points higher than the top rate of 31% before the Clinton tax increases."

Carl thinks he's already overly taxed:
"I am, using the $250,000 annual income benchmark, among the 'wealthy.' We own and operate retail stores in the area where we employ about 50 associates. We are very fortunate to make a good living but it wasn't always that way. When we started our business 19 years ago, I worked in the store from opening to close every day.  . . . We are 'all in' with my business. My girls work with me and my wife takes care of the books. We have loans against our home which guarantee our business debts. Although I don't work the hours I did when we started the business, we do not have banker's hours. I'm not whining, I just want you to understand that there are commitments that I make to insure my standard of living that I'm sure many would not. I also believe that many would not have taken the risk we took early on and continue to take. As an aside, about 2 hours ago we chased an individual from our store who had stolen some of our merchandise. Last week, we caught an associate who was using fictitious refunds to steal from us. It ain't easy!
"Look, I'm a product of the sixties, too! We spent a lot of time talking in the day about how it would be different when we were in charge. But, somehow, it's not that simple. I know that I work hard and have built a business that helps to support 50 families. We pay Federal Taxes at the 38% rate and Maryland taxes at the 7% rate. Most folks don't realize that we also pay payroll taxes that this year will amount to about $60,000. That pays part of our associates Social Security, and it pays for Medicare and unemployment benefits for our associates. That comes right out of our pocket and is also a "tax." At times, it would be easier to sell the business and take our investment and put it into an interest bearing account. Less payback but a lot fewer headaches. I know this....when the taxes get too high people like me will do just that! . . .   I know that there are lots of people out there who would change places with me in a heartbeat. I can't deny that the statistics about negative salary gains at the low end of the scale are distressing. However, I am also frustrated by a philosophy that says just because someone makes less than someone else, then that person is somehow 'entitled' to more. I am a firm believer in programs that help everyone to a better life but I am also realistic enough to understand that not everyone will participate! Why penalize with an even greater tax burden those who help create wealth in the first place! Why does it need to be a zero sum game?"

Hilary would love a new bathroom
"My spouse and I teeter around the $150k income mark. We used to make more until I went to a lower paying job to spend time with my daughter.  The old job netted my husband and I more money but I valued my time more.  The biggest change for us now is that we won't be able to save as much money, make home improvements or send my daughter to private school for her education and still pay our other bills.  . . . If we had $250 or more, we wouldn't be driving fancy cars or sailing on yachts or taking big vacations, but we'd be able to afford that quality education, and make home improvements, like updating our ugly 70s bathroom!  I had that quality education and wish I could give it to my daughter but I can't do that and be home with her on nights and weekends.  These days, making the kind of money required to send your kids to private school means working nights and weekends.  
"So, I had to make a choice.  In making the choice, I evaluated what more money can buy -- a better quality of life, something that would make me and my kids richer in our life, not in money, but in the types and quality of things we could do.  The choice impacted where I worked all day and where my daughter would go all day to school.  It may not be the kind of wealth normally thought of -- shiny cars, big homes, expensive vacations, but being able to choose the best quality in what you already do is a kind of wealth.  Having the same life, in the same home, but with better home improvements, and better schools IS a kind of wealth. 
"And those people that e-mail you saying that $250k isn't wealthy need to realize that.  They are wealthy.  Making over $250,000 is rare and for a lot of people its either impossible or requires impossible sacrifices.  Perhaps those e-mailers see other parents like them at the private schools or in the upscale supermarkets or at the workplace and think everyone is like them.  They aren't.  Some people can't afford to be at those same schools, or choose not to be in that same workplace.  Instead, most people are making basic life choices based on money: where to send the kids to school, where to work, where to live, when/if they should improve their home. . . . If I had the $250k or more, I'd consider myself wealthy because I'd be able to send my kid to a great private school, save money, build for retirement and make home improvements -- I'd love a bathroom with double sinks and no ugly wallpaper. I would have a better quality of life.  I'd feel rich.  And statistically in this country, I would be!"

Tom makes a lot of money
"I am one of those families that make over 250,000. Dan, contrary to the popular stereotype, I wasn't born with a silver spoon. My father worked at the Point. I grew up in Rosedale and went to that fine institution that is now called Towson University. Nothing fancy about me. . . . What I did was work between 60-70 hours a week for 20 years. I worked my way up the corporate ladder until I was making around 100,000. . . I pretty much had no life to speak of. Then I decided to start a business.  My wife and I picked up the family moved and got in the ground floor of a new business. We risked everything. . . Last year we paid 87,500 in taxes. I think that is a lot of money, don't you?  I have no problem with the middle class. I do have a problem with people that
feel they should get more of my hard earned money. I had the option of staying in a comfortable job making 65,000 a year and working 40 hours a week. But I chose to do something different and much harder. And for that, I guess I should be penalized."

Patty reflects on what's rich
"A few years ago, my then-6-year-old asked me, 'Mom?  Are we poor?'  I knew it was time to sit him down and tell him some of the facts of life. 'No, dear.  We are not poor.  As a matter of fact, we are stinking rich!  We have all the food we could possibly want to eat and as much clean water as we want to drink!  We live in this enormous house (2200 sq. ft) – why, in other parts of the world 10 families would live in a house this size!  We have great schools, a safe neighborhood, great doctors and dentists, beautiful libraries – we have everything we need!  Why do you ask if we’re poor?'
“'My friends live in bigger houses.  They have video games.  They have more toys than we do.'”
“'Yes, dear.  Around here we don’t look rich because some of our friends are even richer than we are.  We live in one of the richest communities, in one of the richest states, in one of the richest countries in the world.  If we compare ourselves to the other people that live around us, we might feel as though we don’t have enough.  But we have more than enough.  We are very, very rich.'
"(From Webster’s New World Dictionary:  rich, adj., 1.  having more than enough of material possessions; owning much money or property; wealthy.)
"I take a lot of pleasure in hearing him repeat this to his younger brothers. Need I mention that we do not have a family income of $250,000?  If those folks making over $250,000 aren't able to brag about their wealth the way I am, maybe they're just not managing it very well.  I'd be glad to give them a few pointers.
"Hate to be a killjoy, but in my opinion, as Americans we each need to take a serious look at our life and how we are living it.  We are a bloated, selfish nation that needs a big, ol’ slap upside the head to knock some sense into us.  How can anyone enjoy the good life when we have become so aware of the tremendous damage that good life is causing?  When there is so much abject misery in the world?  And to think there are some people in the throes of 'the good life' who are whining that their life isn’t good enough!  That they can 'only save $5,000 or $10,000 a year' after they’ve paid for their children’s private school education!  Do they understand that $5000 equals the annual income of 14 families in some very populous parts of the world?  Give it up – save a few lives.  Be a sport.
"There was an article in the Sun a while ago that said research determined that a family needed an income of $58,000 to be happy.  Then, they found, happiness diminished when income went over $150,000.  Might I suggest that your affluent readers look at the choices that they are making in their lives?   If they are not happy with what they see, perhaps they should make some changes – it may lead to increased happiness."

Winston counts SUVs to get his sense of the country
"Based on the number of big SUV's and limousines seen on the roads every day around this city, Baltimore must have a much higher percentage than 2% of all households making more than $250,000!  . . .  I do believe you should give credit where credit is due regarding the "wealthy", whatever that term means. Many in that category have risked their life-savings to start small businesses. They take out second mortgages, rely heavily on their ability to borrow, take unusual risks, because they are dedicated to doing well and hopefully being rewarded for their efforts. They cover payrolls when things are not going well, they pay their taxes on time. And they are also dedicated business people who want to grow their businesses. Don't discount their importance to the economy. Small businesses employ a large majority of the workers in America. Check the stats with US Chamber of NFIB. Don't disrespect the goose that laid the golden egg! It appears we are headed in that direction, and that scares me!"

Jerry doesn't like any candidate
"I am currently working hard for my $150,000+ salary so I don't have much time but just a few comments:     There has always been a significant difference between haves and have-nots in American society and, I trust, in almost every society in history and at present times.  Why the sudden preaching about it? You seem to ignore, or at least fail to mention, that most of those in the high income brackets work very hard to earn their money and in the case of entrepreneurs and business owners often took tremendous risks with their personal savings to start up and finance their fledging companies.  Why are they being castigated now?
You, yourself, are a long standing newspaper reporter whose work I have generally enjoyed for many years.  I assume you are not in the lower income categories, so do you feel guilty?
If the country has problems with infrastructure, people going hungry, etc. I can live with higher taxes  -  If I can feel that that extra money is being used in a careful and effective manner.  Nothing I see from current or likely political parties gives me any confidence. The current four political candidates for President and Vice-President are an abomination and a horrible indictment of the political process.  Why aren't any of you astute political opinionists writing anything about that situation?"

Bill makes an interesting point
If "going shopping" is considered "patriotic" (by Bush), then why is paying taxes "unpatriotic" (according to McCain)? And since McCain doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for the war in Iraq he supports so vigorously, how fair (and courageous) is it for him to effectively hand the bill for it to our children and grandchildren? John McCain talks about taking on and cleaning up Wall Street and greedy corporate CEO's.  Boy, those tax cuts he wants to give them will really fix them, all right!

Ken comments on white-collar privileges
As a Guy out of work and struggling to save his home, Pests & Family, as well as being Deaf, as
well as hearing of hearing of this 700 Billion Bailout which failed to enforce any accountability on Wall Street, it simply goes to show that White Collar Crimes Pays Well! But let a blue-collar or poor person do something to try to survive and the Law is harsh an unrelenting in Jailing them for even minor offenses. Unfair laws in an unfair Nation that doesn’t care about others unless you got the money! Maybe it is time we have a Class War! Guarantee every American a Basic Salary and then  maybe  things in America would change! We also need to start cutting from the Top; Such as Politicians Salaries, and CEO Salaries etc. This is NOt Socialism but Social Reasonability  for all Americans. I hope that is NOT too much to Ask for, in what is supposed to the Richest Nation on Earth!

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)
        

MIDDAY: Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or online at wypr.org.  You can call during the show toll-free at 866-661-9309 or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org.

Tuesday, October 21
1:00-2:00
"Boomeritis" is defined as sports-related -- or just life-related -- injuries to Baby Boom generation adults. We'll talk with Dr. John Emmett, sports enthusiast, body-builder and author of Turning Back the Hands of Time, and Dr. Bill Howard, left, founder of the sports medicine clinic at Union Memorial Hospital and Participating Physician of the Arnold Palmer SportsHealth Center.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

A reader named Ken in Ocean Pines, Maryland writes:

"Taxypayers in this country who earn less than $250,000 a year need to wake up and realize that the fat cats are getting all the breaks for which they lobby politicians. No one earning less than a quarter of a million annually is represented at the table when breaks, bailouts, loopholes, golden parachutes, stock options, and the like are proposed, discussed, lobbied, voted on, and executed. You are absolutely correct that the Reagan 'trickle-down' theory is actually 'trickle-up.'  When you give money to the wealthy, they keep it.  Money given to the wealthy does not trickle down.  It just stays there, and makes the income gap wider and wider. Why do less-wealthy people accept this situation?"

From Laura in Towson, Md.:

"During the Clinton years my family brought in $250,000 one year working for a thriving company.  The next year it went to $180,000.  The next year it went to $140,000.  The last year with them was $125,000 until my husband was let go (three months before my first child was heading off to a private out of state college). Now he makes $100,000 and hasn't had a dime of a raise for four years with the same company.  Sure, we complain like everybody else.  Two kids are in college with huge tuitions.  One is still home.  Fortunately we bought our house 8 years ago new when prices were low and mortgages were simple.  Sure I'm not saving anything and I worry about whether my third child's college fund will be revived after the stock market plunge.
 
"But are we suffering?  No.  Are there lots more people who are worse off then us?  Plenty.  Do people who make over $250,000 have a right to complain?  No.  When we made that kind of money one year, we paid plenty in taxes and I understood that at that level, it was my responsibility to do so.  If you make lots of money, shut up, pay up, and stop buying lots of crap that you don't need.  Stop buying new cars every 5 years; stop buying every damn techno piece of equipment because it's cool.  Or go ahead and buy that stuff but stop complaining about how you don't have any money to go around.  When we made that much, and we paid beaucoup taxes, we still had plenty to go around.  Even at $100,000 today, we are not suffering.  Not being able to turn on the lights and eat - now that is suffering.  Oh, by the way.  I am for Obama.  McCain has stooped to an all time low.  I hope he loses by a landslide.  My sister falls in the over $250,000 category and her family is happy to pay an increased tax to help those who cannot.  What is wrong with everybody?"
 

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
        

MIDDAY: Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or online at wypr.org.  You can call during the show toll-free at 866-661-9309 or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org.

Tuesday, October 21
Noon-1:00
The unscheduled third participant in last week's presidential debate was "Joe the Plumber" from Ohio. He became the central figure in the tax debate between Senators McCain and Obama. This hour we'll get a non-partisan comparison of the Obama and McCain tax plans with Bob Williams, Principal Research Associate with the Tax Policy Center, and Fred Brown, Associate Professor of Law & Director of the Graduate Tax Program at the University of Baltimore.

1:00-2:00
"Boomeritis" is defined as injuries to older amateur athletes, especially those who are part of the Baby Boom. We'll talk with Dr. John Emmett, author of the book Turning Back the Hands of Time.  We'll also talk with Dr. Bill Howard, founder of the sports medicine clinic at Union Memorial Hospital.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Hey, bunkie, you think it's tough making ends meet on 50-grand a year? Or maybe even $100-grand a year? It's nothing compared to what it's like making $250,000 a year and living in a $700,000 house in a classy Baltimore neighborhood. . . . Wait 'til you read this one. It's priceless, written by a Baltimorean apparently on a work assignment in the United Arab Emirates (where he's not taxed on the first $80,000 of income, or the first $160,000 if married.) Working there, amid all the oil wealth, perhaps the letter-writer's perspective is skewed. His name is Elam. Though the e-mail was unsolicited -- apparently provoked by Sunday's column --I'm not going to use his full name because I don't have permission. Still, it's clear Elam is clueless -- or in denial -- as to how most of the people in this country live and how elite a financial class he and his neighbors are in. (For more on that, see today's column.) By the way, when Elam quotes me quoting my mother -- remarkably, from a magazine interview years ago -- just remember, the former Rose Popolo is 94; she used to tell us about the Great Depression and how Hoover had favored the rich and believed prosperity was right around the corner, and how FDR had saved the country. If she was biased, she and her family came by it honestly.

"Whoa Dan, perhaps you need to step back and consider what you wrote more carefully. Your tone was obstinate and judgmental, which aren’t good virtues in a newspaper columnist. Since Barack Obama has made empathy an issue in his campaign, may I dare to ask you to consider some empathy for those who might make more money than you do? In fact, just ask yourself this question: why are you so rigid on the view that an income of $250,000 a year automatically makes you rich?

"True, statistically speaking, it may place you in the top 2-3% of US households, but then again, what’s the favorite saying about statistics: “lies, damned lies and statistics.”

"Just consider this fact: the bulk of the households making 250,000 a year are concentrated in the major urban areas. Cost of living in many of those urban areas are quite high, and let’s even take Baltimore as an example. What does an income of $250,000 a year get you in Baltimore? After taxes, that nets you perhaps $150,000 a year in disposable income. You get a nice lifestyle, sure, but hardly a “rich” lifestyle. A $600-700,000 house in Roland Park or Homeland or Towson. Use realtor.com to see what kind of house you can buy for 700,000 in North Baltimore or Baltimore County. Comfortable, but not mansions. 

"Two kids in private schools if you want, but even spending $40,000 a year for two school tuitions at Friends is a big component of an after tax income of $150,000. Plus you’ve got to sock away savings and retirement funds, despite the current economic crisis. You’ve got to maintain two cars for the family, and quite a few people making 250K a year are driving minivans and Hondas. Why? Because they’re saving money for college bills. These folks aren’t going to receive financial aid, and will be paying, out of pocket, over 40,000 a year for a private college. Multiply that by four years, and by the number of children you have. 

"Hey, maybe many of those making $250,000 a year are still paying off graduate and professional school debts, especially if they have a law degree or a medical degree.

"Suddenly they don’t seem so rich, do they?

"And this is only Baltimore. Let’s move on to DC. $250,000 a year might buy you a small three-bedroom colonial  anywhere in Montgomery County with a good school district. New York or Boston or California? It’s even worse. 

"There’s an enormous world of difference between people making $250,000 a year and people who have millions and millions in income and assets, as there’s a big difference between a Roland Park house and a 100-acre spread in Butler with stables and horses. Likewise, there’s a big difference between a single man making $250,000 a year living in a Canton loft and a suburban family of four with a large mortgage in a good school district or paying private school fees. There’s a big difference between an income of $250,000 a year in rural Pennsylvania and in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.  

"Consequently, making blanket statements about incomes without considering all the other factors that may affect that income is a rather futile, and ultimately, dangerously judgmental way of thinking. 

"I suppose your opinions are very much the product of a working-class immigrant childhood, and I do remember an article you wrote, years ago, in which you described how your mother pointed at the town banker and said, 'That man’s rich, he’s a Republican,' and pointed at everyone else and said they were hard-working Democrats. You do have a history of having an us-versus-them viewpoint, and if there’s anything that’s been as destructive for the United States over the past few decades, it has been the us-versus-them viewpoint. The social wars of the 1980s, the battles between the Republicans and Democrats of the 1990s, George Bush’s ultimatum that you’re either for us or against us, all turned out to be disastrous for the nation. We can have a pleasant debate over what makes a man “rich,” but you will need to step back a bit and consider the rigidity of your views and how that might cloud your judgments, and even worse, be one of the factors behind this so called class-warfare you accuse the Republicans of."

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Join me today on Midday

Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or online at wypr.org

The big issue that hardly anyone -- not Obama, not McCain -- talks about, the one that's tied to just about every problem you can name, is population growth. Conservatives talk about it, in the context of immigrants moving into the United States. But that's just a piece of the problem. Beyond the pressure created by new arrivals from other countries, there is a general pressure of steady population growth on everything around us, starting with the environment. Tom Horton, former Sun reporter and columnist and long-time chronicler of the Chesapeake Bay, says failure to address this overriding issue -- and to constantly be measuring societal progress by economic growth -- is incompatible with the effort to save the bay for future generations. He says the effort is a failure and will remain so until we get population growth in the Chesapeake watershed under control. Horton, who just published a report on this for the Abell Foundation, returns as our guest on Midday today after the NPR news at noon.

You can call during the show toll-free at 866-661-9309 or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 8:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

It took almost 24 hours, but I finally got a post from Ireland, and it was from a fellow calling himself Phillip, but using an e-mail address of someone named Shane. This was in response to a quip about John McCain's comparing the rate of taxation on small businesses in the United States with the same tariff in Ireland.

"It is highly offensive," Phillip-Shane writes, "that Ireland is noted for just lots of sheep! Yes, maybe Ireland is a small country and it's defence budget is dramatically different from that of the United States - however, Ireland is a strong ally and a leader internationally in terms of small business. As incorrect as McCain was to cite Ireland's tax at 11% when it's actually 12.5%, it is wrong for US commentators to degrade Ireland for 'sheep' it's like calling all Americans stupid just because of the ridiculous education system you have!"

Or because of George W. Bush . . . 

Come now, Philip (or is it Shane?). Where's that Irish sense of humor? Surely you must have one. Check all your pockets please.

For the record, the "defence" budget of the Republic of Ireland is $1.3 billion dollars US. Ireland is not a NATO member. Yours is one of the most affluent and peaceful countries in the world -- high GDP and quality of life. And good for you, and all the little shop keepers and pub owners who only have to pay 12.5 percent.

In the United States, the total spending for all defense-related purposes, including veterans, is about $1 trillion a year.

That's just one of a long list of reasons why McCain's comparison -- "In Ireland, it's only 11 percent!" -- was met with giggles at the debate party I attended the other night.

As for our education system, well, Phillip-Shane, you have a point. Your standard of living has risen wonderfully over there, and perhaps it's due to not having to pay for a massive military. Your taxes were cut considerably in the 1980s and those that still go to the government are used for useful things, such as educating children. I understand that in Ireland education is free at every levels, including college. And good for you. And thanks for writing. And oh, do again!

While we're connected, let me ask a question of you and your fellow Irish in Cork: Is it true that a statue of the First Lord Baltimore (George Calvert), presented to Baltimore, Ireland by the former mayor of Baltimore, Maryland (William Donald Schaefer) stands out in some farmer's field there, surrounded by sheep, all but abandoned, and regarded as something of a joke? Once upon a time I had a photograph of the thing and was told that the Irish in your Baltimore never appreciated the gift, Calvert symbolizing the oppressive past when British lords ruled the isle. Is it so?

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
        

Take the Grammar Quiz today on Midday

Listen live on WYPR 88.1 FM or online at wypr.org 

1:00-2:00 pm
In her new book, Things That Make Us [Sic], grammar expert Martha Brockenbrough takes on Madison Avenue, Hollywood, the White House, and other abusers of grammar. And our listners get to take the semi-annual Midday Grammar Quiz and try to win a glamorous prize.

Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", "as such", or "just as that." In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized—[sic]—to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error. It had a long vowel in Latin (sīc), meaning that it was pronounced like the English word "seek"; however, it is normally anglicised to /'sɪk/ (like the English word "sick").

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Join me today on Midday

Listen live on WYPR 88.1FM or online at wypr.org

Noon-1:00 pm
We’ll give y'all a chance to weigh-in on last night’s Obama-McCain debate. My colleague from The Sun, Jean Marbella, stops by for lunch and a chat, along with Brian Wendell Morton, the Politicial Animal of the City Paper in Baltimore. Brian's book, I'd Rather Have A Better Country, has just been published. You can call during the show toll-free at 866-661-9309 or drop us an e-mail with brief comments prior to the show at midday@wypr.org

Joe The Plumber -- please, give us a shout!

1:00-2:00 pm
In her new book, Things That Make Us [Sic], grammar expert Martha Brockenbrough takes on Madison Avenue, Hollywood, the White House, and other abusers of grammar. And our listners get to take the semi-annual Midday Grammar Quiz.

Listen live on WYPR 88.1FM or online at wypr.org.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 9:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
        

Here we go again -- round three, Obama and McCain, and this time in split screen!

Comment at 10:16 pm: McCain has been attacking Obama at every chance, and I guess this should be expected, at what's essentially the 11th hour of a lame campaign. But spending all this time on the attack reduces the time McCain spends on promoting his own ideas or plans. At one point, he passed up a chance to elaborate on his latest economic proposals because the moderator, Bob Schieffer, apparently had sufficiently summarized them and McCain had some darts to throw.

Earlier comments:

As expected, the desperate McCain came out punching -- bringing up Obama's association with William Ayers and ACORN, condemning Rep. Lewis's statements over the weekend, and blasting Obama for spending millions on negative ads. Obama on the defensive, but not on the ropes, answering each charge without stumbling and countering McCain with some of the statements made by the nut-jobs at Palin rallies last week. They're sparring -- and in split screen!

McCain is scoring some points here with the judges, ladies and gentlemen. Obama just smiled and skipped around the issue of how much money his campaign is spending on ads.

McCain is coming across crusty and testy and tough, but he blinks a lot. Obama smiles a lot. He's cautious and maybe just a little too cool.

McCain pulls out Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, a guy from Ohio who McCain says will never be able to live the American dream if Obama is elected. He says Obama, who had an ecounter with Joe on the campaign trail, would tax Joe The Plumber at a rate that would keep him from owning his own plumbing business. This didn't make much sense because Joe The Plumber would have to be already making $250,000 a year in order to be taxed further under Obama's plan. And if Joe The Plumber is in that kind of position, is there a case here? Is Obama's plan really going to stifle Joe The Plumber? (Read the latest report on working poor families, and you'll see why Obama's tax plan is probably getting some traction among working class people.) By one estimate, nine out of 10 owners of small businesses make less than $250,000 a year and would not be taxed further under Obama's proposals.  . . . So, nice try by McCain, but that punch didn't cause much damage. Rupert Murdoch's pro-McCain New York Post made a big deal out of Obama's exchange with Joe The Plumber the other day, so take that for what it's worth.

McCain says Obama wants to "spread the wealth," and God forbid we should do that! In the midst of the Wall Street mess and the federal bailout, I think loads of Americans are ready for some redistribution. More evidence of how out of touch -- "I think I own seven houses" -- McCain is.

McCain just compared the rate of taxation of small buisnesses in the United States with the rate of taxation of small businesses in Ireland, saying it's only a third of what's paid here. That's a wonderful comparison, senator -- a nation of 300-plus million and a massive defense budget versus a nation of 4.4 million and lots of sheep.

9:55 PM:  Obama just said we should "look at" offshore drilling. What does that mean? That sounds like he wants to get on board the drill-baby-drill team.

I love the split screen, but I'm not sure McCain knows it's happening. He either doesn't know or doesn't care. As Obama's speaking, McCain is blinking a lot and grinning and betrays an eagerness to respond that almost bursts through his cheeks. He takes notes while Obama speaks, and he's like the kid in class who can't wait to raise his hand and get in the next point.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 4:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (48)
        

My niece, a student at the Long Island university, didn't get into the big show last night, but went to the campus simulcast instead, and it sounds like a better deal: "Free Mexican food, raffle, Mardi Gras beads, trivia games, tie-dying, little free bottles of bubble-blower stuff. I doubt the University Democrats vs. Republicans debate parties were that much fun. They started the live feed about a half an hour before the actual debate, so we saw how they pre-emptively scolded the audience about not cheering or booing. I think the C-SPAN guy may have laid it on a little thicker than usual because there were so many college kids there. Our room was pretty giddy, faculty included. . . . Much giggling over Obama almost not being able to pronounce 'Hofstra.' I was willing to give him a pass on that until he tossed out a 'profligate' in the middle of the debate like it was nothing."

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 4:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Jim Mutscheller, the former Baltimore Colts tight end and a veteran of the Greatest Game Ever Played, is being inducted into the Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame on November 1. Mutscheller, who played for the Colts from 1954 to 1961,is a native of Beaver Falls -- and he's already a member of the Beaver County Hall of Fame (along with Joe Namath). Congratulations, Bucky!

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

This comes up frequently -- like, every day -- either in an e-mail from Somewhere USA or in the form of blog comments, usually from Angry Anonymous USA. This time the issue was presented and the questions asked in civilized terms:

"Why do you only focus on racism in one direction? It has been predicted that over 95% of African Americans will vote for Barack Obama. If over 95% of whites vote for McCain, it would be classified as racism. Why do we have, and you obviously advocate, a double standard?"

Since I'm the one being asked this, I'll give my answer:

1. There's such a thing as identity politics -- people vote for people who look and sound like them. It's human nature. Whites have been doing it for a very long time, and white males even longer. I never said whites voting for McCain was racism, though if the GOP was having its way with the usual strategy for victory -- by appealing to whites in the South -- some might be inclined to see it that way. Back when this race looked like a tossup, and people were wondering why -- given the Bush legacy and the state of the economy -- some people, including a friend of mine, wanted to attribute it to white support for Obama dropping off. Much has changed in just six weeks -- the Palin factor, the Wall Street Meltdown, two debates (and another tonight), and more people have made up their minds and, according to polls, evidently become less concerned with Obama's lack of "executive experience."

2. People vote their interests, and if you can explain to me and other readers of this blog why African-Americans should vote for a Republican presidential candidate -- black, white, female, "maverick," or whatever -- please, have at it. Republicans don't deserve the support of African-Americans. They haven't been interested in it, and that's not an opinion, that's history.

3. Republicans over the years have benefited from racial polarization. Quick history lesson: The GOP Southern Strategy, designed to exploit racism among whites in the old Confederacy, is having its 40th anniversary, and hopefully its last. Here's how Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips described it in 1970: "Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that. . . . But Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats." Guess what? It worked.

3. Since they were given the opportunity to vote, minorities historically have been far more willing to cross racial lines and support a white candidate than have white voters for black candidates, though that has started to change. Just yesterday, the New York Times noted the rising comfort level among whites in voting for black candidates. About 200 black politicians have won offices once held by whites in legislatures and city halls in the last 10 years in New Hampshire, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee, the Times reported. About 30 percent of the nation's 622 black state legislators now represent predominantly white districts, up from about 16 percent in 2001.

4. The GOP's Southern strategy, combined with the Democrats' willingness to generally concede the South, has led to huge white support for Republicans over the last 40 years. In 2004, John Kerry lost the white vote by a 16-point margin nationally, and in the South, the Democratic candidate received only 30 percent of all white votes. George W. Bush took the white vote big throughout the South; with just three weeks to go, John McCain has been campaigning there because he's worried about losing states that have been GOP strongholds.

5. African-Americans mostly have supported Democratic candidates in the 44 years since the Civil Rights Act. This year someone who is African-American is running for president as a Democratic. It follows that most of them would be inclined to vote for Barack Obama. He's going to get a chunk of the white vote, too.

 

 

 

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)