Friday, May 25, 2012
A Rare Admission That Money Trumps Everything Else
Headlines transmit information in its rawest form—and the best of headlines crystallize indelible truths. Such was the case this week when the New York Daily News blared this simple but iconic headline: "Cuomo: Minimum Wage Harder to Get Than Gay Marriage."
The story quoted Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo claiming that the effort to raise wages for the poorest Americans represents a "broader and deeper" divide than the recent successful fight to legalize same-sex matrimony in the Empire State. Though the piece dissolved quickly into the ether, it shouldn't have, because it is a historical Rosetta Stone—one that translates this era's inscrutable political rhetoric into a clear admission that money trumps everything else.
Decoding this Rosetta Stone requires just one snippet of contextual information from Siena College. According to the school's recent surveys, just 58% of New Yorkers support legalizing gay marriage, while a whopping 78% support raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50.
Put Cuomo's declaration next to those numbers, and the revelation emerges: in a political arena dominated by corporate money, the governor is acknowledging that professional politicians are inclined to champion initiatives that don't challenge corporate power—and they're unwilling to promote those that do. Not only that, Cuomo is admitting this is the case regardless of public opinion.
Events in New York prove the larger truth. As the New York Times reported, despite lukewarm public support, Cuomo was able to get the state legislature to legalize gay marriage after Wall Street financiers dumped cash into the campaign for equal rights. Knowing that marriage doesn't threaten their profits, these moneyed interests opted to help their ally Cuomo notch a strategic win—one that allows the governor to preen as a great liberal champion to the state's left-leaning voters, all while he simultaneously presses an anti-union, economically conservative agenda that moneyed interests support.
Now, of course, the situation is reversed. With New York's recession-battered voters supporting a minimum wage hike, the greed-is-good crowd is firmly aligned against the initiative. Why? Because unlike gay marriage, which requires no corporate sacrifice, the modest $1.25 minimum wage boost may slightly reduce corporate profits—and that's something greedheads in the executive suites never permit without a fight.
Knowing this, a hack like Cuomo—a guy who says "how high" when his campaign contributors say "jump"—is subsequently using his power to undermine the popular minimum wage initiative. In this case, he is cooking up a devious self-fulfilling prophecy about the measure somehow being a political non-starter.
Not surprisingly, this sleight of hand is not limited to one locale. In my home state of Colorado, Democratic activists have cast Gov. John Hickenlooper as a great liberal for supporting same-sex civil unions, all while he loyally shills for oil and gas corporations. At the federal level, President Obama is doing the same, flaunting himself as a hero for endorsing gay marriage, all while slow-walking tougher bank regulations.
Even on Wall Street itself, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has lately portrayed himself as a great humanitarian—not by acknowledging financial industry excess, but by becoming the Human Rights Campaign's national spokesman for gay marriage.
Noting all this isn't to disparage the push for same sex marriage (I'm a strong supporter!)—it is merely to spotlight a bait and switch whereby social issues are increasingly used to perpetuate the economic status quo.
Obviously, it's possible to simultaneously guarantee equal rights and fix the economy. But as New York most recently proves, it's much harder to do both when money dictates political outcomes, and when bought-off politicians employ social issues as an excuse to ignore economic justice.
David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
© 2011 Creators.com
The story quoted Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo claiming that the effort to raise wages for the poorest Americans represents a "broader and deeper" divide than the recent successful fight to legalize same-sex matrimony in the Empire State. Though the piece dissolved quickly into the ether, it shouldn't have, because it is a historical Rosetta Stone—one that translates this era's inscrutable political rhetoric into a clear admission that money trumps everything else.
Decoding this Rosetta Stone requires just one snippet of contextual information from Siena College. According to the school's recent surveys, just 58% of New Yorkers support legalizing gay marriage, while a whopping 78% support raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50.
Put Cuomo's declaration next to those numbers, and the revelation emerges: in a political arena dominated by corporate money, the governor is acknowledging that professional politicians are inclined to champion initiatives that don't challenge corporate power—and they're unwilling to promote those that do. Not only that, Cuomo is admitting this is the case regardless of public opinion.
Events in New York prove the larger truth. As the New York Times reported, despite lukewarm public support, Cuomo was able to get the state legislature to legalize gay marriage after Wall Street financiers dumped cash into the campaign for equal rights. Knowing that marriage doesn't threaten their profits, these moneyed interests opted to help their ally Cuomo notch a strategic win—one that allows the governor to preen as a great liberal champion to the state's left-leaning voters, all while he simultaneously presses an anti-union, economically conservative agenda that moneyed interests support.
Now, of course, the situation is reversed. With New York's recession-battered voters supporting a minimum wage hike, the greed-is-good crowd is firmly aligned against the initiative. Why? Because unlike gay marriage, which requires no corporate sacrifice, the modest $1.25 minimum wage boost may slightly reduce corporate profits—and that's something greedheads in the executive suites never permit without a fight.
Knowing this, a hack like Cuomo—a guy who says "how high" when his campaign contributors say "jump"—is subsequently using his power to undermine the popular minimum wage initiative. In this case, he is cooking up a devious self-fulfilling prophecy about the measure somehow being a political non-starter.
Not surprisingly, this sleight of hand is not limited to one locale. In my home state of Colorado, Democratic activists have cast Gov. John Hickenlooper as a great liberal for supporting same-sex civil unions, all while he loyally shills for oil and gas corporations. At the federal level, President Obama is doing the same, flaunting himself as a hero for endorsing gay marriage, all while slow-walking tougher bank regulations.
Even on Wall Street itself, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has lately portrayed himself as a great humanitarian—not by acknowledging financial industry excess, but by becoming the Human Rights Campaign's national spokesman for gay marriage.
Noting all this isn't to disparage the push for same sex marriage (I'm a strong supporter!)—it is merely to spotlight a bait and switch whereby social issues are increasingly used to perpetuate the economic status quo.
Obviously, it's possible to simultaneously guarantee equal rights and fix the economy. But as New York most recently proves, it's much harder to do both when money dictates political outcomes, and when bought-off politicians employ social issues as an excuse to ignore economic justice.
David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
© 2011 Creators.com
On gay marriage, an Obama-loving, liberal-lefty, "race sentinel" like me should support it because the conservative right opposes it. Look at it this way like money and minimum wage... You all think that Gay Marriage is about letting gay couples come out of the closet and "indoctrinate" your not yet narrow-minded youth? Never mind the social impact, let's get to the real crux of the matter - money! Some need to stop one gay workers corporate-funded health insurance from being "wasted" on their non-working AIDS-infected partner's expensive medical bills. And the same want to make sure that no IRS tax status can apply, and make sure Probate makes sure that a deceased Gay man's money goes back to the state, not his publicly not acceptable gay lover.
Well, what is marriage to us hetero folks? It also opens us up to child support and alimony when one of us chooses to end the marriage. Same should be forced upon gay marriages breaking up. All taxpayers want just one responsible party to be paying the bills of the poorer half of the broken marriage, not to have all taxpayers share the support of that poorer half. You can't take the good without also taking the bad in that package deal.
On minimum wage, it's no secret that the "property occupying" working class is the beneficiary of an increase in minimum wage, not the class that owns that occupied property. You know that the American People is broken up into 4 major groups... top 10%, bottom 10%, and 2 parts that make up the middle, the top half who works and pays taxes, the bottom half that works but does not pay taxes.
1) the top 20% - you are the owners and middle managers, you are the top 1% plantation owners and his labor overseers that rule over the masses below. Not one red cent of your money is allowed to leave your hands, in fact you must see year-over-year gains of your wealth no matter what happens in the economy, your job is not in your plans to share in the cost of economic recovery.
2) the group from 50-80% - This is the full-time workers, the trained professionals, and those uneducated who benefit from the union collective bargaining. They also pay taxes, and have health insurance. They know that they have no political power, have no way to directly lobby Congress, they know they cannot touch the 20% above them. All they worry about is making sure they do not lose money to the groups below them. Minimum wage to them does not directly matter, but they have kids, they want to see their kids off to a good start. People like Romney make most of their money off of these people, they are "valued consumers", never mind if they cost too much as workers. This is the group that buys new cars and trucks, some even build new homes from the ground... provided they could pass off their inner-city digs to some sucker with a sub-prime mortgage... that's not happening anymore. Romney is worried about this class, can't make big money off them when they fall into the next lower group.
3) the group from 10-50% - This is those who work, pay no taxes, but get EIC payments. Here is the minimum wage class, the part-timers, the casual workers, the ones who do not have health insurance. People like Romney make some of their money off these people, they are still "valued consumers" at least to Walmart and Kmart. They are not the one who buy new cars and trucks, build new homes from the ground, but they still buy liquor, food, cheap clothes, cell-phones, cable TV, they still buy pizza and go bowling, all employing more of their own kind.
4) the bottom 10% - this is the non-working welfare class, they should all be starved out or shot, they have nothing to offer. All they do is lay around in anonymous's hammocks, getting drunk or high, screwing everything in sight. Minimum wage does not matter here, but they do get health insurance, the "poor" that Romney does not worry about because they got a safety net.
----------------------------------------
Last note on Minimum Wage, I have a child in college. Comparing to when I was in college in the 70's, minimum wage has gone up about 3 times, but college tuition has gone up 10 times. Ya think something is broken here? Plus today's kids need cell phones and internet service, cable TV. We did not even have those back in the 70's so we did not have to suffer those costs like kids today.