Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Disturbing Facts About State Lotteries: They Prey on the Poor and Trash the Economy, and Political Leaders Don"t Care (Hard Times USA)







The following article is part of AlterNet"s series on poverty, Hard Times USA.


State lotteries amount to a hidden tax on the poor. They eat up about 9 percent of take-home incomes from households making less than $ 13,000 a year. They siphon $ 50 billion a year away from local businesses—besides stores where they’re sold. And they are encouraged by state-sponsored ads suggesting everyone can win, win, win!


State lotteries, which once were illegal, now exist in most states. What many people don’t know about lotteries is that they prey on those who can least afford it; most people never win anything big; and 11 states raise more money from lotteries than from corporate taxes. Beyond the moral, mental health or religious debates over gambling, lotteries are another example of how society preys on the poor and the working-class.


Let’s look at why state lotteries do far more harm than good—especially at the bottom of the economic ladder.


1. Legalized gambling is almost everywhere.Legalized gambling is available in every state except for Utah and Hawaii. This includes state lotteries, which are in 42 states, Puerto Rico and Washington DC. Lotteries were illegal for most of the 20th century, but that changed in 1964 when New Hampshire—a state without an income tax—reinstituted a state lottery. The first lotteries predate the American Revolution, but those mostly privately run efforts were so corrupt they were completely prohibited by every state in 1894.


2. They suck billions out of the economy.In 2009, $ 50.4 billon was spent on state lottery tickets and video kiosks. The government pocketed $ 17.9 billion of this total in 2010, which breaks down to 30 percent in profits and 8 percent in administrative costs, including advertising. The rest went to prizes and commissions to stores selling the tickets. Many corner stores could not remain open without the income from lottery sales. 


3. They are a tax from anti-tax politicans. Tax-averse Democrats and Republicans have increasingly been relying on state lotteries to subsidize basic public programs like schools instead of raising taxes for that purpose. In 11 states—Delaware, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Oregon, South Dakota, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Washington—the lottery raised more per person than corporate income taxes. “The long-term shift in tax burdens from capital and corporations to individuals and their activities is perhaps best illustrated by the rise of state lotteries,” wrote tax expert David Cay Johnston, calling lotteries “the most heavily taxed consumer product in America.”


4. They hit the poorest the hardest. “Simply put, lotteries take the most from those who can least afford it,” wrote economist Richard Wolff. “Instead of taking those most able to pay (the principle of federal income tax in the U.S.), state leaders use lotteries to disguise a regressive tax that falls on the middle and even more on the poor.” A 2010 study found that households with take-home incomes of less than $ 13,000 spent on average $ 645 a year on lottery tickets, which is about 9 percent of their income. The reason people play lotteries varies, but it mixes hopes and dreams with desperation: poorer people see it as a slim chance to radically improve their standard of living.


5. Communities of color, less-educated spend the most. Numerous academic studies have found that non-whites spend much more on lotteries than whites, with one study putting the figure at $ 998 for African Americans and $ 210 for whites. Household with incomes under $ 25,000 spent an average of about $ 600 a year, while $ 100,000-plus earners spent about $ 300 year. People who never graduated from college spent the most, about $ 700 a year, while graduates spent under $ 200.


6. They redistribute money up the economic ladder. Most people buy tickets and win little or nothing. This is taking more money from the poor, working and lower middle-classes than from those most able to pay taxes. These billions also are diverted away from local businesses—with the exception of the stores where tickets are sold. “This is exacty the opposite of the kind of economic stimulus a depressed economy needs,” wrote economist Wolff.


7. They give the wrong message about solving poverty. Lotteries reinforce libertarian political messages, suggesting that everyone needs to take individual action in response to socirty’s inequities, even though the government has helped well-connected individuals, businesses and industries become rich for decades. This easy money for states diverts political debate away from society-wide analyses and solutions to what prevents people from moving up the economic ladder. Instead, it pushes individuals in marginal circumstances toward gambling as their hope for gain.


8. They amount to one of the highest investment tax rates. Another way to look at the social policy hypocrisy surrounding state lotteries is to skip the moral dimension—the religious objections to gambling, the mental health costs of gambling addition, the hidden state income tax—and just compare the tax rates on this form of investment with tax rates on other types of inventments, such as stocks. State lotteries impose a 38 percent tax rate on buying tickets, according to Johnston. No taxes are paid when a person buys a stock or bond, a more preferred investment vehicle for wealthier households. Moreover, the current federal tax rate for earnings from short-term investments—held less than a year—ranges from 10 to 35 percent.


9. Hypocritical when compared to state drug laws. One of the rationales for criminalizing drugs is that abuse leads to addiction, which harms individuals, families and society at large. But state-sponsored gambling also feeds addictive behavior—people who are addicted to gaming, including lotteries. “I work in a convenience store and the way some people are addicted to the lottery is downright sickening,” wrote toddpugz, responding to a DailyFinance.com report on the topic. “I see people every day who scrape together their last few pennies to play the lottery. Even worse are the ones who claim the lottery is ‘fixed’ but continue to play it on a daily basis. And let’s not forget those who actually ‘study’ past numbers thinking it will give them some insight into the next day’s numbers.”


10. Big winners often see their lives unravel. One of the surprises that comes with winning the lottery—for the rare few who win big—is how a fast infusion of money can wreck families, disrupt friendships and even invite violent crime, con-men, and targeting by jealous family members. Some winners spend all their winnings in no time. Others just use it to fuel more gambling binges.


Revenue-strapped state legislatures may see state lotteries as an easy way to bring in the hundreds of millions that they need for basic government services—schools, police, roads and social safety nets. But state lotteries have become an easy way to take from the least wealthy Americans and avoid the harder task of making everyone pay their fair share. State lotteries may be as old as America, but so is the country’s history of economic exploitation.  


Fri, 04/05/2013 – 16:36


 
AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



Disturbing Facts About State Lotteries: They Prey on the Poor and Trash the Economy, and Political Leaders Don"t Care (Hard Times USA)

Friday, April 12, 2013

Wells Fargo Reports 28% Jump in 401K Borrowing; Reflections on the Economy


In spite of the alleged recovery, in spite of falling unemployment numbers, and in spite of a stock market boom, Wells Fargo 401(k) Loans Jump 28% as Older Workers Borrow.

The number of people taking loans from their 401(k) retirement accounts increased 28 percent in the fourth quarter from a year earlier as older workers tapped their savings, according to Wells Fargo (WFC) & Co.

The number is based on 1.9 million survey participants who have 401(k)s administered by the company, of which 34,987, or about 1.8 percent, took out loans, the San Francisco-based bank said today in a statement. The average new loan balance rose 7 percent to $ 7,126.


“The increased loan activity particularly among older participants is concerning because those are the years when workers can start to make ‘catch-up’ contributions and really need to focus on preparing for retirement,” Laurie Nordquist, director of Wells Fargo Retirement, said in the statement. “This age is also the ‘sandwich’ generation, caught between paying for their kids’ education and supporting elderly parents.”


Reflections on the Economy


401K borrowing provides more evidence the economy is not as good as presented and that people are struggling in their jobs, much closer to the edge of oblivion than the Fed or Obama wants to admit.


The borrowing surge happened in the 4th quarter, before the increase in payroll taxes this year, so expect matters to get worse. And if for any reason those 401K borrowers lose their jobs, they are going to be in deep trouble tax-wise.


Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com


Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis



Wells Fargo Reports 28% Jump in 401K Borrowing; Reflections on the Economy

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Why buying American could fix the economy?




Alan Uke, “Buying America Back,” joins Thom Hartmann. How could something as simple as new product labels help rebuild America’s crippled manufacturing sector?




Go to: http://researchris.blogspot.com for additional news topics & videos. Please SUBSCRIBE to this channel to receive important news videos. http://prisonp…



Why buying American could fix the economy?

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Why buying American could fix the economy?




Alan Uke, “Buying America Back,” joins Thom Hartmann. How could something as simple as new product labels help rebuild America’s crippled manufacturing sector?
Video Rating: 5 / 5



Why buying American could fix the economy?

Friday, April 5, 2013

RT News: The Federal Reserve printing new $100 Bill and Trashing the Economy




Originally Uploaded by TZMBigsteelguy on Dec 8, 2010 Originally uploaded on RTAmerica | December 07, 2010 | http://www.RT.com http://www.youtube.com/RTAmeric…




Christopher Dorner is a 33-year-old former US Navy Lieutenant who served in Iraq before joining the LAPD. Now, however, he is wanted for murder. At a press c…
Video Rating: 4 / 5



RT News: The Federal Reserve printing new $100 Bill and Trashing the Economy

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy



Who says American politics is gridlocked? A tidal wave of politicians from both sides of the aisle who just a few years ago opposed same-sex marriage are now coming around to support it. Even if the Supreme Court were decide to do nothing about California’s Proposition 8 or DOMA, it would seem only matter of time before both were repealed.


A significant number of elected officials who had been against allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens is now talking about “charting a path” for them; a bipartisan group of senators is expected to present a draft bill April 8.


Even a few who were staunch gun advocates are now sounding more reasonable about background checks.


It’s nice to think logic and reason are finally catching up with our elected representatives, but the real explanation for these changes of heart is more prosaic: public opinion.


The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for marriage equality at the highest in the ten years the question has been asked, with 58 percent of Americans in favor and 36 percent opposed.


A similar swing has occurred in favor of immigration reform. A new Pew survey finds that seven in 10 Americans (71 percent) say there should be a way for people in the United States illegally to remain in this country if they meet certain requirements, while 27 percent say they should not be allowed to stay legally. And most who favor providing illegal immigrants with some form of legal status — 43 percent of the public — say they should be allowed to apply for citizenship.


Support for gun control is less clear-cut, which may explain why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t seek a renewal of the assault-weapon ban. But polls show broad support for universal background checks, and for closing the so-called gun-show loophole.


It’s possible that public opinion is being influenced by courageous political leaders who are urging action on these issues, but the reverse is more likely. Most politicians have a keen sense for tipping points in public opinion, when, say, support for equal marriage rights or immigration reform becomes broad-based, and advocates become sufficiently organized and mobilized to make life hell for officials who won’t change their minds.


The exception is in the economic sphere, where public opinion seems beside the point.


Before January’s fiscal cliff deal, for example, at least 60 percent of Americans, in poll after poll, expressed strong support for raising taxes on incomes over $ 250,000. As you recall, though, the deal locked in the Bush tax cut for everyone earning up to $ 400,000.


Yes, legislative deals require compromise. But why is it that deals over economic policy almost always compromise away what a majority of Americans want?


Most Americans weren’t particularly concerned about the budget deficit to begin with. They’ve been far more concerned about jobs and wages. Yet maneuvers over the deficit have consistently trumped jobs and wages.


Recent polls show Americans would rather reduce the deficit by raising taxes than by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, and transportation. Yet Congress seems incapable of making that kind of deal.


Some 65 percent of Americans want to raise taxes on large corporations — but both parties are heading in precisely the opposite direction.


Half of Americans favor a plan to break up Wall Street’s twelve megabanks, which currently control 69 percent of the banking industry. Only 23 percent oppose such a plan (27 percent are undecided).


You might this would at least prompt an examination of the possibility on Capitol Hill and the White House — especially now that the Street is actively eviscerating regulations under Dodd-Frank.


But our elected representatives don’t want to touch Wall Street. According to Politico, even the White House believes too-big-to-fail will soon be a closed chapter.


Why are politicians so sensitive to public opinion on equal marriage rights, immigration, and guns — and so tone deaf to what most Americans want on the economy?


Perhaps because the former issues don’t threaten big money in America. But any tinkering with taxes or regulations sets off alarm bells in our nation’s finely-appointed dining rooms and board rooms — alarm bells that, in turn, set off promises of (or threats to withhold) large wads of campaign cash in the next election.


When political scientists Benjamin Page and Larry Bartels surveyed Chicagoans with an average net worth of $ 14 million, they found their biggest concern was curbing budget deficits and government spending — ranking these as priorities three times as often as they did unemployment.


And — no surprise — these wealthy individuals were also far less willing than are other Americans to curb deficits by raising taxes on high-income people, and more willing to cut Social Security and Medicare. They also opposed initiatives most other Americans favor — such as increasing spending on schools and raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.


The other thing distinguishing Page’s and Bartels’ wealthy respondents from the rest of America was their political influence.


Two-thirds of them had contributed money (averaging $ 4,633) in the most recent presidential election. A fifth of them had even “bundled” contributions from others.


That money bought the kind of political access most Americans only dream of. About half of these wealthy people had recently initiated contact with a U.S. senator or representative — and nearly half (44 percent) of those contacts concerned matters of relatively narrow economic self-interest rather than broader national concerns.


This is just the wealthy of one city — Chicago. Multiply it across the entire United States and you begin to see the larger picture of whom our representatives are listening to, and why. Nor does the survey include the institutionalized wealth — and economic clout — of Wall Street and large corporations. Multiply the multiplier.


Great wealth can also influence public opinion. It is possible, for example, that the piles of money spent by billionaire Pete Peterson to persuade Americans that the budget deficit is the nation’s most urgent economic problem is now paying off. Recent polls show greater concern about the deficit now than was expressed a few years ago when the deficit represented a much larger percentage of the total economy.


It is good that politicians are exquisitely sensitive to shifts in public opinion on issues like same-sex marriage, undocumented immigrants, and guns. This is a feature of our democracy worth celebrating.


But American democracy has shown itself far less responsive — and our politicians remarkably impervious — to public opinion concerning economic issues that might affect the fates of large fortunes. This is a distressing feature of our democracy, necessitating change.


ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage,” now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.


Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich




Robert Reich



Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy

Monday, April 1, 2013

Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy



Who says American politics is gridlocked? A tidal wave of politicians from both sides of the aisle who just a few years ago opposed same-sex marriage are now coming around to support it. Even if the Supreme Court were decide to do nothing about California’s Proposition 8 or DOMA, it would seem only matter of time before both were repealed.


A significant number of elected officials who had been against allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens is now talking about “charting a path” for them; a bipartisan group of senators is expected to present a draft bill April 8.


Even a few who were staunch gun advocates are now sounding more reasonable about background checks.


It’s nice to think logic and reason are finally catching up with our elected representatives, but the real explanation for these changes of heart is more prosaic: public opinion.


The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for marriage equality at the highest in the ten years the question has been asked, with 58 percent of Americans in favor and 36 percent opposed.


A similar swing has occurred in favor of immigration reform. A new Pew survey finds that seven in 10 Americans (71 percent) say there should be a way for people in the United States illegally to remain in this country if they meet certain requirements, while 27 percent say they should not be allowed to stay legally. And most who favor providing illegal immigrants with some form of legal status — 43 percent of the public — say they should be allowed to apply for citizenship.


Support for gun control is less clear-cut, which may explain why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t seek a renewal of the assault-weapon ban. But polls show broad support for universal background checks, and for closing the so-called gun-show loophole.


It’s possible that public opinion is being influenced by courageous political leaders who are urging action on these issues, but the reverse is more likely. Most politicians have a keen sense for tipping points in public opinion, when, say, support for equal marriage rights or immigration reform becomes broad-based, and advocates become sufficiently organized and mobilized to make life hell for officials who won’t change their minds.


The exception is in the economic sphere, where public opinion seems beside the point.


Before January’s fiscal cliff deal, for example, at least 60 percent of Americans, in poll after poll, expressed strong support for raising taxes on incomes over $ 250,000. As you recall, though, the deal locked in the Bush tax cut for everyone earning up to $ 400,000.


Yes, legislative deals require compromise. But why is it that deals over economic policy almost always compromise away what a majority of Americans want?


Most Americans weren’t particularly concerned about the budget deficit to begin with. They’ve been far more concerned about jobs and wages. Yet maneuvers over the deficit have consistently trumped jobs and wages.


Recent polls show Americans would rather reduce the deficit by raising taxes than by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, and transportation. Yet Congress seems incapable of making that kind of deal.


Some 65 percent of Americans want to raise taxes on large corporations — but both parties are heading in precisely the opposite direction.


Half of Americans favor a plan to break up Wall Street’s twelve megabanks, which currently control 69 percent of the banking industry. Only 23 percent oppose such a plan (27 percent are undecided).


You might this would at least prompt an examination of the possibility on Capitol Hill and the White House — especially now that the Street is actively eviscerating regulations under Dodd-Frank.


But our elected representatives don’t want to touch Wall Street. According to Politico, even the White House believes too-big-to-fail will soon be a closed chapter.


Why are politicians so sensitive to public opinion on equal marriage rights, immigration, and guns — and so tone deaf to what most Americans want on the economy?


Perhaps because the former issues don’t threaten big money in America. But any tinkering with taxes or regulations sets off alarm bells in our nation’s finely-appointed dining rooms and board rooms — alarm bells that, in turn, set off promises of (or threats to withhold) large wads of campaign cash in the next election.


When political scientists Benjamin Page and Larry Bartels surveyed Chicagoans with an average net worth of $ 14 million, they found their biggest concern was curbing budget deficits and government spending — ranking these as priorities three times as often as they did unemployment.


And — no surprise — these wealthy individuals were also far less willing than are other Americans to curb deficits by raising taxes on high-income people, and more willing to cut Social Security and Medicare. They also opposed initiatives most other Americans favor — such as increasing spending on schools and raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.


The other thing distinguishing Page’s and Bartels’ wealthy respondents from the rest of America was their political influence.


Two-thirds of them had contributed money (averaging $ 4,633) in the most recent presidential election. A fifth of them had even “bundled” contributions from others.


That money bought the kind of political access most Americans only dream of. About half of these wealthy people had recently initiated contact with a U.S. senator or representative — and nearly half (44 percent) of those contacts concerned matters of relatively narrow economic self-interest rather than broader national concerns.


This is just the wealthy of one city — Chicago. Multiply it across the entire United States and you begin to see the larger picture of whom our representatives are listening to, and why. Nor does the survey include the institutionalized wealth — and economic clout — of Wall Street and large corporations. Multiply the multiplier.


Great wealth can also influence public opinion. It is possible, for example, that the piles of money spent by billionaire Pete Peterson to persuade Americans that the budget deficit is the nation’s most urgent economic problem is now paying off. Recent polls show greater concern about the deficit now than was expressed a few years ago when the deficit represented a much larger percentage of the total economy.


It is good that politicians are exquisitely sensitive to shifts in public opinion on issues like same-sex marriage, undocumented immigrants, and guns. This is a feature of our democracy worth celebrating.


But American democracy has shown itself far less responsive — and our politicians remarkably impervious — to public opinion concerning economic issues that might affect the fates of large fortunes. This is a distressing feature of our democracy, necessitating change.


ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage,” now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.


Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich




Robert Reich



Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy

Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy



Who says American politics is gridlocked? A tidal wave of politicians from both sides of the aisle who just a few years ago opposed same-sex marriage are now coming around to support it. Even if the Supreme Court were decide to do nothing about California’s Proposition 8 or DOMA, it would seem only matter of time before both were repealed.


A significant number of elected officials who had been against allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens is now talking about “charting a path” for them; a bipartisan group of senators is expected to present a draft bill April 8.


Even a few who were staunch gun advocates are now sounding more reasonable about background checks.


It’s nice to think logic and reason are finally catching up with our elected representatives, but the real explanation for these changes of heart is more prosaic: public opinion.


The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for marriage equality at the highest in the ten years the question has been asked, with 58 percent of Americans in favor and 36 percent opposed.


A similar swing has occurred in favor of immigration reform. A new Pew survey finds that seven in 10 Americans (71 percent) say there should be a way for people in the United States illegally to remain in this country if they meet certain requirements, while 27 percent say they should not be allowed to stay legally. And most who favor providing illegal immigrants with some form of legal status — 43 percent of the public — say they should be allowed to apply for citizenship.


Support for gun control is less clear-cut, which may explain why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t seek a renewal of the assault-weapon ban. But polls show broad support for universal background checks, and for closing the so-called gun-show loophole.


It’s possible that public opinion is being influenced by courageous political leaders who are urging action on these issues, but the reverse is more likely. Most politicians have a keen sense for tipping points in public opinion, when, say, support for equal marriage rights or immigration reform becomes broad-based, and advocates become sufficiently organized and mobilized to make life hell for officials who won’t change their minds.


The exception is in the economic sphere, where public opinion seems beside the point.


Before January’s fiscal cliff deal, for example, at least 60 percent of Americans, in poll after poll, expressed strong support for raising taxes on incomes over $ 250,000. As you recall, though, the deal locked in the Bush tax cut for everyone earning up to $ 400,000.


Yes, legislative deals require compromise. But why is it that deals over economic policy almost always compromise away what a majority of Americans want?


Most Americans weren’t particularly concerned about the budget deficit to begin with. They’ve been far more concerned about jobs and wages. Yet maneuvers over the deficit have consistently trumped jobs and wages.


Recent polls show Americans would rather reduce the deficit by raising taxes than by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, and transportation. Yet Congress seems incapable of making that kind of deal.


Some 65 percent of Americans want to raise taxes on large corporations — but both parties are heading in precisely the opposite direction.


Half of Americans favor a plan to break up Wall Street’s twelve megabanks, which currently control 69 percent of the banking industry. Only 23 percent oppose such a plan (27 percent are undecided).


You might this would at least prompt an examination of the possibility on Capitol Hill and the White House — especially now that the Street is actively eviscerating regulations under Dodd-Frank.


But our elected representatives don’t want to touch Wall Street. According to Politico, even the White House believes too-big-to-fail will soon be a closed chapter.


Why are politicians so sensitive to public opinion on equal marriage rights, immigration, and guns — and so tone deaf to what most Americans want on the economy?


Perhaps because the former issues don’t threaten big money in America. But any tinkering with taxes or regulations sets off alarm bells in our nation’s finely-appointed dining rooms and board rooms — alarm bells that, in turn, set off promises of (or threats to withhold) large wads of campaign cash in the next election.


When political scientists Benjamin Page and Larry Bartels surveyed Chicagoans with an average net worth of $ 14 million, they found their biggest concern was curbing budget deficits and government spending — ranking these as priorities three times as often as they did unemployment.


And — no surprise — these wealthy individuals were also far less willing than are other Americans to curb deficits by raising taxes on high-income people, and more willing to cut Social Security and Medicare. They also opposed initiatives most other Americans favor — such as increasing spending on schools and raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.


The other thing distinguishing Page’s and Bartels’ wealthy respondents from the rest of America was their political influence.


Two-thirds of them had contributed money (averaging $ 4,633) in the most recent presidential election. A fifth of them had even “bundled” contributions from others.


That money bought the kind of political access most Americans only dream of. About half of these wealthy people had recently initiated contact with a U.S. senator or representative — and nearly half (44 percent) of those contacts concerned matters of relatively narrow economic self-interest rather than broader national concerns.


This is just the wealthy of one city — Chicago. Multiply it across the entire United States and you begin to see the larger picture of whom our representatives are listening to, and why. Nor does the survey include the institutionalized wealth — and economic clout — of Wall Street and large corporations. Multiply the multiplier.


Great wealth can also influence public opinion. It is possible, for example, that the piles of money spent by billionaire Pete Peterson to persuade Americans that the budget deficit is the nation’s most urgent economic problem is now paying off. Recent polls show greater concern about the deficit now than was expressed a few years ago when the deficit represented a much larger percentage of the total economy.


It is good that politicians are exquisitely sensitive to shifts in public opinion on issues like same-sex marriage, undocumented immigrants, and guns. This is a feature of our democracy worth celebrating.


But American democracy has shown itself far less responsive — and our politicians remarkably impervious — to public opinion concerning economic issues that might affect the fates of large fortunes. This is a distressing feature of our democracy, necessitating change.


ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage,” now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.


Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich




Robert Reich



Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy

Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy



Who says American politics is gridlocked? A tidal wave of politicians from both sides of the aisle who just a few years ago opposed same-sex marriage are now coming around to support it. Even if the Supreme Court were decide to do nothing about California’s Proposition 8 or DOMA, it would seem only matter of time before both were repealed.


A significant number of elected officials who had been against allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens is now talking about “charting a path” for them; a bipartisan group of senators is expected to present a draft bill April 8.


Even a few who were staunch gun advocates are now sounding more reasonable about background checks.


It’s nice to think logic and reason are finally catching up with our elected representatives, but the real explanation for these changes of heart is more prosaic: public opinion.


The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for marriage equality at the highest in the ten years the question has been asked, with 58 percent of Americans in favor and 36 percent opposed.


A similar swing has occurred in favor of immigration reform. A new Pew survey finds that seven in 10 Americans (71 percent) say there should be a way for people in the United States illegally to remain in this country if they meet certain requirements, while 27 percent say they should not be allowed to stay legally. And most who favor providing illegal immigrants with some form of legal status — 43 percent of the public — say they should be allowed to apply for citizenship.


Support for gun control is less clear-cut, which may explain why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t seek a renewal of the assault-weapon ban. But polls show broad support for universal background checks, and for closing the so-called gun-show loophole.


It’s possible that public opinion is being influenced by courageous political leaders who are urging action on these issues, but the reverse is more likely. Most politicians have a keen sense for tipping points in public opinion, when, say, support for equal marriage rights or immigration reform becomes broad-based, and advocates become sufficiently organized and mobilized to make life hell for officials who won’t change their minds.


The exception is in the economic sphere, where public opinion seems beside the point.


Before January’s fiscal cliff deal, for example, at least 60 percent of Americans, in poll after poll, expressed strong support for raising taxes on incomes over $ 250,000. As you recall, though, the deal locked in the Bush tax cut for everyone earning up to $ 400,000.


Yes, legislative deals require compromise. But why is it that deals over economic policy almost always compromise away what a majority of Americans want?


Most Americans weren’t particularly concerned about the budget deficit to begin with. They’ve been far more concerned about jobs and wages. Yet maneuvers over the deficit have consistently trumped jobs and wages.


Recent polls show Americans would rather reduce the deficit by raising taxes than by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, and transportation. Yet Congress seems incapable of making that kind of deal.


Some 65 percent of Americans want to raise taxes on large corporations — but both parties are heading in precisely the opposite direction.


Half of Americans favor a plan to break up Wall Street’s twelve megabanks, which currently control 69 percent of the banking industry. Only 23 percent oppose such a plan (27 percent are undecided).


You might this would at least prompt an examination of the possibility on Capitol Hill and the White House — especially now that the Street is actively eviscerating regulations under Dodd-Frank.


But our elected representatives don’t want to touch Wall Street. According to Politico, even the White House believes too-big-to-fail will soon be a closed chapter.


Why are politicians so sensitive to public opinion on equal marriage rights, immigration, and guns — and so tone deaf to what most Americans want on the economy?


Perhaps because the former issues don’t threaten big money in America. But any tinkering with taxes or regulations sets off alarm bells in our nation’s finely-appointed dining rooms and board rooms — alarm bells that, in turn, set off promises of (or threats to withhold) large wads of campaign cash in the next election.


When political scientists Benjamin Page and Larry Bartels surveyed Chicagoans with an average net worth of $ 14 million, they found their biggest concern was curbing budget deficits and government spending — ranking these as priorities three times as often as they did unemployment.


And — no surprise — these wealthy individuals were also far less willing than are other Americans to curb deficits by raising taxes on high-income people, and more willing to cut Social Security and Medicare. They also opposed initiatives most other Americans favor — such as increasing spending on schools and raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.


The other thing distinguishing Page’s and Bartels’ wealthy respondents from the rest of America was their political influence.


Two-thirds of them had contributed money (averaging $ 4,633) in the most recent presidential election. A fifth of them had even “bundled” contributions from others.


That money bought the kind of political access most Americans only dream of. About half of these wealthy people had recently initiated contact with a U.S. senator or representative — and nearly half (44 percent) of those contacts concerned matters of relatively narrow economic self-interest rather than broader national concerns.


This is just the wealthy of one city — Chicago. Multiply it across the entire United States and you begin to see the larger picture of whom our representatives are listening to, and why. Nor does the survey include the institutionalized wealth — and economic clout — of Wall Street and large corporations. Multiply the multiplier.


Great wealth can also influence public opinion. It is possible, for example, that the piles of money spent by billionaire Pete Peterson to persuade Americans that the budget deficit is the nation’s most urgent economic problem is now paying off. Recent polls show greater concern about the deficit now than was expressed a few years ago when the deficit represented a much larger percentage of the total economy.


It is good that politicians are exquisitely sensitive to shifts in public opinion on issues like same-sex marriage, undocumented immigrants, and guns. This is a feature of our democracy worth celebrating.


But American democracy has shown itself far less responsive — and our politicians remarkably impervious — to public opinion concerning economic issues that might affect the fates of large fortunes. This is a distressing feature of our democracy, necessitating change.


ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage,” now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.


Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich




Robert Reich



Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy

Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy



Who says American politics is gridlocked? A tidal wave of politicians from both sides of the aisle who just a few years ago opposed same-sex marriage are now coming around to support it. Even if the Supreme Court were decide to do nothing about California’s Proposition 8 or DOMA, it would seem only matter of time before both were repealed.


A significant number of elected officials who had been against allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens is now talking about “charting a path” for them; a bipartisan group of senators is expected to present a draft bill April 8.


Even a few who were staunch gun advocates are now sounding more reasonable about background checks.


It’s nice to think logic and reason are finally catching up with our elected representatives, but the real explanation for these changes of heart is more prosaic: public opinion.


The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for marriage equality at the highest in the ten years the question has been asked, with 58 percent of Americans in favor and 36 percent opposed.


A similar swing has occurred in favor of immigration reform. A new Pew survey finds that seven in 10 Americans (71 percent) say there should be a way for people in the United States illegally to remain in this country if they meet certain requirements, while 27 percent say they should not be allowed to stay legally. And most who favor providing illegal immigrants with some form of legal status — 43 percent of the public — say they should be allowed to apply for citizenship.


Support for gun control is less clear-cut, which may explain why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t seek a renewal of the assault-weapon ban. But polls show broad support for universal background checks, and for closing the so-called gun-show loophole.


It’s possible that public opinion is being influenced by courageous political leaders who are urging action on these issues, but the reverse is more likely. Most politicians have a keen sense for tipping points in public opinion, when, say, support for equal marriage rights or immigration reform becomes broad-based, and advocates become sufficiently organized and mobilized to make life hell for officials who won’t change their minds.


The exception is in the economic sphere, where public opinion seems beside the point.


Before January’s fiscal cliff deal, for example, at least 60 percent of Americans, in poll after poll, expressed strong support for raising taxes on incomes over $ 250,000. As you recall, though, the deal locked in the Bush tax cut for everyone earning up to $ 400,000.


Yes, legislative deals require compromise. But why is it that deals over economic policy almost always compromise away what a majority of Americans want?


Most Americans weren’t particularly concerned about the budget deficit to begin with. They’ve been far more concerned about jobs and wages. Yet maneuvers over the deficit have consistently trumped jobs and wages.


Recent polls show Americans would rather reduce the deficit by raising taxes than by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, and transportation. Yet Congress seems incapable of making that kind of deal.


Some 65 percent of Americans want to raise taxes on large corporations — but both parties are heading in precisely the opposite direction.


Half of Americans favor a plan to break up Wall Street’s twelve megabanks, which currently control 69 percent of the banking industry. Only 23 percent oppose such a plan (27 percent are undecided).


You might this would at least prompt an examination of the possibility on Capitol Hill and the White House — especially now that the Street is actively eviscerating regulations under Dodd-Frank.


But our elected representatives don’t want to touch Wall Street. According to Politico, even the White House believes too-big-to-fail will soon be a closed chapter.


Why are politicians so sensitive to public opinion on equal marriage rights, immigration, and guns — and so tone deaf to what most Americans want on the economy?


Perhaps because the former issues don’t threaten big money in America. But any tinkering with taxes or regulations sets off alarm bells in our nation’s finely-appointed dining rooms and board rooms — alarm bells that, in turn, set off promises of (or threats to withhold) large wads of campaign cash in the next election.


When political scientists Benjamin Page and Larry Bartels surveyed Chicagoans with an average net worth of $ 14 million, they found their biggest concern was curbing budget deficits and government spending — ranking these as priorities three times as often as they did unemployment.


And — no surprise — these wealthy individuals were also far less willing than are other Americans to curb deficits by raising taxes on high-income people, and more willing to cut Social Security and Medicare. They also opposed initiatives most other Americans favor — such as increasing spending on schools and raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.


The other thing distinguishing Page’s and Bartels’ wealthy respondents from the rest of America was their political influence.


Two-thirds of them had contributed money (averaging $ 4,633) in the most recent presidential election. A fifth of them had even “bundled” contributions from others.


That money bought the kind of political access most Americans only dream of. About half of these wealthy people had recently initiated contact with a U.S. senator or representative — and nearly half (44 percent) of those contacts concerned matters of relatively narrow economic self-interest rather than broader national concerns.


This is just the wealthy of one city — Chicago. Multiply it across the entire United States and you begin to see the larger picture of whom our representatives are listening to, and why. Nor does the survey include the institutionalized wealth — and economic clout — of Wall Street and large corporations. Multiply the multiplier.


Great wealth can also influence public opinion. It is possible, for example, that the piles of money spent by billionaire Pete Peterson to persuade Americans that the budget deficit is the nation’s most urgent economic problem is now paying off. Recent polls show greater concern about the deficit now than was expressed a few years ago when the deficit represented a much larger percentage of the total economy.


It is good that politicians are exquisitely sensitive to shifts in public opinion on issues like same-sex marriage, undocumented immigrants, and guns. This is a feature of our democracy worth celebrating.


But American democracy has shown itself far less responsive — and our politicians remarkably impervious — to public opinion concerning economic issues that might affect the fates of large fortunes. This is a distressing feature of our democracy, necessitating change.


ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage,” now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.


Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich




Robert Reich



Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy



Who says American politics is gridlocked? A tidal wave of politicians from both sides of the aisle who just a few years ago opposed same-sex marriage are now coming around to support it. Even if the Supreme Court were decide to do nothing about California’s Proposition 8 or DOMA, it would seem only matter of time before both were repealed.


A significant number of elected officials who had been against allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens is now talking about “charting a path” for them; a bipartisan group of senators is expected to present a draft bill April 8.


Even a few who were staunch gun advocates are now sounding more reasonable about background checks.


It’s nice to think logic and reason are finally catching up with our elected representatives, but the real explanation for these changes of heart is more prosaic: public opinion.


The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for marriage equality at the highest in the ten years the question has been asked, with 58 percent of Americans in favor and 36 percent opposed.


A similar swing has occurred in favor of immigration reform. A new Pew survey finds that seven in 10 Americans (71 percent) say there should be a way for people in the United States illegally to remain in this country if they meet certain requirements, while 27 percent say they should not be allowed to stay legally. And most who favor providing illegal immigrants with some form of legal status — 43 percent of the public — say they should be allowed to apply for citizenship.


Support for gun control is less clear-cut, which may explain why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t seek a renewal of the assault-weapon ban. But polls show broad support for universal background checks, and for closing the so-called gun-show loophole.


It’s possible that public opinion is being influenced by courageous political leaders who are urging action on these issues, but the reverse is more likely. Most politicians have a keen sense for tipping points in public opinion, when, say, support for equal marriage rights or immigration reform becomes broad-based, and advocates become sufficiently organized and mobilized to make life hell for officials who won’t change their minds.


The exception is in the economic sphere, where public opinion seems beside the point.


Before January’s fiscal cliff deal, for example, at least 60 percent of Americans, in poll after poll, expressed strong support for raising taxes on incomes over $ 250,000. As you recall, though, the deal locked in the Bush tax cut for everyone earning up to $ 400,000.


Yes, legislative deals require compromise. But why is it that deals over economic policy almost always compromise away what a majority of Americans want?


Most Americans weren’t particularly concerned about the budget deficit to begin with. They’ve been far more concerned about jobs and wages. Yet maneuvers over the deficit have consistently trumped jobs and wages.


Recent polls show Americans would rather reduce the deficit by raising taxes than by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, and transportation. Yet Congress seems incapable of making that kind of deal.


Some 65 percent of Americans want to raise taxes on large corporations — but both parties are heading in precisely the opposite direction.


Half of Americans favor a plan to break up Wall Street’s twelve megabanks, which currently control 69 percent of the banking industry. Only 23 percent oppose such a plan (27 percent are undecided).


You might this would at least prompt an examination of the possibility on Capitol Hill and the White House — especially now that the Street is actively eviscerating regulations under Dodd-Frank.


But our elected representatives don’t want to touch Wall Street. According to Politico, even the White House believes too-big-to-fail will soon be a closed chapter.


Why are politicians so sensitive to public opinion on equal marriage rights, immigration, and guns — and so tone deaf to what most Americans want on the economy?


Perhaps because the former issues don’t threaten big money in America. But any tinkering with taxes or regulations sets off alarm bells in our nation’s finely-appointed dining rooms and board rooms — alarm bells that, in turn, set off promises of (or threats to withhold) large wads of campaign cash in the next election.


When political scientists Benjamin Page and Larry Bartels surveyed Chicagoans with an average net worth of $ 14 million, they found their biggest concern was curbing budget deficits and government spending — ranking these as priorities three times as often as they did unemployment.


And — no surprise — these wealthy individuals were also far less willing than are other Americans to curb deficits by raising taxes on high-income people, and more willing to cut Social Security and Medicare. They also opposed initiatives most other Americans favor — such as increasing spending on schools and raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.


The other thing distinguishing Page’s and Bartels’ wealthy respondents from the rest of America was their political influence.


Two-thirds of them had contributed money (averaging $ 4,633) in the most recent presidential election. A fifth of them had even “bundled” contributions from others.


That money bought the kind of political access most Americans only dream of. About half of these wealthy people had recently initiated contact with a U.S. senator or representative — and nearly half (44 percent) of those contacts concerned matters of relatively narrow economic self-interest rather than broader national concerns.


This is just the wealthy of one city — Chicago. Multiply it across the entire United States and you begin to see the larger picture of whom our representatives are listening to, and why. Nor does the survey include the institutionalized wealth — and economic clout — of Wall Street and large corporations. Multiply the multiplier.


Great wealth can also influence public opinion. It is possible, for example, that the piles of money spent by billionaire Pete Peterson to persuade Americans that the budget deficit is the nation’s most urgent economic problem is now paying off. Recent polls show greater concern about the deficit now than was expressed a few years ago when the deficit represented a much larger percentage of the total economy.


It is good that politicians are exquisitely sensitive to shifts in public opinion on issues like same-sex marriage, undocumented immigrants, and guns. This is a feature of our democracy worth celebrating.


But American democracy has shown itself far less responsive — and our politicians remarkably impervious — to public opinion concerning economic issues that might affect the fates of large fortunes. This is a distressing feature of our democracy, necessitating change.


ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage,” now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.


Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich




Robert Reich



Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy

Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy



Who says American politics is gridlocked? A tidal wave of politicians from both sides of the aisle who just a few years ago opposed same-sex marriage are now coming around to support it. Even if the Supreme Court were decide to do nothing about California’s Proposition 8 or DOMA, it would seem only matter of time before both were repealed.


A significant number of elected officials who had been against allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens is now talking about “charting a path” for them; a bipartisan group of senators is expected to present a draft bill April 8.


Even a few who were staunch gun advocates are now sounding more reasonable about background checks.


It’s nice to think logic and reason are finally catching up with our elected representatives, but the real explanation for these changes of heart is more prosaic: public opinion.


The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for marriage equality at the highest in the ten years the question has been asked, with 58 percent of Americans in favor and 36 percent opposed.


A similar swing has occurred in favor of immigration reform. A new Pew survey finds that seven in 10 Americans (71 percent) say there should be a way for people in the United States illegally to remain in this country if they meet certain requirements, while 27 percent say they should not be allowed to stay legally. And most who favor providing illegal immigrants with some form of legal status — 43 percent of the public — say they should be allowed to apply for citizenship.


Support for gun control is less clear-cut, which may explain why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t seek a renewal of the assault-weapon ban. But polls show broad support for universal background checks, and for closing the so-called gun-show loophole.


It’s possible that public opinion is being influenced by courageous political leaders who are urging action on these issues, but the reverse is more likely. Most politicians have a keen sense for tipping points in public opinion, when, say, support for equal marriage rights or immigration reform becomes broad-based, and advocates become sufficiently organized and mobilized to make life hell for officials who won’t change their minds.


The exception is in the economic sphere, where public opinion seems beside the point.


Before January’s fiscal cliff deal, for example, at least 60 percent of Americans, in poll after poll, expressed strong support for raising taxes on incomes over $ 250,000. As you recall, though, the deal locked in the Bush tax cut for everyone earning up to $ 400,000.


Yes, legislative deals require compromise. But why is it that deals over economic policy almost always compromise away what a majority of Americans want?


Most Americans weren’t particularly concerned about the budget deficit to begin with. They’ve been far more concerned about jobs and wages. Yet maneuvers over the deficit have consistently trumped jobs and wages.


Recent polls show Americans would rather reduce the deficit by raising taxes than by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, and transportation. Yet Congress seems incapable of making that kind of deal.


Some 65 percent of Americans want to raise taxes on large corporations — but both parties are heading in precisely the opposite direction.


Half of Americans favor a plan to break up Wall Street’s twelve megabanks, which currently control 69 percent of the banking industry. Only 23 percent oppose such a plan (27 percent are undecided).


You might this would at least prompt an examination of the possibility on Capitol Hill and the White House — especially now that the Street is actively eviscerating regulations under Dodd-Frank.


But our elected representatives don’t want to touch Wall Street. According to Politico, even the White House believes too-big-to-fail will soon be a closed chapter.


Why are politicians so sensitive to public opinion on equal marriage rights, immigration, and guns — and so tone deaf to what most Americans want on the economy?


Perhaps because the former issues don’t threaten big money in America. But any tinkering with taxes or regulations sets off alarm bells in our nation’s finely-appointed dining rooms and board rooms — alarm bells that, in turn, set off promises of (or threats to withhold) large wads of campaign cash in the next election.


When political scientists Benjamin Page and Larry Bartels surveyed Chicagoans with an average net worth of $ 14 million, they found their biggest concern was curbing budget deficits and government spending — ranking these as priorities three times as often as they did unemployment.


And — no surprise — these wealthy individuals were also far less willing than are other Americans to curb deficits by raising taxes on high-income people, and more willing to cut Social Security and Medicare. They also opposed initiatives most other Americans favor — such as increasing spending on schools and raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.


The other thing distinguishing Page’s and Bartels’ wealthy respondents from the rest of America was their political influence.


Two-thirds of them had contributed money (averaging $ 4,633) in the most recent presidential election. A fifth of them had even “bundled” contributions from others.


That money bought the kind of political access most Americans only dream of. About half of these wealthy people had recently initiated contact with a U.S. senator or representative — and nearly half (44 percent) of those contacts concerned matters of relatively narrow economic self-interest rather than broader national concerns.


This is just the wealthy of one city — Chicago. Multiply it across the entire United States and you begin to see the larger picture of whom our representatives are listening to, and why. Nor does the survey include the institutionalized wealth — and economic clout — of Wall Street and large corporations. Multiply the multiplier.


Great wealth can also influence public opinion. It is possible, for example, that the piles of money spent by billionaire Pete Peterson to persuade Americans that the budget deficit is the nation’s most urgent economic problem is now paying off. Recent polls show greater concern about the deficit now than was expressed a few years ago when the deficit represented a much larger percentage of the total economy.


It is good that politicians are exquisitely sensitive to shifts in public opinion on issues like same-sex marriage, undocumented immigrants, and guns. This is a feature of our democracy worth celebrating.


But American democracy has shown itself far less responsive — and our politicians remarkably impervious — to public opinion concerning economic issues that might affect the fates of large fortunes. This is a distressing feature of our democracy, necessitating change.


ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage,” now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.


Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich




Robert Reich



Why Politicians Are Sensitive to Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration and Guns, But Not on the Economy