Ask most Democrats and they will tell you, as their leaders tell them, the cure for America’s growing wealth disparity is more job training and education. Even my guy, Bernie Sanders, plays this card. He’s wrong. They are wrong. The great divide, the growing wealth disparity began, most agree, in 1973. The percentage of college graduates has soared since 1965. Since the mid-1970s, the percent of college graduates has doubled among whites and Hispanics and more than tripled among African Americans. Yet somehow, Democrats think that more education is the solution and that somehow, a lack of education was the cause.
Ask most Republicans and they will tell you, as their leaders tell them, the cure for America’s growing wealth disparity is for Americans to buckle down and work harder. Americans work more than anyone in the industrialized world.Numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show a very gradually rising trend through the 1990s that has only just recently tapered off, hovering somewhere just north of 40 hours weekly. Americans take less vacation, work longer days, and retire later, too. In 1990 Americans worked an average of nearly one month more per year than in 1970. Yet somehow, Republicans think that more working hours are the solution and a lessening of hours was the cause.
If you are poor, or middle class looking at poverty as a real possibility in your future, you have Democrats telling you that you lack desirable skills basic knowledge and Republicans telling you you are lazy. This while you may already have a college degree and are working 50 hours a week.
And then there is this. Wealthy Democrats get to hold their head high and feel no guilt about their wealth because, after all, in their paradigm, they are simply smarter than the poor and have more desirable talents. Wealthy Republicans can do the same with a different paradigm that just proves how hard they work. Neither party will address the real reasons poverty exists and why it is growing because both parties are controlled by the rich.
We all know the Republicans are controlled by the rich but please, let’s cut the crap and admit that the Democrats are too. Want to attend the big gala event last night at the Roosevelt Awards? No problem, just pony up $250 for a seat. Want to rub elbows the the campaign coordinator of the front runner of the presidential race? That will cost you $1,000. How about a meet & greet with one of our senators? No problem, that’s a bargain at $100, but if you have $1,000 to spare, we’ll give you special early access to the senator. Yes, you read that correctly, the Democratic Party granting special access to power that only the rich can afford, and why not? Aren’t they gifted with special skills and education? This ought to be their reward, eh?
It’s getting harder and harder for me to mock the Republicans as the Party of the Rich.
Know this: The reasons many people are poor in the USA are not because they lack talent, education, ambition, or energy. The reasons are all plain to see in our labor policy, tax policy, trade policy and so much more that “our” government sets into law, a government, by the way, that is more and more an appendage of the wealthy class of both parties.
Offer your services as a volunteer for the event, as I have done several times in the past. Would you prefer the Dems NOT compete for the necessary dollars to win elections? The state party DOES do a lot of fundraising in the $25 dollar range too, and somehow I’ve managed to get plenty of elected officials to know me by name and face WITHOUT shelling out a bunch of money. I’ve even gotten my delegate fee waived some years. You really need to get over your obsession with how much money is raised by which methods and which sources. I say as long as the methods and sources are legal and the cash itself isn’t counterfeit our party and candidates should go to town on this.
I appreciate the offer, I really do, but for me it just rubs salt in the wound. I would prefer that the DEMS had a strong enough grass roots organization, you know the sort that can raise millions with a whole lot of $27 donations. I would know this: The weaker the message and candidate, the more expensive it is to win. Look at Jeb Bush. No, I am not going to “get over” the growing wealth disparity in the USA and in the Democratic Party and the problems it creates.
You say as long as it is legal…..what you are forgetting is who is writing the laws.
If you were I’d be right there with you. I hate to break it to you, but you don’t have to be THAT wealthy to splurge for a $250 ticket to an annual party fundraiser. From having been previously I can guarantee that was not a gathering of the 1% last night. My point about being the “hired help” is that I too get to see and have access to the bigwigs.
$250 for me, $500 if I take my wife. That’s a whole lot of groceries. Maybe $250 ain’t much to you, but to me, it’s a week’s take home pay.
I work for just this side of the minimum wage. You won’t see me paying that kind of money. Recall I said above I get my convention fees waived. You don’t have to be wealthy to afford it though. I know many of the people who attend. They are quite a ways from wealthy.
It’s the Democrat’s instance that a lack of skills and education is at the root of the horrific wealth disparity in the nation and in Massachusetts.
We’ve heard you loud and clear that you believe political money is evil, but posting each time you hear about another high dollar event accomplishes nothing. I’m not sure where you hear Democrats only talking about skills and education, nor how that’s at all relevant to the price of admission to these events.
… that we’re all in this for the mockery and heaven help us if we stoop to service…
The road to hell might well be paved with good intentions… but it was pride that ferried those intentions and it was pride that laid them down so neatly…
I’ve spent most of my live in the service of others. I truly enjoy it. I was a waiter, dispatcher, bartender, janitor, farm hand, the list it long. I have enormous for anyone in the service of others. What I object to is this: I (and those thousands like me) spend countless weekend canvassing, countless hours phone banking, gathering signatures, holding signs. And yet, to gain special access to those in power, to bend an ear at a cocktail party of dinner, all the rich folk need to do is write a check and they go straight to the front of the line. The only canvass they are familiar with is the fabric of the sails of their yacht.
Some people have time; some have money. Like you, I have much more of the former. There really are opportunities other than the cocktail parties to meet and greet candidates and officials. Time has value too, but let’s not advertise that too loudly. I’d hate to start writing laws regulating how much time we can contribute.
I don’t disagree with your assessment of wealth buying at least proximity to politicians of both parties, but I cannot think of a time when it was not so going back for more than a hundred years. However, there is no doubt that the volume of fundraising has gone up quite a bit in the last couple of decades. I don’t think that most politicians really enjoy grubbing for campaign funds much more than you like seeing them do it. Sadly, too many have simply accepted it as a “necessary evil”.
Of course, Senators and House members do often meet with citizens who have not necessarily given them money and also interact with their constituents indirectly through their offices. It’s not like fundraisers are the only way to talk to a politician.
About an exceptional person.
I was at an event in 2004. It was like the circles of Hell – at the top ($5,000) was food and music and a personal personal chat, then the next layer down ($500) was corn chips, tonic and a quick photo, the the lowest circle ($50) without even chairs, and a rope line for a quick handshake. The campaigner arrived and began chatting. He asked where the cameras were, and was told next level up. “I think these nice folks should have pictures, too” he said firmly and refused to head out. Staffers were freaking out a little, afraid the larger donors would feel cheated, but we each got a quick snap and a hug.
It’s up to the candidate. Of course, this wasn’t a candidate but President George Herbert Walker Bush, in town fund raising for Dubya in 2004. But the principle is the same.
but she’s told it multiple times over the years, and it remains consistent.
President H W Bush wasn’t my favorite, but hat’s off to him for giving some love to all of his partisans, not just the wealthy ones.
like when Bill Clinton was giving a speech at the DCU center a few years back. They want the placed filled for photos, but not a lot of access.
Yes, there are events that are geared towards making a buck rather than meeting with voters. That’s geared for elections and building war chests, but I’m not so sure that candidates make any distinction. There are hundreds of people that they meet. It’s a quick speech, take a photo if you paid enough, make some small talk and get the hell out. A couple hours max.
Locally there are always events where there are small enough groups that you can have a conversation. Reps more than Senators but there are opportunities during the year. It’s geared to have a dialog, candidates are there to be seen there and not because they have to because of cash. Most events are geared toward those who work for candidates, I think you would find a more open environment in those events. Candidates need you, they know it and they want to reach out during the year for your support.
I’m a small time donor, at best. Yet over the past decade I’ve had multiple conversations of substance with Governors Baker and Patrick, Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Kirk, Cowan, Warren, and Markey, and Congressmen Kennedy and Frank. The list of other MA constitutional officers and members of the Great and General Court is, as you might expect, even longer.
Access exists. Nobody has enough access, and time constraints make it impossible for any of us to have enough, no less all of us.