Last week, eighty-year-old billionaire Warren Buffett whipped up a media frenzy when, in an op-ed for The New York Times he urged the government to “stop coddling” super-rich folks such as himself. Tax us, he pled.
On Monday, we heard from another member of the nation’s gray and super-rich class, this time on the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal Harvey Golub, seventy-two, former chairman and CEO of American Express and a member of the American Enterprise Institute’s executive committee.
Mr Golub was not happy with Mr Buffett:
Over the years, I have paid a significant portion of my income to the various federal, state and local jurisdictions in which I have lived, and I deeply resent that President Obama has decided that I don’t need all the money I’ve not paid in taxes over the years, or that I should leave less for my children and grandchildren and give more to him to spend as he thinks fit. I also resent that Warren Buffett and others who have created massive wealth for themselves think I’m “coddled” because they believe they should pay more in taxes. I certainly don’t feel “coddled” because these various governments have not imposed a higher income tax. After all, I did earn it.
Before you call him greedy, Mr Golub asks readers to consider some things, including the fact that “almost half of all filers pay no income taxes at all.”
Mr. Buffett and Mr Golub, are both, of course entitled to their opinions, and it’s good to hear the various views of that highly representative subset of old white men who have made more than most can ever dream.
Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if we also got to hear from someone in that “almost half” that doesn’t pay income tax at all (often because they can’t afford to)? Maybe they could tell us how they’re doing, who they resent, and what seems fair to them. While political debate in the past few years has centered on issues critical to working class Americans—like health care and entitlement reform, unions, taxes—America’s most prestigious op-ed sections rarely feature contributions from actual members of the working class on these issues. (The same could be said about war fighters on America’s wars).
Studies have shown that few have suffered more in recent decades than the working poor, who work hard for not much: according to the non-partisan Working Poor Families Project, the number of low-income working families (ie a family of four making less than $41,226) increased by 350,000 between 2002 and 2006, even before the recession and during a period of economic growth. In 2006, there were 9.6 million low income families, which made up 28 percent of the population.
Hearing these voices might also be instructive for the part of the country that gets all riled up about this large non-income-tax-paying population, members of which are often characterized as undeserving and lazy. The study found that 72 percent of these low-income families worked, an average of one and a quarter jobs. In the same period, the number of jobs that paid below the poverty threshold increased by 4.7 million.
But instead, as pointed out by the Op-Ed Project, “an initiative to expand the range of voices we hear in the world,” American op-ed pages are dominated by the viewpoints of a “tiny fraction of society—mostly western, white, privileged and overwhelmingly male.”
While The Op-Ed Project focuses primarily on promoting gender balance, the country could also benefit from hearing viewpoints that are held outside of corporate boardrooms, political offices, and the ivory towers. Some of the nation’s op-ed pages claim they strive to do this. David Shipley, writing in 2004, one year into his stewardship over The New York Times op-ed pages, said the following about curating the section:
Does it help to be famous? Not really. In fact, the bar of acceptance gets nudged a little higher for people who have the means to get their message out in other ways — elected officials, heads of state, corporate titans. It’s incumbent on them to say something forthright and unexpected. Op-Ed real estate is too valuable to be taken up with press releases.
Well-deserved guilt and shame at the impoverishment and travails of the people whose expense funds their continued existence is a benefit to them? I don't think that the vast majority among them have enough character to see it that way.
#1 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Wed 24 Aug 2011 at 12:52 PM
The reports you cite focus on illegal aliens. So you're happy to diss Mr. Golub, an "old white man" who worked hard and played by the rules, while extolling the virtues of people who came here illegally.
I'd like to hear other voices too. I'm betting that many of the working poor are Tea Partiers - and that you and CJR aren't really interested in what they have to say.
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 08:42 AM
"I'm betting that many of the working poor are Tea Partiers - and that you and CJR aren't really interested in what they have to say."
Oh sure they are. Debunking that bile should be a sport.
But seriously, if the government can't create jobs and the government is the problem and if all people need are some bootstraps to pick themselves up by, then why oh why would any of the working poor be Tea Partiers?
If people don't have jobs, that means they're lazy and should get off their butts and work, don't it? What are they going to do, blame the government for their circumstances? What happened to personal responsibility? Did it go Galt?
Why did the tea partier cross the road? To keep the government out of his medicare on the other side.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 12:10 PM
Yes, you earned great wealth, BUT DID YOU EARN IT HONESTLY? Really?
#4 Posted by Appalled, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 01:21 PM
Every article that mentions the claim that lower-income people don't pay taxes should cite this David Cay Johnston article showing that lower-income people pay a similar or greater percentage of their income than wealthy people do considering all types of taxes:
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_do.html
#5 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 01:32 PM
I suspect we don't see many Op-Ed pieces from working class or working poor individuals for three reasons. The first is the demise of the working-class intellectual. One of the unintended consequences of television, and now the spectrum of digital distractions, is that this species of thinker may not longer exist.
The second is that we've established a hierarchy of expertise and have made room for only so many experts. If the issue is Feminism than call Gloria Steinem, if the issue is the Republican Party call Karl Rove, etc., etc. It so happens that experts largely are culled from the Ivy League or related institutions.
The third reason is that we are more nakedly aggressive in pursuing our self interests. I would dare to suggest that Mr. Buffett's clever gambit aligns perfectly with the thinking of the editors of the TIMES Editorial Board. One notices that Mr. Buffett didn't ask that the Government disallow deductions related to the establishment of foundations, a tax loophole which rich and powerful individuals such as himself and, say, President Clinton, to maintain and assert control of their wealth. In a sense they exchange their cash for power and influence, and the tax payer picks up the bill.
In the end, I suspect that one is either inside, either representing the left, right or center, and that Op-ED pages are closed to anyone, and everyone, outside looking in.
#6 Posted by RWordplay, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 01:40 PM
I'm sure those people who don't pay taxes due to lack of income (most likely caused by the fact that their jobs were exported overseas or otherwise eliminated by the corporate fat cats) would gladly trade places with Mr. Golub, "work" as hard as he does, and pay the "unreasonable" taxes that are levied on his income.
#7 Posted by Sarah E, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 01:44 PM
How many people of the low middle class and/or poor have either the time or the money to read the NY Times or Washington Post? Do they even have the money to purchase a computer and read 20 items per month in the Times or put out additional money for full subscription online??? In most cases I doubt it. If they don't have the money to read it they hardly have time nor money to write an op-ed to be printed in any national paper. They'd be lucky to get a letter from the editor printed. They often get the news but by TV or from their kids that bring things home from school and talk about it or it's discussed among workers. The luxury of reading a full newspaper or writing an essay to be printed is beyond their scope even if they are good at writing.
Having taught in the poor areas many of which were illegal immigrants, the only contact the students had was obtained in school through use of "ancient" computers handed down. If they had phone connections with iphone added it was to keep in touch with relatives in their home countries and the students added music to the mix. Fox was criticizing the poor for having not only a refrigerator but 25% had iphones. No one stopped to think that most immigrant and poor live in apartments or houses with stove and refrigerators added that are paid for in the rent and the iphones had more than one use. Often used for emergencies, not entertainment only.
But even those of better incomes--those in $100K etc--seldom use their money to purchase a newspaper nor take the time to write about social or political situations. I am the poorest of 4 in my family of grown adults and all others are in the $100K range yet I am the only one that pays to stay abreast and then I go beyond NY Times to those in Europe.
We just need more people like Warren Buffett to say things as they should be and to criticize their own for not doing as they think best for the country. The man in the Post article either doesn't know how to save money, he spends it like water or he doesn't realize how much of a factor LUCK and " Who He Knows" played in his getting and staying rich. It wasn't all by the sweat of his brow. He's in the wrong business for that.
#8 Posted by trish, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 02:43 PM
It's nice that Warren Buffett wants to pay a few more cents in taxes on his dollars. What everyone who wrote about that column seems to have missed is that raising taxes on the rich is only part of what he recommends, and not even the most important part by his lights.
"Job one for the 12 [Congressional Politburo members] is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here."
So Buffett's highest priority is to legislatively renege on social insurance programs such as Medicare and Social Security, and to cut back on social safety net programs like Medicaid.
It's only 25 words out of nearly a thousand; still you would think somebody would notice that like most Republicans and, apparently, the president as well, the kindly old billionaire wants to bugger the middle class, the working poor and the impoverished until they scream.
As for editorial balance, editors at the bigfoot institutional press organizations go with what they know: Famous names, or names from famous institutions. There's no dearth of spectacularly good writers and sound thinkers in the bottom half of the economic pile; certainly one wouldn't have to look far to find better thinkers and writers than Ross Douthat, Tom Friedman, Fred Hiatt and damn near anyone in the Journal's dead zone of an editorial page.
#9 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 03:41 PM
I don't feel the decision to use or not to use the "Middle Class" view point is a major factor in determining who is chosen to be the op/ed contributor.
I feel it comes down to one simple fact: At the end of the day, the paper has to be sold and unique visitors to a web site needs to be counted.
I and others of the middle class may have something intresting to say or a unique take on a situation but Warren Buffett and others sell papers.
Google me and you find that Brian Rust was a 1920's discographer. You won't find much on me because I am not that intresting, I won't help them reach their ultimate goal of selling more papers.
#10 Posted by Brian Rust, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 04:46 PM
Readers should, of course, hear about issues from the people who know and understand them best. This means academics, journalists, and policymakers, sure; but there should also be space for the perspective of people that live the issues, not just those that study them.
Interesting question, even if your premise rests on a proletarian view of the working class. I would add that the people who "live these issues" have a far better understanding of them then nearly any academics, journalists, or policymaker, they just don’t cant make it past the gatekeepers to get a wider audience for their opinions. Thankfully though, there are always the blogs.
Why didn’t CJR make this point several months ago when they were speculating who was going to be the newest addition on the NY Times op-ed pages.
http://www.cjr.org/news_meeting/suggest_some_new_columnists_fo.php
#11 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 05:24 PM
"[I]t’s good to hear the various views of that highly representative subset of old white men who have made more than most can ever dream." -CJR
"Diversity is an elitist term used to give respectability to acts and policy that would otherwise be deemed as racism." -Walter E. Williams (a.k.a., "old black man"?)
#12 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 05:05 AM
The phrase "op-ed" in your sub-head should have been preceded by the modifier "national" . I'm old enough to remember when there was no such thing as an Op-Ed, but there WAS a feature called Letters to the Editor.
That feature is alive and well in my local daily, in which the working class is heard from regularly and vigorously. There's also a column called My View which has the same aim, but at essay length, and which is well subscribed to by the average Joe, though I'd suspect he's more white-collar than blue. Why newspapers don't get publishable contributions from the poor is, I suggest, self-evident; and, as RWordplay notes in his/her comment, is exacerbated by "the demise of the working-class intellectual."
But back to my original point, CJR is as guillty of generalization as are all those mossbacks out there who constantly complain the "the press" is liberal, when what they're really talking about is the NYT, The LA Times, WaPo. and the national broadcast networks.
I am constantly telling my classes of Senior Citizens, don't tell me "the press" is liberal if you're not reading (or at least scanning) -- in print or on line -- a dozen newspapers a day.
#13 Posted by Art Kane, CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 04:09 PM
An Alternative to Capitalism (where everyone is middle class)
Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: "There is no alternative". She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.
I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider. Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: "Home of the Brave?" which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
Perhaps in time the so-called dark ages will be thought of as including our own.
--Georg C. Lichtenberg
#14 Posted by John Steinsvold, CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 10:54 PM
John,
Here are a few major "alternative[s] to capitalism" we have been forced to endure:
-- central bank, i.e., monopoly on money and credit
-- central economic planning w/innumerable bureaus and "czars" and 1OOOs upon 1OOOs of "regulations" (usually not written by Congress but by bureaucrats)
-- income taxation/IRS
-- FDIC/SEC/FTC/HUD/FDA/NAFTA/IMF/etc.
-- "New Deal"/"Great Society"/"Ownership Society"/"No Child Left behind"/"Compassionate Conservatism"/etc.
-- TARP/QE1/QE2/QE3/etc.
-- military corporatism (Military Industrial Complex)
-- military empire
-- federal "war on drugs"
-- federal "war on poverty"
-- protectionism/mercantilism (embargoes, sanctions, etc.)
-- and on and on and on
Every time the govt intervenes to manage the economy or modify personal behavior, it is an "alternative to capitalism." No thanks. I prefer free association, free trade, and the freedom and ability to defend oneself against force and fraud. Any plan that allows for an extra-constitutional role for the central govt is no major alternative to what exists today. In fact, your "life without money" plan represents a further devolution into the fascist- and communist-influenced system we currently put up with.
#15 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sat 27 Aug 2011 at 03:32 AM