The Los Angeles Times runs a fascinating op-ed by Benjamin I. Page and Larry M. Bartels on the policy preferences of the rich versus everybody else.
On one level, it’s obvious that the rich would have different political views than everybody else, but the details are still revealing.
Wonder why the press and politicians have been obsessed with budget deficits during a recession and anemic recovery?
Our research found that the biggest concern of this top 1% of wealth-holders was curbing budget deficits and government spending. When surveyed, they ranked those things as priorities three times as often as they did unemployment — and far more often than any other issue…
They were also much less likely to favor raising taxes on high-income people, instead advocating that entitlement programs like Social Security and healthcare be cut to balance the budget. Large majorities of ordinary Americans oppose any substantial cuts to those programs.
While the wealthy favored more government spending on infrastructure, scientific research and aid to education, they leaned toward cutting nearly everything else. Even with education, they opposed things that most Americans favor, including spending to ensure that all children have access to good-quality public schools, expanding government programs to ensure that everyone who wants to go to college can do so, and investing more in worker retraining and education.
— Meantime, The Atlantic asks why wealthy people give much less of their income to charity than poor people do:
In 2011, the wealthiest Americans—those with earnings in the top 20 percent—contributed on average 1.3 percent of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid—those in the bottom 20 percent—donated 3.2 percent of their income. The relative generosity of lower-income Americans is accentuated by the fact that, unlike middle-class and wealthy donors, most of them cannot take advantage of the charitable tax deduction, because they do not itemize deductions on their income-tax returns.
Then there’s what the wealthy do with their money when they actually give it away.
Wealth affects not only how much money is given but to whom it is given. The poor tend to give to religious organizations and social-service charities, while the wealthy prefer to support colleges and universities, arts organizations, and museums. Of the 50 largest individual gifts to public charities in 2012, 34 went to educational institutions, the vast majority of them colleges and universities, like Harvard, Columbia, and Berkeley, that cater to the nation’s and the world’s elite. Museums and arts organizations such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art received nine of these major gifts, with the remaining donations spread among medical facilities and fashionable charities like the Central Park Conservancy. Not a single one of them went to a social-service organization or to a charity that principally serves the poor and the dispossessed. More gifts in this group went to elite prep schools (one, to the Hackley School in Tarrytown, New York) than to any of our nation’s largest social-service organizations, including United Way, the Salvation Army, and Feeding America (which got, among them, zero).
I’d imagine that much of that disparity has to do with poorer people paying tithe to their churches.

I happen to agree with Ryan on this one, but it's worth noting that 'coverage' reflects the whims of the wealthy on social issues, too - and those whims are more 'liberal' than those of the population as a whole. This aspect of class conflict is seldom explored, though the WaPo did get around to noticing that environmentalist/activist groups are 'whiter' than the maligned Republican Party. Same goes for a lot of gatherings of liberal-activist groups, if journalists can find it in themselves to challenge their own rather frozen stereotypes and expectations.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 25 Mar 2013 at 12:40 PM
Who's wealthy, Mark? The ones who are funding and tithing to all those institutions of social domination or the ones who chuck a few dimes at PBS once in a while?
Not all the rich are the same, socially. Economically, they are walled off
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/C52956572546624F85257B1D004DE3FC?OpenDocument
from the America the rest of us are experiencing.
http://prospect.org/article/weeklies
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 26 Mar 2013 at 04:08 PM
In other google news, we know from a few years back that the justice department will nail you to the wall for abetting the wrong kind of crime:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/25/business/la-fi-google-settlement-20110825
"The temptation for foreign pharmacies to advertise online may be especially high as many American turn to the Internet to buy drugs discounted as much as 85% compared with drugstore prices in the United States."
Half a billion dollars! For ads! For companies which reimport drugs from a regulated market! (instead of the extortion ridden market south of the 49th)
BAD! That kind of crime will make the heads roll!
The surrender of all ill gotten gains - from ad revenue to the drug reimportation revenue made by the agents who advertised? Wow.
But that's not how Justice treats all crime, nor all regulators approach enforcement. Interesting contrast:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/25/186867/oil-and-electricity-a-compare.html
"An obscure federal regulator of electricity markets has emerged as a tough cop on the beat, taking on Wall Street banks and big energy firms alike for market manipulation. That aggressive approach stands out when it’s compared with that of the regulator in charge of looking for manipulation in the oil and gasoline markets...
“The whole reason we gave the FTC this authority is because we believe these kinds of things that were happening in energy markets were not isolated to one type of energy, but were being perpetrated in other areas, particularly with oil,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. “The FERC is doing its job in unearthing these things, and the FTC just seems to be asleep at the switch.”
[FERC] that earlier had denied that Enron had engaged in manipulation was forced to completely revamp its approach to enforcement.
“We had nowhere near the level of personnel and expertise. I think we had like 10 or 15 people total doing enforcement during Enron. Now we have 200...
Importantly, the FERC and the FTC were empowered and encouraged to look at the interplay between the physical markets where electricity or energy products are delivered and the futures market, where contracts for future delivery of each are traded heavily. These futures markets have come to be dominated by Wall Street and the financial sector over the past 15 years.
The FERC has aggressively gone after Wall Street, while the FTC appears reticent...
Pre-revamp, the FERC could levy fines of up to $10,000 a day. Now it may fine companies up to $1 million a day, something it did in a case that was settled last March for $245 million against Baltimore-based Constellation Energy."
Largest penalty ever assessed by the FTC? $22.5 Million. Against Google.
They need better lobbyists.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 26 Mar 2013 at 04:46 PM