Nothing Says “We Don’t Care” Like 24 Year Congressional Term Limits

With the midterm election in November and Congress sitting on a 13 percent approval rating, many Americans are eager to change the trend of re-electing incumbents who seem to have an artificial advantage. Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) has suggested an amendment to the constitution that would limit Congressmen to 24 years of service (12 in the house and 12 in the Senate); a suggestion that is meant to pacify Americans and make sure that the status quo endures. This non-fix is just as unlikely to occur as a legitimate fix such as proportional representation.

Once again, a Republican is able to pass a counterintuitive, insincere, solution as a reasonable one. Whether it’s narrowing the gap between rich and poor with tax cuts for the rich, or reducing gun violence with more guns, they always seem to solve problems with policies that don’t quite make sense. Now they want to curb our frustration with the people who represent us, by making sure that we can only be frustrated with any individual for 24 years at a time. Some of us would have assumed that electing a good person in the first place, rather than limiting the bad person to a quarter century of service, would have been a better idea.

The artificial advantage afforded to incumbent Congressmen (incumbents also possess intrinsic advantages) has to do with Gerrymandering. Since Gerrymandering is such a funny word, one sounds like a crazy liberal when they use it, compared to a person who simply wants term limits. Gerrymandering is, of course, redistricting with sinister intentions. 

Whatever party runs the state legislature is in charge of figuring out where the districts will be (with a few exceptions). So, they draw them in such a way that maximizes the potential for their fellow party members to be elected, while many Americans are not represented adequately.

In 2012, for example, Democrats running for the House of Representatives received 1.4 million more votes than their Republican counterparts, yet the Republicans remained in control of the house. This is because the idea behind Gerrymandering is to draw a couple of throw away district lines that contain all of your opponents.  This wastes their votes, if they even bother to vote. There are folks on the left who think that a third party, comprised of retired judges and other civil servants, should draw the districts. Why does the left favor this idea while the right favors term limits instead? Could it be because the right is in control and they know that term limits will never happen?

Income Equality for Your Neighbors

Rick Flores

Professor Kevin Reardon

ENG 240

28, February, 2014

Income Equality for Your Neighbors

While income inequality is one of the most important issues that we face today, there are many prominent people that disagree.  While campaigning for the 2012 presidency, one candidate said that he was not concerned about the very poor (Johnson), while the other one made no mention of them. Both, however, vowed to help middle class voters with their problems. Income inequality, it seems, is a stone that very few presidential hopefuls have been willing to turn. How is it possible that a man who is not concerned with the poor can be considered for the highest office in the land? If the vast majority of Americans would benefit from having a larger portion of the nation’s income, why don’t they insist upon it?

Some of the prevailing reasons that the middle class/poor are slow to embrace the importance of income equality—despite its potential for improving the condition of almost every American—are misconceptions. Ideologies, lack of information and disinformation are propagated by representatives of the wealthy. While the influence of partisanship is commonly discussed, it will be easier to refer to ideology, since both of our major political parties are influenced by it. The notion that Democrats are not as American, or that everyone has the same chance of joining the ranks of the wealthy, are misconceptions that are willingly promoted; promoted by people who are aware that they are misconceptions.

The Shadow of Doubt

Although poor people and middle class people are adversely affected by income inequality, many of them are not concerned by it. “Americans in the upper fifth of the income stream make 16.7 times the income of those in the lower fifth, yet barely half (47%) of Americans think that the rich-poor gap is a very big problem for the U.S.”, according to a one study (Stokes).     

Some Americans are altogether unaware of the income inequality debate. According to a study by Norton and Ariely , “respondents vastly underestimated the actual level of wealth inequality in the United States, believing that the wealthiest quintile held about 59% of the wealth when the actual number is closer to 84%” (10). The respondents, who were roughly half liberal and half conservative were asked to assign a percentage of wealth to each quintile; a percentage that they thought to be ideal. “Respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution, reporting a desire for the top quintile to own just 32% of the wealth” (Norton, Ariely, 10). The balance of the money was redistributed to the bottom two quintiles. Without a politician to frame the questions, and without any explanation to provide political context, 92% of respondents in the Norton, Ariely study did not think that income was distributed fairly in the United States. This shows that Americans are concerned about the middle class as well as the very poor.

Identifying With Mitt. During the 2012 presidential primaries, Matt Lauer interviewed former Gov. Mitt Romney, in what would become known as the “politics of envy” interview. During the interview, Gov. Romney assured Matt Lauer that anyone who questions business practices of Wall Street were merely envious of wealthy people. Romney made it clear that he would refuse to address income inequality, but he would provide tax cuts to the rich. There are clearly many Americans who believe as Gov. Romney does and, to them, Romney was being forthright and honest. There is also the possibility that he, like many others, is unaware of the research done on income inequality. The amount of money spent by special interest groups in order to have disproportionate representation should be taken into consideration. This may provide a third plausible explanation for the Governor’s gaff; he could have been promoting disinformation in order to protect the interests of the wealthy people that he represents.

Perhaps the American public feels like they have more in common with our politicians than what is actually the case. Americans are led to believe that certain political parties are against the Constitution and our forefathers, while others favor them. This was the subject of a New York Times article that said “Many Tea Party candidates and activists have tried to seize the moral high ground by explicitly identifying with the founders” (Chernow). Few Americans feel as though it is in the nation’s best interest to oppose our forefathers, so they choose the team that speaks of them most often; never wondering why a political party would aspire to be polarizing, instead of chancing their policies to scrutiny. This sentiment is reflected by a 2013 Gallup poll that found “Older Americans, those living in the Midwest, conservatives, and Republicans are relatively less likely to say the signers [of the Constitution] would be pleased [with the country] than their counterparts” (Newport).

Inequality According to a Forefather. Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to James Madison, “I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind”. Conservatives, including Tea Party members, are among the most likely to oppose policy aimed at reducing income inequality.  The most commonly discussed way for the government to narrow the gap is to increase taxes on the wealthy, which President Obama did in 2012. Another tactic, which is the subject of debate early in 2014, is increasing the federal minimum wage. Another idea is to cut taxes for the wealthy.

Gov. Romney, who does not believe in income inequality, proposed tax cuts for the wealthy anyway.  Those who are opposed to or uninterested in the subject of income distribution claim that this is the only option that will not slow the growth of the economy. At least one study shows that economic growth is not as beneficial to poor people as is income equality. According to a study by John Iceland, “If per capita incomes rise, on average, because of increasing employment and wages, for example, then it is natural to think that poverty will decline. However, economic inequality can mitigate the overall positive impact of income growth if unemployed and low-income workers do not enjoy the benefits of such growth” (499). This has been confirmed by many studies since then, including a study done by Apergis, Dincer, and Payne which determined that “a policy designed to lead to growth but also to an increase in inequality is not likely to be successful”. This study found a positive relationship between income inequality and poverty. Still, Americans still believe that economic growth is for the greater good.

Only in America

            There are Americans who ignore income inequality because of upward mobility. The idea is that they might be rich someday and they will not want to pay all of these taxes. These Americans subscribe to the notion that great fortunes are available around every corner in the United States. These people are waiting for a result that is not typical. To them, perhaps, initiating public policy that affects income distribution is somewhat of a drastic measure.

Progressive Ideas and Bad Press. Although it is common practice in other countries to examine income distribution when equality is skewed, wealthy people and their sympathizers suggest that the practice is unfair or even socialist. Income distribution and equality are concepts that are harmless unless combined with central planning and the absence of private ownership and free enterprise, yet they have a stigma attached them; certainly by design. At the same time, questions have been raised as to the validity of land and finance monopolies as free enterprise, but the government is thought to prevent these things.

Meanwhile, the very wealthy are not as reluctant to accept the government’s help. Public policy has always redistributed wealth from the middle class/poor to the rich. As a Washington Post article pointed out, free trade resulted in many Americans losing their jobs while the rich improved their situations, and laws like “right to work” pushed out labor unions and reduced wages (Meyerson). Special interests are very well represented, since it is unlikely that a secretary or a mom suggested this legislation.

For his part, President Obama delivered on those tax increases and continues to discuss the issue of income inequality. If he seems ambitious, it is due to the strength of the opposition that he encounters, and not the rate at which he is accomplishing the work. Consider what Linden Johnson accomplished in 1964 (without opposition) when his administration created Head Start, Medicare, clean air and water, and many of the programs that we are losing today. It is clear that there is a blockage in Washington. Some would have us believe that this is due to hapless, comically inept Congressmen who are derelict in their duties, but this is not the case. It is due to Congressmen doing an excellent job of representing the wealthiest among us.

Conclusion

So why would Gov. Romney say that he does not care about poor people or income inequality? Is it because he does not know any better? Chances are that he knows all too well. He was aware of what it would take to escape the Republican Primaries, and he said exactly what was expected of him. Either that or he managed to become Governor of Massachusetts, make a fortune and almost become president by using false logic, dismissing empirical data and relying on incorrect assumptions. And finally, why would a poor or middle class person be opposed or indifferent towards income equality? Couldn’t it be that they are going along with their representatives on the matter? This is problematic for that poor/middle class person because that person is no longer being represented by his or her elected officials. Americans choose to identify with groups that have excluded them from their agenda.

Works Cited

Johnson, Luke. "Mitt Romney: 'I'm Not Concerned About The Very Poor'" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 01 Feb. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Stokes, Bruce. "The Income Inequality Debate." Pew Research. Council on Foreign Relations, 03 Feb. 2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.

Norton, M. I., and D. Ariely. "Building a Better America--One Wealth Quintile at a Time." Perspectives on Psychological Science 6.1 (2011): 9-12. Print.

Chernow, Ron. "The Founding Fathers Versus the Tea Party." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.

 Newport, Frank. "Most in U.S. Still Proud to Be an American." Most in U.S. Still Proud to Be an American. Gallup.com, 04 July 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.

 "Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison." Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.

Iceland, John. "Why Poverty Remains High: The Role of Income Growth, Economic Inequality, and Changes in Family Structure, 1949-1999." Demography 40.3 (2003): 499-519. Print.

Apergis, Nicholas, Oguzhan Dincer, and James E. Payne. "On the Dynamics of Poverty and Income Inequality in US States." Journal of Economic Studies 38.2 (2011): 132-43. Print.

JRN315 Final Project

Video For JRN315

The Rush Card and Me

I am a long time Rush Card Customer. Rush Card is, of course, a prepaid debit card that you can purchase and reload as necessary. One day, I noticed that one of the features that compelled me to by the card was not working very well; particularly the implied protection from overdrawing my account. Although I had not been presented the opportunity to spend more money than I had loaded on the card (or even as much), fees associated with this card had caused my account to go into negative territory. 
 I attend school online, and a credit or debit card is necessary for purchasing textbooks from Amazon, or paying my initial application fee. The fact that my Rush Card account seemed to be leaking funds through a virtual hole was unsettling, so I performed a Google search for "Rush Card" without the quotes, because I wanted to review the terms and conditions that I had agreed to. That is when I came across an open letter that Optimum Capitol Management President Ryan Mack had written to Rush Card President and business magnate Russell Simmons in 2010. The letter admonishes Mr. Simmons to stop selling his Rush Card. Mr. Mack makes a very compelling argument, and he accomplishes this with a great deal of tact, respect and sincerity. 
The respect that Ryan Mack shows Russell Simmons is well deserved. Simmons created the Phat Farm clothing line, and co-founded the Def Jam record label. While these are not modest accomplishments, wait until you hear what he does for fun. The man is a vegan, animal rights activist and the recipient of the 2001 PETA Humanitarian Award, and 2011's Person of the Year. I thought that he probably even started the Rush Card with best intentions. This is why another man of renown politely asks Simmons to rethink this particular business venture. Certain, perhaps, that once he sees it from Mack's perspective, he will agree with Mack. Mack says in his letter:

"Making money from ignorance is not the answer...education is the answer and we must provide it. All of our actions must be done for the good of the people and not the good of the pocket. Based on all that you have done for those in our communities, I am certain that you agree."

Several days after I read this letter, I read an article about how Justin Bieber was planning on endorsing his own brand of prepaid debit card. Shortly after that, I was given an assignment in one of my classes that required that I write a story and I wrote mine about prepaid debit cards. The decision was easy for two reason's. The first reason, is that Ryan Mack's open letter is an example of how I want to write as a journalist, or in my everyday life. I want to select my words with a great deal of respect and knowledge for the subject that I am writing about. The second reason, is that I found Mr. Mack's argument against prepaid cards to be a very sound one. More importantly, it served as a miniature wake up call as far as my personal finances are concerned. During the course of researching my story (which you can read here), I was a little bit surprised at what I learned.

My Justin Bieber Prepaid Debit Card Story

Justin Bieber is expected to use social media to spread the word about his new prepaid debit card.

Teen celebrity Justin Bieber has partnered with BillMyParents.com to offer his very own brand of prepaid debit cards, following in the footsteps of other celebrities including Suzie Orman, Russel Simmons and the Kardashians. What is different about Bieber’s card is unclear; according to Kiplinger.com, the card has a monthly fee of $3.95 a reload fee of $2.95, a fee of $.50 for every balance inquiry at an ATM and $1.50 to make a withdraw at an ATM. If you should run out of money and are unable to make transactions with your Justin Bieber card, there is a fee for that as well. A fee of $3 will be charged to your card if you have not used it in 90 days in addition to the $7.95 that you will pay if you are not using your card because it is lost.

Prepaid debit cards have become increasingly popular as the public’s opinion of traditional banking continues to decline. Many of America’s misgivings about banks, their practices, and their accessibility to people with bad credit are justified; but many of them are not. Suze Orman, the Kardashians, Bieber and others, would prefer that potential costumers believe their products to be the only option for anybody who has questionable credit and wishes to enjoy the convenience of managing their funds online, making internet purchases, or receiving direct deposits.   Optimum Capital Management president, and financial literacy advocate, Ryan Mack, could not disagree more. Ryan Mack has publicly blasted the purveyors of these cards. He has condemned them as a guest on FOX News, in The Huffington Post, and he condemned them once again, during an interview on Saturday.

“You have to pay for everything. Water is not free, you have to pay for air, now they are making you pay to spend your own money”, Mack said.
Prepaid debit cards such as Lil Wayne’s “Young Money” card, Russell Simmons “Rush” card and the Kardashians defunct “Kardashian Kard” not only charge too much, but they offer nothing in return, according to Ryan Mack. He says that they do not help you build credit because they do not report to the major credit bureaus. Some cards advertise that they can help you with your bad credit, but the help comes in the form of a credit tracker or a similar service that is available free of charge on the internet. Some of them may even report to a credit bureau, but this is an alternative credit bureau that will not help you establish good credit.

When Ryan Mack is not on the news, he is speaking to kids, young adults, and the underprivileged about the importance of saving, investing, having a defensive financial strategy, budgeting, and having a 20 year vision to name just a few of the suggestions that he shared on Saturday.. He has publicly asked Def Jam Records co-founder and Fat Farm clothing creator Russell Simmons to discontinue his “Rush Card” due to its high fees and subsequent poor reputation. On Saturday, Ryan Mack revealed a plan that he had hatched for an upcoming interview with theglobalgrind.com.

Mack is confident that he can provide a randomly selected Rush card user with the knowledge necessary to make decisions that will help repair their credit. This is something that they cannot do with a prepaid debit card and chances are that Mr. Simmons knows this, but is hoping that you don’t.

Ryan Mack Story

Personal Finance guru, cable news veteran and advocate for the “hard to employ”, Ryan Mack is never too busy to provide for those who seek knowledge. If you doubt this, try dropping him a line.

“You cut that card up, brother”, Ryan Mack said, in reference to the Rush Prepaid Card that he was asked about during a telephone interview; a telephone interview that was requested through the question/comments section of the Optimum Capital Management LLC website. He would graciously agree to this interview via email from his I phone hours later. The interview was in danger of not occurring due to a failure on the interviewer’s part to take time zones into consideration. A mistake about which Mack commented, “It’s all good, brother”. Mr. Mack’s patience and understanding is as welcome and appreciated as it is unexpected. As a financial adviser working with many famous clients across the US, and the winner of Tom Joyner’s “Hardest Working Financial Adviser Award”, his time comes at a premium. Consider his work with low income housing communities, colleges and universities, inner city organizations, non-profits and his partnership with District Attorneys’ offices to teach financial literacy to previously incarcerated inmates in an attempt to lower recidivism rates, and it sustains the notion that he is a busy man. This work, on the other hand, lends credence to the image of a patient and understanding man.  A graduate of The University of Michigan Business School, he has sought to improve the lives of others by sharing financial tips and strategies with them. Particularly with people that are likely to be unfamiliar with banks, lending, interest and other similar ideas. “It’s not a black thing or a white thing, it’s a money thing”, he said about companies like the prepaid card industry in Saturday’s interview.  He insists that these companies target people who do not have very much money and, subsequently, no reason to seek out financial advice. In a letter to Russell Simmons, published by the Huffington Post he says:

“Those who know the strategies to empower the community have a moral obligation to those, who may not be as knowledgeable, to fully inform them. There are other more efficient means to empower those in our communities than pre-paid debit cards and other financially destructive establishments such as check cashing facilities.”

Russell Simons is the Founder of both Def Jam Records and the Rush Prepaid Card and an activist within the black community. Ryan Mack continues to find Mr. Simmons activism and endorsement of the Rush Card, to be contradictory of one another. “I am going to do an interview on theglobalgrind.com—that’s Russell Simmons website—and I am going to present him with a challenge”, said Mack. “I am going to tell him to give me any person that uses the Rush Card and give me 30 days with him. 30 days, and I will help that person find a comparable card, such as a secured card that does not have the associated fees, but helps to improve his credit. If I can’t do that, I will maintain media silence for a year”. A year of media silence sounds like it would be easy enough to accomplish to most people, but to one of CNN, and Fox News favorite talking heads, it would involve a drastic change from what he is used to. It could prove to be a welcome change to his adversaries who are constantly the subjects of his media offensive; people such as Russell Simmons for what Mack perceives as the hypocrisy of being an African American activist who unfairly targets African American consumers with a product that “charges them to spend their own money”,  or  Suze Orman, another accomplished talking head and personal finance guru, who has released her own pre-paid debit card. In the case of Suze Orman, the charge is also hypocrisy. Ryan Mack issued a challenge to Suze Orman to come on CNN and debate him, or to discuss with him the reason that she would condemn pre-paid debit cards in her book and then suggest that everybody purchase hers. He suggested this on CNN during a media offensive that he had named “Suze Vs. Suze”. Mr. Mack insists that he is not particularly confrontational, but that he feels compelled to challenge things that are untrue, or claims that are made with the assumption that no one knows any better. “They prey on people who don’t have money. More importantly, brother, they prey on the public’s lack of knowledge”, said Mack.

As a person who has the knowledge, Mack feels that it is his duty to share it with anyone and everyone, regardless of their income, status in the community, position in the pecking order or how late they are for an interview.