NYT: 2016 Hopefuls and Wealthy Are Aligned on Inequality

[Ichingcarpenter]

Appearing at a candidate forum in late January, three likely Republican presidential contenders — Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul — all made a striking confession: They considered “the increasing gap between rich and poor” to be a problem.

But on the question of whether the government should intervene to solve it, Mr. Cruz and Mr. Paul rejected that approach, and Mr. Rubio appeared to agree with them.

When “government takes over the economy,” Mr. Cruz said, “it freezes everything in place. And it exacerbates income inequality.” He proposed lowering taxes and loosening regulations instead.

The responses, even as they reflect an effort to appeal to voters on an issue of increasing importance, put the three men at odds with public opinion. According to a Pew Research Center poll from January 2014, which surveyed about 1,500 adults, Americans not only consider inequality a problem, but 69 percent of them, and almost half of Republicans, say the government should act “to reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else.”


It’s not just right-wing presidential aspirants like Mr. Cruz and Mr. Paul whose statements on inequality diverge from public opinion. Hillary Rodham Clinton, though she has been more open to a government role in solving the problem, has yet to mention tax increases as a possible answer. By contrast, more than half of Americans and three-quarters of Democrats believe the “government should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich,” according to a Gallup poll of about 1,000 adults in April 2013.

There is, however, one group of Americans with whom the Republican contenders and Mrs. Clinton, the likely Democratic front-runner, are generally in step: the wealthy............. much more


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/business/candidates-and-wealthy-are-aligned-on-inequality.html?_r=0

[elleng]

1. O'Malley blasts GOP's 'strange view' on income inequality.

Democrat Martin O'Malley gets fired up over the fact that some GOP presidential contenders are railing against the growing income gap between the rich and the poor.

"How ironic since their choices led to it," he told The Des Moines Register in an interview Saturday. "This is their theory, and we tried it for the better part of these last 30 years: Concentrate wealth at the top, take regulation out of the equation and keep wages low. So for them now to say that they're somehow very appalled and concerned about inequality is ironic, to put it most kindly."

In a 30-minute interview with the Register, one question that elicited a passionate response was about why he thinks the Democratic message is better than the GOP message on income inequality.

"I mean, ask yourself: Why is it that many of those who are running for president in the Republican Party when they were governors fought so hard against any increase in minimum wage?" O'Malley said. "These guys are not on the side of seeing wages go up. In their strange view of how the economy works, they believe the economy works best when you concentrate wealth at the top. All of us are paying for this concentration of wealth, and we're paying for it in lower wages." . .

He ripped tea party Republicans, saying: "They belittle science. They create traffic jams. Give them a few more weeks and they'll deny Copernicus."

The main theme of his speech was that it's time to stand up to powerful special interests "who think they can gamble with our money and with the economy." Nearly shouting into his microphone, he said: "We have to, as Democrats, step up and regulate Wall Street and make sure that they are never able to create that kind of economic devastation again. That's our job."

O'Malley said that under his leadership, Maryland increased the minimum wage, made it easier for unions to organize and practiced "the economics of inclusion."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/21/martin-omalley-iowa-income-inequality-disingenuous/25154293/

'The crowd enthusiastically applauded and rose to their feet several times when O'Malley bemoaned income inequality and called for more oversight of Wall Street and the financial industry.

"Over the last 12 years, wages have been going down, not up," said O'Malley, who concluded eight years as governor of Maryland in January. "In fact, last year, Wall Street bonuses alone were double the combined earnings of every single American working for minimum wage to take care of their family. Until we solve this problem, we cannot rest — as a party or as a people."'

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/omalley-works-position-clinton-alternative-29809554

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. He's talking on the issues that matter to citizens

according to the poll mentioned in this article.

I notice also he wasn't including in this crowd the article talked about.

[elleng]

3. Exactly, Ichingcarpenter.

We'll have to 'alert' the msm about this, and let them know we NOTICE.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. from the article

But Mrs. Clinton was vague when it came to solutions. She promoted the public-private partnerships that the Clinton Foundation was brokering to expand worker training and noted that her husband’s administration had ushered in “broad-based growth and shared prosperity” through increasing the minimum wage and doubling the earned-income tax credit.

Though she derided the Republican practice of cutting taxes on the wealthy, she made no mention of tax increases or more aggressive measures, like capping the pay of chief executives or modestly taxing stock market transactions.

Mrs. Clinton sounded similar notes when discussing inequality at the Aspen Institute in June, during an interview at a conference in February and during a forum last week at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. Before the well-heeled crowd at Aspen, she said, “We have to have a concerted effort to meet a consensus about how to deal with this.” She alluded only elliptically to “hard choices” that her husband’s administration had made, saying that “they’ve become harder than they were even 15, 18 years ago.”

Asked whether those hard choices she referred to were tax increases, a Clinton spokesman said he was not sure.

None of this surprises Professor Page. “It seems clear that wealthy Americans play a big part in shaping policy discussions and policy itself, from taxes to regulation to social welfare policies,” he said. “Definitely, they affect what candidates can say.”



Some hedge their opinions like hedgefund managers