2016 Spring Income and Democracy Uil

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016
AFFIRMATIVE ............................................................................................................ 2
INEQUALITY IS GROWING ..................................................................................................................... 2
US INEQUALITY IS ESPECIALLY BAD....................................................................................................... 4
INEQUALITY UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY ............................................................................................. 7
INEQUALITY DESTROYS THE SOCIAL CONTRACT ................................................................................ 11
INEQUALITY DISTORTS THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL PROCESS ....................................................... 12
INEQUALITY UNDERMINES EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY ................................................................. 15
INEQUALITY THREATENS ELITE DOMINANCE OF DEMOCRACY ........................................................ 17
INEQUALITY CREATES CLASS DIVIDE THAT THREATENS DEMOCRACY ............................................. 19
INEQUALITY UNDERMINES THE MIDDLE CLASS ................................................................................. 21
INEQUALITY DECREASES PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY ............................................................... 22
INEQUALITY DESTROYS THE RULE OF LAW......................................................................................... 24
INEQUALITY THREATENS THE ECONOMY ........................................................................................... 27
INEQUALITY PREVENTS ESCAPING POVERTY ..................................................................................... 28
INEQUALITY THREATENS SOCIAL SERVICES AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES ..................................... 29
THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS ADDRESSING INEQUALITY ............................................................................ 31
GOVERNMENT SHOULD ADDRESS INEQUALITY ................................................................................ 32
INEQUALITY IS THE RESULT OF GOVERNMENT ACTION .................................................................... 33
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MANDATE LAISSEZ FAIRE ECONOMY..................................................... 36
A/T: SOCIALISM .................................................................................................................................... 38
NEGATIVE .................................................................................................................39
INEQUALITY IS NOT GROWING ................................................................................................................39
CLAIMS ABOUT HARMS OF INEQUALITY ARE OVERSTATED.......................................................................41
INEQUALITY DOES NOT THREATEN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION .................................................................43
INEQUALITY DOES NOT HURT DEMOCRACY .............................................................................................44
INEQUALITY/WEALTH ARE NOT STATIC ....................................................................................................45
POVERTY IS NOT THAT BAD IN THE US......................................................................................................47
CRITICISM OF INEQUALITY IS JUST ENVY ..................................................................................................48
FOCUS SHOULD BE GROWTH, NOT REDISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................49
ECONOMIC GROWTH FROM COMPETITION BENEFITS US ALL ..................................................................50
ECONOMIC FREEDOM IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN DREAM .........................................................52
ECONOMIC FREEDOM CRITICAL TO MIDDLE CLASS ..................................................................................53
AMERICAN DREAM IS ROOTED IN WORK AND SELF-RELIANCE ..................................................................54
FORCING REDISTRIBUTION HARMS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS...............................................................55
US DEMOCRACY DOES NOT DEPEND ON OR MANDATE EQUALITY............................................................56
INEQUALITY COMES FROM LIBERTY .........................................................................................................57
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON MANDATING OPPORTUNITY, NOT RESULTS .................................59
CANNOT ADDRESS INEQUALITY ...............................................................................................................62
INDIVIDUALISM SHOULD TRUMP EQUALITY/COMMUNITY ......................................................................63
POVERTY IS THE RESULT OF PERSONAL CHOICE........................................................................................65
THE PUBLIC DOES NOT SUPPORT EFFORTS TO REDISTRIBUTE ...................................................................68
EFFORTS TO REDISTRIBUTE WILL DIMINISH SUCCESS ...............................................................................70
REDISTRIBUTION UNDERMINES OPPORTUNITY .......................................................................................71
REDISTRIBUTION IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ...................................................................................................73
REDISTRIBUTION UNDERMINES RIGHTS...................................................................................................76
SPRING 2016
INCOME AND DEMOCRACY
AFFIRMATIVE
INEQUALITY IS GROWING
TOP 1% OWNS 34% OF ALL PRIVATE WEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES, A DRAMATIC INCREASE-Acuff '08
[Stewart; Organizing Director @ AFL-CIO; To Reduce Economic Inequality, Protect Workers' Rights;
Huffington Post; 12 March 2008; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stewart-acuff/to-reduce-economicinequa_b_91127.html; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
Wealth ownership, of course, is even more concentrated. The richest 1 percent of Americans owns 34
percent of all private wealth--which is more than is owned by the bottom 90 percent. In 2004, the median
wealth of the richest 1 percent was 190 times the median wealth of all Americans--up from 130 times as
much in 1983.
RICH-POOR GAP IS THE GREATEST IN A HALF-CENTURY-Moyers '05
[Bill; Television Journalist, Author and Social Commentator; Economic Inequality Is a Serious Problem in
America; 2005; Gale Group Databases]
Nothing seems to embarrass the political class in Washington today. Not the fact that more children are
growing up in poverty in America than in any other industrial nation; not the fact that millions of workers
are actually making less money today in real dollars than they did twenty years ago; not the fact that
working people are putting in longer and longer hours and still falling behind; not the fact that while we
have the most advanced medical care in the world, nearly 44 million Americanseight out of ten of them in
working familiesare uninsured and cannot get the basic care they need.
Astonishing as it seems, no one in official Washington seems embarrassed by the fact that the gap between
rich and poor is greater than it's been in 50 yearsthe worst inequality among all Western nations. Or that
we are experiencing a shift in poverty. For years it was said those people down there at the bottom were
single, jobless mothers. For years they were told work, education, and marriage is how they move up the
economic ladder. But poverty is showing up where we didn't expect itamong families that include two
parents, a worker, and a head of the household with more than a high school education. These are the
newly poor. Our political, financial and business class expects them to climb out of poverty on an escalator
moving downward.
RICH-POOR GAPS HAS GROWN 18 PERCENT SINCE 1967-Linn '12
[Allison; Here's where the gap is widest between rich, poor; Life, Inc. via NBC Today; 9 March 2012;
http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/09/10611672-heres-where-the-gap-is-widestbetween-rich-poor?lite; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
Overall, household income inequality has grown by 18 percent since 1967, although the trend has slowed
more recently, the report said.
The report was based on government household income surveys conducted between 2006 and 2010 that
asked about income of all people ages 15 and older living in each household.
SPRING 2016

TOP 1% HAS HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH SINCE PRE-DEPRESSION LEVELS-Crowell '07
[Suzanne; Civil Rights Policy Analyst for the US Commission on Civil Rights; Bridging the Economic Gap;
NCJW Journal; Summer 2007; page 13]
Growing inequality and stagnant incomes for the majority of Americans have become recurring themes in
critiques of America's economic well-being. The top 1 percent of Americans with incomes in 2005 of more
than $348,000 now account for the largest share of the national income since 1928, according to the most
recent available data. About 1 percent of Americans now own 40 percent of the nation's wealth, while the
federal minimum wage is worth less than one-third what it was. While total personal income rose 9 percent
in 2005, the individual incomes of more than 90 percent of Americans actually fell.
EVEN THE CONSERVATIVE PRESS AGREES THAT THE RICH-POOR GAP IS SIGNIFICANT-Krugman '06
[Paul; Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University; Economic Inequality Has
Accelerated; 2006; Gale Group Databases]
The other day I found myself reading a leftist rag that made outrageous claims about America. It said that
we are becoming a society in which the poor tend to stay poor, no matter how hard they work; in which
sons are much more likely to inherit the socioeconomic status of their father than they were a generation
ago.
The name of the leftist rag? Business Week, which published an article titled "Waking Up From the
American Dream." The article summarizes recent research showing that social mobility in the United States
(which was never as high as legend had it) has declined considerably over the past few decades. If you put
that research together with other research that shows a drastic increase in income and wealth inequality,
you reach an uncomfortable conclusion: America looks more and more like a class-ridden society.
RICH ECONOMIES PROVIDE DISPROPORTIONATE AND GROWING RETURNS TO THE ALREADY WEALTHYThe Economist '11
[Unbottled Gini: Inequality is rising. Does it matterand if so why?; The Economist; 20 January 2011;
http://www.economist.com/node/17957381; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
But recent research does suggest two other reasons why the rise in inequality is a problem. One is that rich
economies seem to provide disproportionate and growing returns to the already wealthy. The other is that
inequality may literally be making people miserable by increasing stress and the hormones it releases.
In a recent series of lectures at the London School of Economics, Adair Turner, the chairman of Britains
Financial Services Authority, cited several factors that appear to be pushing up the incomes of the rich.
First, financial, legal and health services have increased their shares of GDP in most rich economies
especially Anglo-Saxon onesand these professions contain some of the richest people in the country.
Financial services share of GDP in America doubled to 8% between 1980 and 2000; over the same period
their profits rose from about 10% to 35% of total corporate profits, before collapsing in 2007-09. Bankers
are being paid more, too. In America the compensation of workers in financial services was similar to
average compensation until 1980. Now it is twice that average. Rich bankers really are all around you.
SPRING 2016
US INEQUALITY IS ESPECIALLY BAD

THE US HAS THE WORST INEQUALITY OF ANY COUNTRY WITH A MODERN ECONOMY-Johnston 14
[David Cay; investigative journalist and author, a specialist in economics and tax issues; Divided: The Perils
of Our Growing Inequality; 2014; Kindle Edition]
Misperceptions about affluence and poverty continue to infect our politics, even as the massive chasm that
divides the very richest Americans from everyone else has become the defining story of our time. No
natural forces determine income, wealth, and the quality of human life. We make the decisions about who
will prosper and who will not or we let other people make them for us. In societies with democratically
elected governments, we are the captains of our fate, because when we elect politicians we choose their
policies as carried out by presidents and governors, Congress and legislatures, and those they appoint as
judges and regulators. For now, what we have chosen is extreme inequality, the worst by far of any nation
with a modern economy.
In choosing inequality, we have opted to give up a broad and strong middle class with rising expectations,
growing incomes, broadening home ownership, and access to higher education. In choosing health care
inequality, we have decided to dampen millions of spirits, deny a chance at success to millions of children,
and turn many hardworking taxpayers into people who become permanently disabled and thus a burden
on society, simply because they cannot get corrective surgery or drugs to control their conditions and
return to productive lives. We have created a society in which all the nations economic gains flow to the
top and the vast majority sees income stagnation or decline. We have embraced bankruptcy, debt, long
bouts of joblessness, and flat or shrinking paychecks as the new normal. And we have lavished cash, tax
cuts, and subtle subsidies on the richest among us, whose prosperity continues to blossom.
ONLY ROMANIA HAS WORSE CHILD POVERTY THAN THE UNITED STATES- Johnston 14
Meanwhile, poverty is worsening. Among developed countries only Romania has a larger share of its
children in poverty. In any recent year, more than one in five American children lived in a home without
enough food for everyone at all times. Black and Hispanic children are five times more likely than children
overall to live in households with what our government euphemistically calls very low food security. Food
banks report that their shelves often go bare before the lines of people are served and that most of their
new customers since 2008 are married couples with children who used to have two jobs and now have
none. To people accustomed to a pantry full of food and a refrigerator with not enough shelf space for
everything that comes home from the grocery store, this may be hard to grasp. Yet one in every fifty-two
people you meet today, statistically, has no income except food stamps. In reality, however, it is possible to
live a lifetime and not know any one of the 6 million Americans who now depend entirely on food stamps
to survive, because we are so economically segregated.
SPRING 2016

STATISTICS SHOW A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN THE RICH-POOR GAP OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS-Sherman
and Aron-Dine '07
[Arloc, Welfare Reform Expert and Aviva, Federal Fiscal Policy Analyst; both of the Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities; The Gap Between Rich and Poor Is Widening; 2007; Gale Group Databases]
The new data also highlight the degree to which income gains over the past quarter-century have become
increasingly concentrated at the top of the income scale. Since 1979the first year for which the CBO data
are availableincome gains among high-income households have dwarfed those of middle- and lowincome households. Over this 25-year period:
The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population nearly tripled, rising from $314,000
to nearly $868,000for a total increase of $554,000, or 176 percent. (Figures throughout this paper were
adjusted by CBO for inflation and are presented in 2004 dollars.)
By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively modest 21
percent, or $8,500, reaching $48,400 in 2004.
The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose just 6 percent, or $800, over the
past 25 years, reaching $14,700 in 2004.
Because incomes grew much faster among the most affluent, this group's share of the total national income
also increased.
The top one percent of the population received 14.0 percent of the national after-tax income in 2004,
nearly double its 7.5 percent share in 1979. (Each percentage point of after-tax income is equivalent to $71
billion in 2004 dollars.)
In contrast, the middle fifth of the population, which has 20 times more people in it, received 15.0 percent
of the national after-tax income in 2004, down from 16.5 percent in 1979. The bottom fifth received 4.9
percent of the income in 2004, down from 6.8 percent in 1979.
Income is now more concentrated at the top of the income spectrum than in all but two years since the
mid-1930s. This conclusion is reached by examining the CBO data in conjunction with data from a groundbreaking historical analysis of pre-tax income distribution trends published in a leading economics journal.
When viewed together, the studies indicate that the top one percent of households now receive a larger
share of the national pre-tax income than at any time since 1937, except for the years 1999 and 2000.
THE RICH-POOR GAP HAS BEEN INCREASING OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS-Krugman '06
Let's talk first about the facts on income distribution. Thirty years ago we were a relatively middle-class
nation. It had not always been thus: Gilded Age America was a highly unequal society, and it stayed that
way through the 1920s. During the 1930s and '40s, however, America experienced what the economic
historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have dubbed the Great Compression: a drastic narrowing of
income gaps, probably as a result of New Deal [Depression relief programs] policies. And the new economic
order persisted for more than a generation: Strong unions; taxes on inherited wealth, corporate profits and
high incomes; close public scrutiny of corporate managementall helped to keep income gaps relatively
small. The economy was hardly egalitarian, but a generation ago the gross inequalities of the 1920s seemed
very distant.
Now they're back. According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez
confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Officebetween 1973 and 2000 the average real income
of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the
top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income
of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of
the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age
levels of inequality.
SPRING 2016

RICH-POOR GAP AT ALARMING LEVELS-Edward '07
[John; Adjunct Professor of Economics at Bentley College; Income Inequality Continues to Grow; The Lowell
Sun; 9 September 2007; page 1]
LeBron James, the basketball star, is having a 35,000-square-foot mansion built for himself in suburban
Ohio. It includes a barbershop. One out of every five people in the city of Lowell [Massachusetts] live in
poverty. Some do without a haircut because they cannot afford one. Presidential candidate John Edwards
observes these two Americas, so it is ironic when he pays $400 for a haircut for himself.
Inequality has always existed, and always will. However, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing
to alarming levels. While a select few are accumulating unimaginable wealth, many working families cannot
imagine how they will pay their bills.
The trend is obvious from looking at United States Census data. After a long period of decreasing inequality,
the United States has experienced a steady increase in inequality over the past 30 years.
In the mid 1970s, high-income families earned seven times as much as low-income families. Now they earn
12 times as much. Back then, the top 1 percent of earners made 9 percent of total income. Now they make
19 percent.
RICH POOR GAP HAS INCREASED OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS-Hacker '04
[Jacob; Professor of Political Science at Yale and Fellow at the New American Foundation; False Positive;
New Republic; 16 August 2004; page 14-17]
Judged on this basis, what my evidence shows is deeply troubling. When I started out, I expected to see a
rise in the instability of family income. But nothing prepared me for the sheer magnitude of the increase. At
its peak in the mid-'90s, income instability was almost five times as great as it was in the early '70s, and,
although it dropped somewhat during the late '90s (my data end in 1999), it has never fallen below twice its
starting level. By comparison, permanent income differences across families have risen by a more modest,
if still troubling, 50 percent over the same period.
RICH-POOR GAP IS AT HISTORICAL LEVELS-The Economist '11
[The beautiful and the damned: The links between rising inequality, the Wall Street boom and the subprime
fiasco; The Economist; 20 January 2011; http://www.economist.com/node/17957107; retrieved 26 Dec
2015]
THERE was not a single year between 1952 and 1986 in which the richest 1% of American households
earned more than a tenth of national income. Yet after rising steadily since the mid-1980s, reckon Thomas
Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, two economists, in 2007 the income share of the richest percentile reached a
staggering 18.3%. The last time America was such an unequal place was in 1929, when the equivalent figure
was 18.4%. The similarities in the evolution of income inequality in the years leading up to the Depression
and the global economic crisis make for one of the most striking parallels between the two episodes. Some
talk of a repeat of the Roaring Twenties, when Jay Gatsby threw lavish parties at his Long Island mansion
although this time round, the dubious profits have been made from real-life finance, not fictitious
bootlegging.
THE RICH-POOR GAP IS VIOLENTLY OUT OF WHACK FROM HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE-Morris '04
[Charles; Economics Author; Economic Injustice for Most; Commonweal; 13 August 2004; page 12]
The recent trends in income concentration have been even more pronounced than those in wealth. This is
unusual and especially worrisome. Wealth accumulations occur over extended periods, so it can take a
number of years for even highly skewed income patterns to be fully reflected in wealth distributions. The
current patterns of income concentration are violently out of whack with historical experience, and may
indeed be without precedent.
SPRING 2016
INEQUALITY UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY

GROWING INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES UNDERMINES OUR ECONOMY AND THREATENS
DEMOCRACY-Stiglitz 13
[Joseph; professor of economics at Columbia University and the recipient of a John Bates Clark Medal and a
Nobel Prize; The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future; 2013; Kindle
Edition]
This book is about why our economic system is failing for most Americans, why inequality is growing to the
extent it is, and what the consequences are. The underlying thesis is that we are paying a high price for our
inequality an economic system that is less stable and less efficient, with less growth, and a democracy
that has been put into peril. But even more is at stake: as our economic system is seen to fail for most
citizens, and as our political system seems to be captured by moneyed interests, confidence in our
democracy and in our market economy will erode along with our global influence. As the reality sinks in
that we are no longer a country of opportunity and that even our long-vaunted rule of law and system of
justice have been compromised, even our sense of national identity may be put into jeopardy.
INEQUALITY DISTORTS DEMOCRACY-Obama 14
[Barack, President of the United States; Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Inequality; 2014; Kindle Edition]
Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced
lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the
highest bidder. It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against
them, that our elected representatives arent looking out for the interests of most Americans. But theres
an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise thats at
the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people we tell our
kids that in this country, even if youre born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle
class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. Thats why
immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.
EVEN THE OPACITY ABOUT THE NATURE OF INEQUALITY UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY-Piketty 14
[Thomas; Professor of Economics at EHESS and at the Paris School of Economics; Capital in the Twenty-First
Century; 2014; KIndle Edition]
First, it would generate information about the distribution of wealth. National governments, international
organizations, and statistical offices around the world would at last be able to produce reliable data about
the evolution of global wealth. Citizens would no longer be forced to rely on Forbes, glossy financial reports
from global wealth managers, and other unofficial sources to fill the official statistical void. (Recall that I
explored the deficiencies of those unofficial sources in Part Three.) Instead, they would have access to
public data based on clearly prescribed methods and information provided under penalty of law. The
benefit to democracy would be considerable: it is very difficult to have a rational debate about the great
challenges facing the world today the future of the social state, the cost of the transition to new sources
of energy, state-building in the developing world, and so on because the global distribution of wealth
remains so opaque.
SPRING 2016

UNSUSTAINABLE INEQUALITIES RADICALLY UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY-Piketty 14
Modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have made it possible to avoid the Marxist
apocalypse but have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequalityor in any case not as much
as one might have imagined in the optimistic decades following World War II. When the rate of return on
capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems
quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable
inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based.
There are nevertheless ways democracy can regain control over capitalism and ensure that the general
interest takes precedence over private interests, while preserving economic openness and avoiding
protectionist and nationalist reactions. The policy recommendations I propose later in the book tend in this
direction.
FAILURE TO ADDRESS INCOME INEQUALITY THREATENS DEMOCRACIES WITH A VIOLENT FUTURE OF
REBELLION-Bello 14
[Walden; Bello is senior analyst of the Bangkok-based institute Focus on the Global South; How Liberal
Democracy Promotes Inequality; Common Dreams; 06 Dec 2014;
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/06/how-liberal-democracy-promotes-inequality;
retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
Noting that the long term dynamics of the wealth distribution are potentially terrifying, Piketty asks
whether the only solution might lie in violent reactions or radical shocks, like the wars and revolutions of
the first half of the 20th century.
Perhaps we are now in for some of those radical shocks. Perhaps current developments in Iraq and Syria
are not marginal events but explosions that will sooner or later also occur in other regions, including the
North. When the political explosions occasioned by inequality and the search for identity are combined
with what many foresee as the turbulent social consequences of the climate apocalypse, then perhaps we
are not too far away from catastrophic change after all.
SPRING 2016

FAILURE TO ADDRESS INEQUALITY WILL LEAD TO A WORLD RULED BY MANAGERS AND CORPORATIONSPiketty 14
The question is important, and not just for historical reasons. Since the 1970s, income inequality has
increased significantly in the rich countries, especially the United States, where the concentration of
income in the first decade of the twenty-first century regainedindeed, slightly exceededthe level
attained in the second decade of the previous century. It is therefore crucial to understand clearly why and
how inequality decreased in the interim. To be sure, the very rapid growth of poor and emerging countries,
especially China, may well prove to be a potent force for reducing inequalities at the global level, just as the
growth of the rich countries did during the period 19451975. But this process has generated deep anxiety
in the emerging countries and even deeper anxiety in the rich countries. Furthermore, the impressive
disequilibria observed in recent decades in the financial, oil, and real estate markets have naturally aroused
doubts as to the inevitability of the "balanced growth path" described by Solow and Kuznets, according to
whom all key economic variables are supposed to move at the same pace. Will the world in 2050 or 2100
be owned by traders, top managers, and the superrich, or will it belong to the oil-producing countries or
the Bank of China? Or perhaps it will be owned by the tax havens in which many of these actors will have
sought refuge. It would be absurd not to raise the question of who will own what and simply to assume
from the outset that growth is naturally "balanced" in the long run.
THE INCREASING INCOME INEQUALITY THREATENS MAKING THE US A DEMOCRACY IN NAME ONLYKrugman 11
[Paul; Oligarchy, American Style; New York Times; New York Times; 03 Nov 2011;
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html?_r=0; retrieved 16 Dec 2015]
Anyone who has tracked this issue over time knows what I mean. Whenever growing income disparities
threaten to come into focus, a reliable set of defenders tries to bring back the blur. Think tanks put out
reports claiming that inequality isnt really rising, or that it doesnt matter. Pundits try to put a more benign
face on the phenomenon, claiming that its not really the wealthy few versus the rest, its the educated
versus the less educated.
So what you need to know is that all of these claims are basically attempts to obscure the stark reality: We
have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people, and in which that
concentration of income and wealth threatens to make us a democracy in name only.
THE RICH-POOR GAP IS THE FOUNDATION OF POLITICAL INEQUALITY--Kuhner '07
[Timothy K.; Assistant Professor of Law at the Roger Williams University School of Law; The Separation of
Business and State; California Law Review; December 2007; Lexis]
The extent to which monetary power translates into political power serves as a useful way to measure
political inequality. Since money influences elections and the political process more broadly, economic
inequality provides a foundation for political inequality. If the law allows meaningful differences between
the degree of influence an ordinary American and a wealthy American or corporation can exert, then the
high degree of economic stratification in this country casts doubt on the integrity of American democracy.
The relationship between economic and political inequality is mutually reinforcing: greater political traction
for the wealthy leads to public policies favorable to the wealthy, which leads to greater economic
inequality, which in turn leads to greater political inequality, and so on. Tighter regulations on money in
politics could stop this cycle, but those regulations are harder and harder to pass as wealthy interests
become more entrenched in the political process.
SPRING 2016

THE RICH-POOR GAP SHARPENS THE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY-Acuff
'08
[Stewart; Organizing Director @ AFL-CIO; To Reduce Economic Inequality, Protect Workers' Rights;
Huffington Post; 12 March 2008; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stewart-acuff/to-reduce-economicinequa_b_91127.html; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
But there's an even deeper problem. Extreme economic inequality sharpens perhaps the ultimate
contradiction between capitalism and democracy. This can be seen in the corrosive influence of money in
the nation's politics, as corporations and the wealthy buy ever more influence with their increasing
opulence. Meanwhile, political participation by the working class and especially by the poor, preoccupied
with the challenges of their daily lives and cynical about politics, trends down. Worst of all is the starvation
of the public sector that occurs as the fate of the rich increasingly becomes decoupled from the rest of us,
enabling them to opt for private solutions behind the high walls of their gated communities--in education,
health care, public safety and more.
THE RICH-POOR GAP IS TEARING AT THE SOUL OF DEMOCRACY-Moyers '05
That's why the Stanleys and the Neumanns were turned off by politics. It's why we're losing the balance
between wealth and the commonwealth. It's why we can't put things right. And it is the single most
destructive force tearing at the soul of democracy. Hear the great justice Learned Hand on this: "If we are
to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: 'Thou shalt not ration justice.'" Learned Hand
was a prophet of democracy. The rich have the right to buy more homes than anyone else. They have the
right to buy more cars than anyone else, more gizmos than anyone else, more clothes and vacations than
anyone else. But they do not have the right to buy more democracy than anyone else.
ECONOMIC POWER AND POLITICAL POWER GO HAND-IN-HAND; A RICH-POOR GAP ALSO IMPACTS
POLITICAL POWER-Kuhner '07
What we are witnessing can be conceptualized as an excessive entanglement between two systems and
their respective spheres: the system of capitalism and the private economic sphere of business on the one
hand, and the system of democracy or the public sphere of governance and state activities on the other.
This lack of separation is characterized by increases in the importance of money in elections and related to
the role of special interests in producing legislation, the replacement of sincere debate with a war of sound
bites, and widespread ethical impropriety among elected leaders. n2 That these factors undermine
democratic values and procedures, and produce poor public policies, has been demonstrated many times
over. n3 A vital organizing framework, in contrast, has not been provided.
SPRING 2016
10
INEQUALITY DESTROYS THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

THE RICH-POOR GAP IS UNRAVELING THE SOCIAL CONTACT IN MANY COUNTRIES-Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development '11
[Society: Governments must tackle record gap between rich and poor, says OECD; 12 May 2011;
http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
Launching the report in Paris, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurra said The social contract is starting to
unravel in many countries. This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will
automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that greater inequality fosters greater social mobility.
Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, inequality will continue to rise.
The main driver behind rising income gaps has been greater inequality in wages and salaries, as the highskilled have benefitted more from technological progress than the low-skilled. Reforms to boost
competition and to make labour markets more adaptable, for example by promoting part-time work or
more flexible hours, have promoted productivity and brought more people into work, especially women
and low-paid workers. But the rise in part-time and low-paid work also extended the wage gap.
THE RICH POOR GAP COULD WEAR DOWN THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF SOCIETIES-The Economist '11
[Unbottled Gini: Inequality is rising. Does it matterand if so why?; The Economist; 20 January 2011;
FOR the head of the IMF to quote Adam Smith may seem unremarkable. But here is Dominique StraussKahn citing the great man in November 2010: The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich
and the powerful andneglect persons of poor and mean conditionis the great and most universal cause
of the corruption of our moral sentiments.
Mr Strauss-Kahn then bemoaned a large and growing chasm between rich and poorespecially within
countries. He argued that inequitable distribution of wealth could wear down the social fabric. He
added: More unequal countries have worse social indicators, a poorer human-development record, and
higher degrees of economic insecurity and anxiety.
EXTREMES OF INEQUALITY THREATEN INCREASED CRIMINALITY AND SOCIAL INSTABILITY- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
We know how these extremes of inequality play out because too many countries have gone down this path
before. The experience of Latin America, the region of the world with the highest level of inequality, 1
foreshadows what lies ahead. Many of the countries were mired in civil conflict for decades, suffered high
levels of criminality and social instability. Social cohesion simply did not exist. This chapter explains the
reasons why an economy like Americas, in which most citizens wealth has fallen, median incomes have
stagnated, and many of the poorest citizens have been doing worse year after year, is not likely to do well
over the long haul. We will look first at the effects of inequality on national output and economic stability,
then at its impact on economic efficiency and on growth. The effects are multiple and occur through a
number of channels. Some are caused by the increase in poverty; others can be attributed to the
evisceration of the middle class, still more to the growing disparity between the 1 percent and the rest of
us. Some of these effects arise through traditional economic mechanisms, while others are the
consequence of inequalitys broader impact on our political system and society.
SPRING 2016
11
INEQUALITY DISTORTS THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL PROCESS

INEQUALITY DRIVES A POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT PROTECTS THE RICH AT THE EXPENSE OF THE POORBernstein and Spielberg 15
[Jared, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Ben, research assistant; Inequality
Matters; The Atlantic; 05 Jun 2015; http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/what-mattersinequality-or-opportuniy/393272/; retrieved 27 Dec 2015]
Members of the dont-mess-with-the-rich-to-help-the-poor crowd also ignore the political dimension of
inequality. While Rubio, Paul Ryan, and others are professing their concern for the poor, theyre busy trying
to repeal the estate tax (at a cost of $270 billion over 10 years) and writing budgets that gut the safety net.
These policies restrict mobility at both the bottom and top by exacerbating the burdens of being poor,
increasing the privilege of being born into riches, and eliminating revenue sources for investments that
might begin to reverse the inequality of opportunity. Why do politicians pursue such policies? Because they
are nudged along by the interests of wealthy donors. Inequality begets greater inequality.
ECONOMIC DISTORTIONS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT POLITICAL POWER-Dotan '04
[Yoav; Associate Professor of Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem; CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND
THE SOCIAL INEQUALITY PARADOX; University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform; Summer 2004; Lexis]
Campaign finance is a classic example of where the judiciary must regulate this relationship. On the one
hand, the question of redistribution of economic goods is one of the central questions of the democratic
process. On the other hand, the distortions created by market inequalities may control the conditions
under which this political process is conducted. If the question of the magnitude of economic inequalities is
to be discussed and decided by routine democratic discussions between the representatives of the various
segments and groups in society, the process of selecting the representatives must be immune from the
influences of these very inequalities. If the haves are allowed to use their economic leverage in order to
forestall or inhibit the democratic process of redistribution, then the channels of political change are
blocked.
INEQUALITY IS LEADING TO A NEW ARISTOCRACY OF MERIT WITH SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCES-The
Economist '11
[The few; The Economist; 20 January 2011; http://www.economist.com/node/17929075; retrieved 26 Dec
2015]
It will also look at inequality, which has risen relentlessly in most rich countries even as they have become
more meritocratic. Clever, well-educated people are increasingly marrying each other and raising clever,
well-educated children. The children of ordinary households find it hard to compete with them. A new
aristocracy of merit is emerging. That has social consequences for everybody.
Serious thinkers sometimes exaggerate the clout of the few. David Rothkopfs book Superclass: The Global
Power Elite and the World They Are Making is thoughtful and well researched, but his breathless
description of how a mere 6,000 politicians, chief executives and other bigwigs run the world misses an
important point. In democracies at least, the few are often at the mercy of the many. Voters can get rid of
politicians they dislike. Consumers will stop buying a companys products the moment something better or
cheaper comes along. In a democracy with a competitive economy, power is hard to maintain without
pleasing others.
SPRING 2016
12

THOSE WITHOUT RESOURCES WILL BE IGNORED IN OUR POLITICAL PROCESS-Kuhner '07
Gore Vidal has confirmed Representative Borksi's point and expanded it to include corporations, which
form part of the plutocracy:
Of the billions now spent each election cycle, most is donated in checks exceeding $ 1,000. But less than
one-tenth of 1 percent of the general population make individual contributions at this rate. And among
group contributors, better than 90 percent comes from corporations, which duly record their political
investment as a tax-deductible "cost of doing business." n39
Moneyed interests make campaign contributions with expectations of returns on their investments, a
supposition evidenced by corporations giving heavily to both political parties. n40 It follows that those who
do not fund campaigns will receive only limited attention. Political inequality and corporate political activity
warrant reflection on the nature of our political community.
INCOME INEQUALITY SO BADLY WARPS OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IS AT STAKEKrugman 11
[Paul; Oligarchy, American Style; New York Times; New York Times; 03 Nov 2011;
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html?_r=0; retrieved 16 Dec 2015]
But why does this growing concentration of income and wealth in a few hands matter? Part of the answer is
that rising inequality has meant a nation in which most families dont share fully in economic growth.
Another part of the answer is that once you realize just how much richer the rich have become, the
argument that higher taxes on high incomes should be part of any long-run budget deal becomes a lot more
compelling.
The larger answer, however, is that extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.
Can anyone seriously deny that our political system is being warped by the influence of big money, and that
the warping is getting worse as the wealth of a few grows ever larger?
Some pundits are still trying to dismiss concerns about rising inequality as somehow foolish. But the truth is
that the whole nature of our society is at stake.
SPRING 2016
13

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY EQUATES TO POLITICAL INEQUALITY-Moyers '05
When powerful interests shower Washington with millions in campaign contributions, they often get what
they want. But it's ordinary citizens and firms that pay the price and most of them never see it coming. This
is what happens if you don't contribute to their campaigns or spend generously on lobbying. You pick up a
disproportionate share of America's tax bill. You pay higher prices for a broad range of products from
peanuts to prescriptions. You pay taxes that others in a similar situation have been excused from paying.
You're compelled to abide by laws while others are granted immunity from them. You must pay debts that
you incur while others do not. You're barred from writing off on your tax returns some of the money spent
on necessities while others deduct the cost of their entertainment. You must run your business by one set
of rules, while the government creates another set for your competitors. In contrast, the fortunate few who
contribute to the right politicians and hire the right lobbyists enjoy all the benefits of their special status.
Make a bad business deal; the government bails them out. If they want to hire workers at below market
wages, the government provides the means to do so. If they want more time to pay their debts, the
government gives them an extension. If they want immunity from certain laws, the government gives it. If
they want to ignore rules their competition must comply with, the government gives its approval. If they
want to kill legislation that is intended for the public, it gets killed.
I'm not quoting from Karl Marx's Das Kapital or Mao's Little Red Book. I'm quoting Time magazine. Time's
premier investigative journalistsDonald Bartlett and James Steeleconcluded in a series last year (2003)
that America now has "government for the few at the expense of the many." Economic inequality begets
political inequality, and vice versa.
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY MAKES RICH POWER INEVITABLE IN TIMES OF A SIGNIFICANT RICH-POOR GAPKuhner '07
This picture bodes poorly for political equality. The power of concentrated interests coupled with
permissive laws and the monetary demand of political campaigns makes governmental capture something
of an inevitability. n33 Private interests - wealthy, well organized, and afforded traction by the political
system - easily overwhelm the general public in terms of access and influence. We need not look further
than Congress itself for confirmation. After interviewing sixteen Congress members, more than half of
whom were Republican, Larry Makinson reported that "virtually everyone accepted the long-held
Washington premise that money buys access to members." n34 Ronald Dworkin argues that "large
campaign contributors purchase what is euphemistically called "access' to officials; in fact they often
purchase not merely access but control." n35 As such, wealth is a form of political capital, and, given the
broad disparities in wealth within the United States, the amount of attention and concern that U.S. citizens
will receive from their elected representatives will vary accordingly. We need not even speak of the
prospect of equality in ability to access and influence elected representatives.
SPRING 2016
14
INEQUALITY UNDERMINES EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

THE FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY UNDERMINES THE IDEA OF EQUALITY OF
OPPORTUNITY- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
The financial crisis unleashed a new realization that our economic system was not only inefficient and
unstable but also fundamentally unfair. Indeed, in the aftermath of the crisis (and the response of the Bush
and the Obama administrations), almost half thought so, according to a poll at the time. 6 It was rightly
perceived to be grossly unfair that many in the financial sector (which, for shorthand, I will often refer to as
the bankers) walked off with outsize bonuses, while those who suffered from the crisis brought on by
these bankers went without a job; or that government bailed out the banks, but was reluctant to even
extend unemployment insurance for those who, through no fault of their own, could not get employment
after searching for months and months; 7 or that government failed to provide anything except token help
to the millions who were losing their homes. What happened in the midst of the crisis made clear that it
was not contribution to society that determined relative pay, but something else: bankers received large
rewards, though their contribution to society and even to their firms had been negative. The wealth
given to the elites and to the bankers seemed to arise out of their ability and willingness to take advantage
of others.
One aspect of fairness that is deeply ingrained in American values is opportunity. America has always
thought of itself as a land of equal opportunity. Horatio Alger stories, of individuals who made it from the
bottom to the top, are part of American folklore. But, as well explain in chapter 1, increasingly, the
American dream that saw the country as a land of opportunity began to seem just that: a dream, a myth
reinforced by anecdotes and stories, but not supported by the data. The chances of an American citizen
making his way from the bottom to the top are less than those of citizens in other advanced industrial
countries.
EVEN THOUGH THE DATA SHOWS OTHERWISE, AMERICANS BELIEVE IN THE MYTH OF OPPORTUNITYStiglitz 13
Edition]
Even as the data show otherwise, Americans still believe in the myth of opportunity. A public opinion poll
by the Pew Foundation found that nearly 7 in 10 Americans had already achieved, or expected to achieve,
the American Dream at some point in their lives. 86 Even as a myth, the belief that everyone had a fair
chance had its uses: it motivated people to work hard. It seemed we were all in the same boat; even if
some were, for the moment, traveling first-class while others stayed in steerage. On the next cruise
positions might be reversed. The belief enabled the United States to avoid some of the class divisions and
tensions that marked some European countries. By the same token, as the reality sinks in, as most
Americans finally grasp that the economic game is stacked against them, all of this is at risk. Alienation has
begun to replace motivation. Instead of social cohesion we have a new divisiveness.
SPRING 2016
15

INEQUALITY DIRECTLY UNDERMINES EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY- Bernstein and Spielberg 15
Third, and most importantly, inequality directly undermines equality of opportunity, likely through a variety
of mechanisms. As the gap between the rich and poor widens, lower-income families have less ability
relative to their rich counterparts to invest in enrichment goods for their children. Children from families
with less income have relatively less extensive and privileged social networks and, compared to their rich
peers, are more likely to experience the type of "toxic" stress that can hamper brain development and long
term academic, health, and economic outcomes.
SPRING 2016
16
INEQUALITY THREATENS ELITE DOMINANCE OF DEMOCRACY

A POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT AMPLIFIES THE VOICE OF THE WEALTHY UNDERMINES ITS COMMITMENT TO
DEMOCRATIC VALUES- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
The failures in politics and economics are related, and they reinforce each other. A political system that
amplifies the voice of the wealthy provides ample opportunity for laws and regulations and the
administration of them to be designed in ways that not only fail to protect the ordinary citizens against
the wealthy but also further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the rest of society.
This brings me to one of the central theses of this book: while there may be underlying economic forces at
play, politics have shaped the market, and shaped it in ways that advantage the top at the expense of the
rest. Any economic system has to have rules and regulations; it has to operate within a legal framework.
There are many different such frameworks, and each has consequences for distribution as well as growth,
efficiency, and stability. The economic elite have pushed for a framework that benefits them at the expense
of the rest, but it is an economic system that is neither efficient nor fair. I explain how our inequality gets
reflected in every important decision that we make as a nation from our budget to our monetary policy,
even to our system of justice and show how these decisions themselves help perpetuate and exacerbate
this inequality. 13
Given a political system that is so sensitive to moneyed interests, growing economic inequality leads to a
growing imbalance of political power, a vicious nexus between politics and economics. And the two
together shape, and are shaped by, societal forces social mores and institutions that help reinforce this
growing inequality.
INCOME INEQUALITY IS WARPING OUR DEMOCRACY AND TURNING THE GOVERNMENT INTO A TOOL
FOR THE WEALTHY- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
Democracy at least as most of us conceive of it is based on the principle of one person one vote. Much
of the political rhetoric focuses on the middle independent voter, as standard political theory suggests
should be the case. But no one would suggest that the outcome of Americas politics really reflects the
median voters interests. The median voter has no interest in corporate welfare. The median voter didnt
prevail in the battle over financial regulatory reform, where the vast majority (some two-thirds according to
some opinion polls) 44 wanted tighter regulation, but the big banks didnt. In the end, we got regulatory
reform that was like Swiss cheese full of holes, exceptions, and exemptions that couldnt be justified by
any set of principles. There was no good reason for tighter consumer protection on all loans except auto
loans; it was just that those lenders succeeded in making the necessary political investments. It was no
wonder that the House Financial Services Committee, charged with writing the new regulations, had sixtyone members, almost 15 percent of all the representatives. The Dodd-Frank bill passed in 2010 represented
a carefully balanced compromise between the ten biggest banks and the 200 million Americans who
wanted tighter regulation. (History, I am afraid, will prove that the vast majority of Americans were right.)
Paul Krugman put it forcefully when he wrote, [ E] xtreme concentration of income is incompatible with
real democracy. Can anyone seriously deny that our political system is being warped by the influence of big
money, and that the warping is getting worse as the wealth of a few grows ever larger?
SPRING 2016
17

A MORE EQUAL SOCIETY WILL BREAK US FROM THE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC CYCLE OF ELITE DOMINATIONStiglitz 13
Edition]
Investing more in our society in education, technology, and infrastructure and providing more security
to ordinary citizens will lead to a more efficient and dynamic economy, one more consistent with what we
claim to be and offering more opportunity to a wider segment of the society. Even the 1 percent (those
who are there now) may benefit when the capabilities of so many at the bottom are not squandered. And
many more people will have a shot at one day being in the 1 percent. Finally, making the society more
equal is likely to affect the prevailing ideology that influences our microeconomic and macroeconomic
policies. We have identified several myths on which this ideology depends. We can break out of the vicious
cycle where the political domination of the top leads to beliefs and policies that enhance economic
inequality and reinforce their political domination.
RICH-POOR GAP HAS CREATED A SHIFT OF CONTROL OF PUBLIC RESOURCES TO THE ELITE-Moyers '05
We were going to do these things because we understood our dark sidenone of us is goodbut we also
understood the other sideall of us are sacred. From Jefferson forward we have grappled with these two
notions in our collective head that we are worthy of the creator but that power corrupts and absolute
power corrupts absolutely. Believing the one and knowing the other, we created a country where the
winners didn't take all. Through a system of checks and balances we were going to maintain a safe, if
shifting, equilibrium between wealth and commonwealth. We believed equitable access to public resources
is the lifeblood of any democracy. So early on ... primary schooling was made free to all. States changed
laws to protect debtors, often the relatively poor, against their rich creditors. Charters to establish
corporations were open to most, if not all, white comers, rather than held for the elite. The government
encouraged Americans to own their own piece of land, and even supported squatters' rights. The court
challenged monopolyall in the name of we the people.
In my time we went to public schools. My brother made it to college on the GI bill. When I bought my first
car for $450 I drove to a subsidized university on free public highways and stopped to rest in statemaintained public parks. This is what I mean by the commonwealth. Rudely recognized in its formative
years, always subject to struggle, constantly vulnerable to reactionary counterattacks, the notion of
America as a shared project has been the central engine of our national experience.
Until now. I don't have to tell you that a profound transformation is occurring in America: the balance
between wealth and the commonwealth is being upended. By design. Deliberately. We have been
subjected to what the Commonwealth Foundation calls "a fanatical drive to dismantle the political
institutions, the legal and statutory canons, and the intellectual and cultural frameworks that have shaped
public responsibility for social harms arising from the excesses of private power." From land, water and
other natural resources, to media and the broadcast and digital spectrums, to scientific discovery and
medical breakthroughs, and to politics itself, a broad range of the American commons is undergoing a
powerful shift toward private and corporate control. And with little public debate. Indeed, what passes for
'political debate' in this country has become a cynical charade behind which the real business goes onthe
not-so-scrupulous business of getting and keeping power in order to divide up the spoils....
SPRING 2016
18
INEQUALITY CREATES CLASS DIVIDE THAT THREATENS DEMOCRACY

UNITED STATES IS ENTERING A NEW GILDED AGE DUE TO THE RICH-POOR GAP-Kuhner '07
Economic inequality has reached such heights that commentators have declared a new gilded age. n17
Although real wages have stagnated in the last two decades for a significant majority of Americans, the
income of the top .1% of the population has increased by 600%. n18 In the 1990s, for example, the real
median wages of CEOs increased over 60%, and in 2004 a new record was reached: "The ratio of CEO
compensation to that of the average US worker [became] the highest in recorded history." n19 Indeed, in
1998 the top 1% of the population had greater assets than the bottom 90% combined. n20 Meanwhile, the
average worker's pay increases have been offset by inflation and the rising cost of health care.
AMERICA IS IN A NEW GILDED AGE MARKED BY A RICH-POOR GAP-Krugman '06
America is a society of haves and have-nots. Income inequality continues to grow, upward mobility has
declined, and American society has taken on the rigid characteristics of a caste system. The American
dream of achieving more than the previous generation has all but disappeared. Thirty years ago America
was a relatively middle-class society, but it has since entered a new Gilded Age in which the rich grow richer
and the poor grow poorer.
US IS EXPERIENCING A PHENOMENON SIMILAR TO THE FIRST GILDED AGE-Edward '07
[John; Adjunct Professor of Economics at Bentley College; Income Inequality Continues to Grow; The Lowell
Sun; 9 September 2007; page 1]
An extensive study of federal tax returns confirms this dramatic trend. In 1980, the top one-hundredth of
one percent of income earners received 1 percent of all income. By 2005, the same group was making 5
percent of all income. The "poorest" of these families made $9.5 million in 2005.
This is not the first time the United States has experienced a huge income gap. We had inequality like this a
little over a century ago during the Gilded Age. The robber barons of the time built luxurious mansions and
estates (some with private barbershops perhaps). The same tax return study shows a spike in inequality
similar to the one we have now. It was in the 1920sjust before the Great Depression.
The aptly titled Fortune magazine looked at the 100 highest paid chief executive officers. In 1970, their
average pay was $1.3 million per year, or about 40 times that of the average worker. By 2000, the top 100
were making $37.5 million per year, or 1000 times what a typical worker made.
SPRING 2016
19

MIDDLE CLASS GAINS HAVE BEEN LOST IN AMERICA, LEADING TO A NEW GILDED AGE-Morris '04
By 1890, at the height of the Gilded Age, just 1 percent of the population owned slightly more than a
quarter of all the nation's wealth. That data was reconstructed by historians, but widespread awareness of
a growing, and possibly unbridgeable, chasm between the Haves and the Have-Nots fueled the Populist
movement in the last years of the nineteenth century, the Progressive politics and trust-busting initiatives
early in the twentieth, and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal [Depression-era programs]. After World War II,
and through the 1950s and 1960s, there was substantial leveling of wealth and income. The rich were still
very rich, but programs like the G.I. Bill [which provides many benefits to World War II veterans] restored
the conviction that the ladder Americans had to climb to attain real wealth evidenced the scale of the
opportunity rather than the height of the barriers.
Virtually all those gains have been dissipated over the past twenty-five years or so. Instead of controlling a
quarter of the nation's wealth, as in the Gilded Age, the richest 1 percent of the population now owns
about a third, and the top 5 percent about 58 percent, of all wealth. Those numbers represent the densest
concentration of wealth since the peak of American wealth inequality, which was in 1929, a not entirely
reassuring precedent.
ONCE ECONOMIC INEQUALITY INVADES POLITICS, IT BECOMES A PARADOX-Dotan '04
It should also be noted that when the disparities of the market interfere with democratic procedures in a
way that violates the requirement of political equality, they create a vicious circle. The very same process
that is supposed to supervise and correct market disparities is controlled by the same disparities and is
therefore incapable of fulfilling its purpose. This impasse in the possibility of effecting social change via the
democratic process calls for the attention of the judicial branch. This circularity will be called the social
inequality paradox. n114
SPRING 2016
20
INEQUALITY UNDERMINES THE MIDDLE CLASS

MODERN MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES ACTUALLY HAVE LESS MONEY THAN A GENERATION GO, DESPITE
MORE WORKERS IN THE HOUSEHOLD-Crowell '07
[Suzanne; Civil Rights Policy Analyst for the US Commission on Civil Rights; Bridging the Economic Gap;
NCJW Journal; Summer 2007; page 13]
In their book, The Two-Income Trap, Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi argue that fixed costs
health care, child care, housing in a neighborhood with good schoolsare rising and that two-income
families today actually have less discretionary money left over than typical single-earner families did a
generation ago. While some posit that the middle class spends more on unnecessary consumer goods,
Warren and Tyagi say the pile of extra-cheap T-shirts replace the more expensive Sunday-best clothes
middle-class children used to have in their closets. In fact, they say, in 2000 American families spent 21
percent less on clothing, 22 percent less on food, 44 percent less on major appliances, and only $170 more
on the family vacation than families did in 1972-1973, according to the US Bureau of Labor.
GROWING INEQUALITY THREATENS THE MIDDLE CLASS, THE BACKBONE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACYStiglitz 13
Edition]
The pattern of growing inequality in the United States may be particularly bad for our democracy. There is a
widespread understanding that the middle class is the backbone of our democracy. The poor are often so
alienated that getting them to vote proves especially hard. The rich dont need a rule of law; they can and
do shape the economic and political processes to work for themselves. The middle class is most likely to
understand why voting is so important in a democracy and why a fair rule of law is necessary for our
economy and society. In the middle of the last century, its members believed that the economic and
political system was basically fair, and their belief in civic engagement was seemingly rewarded by a burst
of growth that benefited them and everyone else. But now all that is changing. As we saw in chapter 3,
the polarization of our labor market has been hollowing out the middle class, and the dwindling middle
class is itself becoming disillusioned with a political process that is obviously not serving its members well.
SPRING 2016
21
INEQUALITY DECREASES PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM, DRIVEN BY INCOME INEQUALITY, DECREASES TRUST AND
PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
Views that our political system is rigged are even stronger than those that our economic system is unfair.
The poor, especially, believe that their voice is not being heard. The widespread support expressed for the
Occupy Wall Street movement (discussed in the preface) bears testimony to these concerns. The belief (and
the reality) that our political and economic system is unfair weakens both. While the most immediate
symptom is disillusionment leading to a lack of participation in the political process, there is always a worry
that voters will be attracted to populists and extremists who attack the establishment that has created this
unfair system21 and who make unrealistic promises of change.
THE STACKED DECK IN FAVOR OF THE TOP 1% INCREASES ALIENATION AND DISEMPOWERMENT FOR
POOR VOTERS- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
We saw earlier how the rules of the economic game, set by the political process, stack the cards in favor of
the 1 percent. So too for the rules of the political game. The perception that they are set in ways that are
unfair that they give disproportionate power to economic elites, in a way that further strengthens the
economic power of those at the top reinforces political alienation and a sense of disempowerment and
disillusionment. The sense of disempowerment occurs at myriad levels of engagement with government.
The 2010 decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Supreme
Court essentially approved unbridled corporate campaign spending, represented a milestone in the
disempowerment of ordinary Americans. 34 The decision allows corporations and unions to exercise free
speech in supporting candidates and causes in elections to the same degree as individual human beings.
Since corporations have many millions of times the resources of the vast majority of individual Americans,
the decision has the potential to create a class of super-wealthy political campaigners with a onedimensional political interest: enhancing their profits.
SPRING 2016
22

WEALTH INEQUALITY UNDERMINES DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
In this chapter we have described the construction of a political system that, though nominally based on
the principle of one person one vote, has turned out to serve the interests of those at the top. Another
vicious circle has been set in play: political rules of the game have not only directly benefited those at the
top, ensuring that they have a disproportionate voice, but have also created a political process that
indirectly gives them even more power. We have identified a whole series of forces contributing to the
disillusionment with politics and distrust of the political system. The yawning divide in our society has made
it difficult to reach compromise, contributing to our political gridlock.
This, in turn, has contributed to undermining trust in our institutions, both their effectiveness and their
fairness. Attempts at disenfranchisement, a recognition that our political and economic systems are unfair,
the knowledge that the flow of information is controlled by a media that itself is controlled by those at the
top, and the apparent role of money in politics, reflected in unbridled campaign contributions, have only
enhanced disillusionment with our political system. Disillusionment has decreased political participation,
especially at the bottom, every bit as effectively as the outright attempts at disenfranchisement in tilting
the electorate toward the top. This has provided more scope for influence of those in the 1 percent and
their money reinforcing the lack of trust, and the disillusionment. With such disillusionment, it costs
money to get out the vote and efforts to get out the vote can be targeted at those whose interests
coincide with the top.
The effect can be seen in the United States, where voter turnout looks dismal in comparison with that of
other advanced societies. Average voter turnout for the presidential elections has been 57 percent in
recent years, 38 but voting for the House of Representatives in nonpresidential years has averaged only
37.5 percent. 39 Given the extent of youth disillusionment especially after the 2008 elections, when
expectations were so high it is no wonder that in the 2010 election youth turnout was even more dismal,
at around 20 percent.
SPRING 2016
23
INEQUALITY DESTROYS THE RULE OF LAW

THE WEALTH GAP UNDERMINES THE RULE OF LAW, TWISTING IT INTO A WEAPON AGAINST ORDINARY
AMERICANS-- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
The discussion of this chapter, along with that of chapter 6, has shown how the financial sector made sure
that the rule of law works in its favor almost always, and against ordinary Americans. It has the resources,
the organization, and the incentives to do so; and it accomplished what it set out to do, through a
multifaceted attack that included reforming bankruptcy laws to increase their power over borrowers,
ensuring that private, for-profit schools could get access to student loans, almost regardless of standards,
abolishing usury laws, preventing legislation to curtail predatory lending, and circumventing the procedural
safeguards, weak as they were, to make sure that only individuals who really owed money would lose their
homes. But in lending and in foreclosures they targeted the weak, the poorly educated, the poor. Moral
scruples were set aside in the grand quest to move money from the bottom to the top.
WORSENING WEALTH INEQUALITY UNDERMINES THE PROTECTIONS OF THE RULE OF LAW-- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
In chapter 6 we explained how the foreclosure crisis could itself have been largely avoided, if we had only
not let the banks have so much influence, by allowing an orderly restructuring of debt, just as we do for
large corporations. At each step of the way, from the initial making of loans to the final foreclosure, there
were alternatives and regulations that would have curtailed the reckless and predatory lending and
enhanced economic stability perhaps even avoiding the Great Recession itself but with a political
system where money matters, these alternatives had no chance. The mortgage debacle and the persistence
of predatory lending and bankruptcy reform have raised deep questions about the rule of law, which is
the universally accepted hallmark of an advanced, civilized society. The rule of law is supposed to protect
the weak against the strong and ensure fair treatment for all. In the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis,
it has done neither. Instead of a rule of law that protected the weak, we had laws and regulations and a
system of enforcement that further empowered the already powerful banks. In moving money from the
bottom to the top, they worsened the problems of inequality in both tails of the income and wealth
distribution.
SPRING 2016
24

INCREASED WEALTH INEQUALITY IS TURNING THE RULE OF LAW INTO A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
The need for a strong rule of law is widely accepted, but it also matters what kind of rules there are and
how they are administered. In designing the system of laws and regulations that govern an economy and a
society, there are trade-offs: some laws and regulations favor one group, others another. We have
examined several examples where what has happened was perhaps predictable: the laws and regulations,
and how they are implemented and enforced, reflect the interests of the top layer of society more than
those of the people in the middle and at the bottom. Growing inequality, combined with a flawed system of
campaign finance, risks turning Americas legal system into a travesty of justice. Some may still call it the
rule of law, but in todays America the proud claim of justice for all is being replaced by the more
modest claim of justice for those who can afford it. And the number of people who can afford it is rapidly
diminishing.
ADDRESSING INCOME INEQUALITY IS CRUCIAL IF WE WANT AN AMERICA THAT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS
AND POTENTIAL OF ALL CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
There are two visions for America a half century from now. One is of a society more divided between the
haves and the have-nots, a country in which the rich live in gated communities, send their children to
expensive schools, and have access to first-rate medical care. Meanwhile, the rest live in a world marked by
insecurity, at best mediocre education, and in effect rationed health care they hope and pray they dont
get seriously sick. At the bottom are millions of young people alienated and without hope. I have seen that
picture in many developing countries; economists have even given it a name, a dual economy, two societies
living side by side, but hardly knowing each other, hardly imagining what life is like for the other. Whether
we will fall to the depths of some countries, where the gates grow higher and the societies split farther and
farther apart, I do not know. It is, however, the nightmare toward which we are slowly marching.
The other vision is of a society where the gap between the haves and the have-nots has been narrowed,
where there is a sense of shared destiny, a common commitment to opportunity and fairness, where the
words liberty and justice for all actually mean what they seem to mean, where we take seriously the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the importance not just of civil rights but of
economic rights, and not just the rights of property but the economic rights of ordinary citizens. In this
vision, we have an increasingly vibrant political system far different from the one in which 80 percent of the
young are so alienated that they dont even bother to vote. I believe that this second vision is the only one
that is consistent with our heritage and our values. In it the well-being of our citizens and even our
economic growth, especially if properly measured will be much higher than what we can achieve if our
society remains deeply divided.
I believe it is still not too late for this country to change course, and to recover the fundamental principles
of fairness and opportunity on which it was founded. Time, however, may be running out. Four years ago
there was a moment where most Americans had the audacity to hope. Trends more than a quarter of the
century in the making might have been reversed. Instead, they have worsened. Today that hope is
flickering.
SPRING 2016
25

CATERING TO THE WEALTHY UNDERMINES TO RULE OF LAW AND ITS EQUAL APPLICATION-Anderson 09
[Elizabeth; Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and John Rawls Collegiate Professor of Philosophy and Womens
Studies; Inequality: Facts and Values; October 2009; Kindle Edition]
How does catering to the preferences of the well-off harm the worse-off? In some cases, the state grants or
extends monopoly privileges to the better off. Consider the extension of copyright terms, dramatic
consolidation of broadcasting ownership, and huge giveaways of public spectrum to existing broadcasters
due to IP and communications laws passed in the 1990s. In other cases, the state effectively exempts the
well-off from laws that are supposed to protect the worse-off. After discovering that Wal-Mart had violated
child labor laws dozens of times, the Labor Department under President Bush agreed to give Wal-Mart 15
days notice before inspecting its stores for further violations, giving it time to hide its lawbreaking from
authorities. This is hardly an exception. Many employers steal from their low-wage workers with impunity.
One recent study found that a quarter of low-wage workers were paid less than the minimum wage, most
were denied meal breaks to which they were legally entitled, many were forced to work off the clock, not
paid for overtime, suffered the theft of their tips, and illegally fined, among numerous other labor-law
violations. In still other cases, the state grants the better-off legal loopholes or vast subsidies at the expense
of the worse-off. Payday loans are largely exempt from usury laws. For years, the federal government paid
a 9.5% interest rate.
SPRING 2016
26
INEQUALITY THREATENS THE ECONOMY

GROWING INEQUALITY UNDERMINES THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR ECONOMY. RISING AFFLUENCE FOR
THE WEALTHY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
We are paying a high price for our large and growing inequality, and because our inequality is likely to
continue to grow unless we do something the price we pay is likely to grow too. Those in the middle,
and especially those at the bottom, will pay the highest price, but our country as a whole our society, our
democracy also will pay a very high price.
Widely unequal societies do not function efficiently, and their economies are neither stable nor sustainable
in the long term. When one interest group holds too much power, it succeeds in getting policies that
benefit itself, rather than policies that would benefit society as a whole. When the wealthiest use their
political power to benefit excessively the corporations they control, much-needed revenues are diverted
into the pockets of a few instead of benefiting society at large.
But the rich do not exist in a vacuum. They need a functioning society around them to sustain their position
and to produce income from their assets. The rich resist taxes, but taxes allow society to make investments
that sustain the countrys growth. When little money is invested in education, for lack of tax revenues,
schools do not produce the bright graduates that companies need to prosper. Taken to its extreme and
this is where we are now this trend distorts a country and its economy as much as the quick and easy
revenues of the extractive industry distort oil- or mineral-rich countries.
SPRING 2016
27
INEQUALITY PREVENTS ESCAPING POVERTY

INEQUALITY ENTRENCHES IMMOBILITY- Bernstein and Spielberg 15
In short, inequality entrenches immobility not just by enabling increasingly unequal transfers of wealth
from one generation to the next, but also through a number of more subtle pathways that affect
opportunity on a daily basis. It may not yet be possible to explain all of these subtle pathways with great
certainty, but the fact that rich and poor children score very differently on school readiness tests before
they enter kindergarten should be viewed as an unsurprising consequence of the high levels of inequality
American society currently tolerates.
AS INCOME INEQUALITY GROWS, THE OPPORTUNITY TO RISE OUT OF THE LOWER CLASS DECLINES, TOOStiglitz 13
Edition]
Belief in Americas essential fairness, that we live in a land of equal opportunity, helps bind us together.
That, at least, is the American myth, powerful and enduring. Increasingly, it is just that a myth. Of course,
there are exceptions, but for economists and sociologists what matters are not the few success stories but
what happens to most of those at the bottom and in the middle. What are their chances of making it, say,
to the top? What is the likelihood that their children will be no better-off than they? If America were really
a land of opportunity, the life chances of success of, say, winding up in the top 10 percent of someone
born to a poor or less-educated family would be the same as those of someone born to a rich, welleducated, and well-connected family. But thats simply not the case, and there is some evidence that its
getting less so. 72 Indeed, according to the Economic Mobility Project, there is a stronger link between
parental education and childrens economic, educational, and socio-emotional outcomes in the United
States than in any other country investigated, including those of old Europe (the UK, France, Germany,
and Italy), other English speaking countries (Canada and Australia), and the Nordic countries Sweden,
Finland, and Denmark, where the results were more expected. 73 A variety of other studies have
corroborated these findings. 74
This decline in opportunity has gone hand in hand with our growing inequality. In fact, that pattern has
been observed across countries countries with more inequality systematically have less equality of
opportunity. Inequality persists. 75 But whats particularly disturbing about this relationship is what it
bodes for the countrys future: the growing inequality over recent years suggests that the level of
opportunity in the future will be diminished and the level of inequality will be increased unless we do
something. It means that the America of 2053 will be a much more divided society than even the America
of 2013. All the social, political, and economic problems arising out of inequality that we discuss in
subsequent chapters will be that much worse.
SPRING 2016
28
INEQUALITY THREATENS SOCIAL SERVICES AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

INCOME INEQUALITY AND THE POLICIES THAT DRIVE IT UNDERMINE FUNDING THE PROGRAMS THAT
SUPPORT SOCIETY- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
Our failure to make these critical public investments should not come as a surprise. It is the end result of a
lopsided wealth distribution in society. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more
reluctant the wealthy are to spend money on common needs. The rich dont need to rely on government
for parks or education or medical care or personal security. They can buy all these things for themselves. In
the process, they become more distant from ordinary people. The wealthy also worry about a strong
government one that could use its power to adjust the imbalances in our society by taking some of their
wealth and devoting it to public investments that would contribute to the common good or that would help
those at the bottom. While the wealthiest Americans may complain about the kind of government we have
in America, in truth many like it just fine: too gridlocked to redistribute, too divided to do anything but
lower taxes.
THE DIVIDE BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE REST OF US CREATES A WORLD OF BLISSFULLY IGNORANT
LEADERS UNAWARE OF THE SUFFERING AROUND THEM-- Johnston 14
In the late eighteenth century, the French kings lived in blissful ignorance of the poverty around them. One
of them even built a private chteau for his mistress, in which he planned to have a massive dining table
rise from the kitchen below so that the nobility would never have to see the servants, a project that had
not been done by the time his son, the last French king, lost his head. Similarly, it is easy for the affluent in
America to turn a blind eye to the poor and to surround themselves with the similarly wealthy. Without
deep and continual contact with the society as a whole, those at the top begin to view themselves in ways
that deny the reality of what is going on around them. When that happens, the policies they seek from
government purchased with campaign donations, free rides on private jets, and jobs for politicians
friends and families distort the economy even more, tilting the playing field in their favor and against
everyone else.
INEQUALITY LEADS TO VASTLY UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES- Bernstein and Spielberg 15
Second, inequality leads to unequal access to quality educational experiences throughout a childs lifetime.
Over the period of growing inequality, these disparities have increased. In 1995, for example, families with
education debt in the bottom half of the net worth distribution (a broader definition of income, including
assets minus liabilities) had a mean debt-to-income ratio of around 0.26, meaning that for every dollar of
their income, they owed 26 cents in college debt. For families in the top 5 percent, that ratio was eight
cents on the dollar. But by 2013, the debt-to-income ratio had more than doubled to 0.58 for the bottom
half (some of whom are poor but many of whom are middle class) while remaining unchanged for those at
the top.
SPRING 2016
29

AS THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND POOR GROWS, THE WEALTHY ARE LESS INCLINED TO SUPPORT
BASIC GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND THE POOR BECOME SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS-Anderson 09
[Elizabeth; Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and John Rawls Collegiate Professor of Philosophy and Womens
Studies; Inequality: Facts and Values; October 2009; Kindle Edition]
Wilkinson says, There is overwhelming reason to believe that in the United States the deck really is stacked
against some people. As a consequence, many millions are doing much less well than they might be. I
agree entirely with this judgment. I also agree with Wilkinson that to deal with this, we must get the causal
story right, and attack the root causes of injustice, rather than just the epiphenomena. I suspect that we
also agree that right causal story would identify state action (or inaction) as critical to stacking the deck. But
I suggest that economic inequality is also among the root causes of the stacked deck, because it motivates
the affluent to skew state policy in their interests, at the expense of the less well-off. As wealth inequality
increases, the rich lose interest in state action to promote security, prosperity, and opportunity to all, and
instead use their vast wealth advantage to buy access to government officials via campaign contributions,
and to out-lobby more diffuse and less well-funded public interests. They thereby acquire agenda-setting
and veto powers over public policies, which they use to limit provision of public goods to the less
advantaged, and to obtain special privileges for themselves monopolies, subsidies to favored industries,
and effective exemption from laws that are supposed to protect the less well-off from exploitation and
domination by the better-off. Economic inequality thereby harms the worse off, and reduces them to
second-class citizens.
INEQUALITY DRIVES SEGREGATION-Bernstein and Spielberg 15
First, inequality is driving increasing residential segregation by income. The shares of families in
neighborhoods of concentrated poverty and neighborhoods of concentrated wealth both more than
doubled between 1970 and 2009, while the share of families in middle-income neighborhoods declined
from 65 percent to 42 percent. Those high-poverty neighborhoodswhere more and more families are
livingcreate lasting disadvantages for many who grow up there: If a family with young children (less than
age 13) relocates from a high- to a low-poverty neighborhood, the kids achieve better academic and
economic outcomes later in life, as new work by Chetty et al. indicates.
SPRING 2016
30
THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS ADDRESSING INEQUALITY

AMERICANS ARE IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT STEPPING IN AND LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD-Morris
'04
The problem is not that some people are getting rich. Lincoln was right that the fluidity and mobility of
America make up a great part of its attraction. But there are many problems with developing a class of
super-rich. For one thing, as the tiering of American wealth distribution stretches further and further
upward, it reduces mobility. The children of the poor now disproportionately stay poor, to an extent far
beyond any explication based on lower intelligence or race, while the children of the rich disproportionately
stay rich, again to an extent that can't be explained by their talent or IQs. There is also substantial evidence
that a number of other developed countriesincluding Germany, Canada, Sweden, and Finlandnow have
more social mobility than America does. The justification for policies that mildly even out wealth
accumulation is much like those for regulating business competition. Americans are in favor of free
competition and applaud the winners, but we also believe that it is right to step in to level the playing field
when competition ends in monopoly.
SPRING 2016
31
GOVERNMENT SHOULD ADDRESS INEQUALITY

LAWS SHOULD HELP COMPEL THOSE WITH RESOURCES INTO MEETING THE PUBLIC GOOD-Waxman '06
[Ilana; JD Candidate at UC-Hastings College of Law; Hale's Legacy: Why Private Property is Not a Synonym
for Liberty; Hastings Law Journal; May 2006; Lexis]
Hale's call for a fundamental rethinking of the nature of property was echoed by other legal scholars of the
period who did not cite Hale directly. Morris Cohen's 1927 masterpiece, Property and Sovereignty, for
example, characterized property as a form of state-delegated coercive power in a way that closely
paralleled Hale's characterization of property in Coercion and Distribution, published in 1923. n49 Cohen,
like Hale, noted that to the extent that things "which the law calls mine" are "necessary to the life of my
neighbor, the law thus confers on me a power, limited but real, to make him do what I want," so that "the
primary effect of property on a large scale is to limit freedom." n50 Once property is properly viewed as a
law-derived form of coercive power, [*1017] Cohen argued, "we can no longer maintain Montesquieu's
view that private property is sacrosanct and that the general government must in no way interfere with or
retrench its domain." n51 Instead, echoing Hale, Cohen argued that "if the large property owner is viewed,
as he ought to be, as a wielder of power over the lives of his fellow citizens, the law should not hesitate to
develop a doctrine as to his positive duties in the public interest."
THE INEQUALITY IN POLITICS BROUGHT UPON BY THE RICH POOR GAP JUSTIFIES GOVERNMENT ACTION
AGAINST INEQUALITY-Dotan '04
What are the relationships between political equality (manifested in principle II) and economic inequality
(principle III)? That is, how should we resolve instances of tension or collision between political equality and
economic inequality? This question will be dealt with in detail in the course of the normative discussion in
the following section. However, it is possible at the current stage to point to a tentative answer to this
question by referring to the fourth [*982] principle above. The very existence of the possibility of
redistribution of economic assets by the (egalitarian) political process implies that in liberal democracy it is
an accepted postulate that economic disparity should yield to political equality, whenever the political
process so decides. n96 It should be noted that this Article does not claim, as it is unnecessary to claim, that
every economic disparity is subject, in liberal democracy, to the possibility of redistribution. Indeed, some
actions of redistribution by the political process may be banned by constitutional constraints, such as the
Takings Clause. n97 For the current analysis it suffices to say that in those cases in which the possibility of
redistribution exists - the principle of political equality takes precedence over economic disparity. n98
SPRING 2016
32
INEQUALITY IS THE RESULT OF GOVERNMENT ACTION

CURRENT TAX LAW BENEFITS THE WEALTHY-Morris '04
The truth is that the amazing spurt in top-drawer incomes is so sudden, so striking, so out of keeping with
experiences, that it will take economists years to reach a consensus on the details of what happened, if
they ever do. But there are some obvious factors at work.
The 1986 Tax Reform Act1 was a signal nonpartisan accomplishment, worked out between the Reagan
administration and a substantially Democratic tax-reform wing of the Congress, led notably by Senator Bill
Bradley. The core principle of the reform was to trade a greatly simplified tax code, eliminating almost all
special privileges and shelters, for an extraordinary, across-the-board reduction in tax rates and the number
of brackets. As far as possible, all income was to be treated alike; there was to be no difference in the
taxation of capital gains and ordinary income, no difference between the rentier and the ordinary wage
earner. Although the act was sometimes blamed for the era's large deficits, an IRS [Internal Revenue
Service] analysis showed that tax receipts actually increased the year after its passage.
Sadly, almost as soon as it was passed, tax advocates for the wealthy began lobbying for a restoration of
special tax breaks, especially in the treatment of capital gains. (Taxable capital gains, of course, accrue
almost entirely to the wealthy. The current tax exclusion for capital gains on the sale of a home$500,000
for a coupleeffectively eliminates taxes on the vast majority of home sales, while the stocks and bonds
owned by ordinary people are mostly in pension funds and 401[k] plans, which are already tax-protected.)
By the time the capital gains tax preference was finally restored, in complicated horse-trading with an
embattled Clinton administration in 1998, most of the other shelters that benefit the very rich had wormed
their way back into the code also. Although there were modest increases in the top rates under the first
President Bush and President Bill Clinton, actual tax rates paid by top-tier earners stayed flat or fell, even as
their incomes steadily rose.
DECREASING TAX RATES FOR THE WEALTHY INCREASES INEQUALITY-Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development '11
[Society: Governments must tackle record gap between rich and poor, says OECD; 12 May 2011;
http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
Tax and benefit systems play a major role in reducing market-driven inequality, but have become less
effective at redistributing income since the mid-1990s. The main reason lies on the benefits side: benefits
levels fell in nearly all OECD countries, eligibility rules were tightened to contain spending on social
protection, and transfers to the poorest failed to keep pace with earnings growth.
As a result, the benefit system in most countries has become less effective in reducing inequalities over the
past 15 years.
There is nothing inevitable about high and growing inequalities, said Mr Gurra. Our report clearly
indicates that upskilling of the workforce is by far the most powerful instrument to counter rising income
inequality. The investment in people must begin in early childhood and be followed through into formal
education and work.
The OECD underlines the need for governments to review their tax systems to ensure that wealthier
individuals contribute their fair share of the tax burden. This can be achieved by raising marginal tax rates
on the rich but also improving tax compliance, eliminating tax deductions, and reassessing the role of taxes
in all forms of property and wealth, the report says.
SPRING 2016
33

US TAX POLICY HAS CREATED AN INCREASING RICH-POOR GAP-Sherman and Aron-Dine '07
The direction in which the tax system influences inequality depends on the time period examined. Changes
in federal tax policies exacerbated the growth in income disparities during the 1980s, when taxes were cut
sharply for high-income individuals, but slowed the growth in income disparities during the 1990s, when tax
rates for high-income households were raised and the Earned Income Tax Credit for low- and moderateincome working families was substantially expanded.
Legislation enacted since 2001 has provided taxpayers with about $1 trillion in tax cuts over the past six
years. These large tax reductions have made the distribution of after-tax income more unequal. Because
high-income households received by far the largest tax cuts, the tax cuts have increased the concentration
of income at the top of the spectrum.
The CBO data provide additional evidence that the recent tax cuts have contributed to the widening income
gaps. CBO provides data on effective federal income tax ratesthat is, on the share of income that is paid
in income taxesfor different groups of households. While all groups of households have seen declines in
their effective federal income-tax rates since 2000, the declines have been much larger for the highest
income taxpayers. For example, between 2000 and 2004, households in the top one percent of the income
spectrum saw a drop in their effective federal income-tax rate of about 4.6 percentage points, more than
twice the drop for households in the middle quintile (2.1 percentage points). This decline in the effective
rate translated into an average income tax reduction of almost $58,000 for people in the top one percent,
relative to what these households would have paid if their effective tax rate had remained unchanged.
CONGRESS IS BILLIONAIRE-FRIENDLY-Linn '12
[Allison; More see class conflict between rich and poor; Life, Inc. via NBC Today; 11 January 2012;
http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/10116228-more-see-class-conflict-between-richand-poor;
retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
In August, Warren Buffett generated a huge national debate when he asked lawmakers to tax the rich
more, chastising what he called the billionaire-friendly Congress for coddling him and his wealthy friends.
Many elected officials are wealthy themselves. The New York Times noted last month that nearly half of all
members of Congress are millionaires, and many Congress members have actually gotten richer in the past
six years.
The Republican presidential candidates wealth also has been a sensitive issue over the course of their
primary campaign.
THE RICH-POOR GAP IS SELF-SUSTAINING DUE TO US TAX POLICY-Morris '04
In America wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small few. This wealth concentration is the result of
inflated executive salaries and tax policies that favor the rich. Wealth concentration discourages social
mobility and equal opportunity. The children of the poor now tend to stay poor while the children of the
rich tend to stay rich because of tax and fiscal policies that favor the very wealthy. For example, the payroll
tax is highly regressive: Middle-class and poorer families pay a larger share of their paychecks in taxes than
do those in the upper income brackets. Instead of promoting social policies to promote equal opportunity,
the government has promoted policies favorable to the rich, thus accelerating the economic gap between
the rich and the poor.
SPRING 2016
34

BUSH-ERA TAX POLICY FAVORED THE VERY RICH-Sherman and Aron-Dine '07
These data do not provide a direct measure of the impact of tax policy changes because they reflect the
impact not only of legislative changes but also of changes in household incomes and other factors that
influence tax rates. Direct estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center that
consider only the impact of the recent tax policy changes provide definitive evidence that the recent-tax
cuts have widened income inequality. The Tax Policy Center finds that as a result of the tax cuts enacted
since 2001:
In 2006, households in the bottom fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts (averaging $20) that
raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 0.3 percent.
Households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts (averaging $740) that raised their
after-tax incomes an average of 2.5 percent.
But the top one percent of households received tax cuts in 2006 (averaging $44,200) that increased their
after-tax income by an average of 5.4 percent.
Households with incomes exceeding $1 million received an average tax cut of $118,000 in 2006, which
represented an increase of 6.0 percent in their after-tax income. That is more than double the percentage
increase received by the middle fifth of households.
Finally, some of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 are still being phased in, and the tax cuts still phasing in are
heavily tilted to people at the top of the income scale. These include the elimination of the tax on the
nation's largest estates and two income-tax cuts that started to take effect on January 1, 2006 and will go
almost exclusively to high-income households. As a result, the tax cuts ultimately will be even more skewed
toward high-income households, and will increase income inequality to a still larger degree, than was the
case in 2006.
SPRING 2016
35
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MANDATE LAISSEZ FAIRE ECONOMY

ALTHOUGH IT IS BIASED TOWARDS FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM, THE CONSTITUTION DOESNT REQUIRE A
LAISSEZ-FIRE ECONOMY--Christie '06
[Mark C.; Judge of the Virginia State Corporation Commission; ECONOMIC REGULATION IN THE UNITED
STATES: THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; University of Richmond Law Review; March 2006; Lexis]
It is accurate to say that the Constitution protects a free-market capitalist economic system to a significant
degree, most importantly by protecting private property and contractual rights. These rights are essential
to the functioning of a market economy, but the Supreme Court has never interpreted the Constitution
[*953] to require a completely unregulated, laissez-faire market economy. The Constitution was not written
by Ayn Rand, but instead by James Madison and other practical politicians - politicians who believed deeply
in protecting individual liberty and property from government tyranny, but who were also heirs to the
European Enlightenment belief that some degree of government regulation of human affairs was absolutely
necessary to lift humans from their natural state of anarchy.
THE US CONSTITUTION DOESNT GUARANTEE COMPLETE ECONOMIC FREEDOM; US HAS ABILITY TO
REGULATE-Christie '06
This is one of the clearest statements in Supreme Court jurisprudence that the Founding Fathers, while
passionate about the protection of liberty and private property rights, did not intend to enshrine laissezfaire capitalism in the Constitution. To do so would have required them to eliminate Anglo-American
government's traditional police power, which, as the Munn Court pointed out, had included forms of
economic regulation for centuries.
More specifically, the Munn Court stated that underlying the historical basis for the use of the
government's police power to regulate economic activity was the concept of private property that is
affected with a public interest, which includes the common carrier or natural monopoly. As described by
the Supreme Court in Munn:
Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public
consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in
which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit
to be controlled by the public for the common good... . n21
THE US CONSTITUTION DOESNT MANDATE CAPITALISM OR LAISSEZ-FAIRE ECONOMICS-Christie '06
While the liberty the Framers intended to protect certainly included the liberty to own private property and
to conduct private commercial affairs, did the Constitution enshrine laissez-faire capitalism as America's
constitutionally required economic system? There has long been a strain in American constitutional history
whether certain natural rights to economic freedom cannot be impaired by the powers of government,
regardless of whether those rights are found in the text of the Constitution itself. That natural-law belief,
however, has never attained a permanent consensus on the Supreme Court. n10 The history of America has
seen a steady increase in the regulation of commercial and economic activities by government, regulation
that the courts have occasionally limited or restructured but have rarely - and never permanently forbidden as inconsistent with a purported constitutional requirement of laissez-faire capitalism. In his
famous dissent in Lochner v. New York, n11 Justice Holmes challenged the natural-law advocates directly,
writing, "a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism
and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire."
SPRING 2016
36

REDISTRIBUTION IS PERMISSIBLE BY US LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION-Dotan '04
To conclude this point: in the United States - as in most other liberal democracies at the present time there exists the possibility for a (constitutionally legitimate) wide-range redistribution of wealth through
the political decision-making process (legislation, etc.). n93 It is important to emphasize that I do not claim
that in liberal democracy redistribution is a constitutional imperative, nor do I argue that it is morally or
socially sanctioned. Indeed, there exists much disagreement about the political legitimacy of actual
redistributive actions. Nevertheless, it is hard to deny that redistribution is legitimate in principle and is
constitutionally permissible in most [*981] cases. n94 For the purpose of my current analysis, the existence
of such a possibility for redistribution - rather than any commitment to any specific conception of
redistribution - will suffice.
SPRING 2016
37
A/T: SOCIALISM
THE MONEYED INTERESTS USE THE TERM SOCIALISM TO END DEBATE- Stiglitz 13
Edition]
In this battle of ideas, certain weapons play a central role. In the last chapter, we discussed one of these
weapons the media. It should be obvious that imbalances in the media can lead to a battlefield in the war
of ideas that is far from level. However ideas get disseminated, much of the battle is, as I have suggested,
over framing; and in that battle, words are pivotal. The words we use can convey notions of fairness,
legitimacy, positive feelings; or they can convey notions of divisiveness and selfishness and illegitimacy.
Words also frame issues in other ways. In American parlance, socialism is akin to communism, and
communism is the ideology we battled for sixty years, triumphing only in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin
Wall. Hence, labeling anything as socialism is the kiss of death. Americas health care system for the aged,
Medicare, is a single-payer system the government pays the bill, but the individual gets to choose the
provider. Most of the elderly love Medicare. But many are also so convinced that government cant provide
services efficiently that they believe that Medicare must be private. In the tumultuous discussion of health
care reform during President Obamas first year in office, one man was heard to say, Keep your
government hands off my Medicare. 34 The Right attacks extending the Medicare program to the rest of
the population as socialism. That ends the debate. One doesnt have to discuss whether its efficient or
inefficient, whether the quality of care is good or bad, or whether there is choice or not.
SPRING 2016
38
NEGATIVE
INEQUALITY IS NOT GROWING
ARGUMENTS THAT INEQUALITY IS INCREASING RELY ON BAD DATA-Tanner 14
[Michael; senior fellow at CATO Institute; Inequality Myths; 14 May 2014; originally printed in National
Review, reprinted at http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/inequality-myths; retrieved 31 Dec
2015]
Most of those discussing the rise in inequality, including Piketty, look at market income, which does not
take into account either taxes or social-welfare transfer payments. Ive fallen into this trap myself on
occasion. But, obviously, both of those factors have a significant impact on net income. If those factors are
taken into account, income inequality actually decreased in the U.S. over the decade from 2000 to 2010,
according to Gary Burtless from the liberal Brookings Institution.
Looking at the issue from another direction, a study by Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute
finds that consumption (that is, spending) for both the highest quintile and the lowest has been relatively
flat over the last decades, weakening the argument that there has been increasing inequality.
WEALTH DISTRIBUTION HAS BEEN STATIC FOR DECADES-Tanner 14
2015]
Of course, Ive been talking about income, and Piketty and others are more concerned about the disparity
in accumulated wealth. The highest quintile, after all, may be saving their increased wealth rather than
spending it. Over time, this can lead to increasing disparity. But even here, the evidence shows that wealth
distribution has been relatively stable over the past several decades. According to research using the
Federal Reserves Survey of Consumer Finances, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans held 34.4 percent of
the countrys wealth in 1965. By 2010, the last year for which data are available, that proportion had barely
risen, to 35.4 percent.
CONSUMPTION IS A BETTER MEASURE AND IT DOES NOT SHOW A WIDENING GAP BETWEEN RICH AND
POOR- Azerrad and Hederman 12
[David; Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics and AWC Family Foundation Fellow,
and Rea, Director, Center for Data Analysis and Lazof Family Fellow; Defending the Dream: Why Income
Inequality Doesnt Threaten Opportunity; 13 Sep 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/defending-the-dream-why-income-inequality-doesnot-threaten-opportunity; retrieved 27 Dec 2015]
Part of the income inequality argument is that the middle and lower classes cannot acquire the same goods
and services as those at the top can acquire. Some left-leaning economists argue that since members of the
middle class have seen their earnings power and income stagnate, they are consuming more only by falling
further into debt. This could adversely affect mobility because it costs more to achieve a middle-class
standard of living.[76] Alan Krueger, has argued that economic growth has been lower because the middle
class lost income to the top and as a consequence, did not spend as much.[77]
This line of reasoning, while seemingly persuasive, is not supported by the facts. By most measures,
consumption inequality has not mirrored the increase in income inequality. Instead, consumption appears
to be distributed much more equally, with goods formerly held to be luxuries widely available to everyone.
SPRING 2016
39

THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE BOTTOM 99% SINCE 1993-Wilkonson 09
[Will, policy analyst for the CATO Institute, Inequality: Facts and Values; October 2009; Kindle Edition]
Even if we let income hog the spotlight in our story about inequality, a good deal of evidence suggests that
income inequality has been overestimated. In a new paper weaving together several strands of recent
evidence, Robert Gordon reports that improved use of income datasets shows that there was no increase
of inequality after 1993 in the bottom 99 percent of the population, and can be entirely explained by the
behavior of income in the top 1 percent.
US CENSUS BUREAU EXAGGERATES THE EXTENT OF THE RICH-POOR GAP-Rector '06
[Robert; Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation; Reports of
Economic Inequality Are Greatly Exaggerated; 2006; Gale Group Databases]
Although U.S. Census Bureau figures indicate that poverty and inequality continue to grow, their reporting
is an inaccurate and unreliable assessment of poverty levels in the United States. In its calculations of
income distribution, the Census Bureau ignores the taxes that people in the top quintile of earners pay, as
well as the millions of dollars in social safety-net benefits that are funneled to the poor and the destitute. In
addition, the millions of people who fall near or under the official poverty line would not be considered
destitute by international standards. Most have adequate food, clothing, and shelter, and in fact, many
considered poor own TVs and DVD players as well as cars and homes. Although some poor families do
suffer from hunger, it is usually temporary. The U.S. Census Bureau has thus exaggerated the extent of
poverty and economic inequality in the United States.
CLAIMING AN INCREASE IN THE RICH POOR GAP REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL MANIPULATION OF DATAReynolds '07
[Alan; Economist at the Cato Institute; Has U.S. Income Inequality Really Increased?; Policy Analysis; 8
January 2007; page 2+]
The widespread impression that the United States has experienced a large and continuous increase in
income inequality since the 1970s is almost entirely dependent on the disingenuous practice of using
estimates based on income tax returns to compare the distribution of incomes before and after the
dramatic tax changes of 1981 and 1986. If the Piketty and Saez estimates actually demonstrated a
continuous and credible upward trend toward greater inequality since the late-1980s, all other estimates of
income distribution would have to be wrongincluding those of the Census Bureau, the CBO, and the
Federal Reserve Board.
In a recent column, Paul Krugman complained about "the amount of time that inequality's apologists spend
attacking a claim nobody is making: that there has been a clear long-term decline in middle-class living
standards." Yet, in a 2004 column Krugman said, "according to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty
and Emmanuel Saezconfirmed by data from the CBObetween 1973 and 2000 the average real income
of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent."
For Krugman to assert that there was a 7 percent drop in real income for 90 percent of taxpayers over 27
years certainly sounds like a "clear long-term decline in middle-class living standards." To question such
claims requires no straw man. On the contrary, Krugman's astonishingly incorrect assertion provided an
excellent example of how remarkably uncritical even professional economists have become toward the
Piketty-Saez estimates.
SPRING 2016
40
CLAIMS ABOUT HARMS OF INEQUALITY ARE OVERSTATED

ARGUMENTS FOR REDUCING INEQUALITY ARE ABSURD SOLUTIONS IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM-Cochrane
14
[John; professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business; What the Inequality
Warriors Really Want; Wall Street Journal; 20 Nov 2014; reprinted at
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-inequality-warriors-really-want; retrieved 31 Dec
2015]
Recognizing, I think, this logic, inequality warriors go on to argue that inequality is a problem because it
causes other social or economic ills. A recent Standard & Poors report sums up some of these assertions:
As income inequality increased before the [2008 financial] crisis, less affluent households took on more
and more debt to keep upor, in this case, catch upwith the Joneses. In a 2011 Vanity Fair article,
Columbia University economist Joe Stiglitz wrote that inequality causes a lifestyle effect people outside
the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. He called it trickle-down behaviorism.
I see. A fry cook in Fresno hears that more hedge-fund managers are flying in private jets. So he buys a
pickup he cant afford. They are saying that we must tax away wealth to encourage thrift in the lower
classes.
Heres another claim: Inequality is a problem because rich people save too much. So, by transferring money
from rich to poor, we can increase overall consumption and escape secular stagnation.
I see. Now we need to forcibly transfer wealth to solve our deep problem of national thriftiness.
You can see in these examples that the arguments are made up to justify a pre-existing answer. If these
were really the problems to be solved, each has much more natural solutions.
CLAIMS ABOUT WEALTH INEQUALITY ARE OVER-HYPED-Piereson 14
[James; Manhattan Institute senior fellow, director of the Institutes Center for the American University,
and president and trustee of the William E. Simon Foundation; The Inequality Hoax; 2014; Kindle Edition]
Today the issue of the hour is the inequality crisis, another overhyped issue that is being seized upon as
an excuse to raise taxes, attack the rich, and discredit policies that gave us three decades of prosperity,
booming real estate and stock markets, and an expanding global economy. For several years, ever since the
financial crisis of 2008, journalists and academics have been turning out books and manifestos bearing such
titles as The New Gilded Age; The Killing Fields of Inequality; The Great Divergence: Americas Growing
Inequality Crisis and What We Can Do About It; and The Price of Inequality.
LINKS BETWEEN INCOME INEQUALITY AND IMPACTS ARE OFTEN WEAK-The Economist '11
[The rich and the rest: What to do (and not do) about inequality; The Economist; 20 January 2011;
http://www.economist.com/node/17959590?story_id=17959590; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
The links between inequality and the ills attributed to it are often weak. For instance, some of the findings
in The Spirit Level were distorted by outliers: strip out Americas high murder rate (which many would
blame on guns, not inequality) or Japans longevity (diet, not equality), and flatter societies no longer look
so much healthier. As for the mooted link to the financial crisis, the timing is dodgy: Americas poor fell
behind in the 1980s, the credit bubble took off two decades later.
SPRING 2016
41

SIMPLY IDENTIFYING INCREASED INCOME INEQUALITY IS MEANINGLESS- Azerrad and Hederman 12
There is one glaring problem with this approach: In and of itself, income inequality is meaningless. It is a
brute fact that may or may not be indicative of a deeper problem. A claim about inequality without a
sustained discussion of its effects and causes tells us very little. If anything, we as Americans ought to be
less suspicious than others of income inequalities. The greatest work of American political thought defined
the first object of Government as the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring
property, from which result different degrees and kinds of property.[58] As noted in the first part of this
report, enforced income parity is neither desirable nor just.
MEASURES OF INEQUALITY NEED MUCH MORE SERIOUS SCRUTINY-Wilkonson 09
The level of inequality within a country can be influenced by a variety of factors. Some factors, like the age
composition of the population, are plainly irrelevant to questions about the justice or praiseworthiness of a
countrys institutions. Some good things tend to make inequality rise. Some bad things tend to make
inequality fall. The same level of inequality can have better or worse underlying causes. For example, the
United States and Ghana have approximately the same level of income inequality, as measured by the Gini
coefficient, but on any sensible account of justice or goodness, American institutions are a lot better.
Neither the level nor the trend of inequality conveys the sort of thing we need to know in order to
responsibly pass judgment on a societys institutions or its social, political, and economic order.
SPRING 2016
42
INEQUALITY DOES NOT THREATEN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

THOSE ON THE POOR END OF ECONOMIC INEQUALITY ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL
PROCESS--Dotan '04
[Yoav; Associate Professor of Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem; CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
AND THE SOCIAL INEQUALITY PARADOX; University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform; Summer
2004; Lexis]
Thus, under the model of democratic partnership, economic disparity in liberal democracy can be
legitimized by the existence of a distributive process carried out under conditions of political equality.
The decision of the current scope of redistribution (and, in essence, the current state of division of
economic goods) n109 is accepted in a process in which all members of the polity take place. The social
order - including its economic disparities - is the outcome of a democratic process in which all the
participants have equal political power and equal say. The economic disparities of the market are
legitimized by the vote of all the participants in the process, including the have-nots. The have-nots are
entitled to decide - as much as any other member of the polity - how the social resources should be
divided. Each member of the polity has the same influence on the decision with regard to her own
share, and her fellow members' share in the social pie. While have-nots do not enjoy an equal share in
the social pie itself, they do have an equal [*987] vote in the process that determines how to share
this pie. Thus, the social order is legitimized for each and every participant in the democratic polity.
Liberal democracy can therefore be regarded as a democratic partnership. n110 The alternative of a fully
equal division of economic goods is contingently rejected for reasons of efficiency. n111 The legitimacy of
the system, however, is guaranteed by the fact that each and every member of society takes equal part in
the process that shapes the division of economic goods among all members of the polity. Everyone is a full
partner to this democratic decision-making process.
FOCUS ON INCOME INEQUALITY PREVENTS US FROM FOCUSING ON THE REAL SOCIAL ILLS AND POLICIES
WE MUST ADDRESS-Wilkonson 09
Economic inequality is too easy. It makes us lazy in our quest to sniff out injustice, which, after all, is not so
hard to find. There is overwhelming reason to believe that in the United States the deck really is stacked
against some people. As a consequence, many millions are doing much less well than they might be.
Legions of inner-city kids consigned to abysmal public schools are systematically denied a fair chance to
develop the capacities need to participate fully in our institutions, or to enjoy their potentially ample
rewards. The United States imprisons a larger share of its citizens than any country on Earth, literally
disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of men and women (though they are mostly men) and leaving
hundreds of thousands more dispirited and damaged. Undocumented immigrant workers increasingly
constitute a permanent economic underclass explicitly denied many of the basic legal protections of
citizens, inviting both government and private abuse. And, at the level of culture, patterns of private
discrimination continue to constitute for millions a web of real, seemingly inescapable barriers to
opportunity and achievement, and help to generate self-reproducing patterns of diminished expectations
and wasted potential. We should focus our attention and energy to the task of rectifying these vicious
injustices.
Maybe fixing all this would decrease the variance in national incomes. But the idea that fixing all this
somehow requires fixing the pattern of incomes is an excellent way to avoid the real problems and fix
nothing.
SPRING 2016
43
INEQUALITY DOES NOT HURT DEMOCRACY

WHILE A SERIOUS ISSUE, INCOME INEQUALITY IS COMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRACY-Pippenger 15
[Nathan; PhD student in the Political Science Department at the University of California, Berkeley;When
Does Inequality Threaten Democracy?; Democracy: A Journal of Ideas; 15 Jan 2015;
http://democracyjournal.org/arguments/when-does-inequality-threaten-democracy/; retrieved 26 Dec
2015]
This is both exciting and worrisome. Exciting, because it presents an opportunity for fresh thinking;
worrisome, because our first stabs at thinking through this problem are likely to be crude and misguided. As
I noted last October, things arent helped by refusing to take inequality seriously, a problem which is all too
common on the American right. Dismissing concerns about inequality with glib questions about whether
critics would rather live in Cubawhich was, more or less, the Manhattan Institutes responseis not
terribly clarifying. Thats why some recent remarks from Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw are more
promising. Mankiw, in a paper on Thomas Piketty, concludes with some reflections on inequality and
democracy:
A final possibility is that wealth inequality is somehow a threat to democracy. Piketty alludes to this
worry throughout his book. I am less concerned. The wealthy includes supporters of both the right
(the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson) and the left (George Soros, Tom Steyer), and despite high
levels of inequality, in 2008 and 2012 the United States managed to elect a left-leaning president
committed to increasing taxes on the rich. The fathers of American democracy, including George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison, were very rich men. With
estimated net worth (in todays dollars) ranging from $20 million to $500 million, they were likely
all in the top 0.1 percent of the wealth distribution, demonstrating that the accumulation of capital
is perfectly compatible with democratic values.
INEQUALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE OR DEMOCRACY-Wilkonson 09
A good deal of popular liberal political and economic commentary treats a countrys level of economic
inequality as a rough indicator of the justice or injustice of its institutions. This kind of pop liberal
egalitarianism would suggest that the results laid out above should put our minds at ease. But I think the
inequality-as-justice-barometer view is based on a mistake and is bound to confuse and distract us. The
reason not to get up in arms about the United States level of income inequality is not that its really pretty
decent, considering. The reason not to worry about it is that the level of income inequality is a fact
astonishingly devoid of morally relevant information and at best shares a common cause with real
problems.
INCOME INEQUALITY DOES NOT POSE A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY-Wilkonson 09
If income inequality in the United States is symptomatic of injustice, the problem is unlikely to be the level
of inequality as such, but the institutional mechanisms or social norms such as predation by political
elites or the systematic exclusion of ethnic minorities from economic opportunities that tend to generate
income inequality. If you believe that American income inequality does reflect injustice in the structure of
Americas institutions, then it is important to identify precisely where and how the system is unjust instead
of simply fixating on the fact that there is inequality. If the level of inequality is a knock-on effect of a more
fundamental injustice, we should focus our attention on the original site of wrongdoing. The fire is the
problem, not the people who look around when they hear the alarm.
SPRING 2016
44
INEQUALITY/WEALTH ARE NOT STATIC

80% OF MILLIONAIRES ARE FIRST GENERATION-Tanner 14
2015]
Piketty worries that inheritance will lead to much more inequality in the future. But, at least currently,
inheritance plays a very small role. About 80 percent of American millionaires are the first generation of
their family to attain that status. Only 19 percent receive any significant income or wealth from a trust fund
or an estate, and fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth. As National Reviews
Kevin Williamson has pointed out, for the richest 1 percent of Americans, inheritance accounts for just 15
percent of their wealth. No doubt thats still a lot of money, but the plain fact is that most of the rich earn
their wealth.
MOST WEALTH DOES NOT LAST FOR GENERATIONS. IT DISSIPATES QUICKLY-Tanner 14
2015]
Sure, some families stay wealthy for generation after generation. The Kennedys, Rothschilds, du Ponts, and
Rockefellers all spring easily to mind. Yet it is also true that wealth is often dissipated over generations;
research shows that the wealth accumulated by some intrepid entrepreneur or businessman rarely survives
long. In many cases, as much as 70 percent has evaporated by the end of the second generation and as
much as 90 percent by the end of the third.
Even over the shorter term, the composition of the top 1 percent often changes dramatically. If history is
any guide, roughly 56 percent of those in the top income quintile can expect to drop out of it within 20
years. Of course, they may retain accumulated wealth, but even by this measure shifts can occur rapidly.
Indeed, just as rises in capital markets can make some people rich, declines can wipe out their wealth just
as quickly. During the nadir of the recession, declining stock-market returns resulted in a 39 percent decline
in the number of American millionaires.
SPRING 2016
45

INTERGENERATIONAL ECONOMIC MOBILITY SHOWS THAT WEALTH IS INCREASING ACROSS SOCIAL
CLASSES IN THE US- Azerrad and Hederman 12
Intergenerational absolute mobilitya comparison of how much you earn and how much your parents
earned when they were your ageis a good measure of a societys overall improvement. If many people
have negative mobility, a society is losing ground. If a society doubles income and wealth for a younger
generation as compared to their parents, most observers will believe that it has improved regardless of the
ability of people to move up as compared to their peers.
Almost every child does better than his parents in this regard: 93 percent of children born to a family at the
bottom of the scale do better than their parents, and 88 percent of children in the middle exceed their
parents income.[105] Recent evidence suggests that absolute mobility is still strong for the current
younger working generation as compared to their parents.[106] The real numbers are even better, since
many studies exclude the children of immigrants. Virtually every child of immigrants will do better than his
or her parents. These numbers reinforce the fact that almost everyone is enjoying the fruits of Americas
increasing prosperity.
SPRING 2016
46
POVERTY IS NOT THAT BAD IN THE US

LOW-INCOME FAMILIES ARE BETTER OFF THAN EVER BEFORE- Azerrad and Hederman 12
There is plenty of evidence to show that low-income families have access to more and better goods than
ever before. When new products first appear on the market, they tend to be available only to more well-off
families, but within a few years, everyone has the ability to purchase these goods. Virtually every
household below the poverty line has a television, while over three-fourths have microwaves and airconditioning.[78] Moreover, the goods are of better quality than those that were purchased mostly by the
upper class.[79] For example, computers and cell phones have become more powerful, with more features
and power.
SPRING 2016
47
CRITICISM OF INEQUALITY IS JUST ENVY

CRITICISM OF INCOME INEQUALITY IS A FALLACY ROOTED IN ENVY- Azerrad and Hederman 12
Third, we must be relentless in exposing the fallacies of the income inequality argument. If we are, as we
should be, concerned with mobility and prosperity, then income inequality is a red herring. Furthermore,
behind the charts and graphs detailing the rise in income inequality often lies an ugly animosity against the
rich. Even worse, this envy and hatred of the one percent masquerades as compassion for the
downtrodden. Every time someone lashes out at the top 1 percent, we ought to talk instead of the bottom
1 percent.
FOCUS ON INCOME INEQUALITY IS DRIVEN BY ENVY, NOT COMPASSION- Azerrad and Hederman 12
The excessive focus on the 1 percent of income earners is particularly reflective of a certain mindset. Envy,
not compassion, seems to be the animating passion of many of those who worry about inequality. They
begin with the richthe Sort of Rich, the Basically Rich, the Undeniably Rich, the Really Rich, and the
Stinking Rich in Timothy Noahs classification[62]not with the poor or the middle class. They focus on the
top 1 percent, not the bottom 1 percent, and when the wealth of the 1 percent no longer sufficiently stokes
their outrage, they hone in on ever smaller subsets of the rich. Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, the
great economists of income inequality, tabulate incomes of the top 1 percent, the top 0.5 percent, the top
0.1 percent, and even the top 0.01 percent.[63]
SPRING 2016
48
FOCUS SHOULD BE GROWTH, NOT REDISTRIBUTION

IN A FREE SOCIETY, OUR FOCUS SHOULD BE GROWING THE ECONOMY FOR ALL, NOT REDISTRIBUTIONTanner 14
2015]
Although it is a virtual matter of faith on the Left that the poor are poor because the rich are rich, there is
little correlation between poverty rates and inequality. Poverty rates have sometimes risen during periods
of relatively stable levels of inequality and declined during times of rising inequality. The idea that gains by
one person necessarily mean losses by another reflects a zero-sum view of the economy that is simply
untethered to history or economics. The economy is not fixed in size, with the only question being one of
distribution. Rather, the entire pie can grow, with more resources available to all.
THE AMERICAN DREAM DEPENDS ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND HARD WORK, NOT GOVERNMENT
REDISTRIBUTION- Azerrad and Hederman 12
The ladder of opportunity is an apt metaphor for the American Dream. Ladders offer a way up, but only for
those who are willing to climb them. The metaphor reminds us that the American Dream demands a lot
from those who pursue it. Only those who put in the effort to climband pull themselves back up when
they fallwill make it to the top.
In their efforts to redefine the American Dream, many on the Left have seized on this metaphor but have
shifted the focus to all that the federal government must do to give each and every one of us the sturdy
ladders to which we are supposedly entitled. This, coupled with a fixation on income disparities, suggests
that the escalator of results might be a more fitting metaphor for this new liberal dream: Everyone just
hops on, and we all move up to the same place without effort on our behalf.
But that is not the American Dream. The American Dream is about hard work and self-reliance, not
handouts and dependence; equal opportunity, not equal results; emulating those who make it, not being
envious of their success; pulling yourself up, not dragging others down.
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION HURTS THE PROSPECT OF ECONOMIC GROWTH-Scully '08
[Gerald W.; Economic Freedom and the Trade-off between Inequality and Growth; National Center for
Policy Analysis; March 2008; http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st309?pg=2; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
These interventions in market outcomes adversely affect the efficiency of the economy and lower the rate
of economic growth. They do so by introducing distortions into the economy and altering the incentives
that affect individual choice. Government programs and policies alter prices in the economy, and hence
alter the allocation of resources from their distribution to the highest valued use that would occur in a free
market to a distribution that is more politically and socially acceptable. This government-induced
reallocation of resources lowers the efficiency of the economy, and lowers the rate of economic growth.
SPRING 2016
49
ECONOMIC GROWTH FROM COMPETITION BENEFITS US ALL

ALL OF US, FROM THE WEALTHY TO THE POOREST AMERICANS, HAVE OUR STANDARD OF LIFE LIFTED BY
THE 1%-Reisman 11
[George; economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine; How The 1 Percent Provides the
Standard of Living of the 99 Percent; Kindle Edition]
In other words, all of us, one hundred percent of us, benefit from the wealth of the hated capitalists. We
benefit without ourselves being capitalists, or being capitalists to any great extent. The protesters are
literally kept alive on the foundation of the wealth of the capitalists they hate. As just indicated, the oil
fields and pipelines of the hated Exxon corporation provide the fuel that powers the tractors and trucks
that are essential to the production and delivery of the food the protesters eat. The protesters and all other
haters of capitalists hate the foundations of their own existence. The benefit of the capitalists means of
production to non-owners of means of production extends not only to the buyers of the products of those
means of production but also to the sellers of the labor that is employed to work with those means of
production. The wealth of the capitalists, in other words, is the source both of the supply of products that
non-owners of the means of production buy and of the demand for the labor that non-owners of the means
of production sell. It follows that the larger the number and greater the wealth of the capitalists, the
greater is both the supply of products and the demand for labor, and thus the lower are prices and the
higher are wages, i.e., the higher is the standard of living of everyone. Nothing is more to the self-interest
of the average person than to live in a society that is filled with multi-billionaire capitalists and their
corporations, all busy using their vast wealth to produce the products he buys and to compete for the labor
he sells.
INEQUALITY BENEFITS THE ECONOMY AND LEADS TO GROWTH-Garrett 08
[Thomas; PhD, Economics, US Income Inequality: Its Not So Bad; October 2008;
https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/October-2008/US-Income-Inequality-Its-NotSo-Bad; retrieved 27 Dec 2015]
The apparent increase in U.S. income inequality has not escaped the attention of policymakers and social
activists who support public policies aimed at reducing income inequality. However, the common measures
of income inequality that are derived from the census statistics exaggerate the degree of income inequality
in the United States for several reasons. Furthermore, although income inequality is seen as a social ill by
many people, it is important to understand that income inequality has many economic benefits and is the
result of, and not a detriment to, a well-functioning economy.
HIGHER LEVELS OF INCOME INEQUALITY LEAD TO ECONOMIC GROWTH- Azerrad and Hederman 12
However, more recent evidence that focuses on growth has found that higher levels of inequality in
developed countries are related to faster economic growth because these countries can engage in, or have
engaged in, policies that can boost not only growth, but also inequality. One such policy would be lower
taxes on capital to encourage investment and growth but at the potential cost of higher inequality.
Conversely, countries that seek to redistribute income, often through progressive taxation, have lower
economic growth as a result of the higher taxes. Economist Robert Barro concludes: For richer countries,
active income redistribution appears to involve a tradeoff between the benefits of greater equality and a
reduction in overall economic growth.
SPRING 2016
50

THE COMPETITIVE FREE MARKET SYSTEM GROWS WEALTH FOR EVERYONE, RICH AND POOR- Azerrad and
Hederman 12
If it were the case that the rich had grown richer at the expense of the poor, thereby making them poorer,
then we would have reason to be concerned. Something would have to be done not to equalize outcomes,
but to address the unjust means that the rich had used to defraud the poor.
Contrary to what Marxist economists argue, however, that is not the way our economy works.[60] A freemarket economy creates wealth. For one person to make a dollar does not mean that another needs to lose
one. There is not just one dwindling pie to be divided up among the population, but rather a proven recipe
to grow the pie to serve everyone. All the talk about the rich grabbing too large a share of the national
income therefore rests on a flawed understanding of this basic truth of free-market economics.
ECONOMIC LIBERTY IS KEY FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH-Hanke and Walters '98
[Steve H., Professor of Applied Economics at John Hopkins University; Stephen J.K., Professor of Economics
at Loyola College; Economic Freedom, Prosperity, and Equality: A Survey; Cato Journal; Volume 17, No. 2;
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj17n2-1.html; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
Most recently, however, some students of economic growth have returned to first principles. They have
concluded that analysis of how markets operate may be a poor guide to how markets develop (see North
1990, 1994). They have focused on the nature of institutions and on the structure of rules and norms that
constrain economic behavior as a way of understanding the development process. And they have
rediscovered Smith's ancient insight that economic liberty is a crucial precondition for sustained, vigorous
economic growth.
PRIVATE SECTOR PROTECTION IS KEY TO ECONOMIC ADVANCEMENT-Hadekel '01
[Peter; Editorial Page Editor; The global debate: Should we have confidence that the Summit of the
Americas will work out in everyone's interest?; The Montreal Gazette; 14 April 2001; Lexis]
Now look at what happened to countries that didn't embrace market liberalization. In the 1960s, African
nations such as Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire and Tanzania were at about the same level of market development as
Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, the OECD found. Then, the Asian economies began to accelerate by
encouraging the private sector, focusing on trade and investing in education, while African nations chose to
remain dependent on protectionism, foreign aid and an inefficient public sector. Today, the difference
between the two continents is striking - and tragic, in so far as Africa is concerned.
SPRING 2016
51
ECONOMIC FREEDOM IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN DREAM

ECONOMIC FREEDOM IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE AMERICAN DREAM- Azerrad and Hederman 12
The first pillar of the American Dream is economic freedom. Without the liberty to acquire and possess
property and to dispose of it in free markets, our station in life would essentially be fixed at birth. By giving
us the ability to profit from our own ideas and laborto work, produce, consume, own, trade, and invest
according to our own choiceseconomic freedom creates a world in which all may aspire to improve their
lot. Since no one can be unjustly deprived of the fruits of his labor and ideas, there is a strong incentive to
work hard, excel, innovate, and devise clever ways to do things better.
THE AMERICAN DREAM DEPENDS ON PROVIDING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND REWARDING HARD
WORK- Azerrad and Hederman 12
For many people, the story ends here. America is the land of opportunity, and economic freedom is what
makes mobility possible. To leave it at that, however, would fail to do full justice to the promise of America.
First, this simplified account leaves out the other great benefit that the Founders anticipated their
commercial republic would bring: general prosperity and an increase in the standard of living of all. Second,
it fails to mention the other all-important factor required for the dream to materialize: a culture of work in
which labor is encouraged and celebrated.
In other words, economic freedom is not enough. All that economic freedom can do is set commerce at
perfect liberty[6] and create the conditions for prosperity. Citizens must still be capable and willing to put
in the hard work. Opportunities must be converted into accomplishments. As the great apostle of upward
mobility Frederick Douglass explained in his praise of self-made men, Opportunity is important but
exertion is indispensable.[7] The American Dream requires certain virtues like hard work, perseverance,
fortitude, and prudence, as well as a real desire to make it.
This, in short, is what sets the stage for the American Dreamhowever one may define it. For some, it will
be the goal of ensuring a better future for their children. For others, it translates into a comfortable middleclass life with a big house and a good job. And for a few, it adds up to a great success story that takes them
from rags to riches. Whatever ones American Dream may be, economic freedom and hard work are what
make it possible.
SPRING 2016
52
ECONOMIC FREEDOM CRITICAL TO MIDDLE CLASS

ECONOMIC FREEDOM HAS HELPED CREATE THE MIDDLE CLASS-Hadekel '01
[Peter; Editorial Page Editor; The global debate: Should we have confidence that the Summit of the
Americas will work out in everyone's interest?; The Montreal Gazette; 14 April 2001; Lexis]
In Latin America, economic liberalization has already begun to help many nations. Almost all have begun to
abandon the old, discredited economic model of the post-war period - one that included a huge state
presence in the economy, an import substitution policy and the protection of domestic industry with high
tariffs. Since the mid-1980s, tariffs have fallen by more than half and exports as a share of the economy,
have grown by a third. Regional free-trade deals such as Mercosur, the Andean Community, and Caricom
have been signed. All this is helping Latin America lift more people into the middle class.
ECONOMIC FREEDOM HELPS DISTRIBUTE MARKET INCOME THROUGHOUT THE ECONOMY-Scully '08
[Gerald W.; Economic Freedom and the Trade-off between Inequality and Growth; National Center for
Policy Analysis; March 2008; http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st309/st309.pdf; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
Economic freedom increases the rate of economic growth in a nation and improves the distribution of
market income. In advanced countries, economic freedom improves equity by increasing the share of
market income going to the lowest income quintile and lowering the share going to the highest income
quintile. The share of income going to the middle class appears to be unaffected by the amount of
economic freedom that exists.
INCOME IS MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED IN A FREE ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAN ONE THAT HAS
INTERVENTION OR CONTROLS-Hanke and Walters '98
[Steve H., Professor of Applied Economics at John Hopkins University; Stephen J.K., Professor of Economics
at Loyola College; Economic Freedom, Prosperity, and Equality: A Survey; Cato Journal; Volume 17, No. 2;
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj17n2-1.html; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
The most careful cross-sectional work on this topic has been conducted by Scully (though, for an interesting
study of one country over time, see Jackson 1994). Scully analyzed various measures of inequality and
liberty for a sample of 70 countries, and concluded that "income is more equally distributed within
countries that are politically open, that have private property and market allocation of resources, and that
are committed to the rule of law than in countries where these rights are abridged" (Scully 1992: 184).
More specifically, Scully found that freer societies have significantly higher shares of national income going
to the middle classes (i.e., the 20th to 80th income percentiles), and less income received by the wealthy
(the 80th to 100th income percentiles). Interestingly, there was no statistically significant effect of a
country's institutional framework on the share of income received by the poorest in society: whether they
lived in a free or tyrannical society, the poor's relative share of national income did not change much
(though, of course, their absolute level of income was higher in freer, more prosperous countries).
SPRING 2016
53
AMERICAN DREAM IS ROOTED IN WORK AND SELF-RELIANCE

WE MUST PROTECT THE SELF-RELIANT, INDIVIDUALISTIC CHARACTER OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY
ENVISIONED BY THE FOUNDERS- Azerrad and Hederman 12
For the Lefts new American Dream to deliver on its promise, America would have to be completely
overhauled and the character of its citizens altered. The spirited, entrepreneurial and determinedly selfreliant citizens envisioned by the Founders of our constitutional republic would give way to timid and
envious clients who increasingly turn to an omnipotent state for their well-being. It is therefore imperative
that the American Dream be rescued from those who would so radically redefine it.
HUMANS SHOULD BE FREE TO MAKE ECONOMIC DECISIONS THAT MAY BENEFIT THEIR SUCCESS OR
CREATE FAILURE-Abrams '01
[Kathryn; Professor of Law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law; THE LEGAL SUBJECT IN
EXILE; Duke Law Journal; October 2001; Lexis]
This account of the subject reflected a then-prominent political worldview that regarded social and
economic progress as emanating from a Darwinian engagement among unencumbered economic actors.
n22 In this view, the subject was regarded as a largely autonomous denizen of a naturalized economic
domain. Market exchange frequently was characterized as a natural phenomenon that runs according
[*36] to the free will of the parties and its own set of internal imperatives. One finds this view even in
judicial opinions - a context in which one might expect decisionmakers to recognize the implication of the
conventional, or the legal, in this ostensibly natural domain. The Court in Adkins noted, for example, that
employment contracts function according to a "moral requirement ... that the amount to be paid and the
service to be rendered shall bear to each other some relation of just equivalence." n23 A fair price, in other
words, was determined not by reference to any external standard, but by reference to the agreement of
the two parties. The economic subject was described as moving freely in this domain, despite the palpable
existence of economic inequalities. For example, in upholding the employer's imposition of an anti-union
contract, the Court in Coppage v. Kansas holds that, "aside from this matter of pecuniary interest, there is
nothing to show that [the laborer] was not a free agent ... at liberty to choose what was best from the
standpoint of his own interests." n24
WITHOUT THE POTENTIAL TO PROFIT FROM WORK, WE LOSE OUR INCENTIVES--Coyne '06
[Christopher; James M. Buchanan Fellow at George Mason University; Income Inequality Benefits American
Society; 2006; Gale Group Databases]
Hence he concludes that incentives are not as powerful as one would think. Intuitively, this seems peculiar.
If all individuals are making exactly the same income no matter what their effort, what would be man's
motivation to act? Would man's very nature transform so that he would become stronger, wiser, and more
harmonious? Would he rise to the level of [Greek philosopher] Aristotle or Marx as [Soviet Communist
revolutionary Leon] Trotsky predicted? Krugman fails to provide the reader with a definite answer.
Incorrect ideas must be identified and their errors must be corrected. Dangerous ideas must be destroyed.
The notions of class distinction and equality no doubt fall into the latter category. For these ideas stand
counter to the foundational underpinnings of freedom, individuality and economic progress. Only when
these ideas are thoroughly eradicated and markets truly embraced will we realize the true potential of
mankind as unique and unequal individuals.
SPRING 2016
54
FORCING REDISTRIBUTION HARMS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY-Christie '06
The French and Russian Revolutions were primarily about equality - social and political equality in the
French case and the Marxist utopia of absolute economic equality in the Russian case. [*951] Whether the
American Revolution was more about liberty than the equality that Thomas Jefferson hailed in the
Declaration of Independence has long been a popular topic among historians. n6 Certainly for Jefferson and
some radical revolutionaries, such as Thomas Paine, the American Revolution was about democracy and
egalitarian ideals. There is no question, however, that the Framers of the Constitution, at their convention
in Philadelphia eleven years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, were deeply concerned
with protecting individual liberty - including the liberty to own property - from governmental
encroachment. Appalled by the actions of state legislatures during the Articles of Confederation period, the
convention delegates had no intention of establishing a federal government with the power to impose
economic equality through the violation of individual property rights.
US CONSTITUTION DEMANDS CAPITALISM-Christie '06
This question has been a source of debate throughout much of American history. In his 1913 seminal work,
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, n2 Charles A. Beard was among the
first historians to allege that the Framers of the Constitution were concerned about protecting their own
economic interests. One does not have to accept entirely Beard's then-radical thesis to acknowledge that
the Framers had obvious economic purposes when they drafted the Constitution in 1787. The protection of
what was considered the natural right of individuals to own property was a key philosophical component of
the American Revolution, and, as prominent economic historians Douglass North and Robert Thomas have
noted, where capitalism succeeded it was "in the main due to the type of property rights created." n3 Men
of property, shocked at episodes such as Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1786, which was largely a
revolt of debtors against creditors, wrote the Constitution. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to
the Constitution, added shortly after ratification, explicitly protects private property from government
confiscation without adequate compensation. n4 The Constitutional Convention of 1787 included another
essential component of a capitalist economy in the Constitution: the protection of the legal enforceability
of contracts between private parties from governmental interference.
SPRING 2016
55
US DEMOCRACY DOES NOT DEPEND ON OR MANDATE EQUALITY

UNITED STATES HAS NO HISTORICAL TRADITIONAL OF EQUALITY--Morris '04
America has always had an ambivalent attitude toward equality. In contrast to the social democratic
regimes of Europe, the only officially endorsed equality Americans have historically embraced is the narrow
sense of equality of opportunityas opposed to outcome. A suspicion of government interference in
economic matters is an attitude that dates from the early days of the republic. When [French writer Alexis]
de Toqueville lauded the rough equality of Americans in the 1830s, he made it clear that it is the fluidity of
the society that impressed him: "I do not mean that there is any lack of wealthy individuals in the United
States.... But wealth circulates with inconceivable rapidity, and experience shows that it is rare to find two
succeeding generations in the full enjoyment of it."
[Abraham] Lincoln made much the same point: "[It is] best to leave each man free to acquire property as
fast as he can. Some will get wealthy; I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich [but] ... we
do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everyone else." Yet the vast accretions
of personal fortunes and corporate power that accompanied the rough-and-tumble era of free-booting
capitalism in the decades after the Civil Warwhen men like [wealthy industrialists] John D. Rockefeller,
Andrew Carnegie, and Jay Gould were building their empirescast doubt on the reality of the American
mythos of equal opportunity.
THE UNITED STATES HAS NO TRADITION OF REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH-Dotan '04
The second historical development of importance to our discussion deals with the constitutionality of
property redistribution through the political process. n80 The point of origin of the American constitutional
system has been that there are strict constitutional limitations on the power of the government to infringe
on private property for redistributive purposes. A notable manifestation of this position is Justice Chase's
opinion in Calder v. Bull, n81 according to which a law that "takes property from A and gives it to B" would
exceed the proper authority of government. n82 The roots of this strict position are related to the central
importance of property rights in American thinking as well as in the traditional suspicion towards any kind
of governmental intervention in private rights. n83 Its underlying premises were that the only legitimate
goal of government in general, and of the police force in particular, was to [*979] protect individual rights
and otherwise to enhance the "general welfare" rather than "the promotion of private interests."
SPRING 2016
56
INEQUALITY COMES FROM LIBERTY

THE RICH-POOR GAP IS A NATURAL BYPRODUCT OF LIBERTY-Christie '06
On the contrary, James Madison, the brilliant "Father of the Constitution," wrote in The Federalist No. 10
that in a free society, "factions" - what we would call interest groups - would naturally occur.
Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire... . But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to
political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential
to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. n7
Madison believed that liberty creates the conditions for an unequal distribution of property:
The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable
obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different
degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and
views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS FOUNDED ON, AND DEPENDS ON EQUAL PROTECTION OF RIGHTS, NOT
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THINGS- Continetti 11
[Matthew; About Inequality; Weekly Standard; 14 Nov 2011;
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/about-inequality/607779?page=2; retrieved 27 Dec 2015]
The Founders of this nation also understood the problematic relation between democracy and inequality.
Their solution was a large constitutional republic whose first object of government was the protection of
the diversity in faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate. The separation of
enumerated powers, federalism, and a strong dose of virtue in the citizenry and their representatives
would be the guarantors of the natural rights of mankind.
We have strayed so far from this view that our energies are no longer directed to the equal protection of
rights but the equal provision of things. We have strayed so far that before embarking on quests to
reengineer America neither the left nor the right even thinks to pose the question of Federalist 6: Have we
not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle theories which have amused us with
promises of an exemption from the imperfections, the weaknesses, and the evils incident to society in
every shape? Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age and to adopt as a practical
maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are
yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?
SPRING 2016
57

UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IS INHERENT AND INSEPARABLE FROM A FREE COUNTRY- Azerrad
and Hederman 12
Because we are free, some inevitably will earn more and others less. As there are great natural differences
in aptitude, talent, and strength, which are in turn attenuated or accentuated by happenstance, so too are
there different vocations, occupations, and professions in which some excel while others just muddle along.
Translating all of this into dollars and cents, great income disparities are a natural part of a free economy.
As Thomas Jefferson remarked, equality of rights and that state of property, equal or unequal, which
results to every man from his own industry, or that of his fathers go together.
UNEQUAL RESULTS ARE THE NATURAL PRODUCT OF LIBERTY- Azerrad and Hederman 12
Government has a supporting role to play for this dream to come true. It must, for example, uphold the rule
of law, secure property rights, ensure access to education, and provide a safety net for those who cannot
care for themselves, but the focus remains on the individual and his efforts to rise and help those around
him do the same. Given the diversity of individual efforts, not all will succeed. Unequal results are a natural
outcome of equal opportunity.
Liberals have redefined the American Dream along egalitarian and statist lines. The exhortation to work
hard and persevere if you fail has given way to calls for greater government involvement to ensure that
everyone rises in the first place. The Lefts new American Dream is first and foremost about all that the
federal government must do to create opportunity and ensure that incomes are distributed more equitably.
Individual effort takes a backseat to government spending and cradle-to-grave entitlements.
SPRING 2016
58
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON MANDATING OPPORTUNITY, NOT RESULTS

BELIEF IN OPPORTUNITY AND EFFORT ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE AMERICAN DREAM- Azerrad and Hederman
12
Second, we cannot afford to lose sight of the cultural underpinnings of the American Dream: a culture that
celebrates industriousness, exhorts all to work hard, scorns dependence on government, and disparages
indolence. In emphasizing the importance of a culture of work, we are not downplaying the equal
importance of the principles of economic freedom; given the contemporary prejudice against things that
cannot be measured, we simply aim to remind readers that getting the economic principles right is only half
the battle. To quote Frederick Douglass once more, Opportunity is important but exertion is
indispensable.
IT'S ABSURD AND IMPOSSIBLE TO ARGUE THAT EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY DEMANDS SAMENESS OF
OPPORTUNITY- Azerrad and Hederman 12
Today, equality of opportunity has effectively been redefined as sameness of opportunity: the argument
that all should have the exact same opportunities in life. Sameness of opportunity demands that the
disadvantaged be given more opportunities and that the privileged or naturally gifted be denied certain
opportunities. After all, opportunities are not bestowed equally upon all. Some are born to wealthy and
well-connected parents. Others are born into working-class families of modest means. Yet there is nothing
unjust about the former taking advantage of their parents connections to land a first job.
The same could be said of the extra opportunities afforded to the very good-looking, those with high IQs,
the athletically gifted, or those who just happen to come of age during an economic boom. In fact, the
more you think about all the ways in which we are different and how many opportunities grow out of the
vagaries of life, the idea that all should have the same opportunities sounds ludicrous.
SPRING 2016
59

JUSTICE DOES NOT DEMAND THAT EVERYONE START FROM THE SAME POINT OR BE GIVEN THE SAME
GIFTS, MERELY THAT THE RULES ARE APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL- Azerrad and Hederman 12
In the short story Harrison Bergeron, Kurt Vonnegut vividly describes a dystopian future in which those of
above-average strength, intelligence, and beauty are artificially handicapped to prevent them from taking
unfair advantage of their natural endowments. Thus, the lead character is hampered by heavy weights. In
the race of life, Harrison carried three hundred pounds, Vonnegut wryly writes.[47]
This reveals the limits of the race-of-life analogy. Not only are we not racing against everyone else
happiness is not a limited and exhaustible national resourcebut we are not all going toward the same end
(unless, like Woody Allen, you count death). It therefore does not matter that we dont all begin at the
same starting line and that we are not equally fast runners. What does matter is that the laws governing
the journey apply equally to all. In that sense, and in that sense only, equality of opportunity is a basic
requirement of justice and an integral component of the American Dream.
THAT SOME WILL FAIL IS NOT AN INDICTMENT OF THE AMERICANS DREAM PROMISE OF OPPORTUNITYAzerrad and Hederman 12
Finally, we must remind ourselves that some inevitably will failsome because they never really tried,
others because they just did not try hard enough, and some because they tried but exerted themselves in
poorly thought-out pursuits. Many will destroy their lives by succumbing to drugs, alcohol, or gambling, and
some will be just plain unlucky.
However much we as a culture exalt the underdog and those who persevere, not everybody can succeed.
The American Dream, as already noted, does not guarantee that all who work hard and play by the rules
will make it. Too many things in life are beyond our control. Many plans, however well-crafted and wellexecuted, will inevitably go awry. One should not confuse the dream of opportunity with the utopian vision
of a world in which chance has been conquered and no unforeseen circumstances can derail our plans.
We must help those who fail and find themselves in dire straits, but if their failure is not catastrophic, why
not encourage them to get back on their feet and give it a second go instead of coddling them by blaming
an unfair system?
SPRING 2016
60

INEQUALITY IN A CAPITALIST SYSTEM IS A NATURAL OCCURRENCE-Abrams '01
[Kathryn; Professor of Law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law; THE LEGAL SUBJECT IN
EXILE; Duke Law Journal; October 2001; Lexis]
Thus when judicial actors spoke explicitly about their disinclination to predicate governmental action
(either their own or that of the legislature) on inequalities in bargaining power between the parties, they
tended to invoke one of two arguments. The first was the kind of natural rights understanding of economic
transactions, such as that advanced in Adkins, n27 that provided justification for the legal regimes of
property and contract that were being elaborated at that time. Legal actors, like other social actors, served
the broader social good when they respected this natural domain of economic engagement. A second
argument invoked a narrower institutional logic. According to this reasoning, inequalities were the
inevitable result of regimes of property and liberty of contract, and the courts, as the institutions charged
with enforcement of those regimes, should be the last to interfere with their predictable consequences. As
the Court noted in Coppage,
No doubt, wherever the right of private property exists, there must and will be inequalities of fortune; and
thus it naturally happens that parties negotiating about a contract are not equally unhampered by [*38]
circumstances... . And, since it is self-evident that, unless all things are held in common, some persons must
have more property than others, it is from the nature of things impossible to uphold freedom of contract
and the right of private property without at the same time recognizing as legitimate those inequalities of
fortune that are the necessary result of the exercise of those rights.
JAMES MADISON BELIEVES THAT INEQUALITY WAS A NATURAL BYPRODUCT OF LIBERTY--Christie '06
Madison believed that liberty would produce economic inequality because of the "nature of man" and that
"the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal [*952] distribution of
property," yet the protection of liberty was the first order of government. n9 Madison and the other
Framers were not utopians but realists who recognized the inherent conflict between liberty and economic
equality - and they chose liberty. Their belief in equality was limited to a sociopolitical equality in which all
citizens would stand equal in the eyes of the law, and the aristocratic privileges of birth that characterized
Europe's monarchies would be abolished. There would still be an aristocracy, but it would be a natural
aristocracy based on individual talent and work ethic, not birth, and characterized by an equality of
opportunity, not outcomes.
SPRING 2016
61
CANNOT ADDRESS INEQUALITY

THERE IS NO WAY TO LEVEL THE INEQUALITY IN PARENTING, GENETICS, OR LOVE-Reisman 15
[George; economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine; Freedom of Opportunity, Not
Equality of Opportunity; 2015; Kindle Edition]
For example, consider such factors as the intelligence of a childs parents, their education and vocabulary,
their system of values, and their love for him and treatment of him, not to mention their level of income
and the kind of material life they lead and thereby expose him to while he is growing up. It is certainly
arguable that differences in these factors confront a child with differences in opportunities that are
certainly of no less significance for his future life, including his ability to earn wealth and income, than those
which are based on the wealth he may or may not inherit. To create equality of opportunity with respect to
these factors, nothing less would be necessary than to abolish the institution of the family and to raise all
children in government orphanages, where they could all be brought up in exactly the same way. This, of
course, was the idea of Plato, and it was supported by many socialists in the nineteenth century and earlier
in this [the twentieth] century.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT REDRESS INEQUALITIES OF INCOME. IT IS NOT ITS FUNCTION AND IT
DOESNT WORK- Continetti 11
The way out is to reject the assumption that governments purpose is to redress inequalities of income.
Inequalities of condition are a fact of life. Some people will always be poorer than others. So too, human
altruism will always seek to alleviate the suffering of the destitute. There is a place for reasonable and
prudent actions to improve well-being. But that does not mean the entire structure of our polity should be
designed to achieve an egalitarian ideal. Such a goal is fantastic, utopian even, and one would think that the
trillions of dollars the United States has spent in vain over the last 50 years to promote equality as a fact
and equality as a result would give the egalitarians pause.
FOCUS ON INCOME INEQUALITY HURTS EVERYONE, DISTRACTING ATTENTION FROM CORPORATE
WELFARE-Continetti 11
The right? Caught off guard. Too quick to dismiss the occupiers, too convinced that the bad economy will
doom Obamas reelection, too distracted by the silliness of the Republican primary, too beholden to the
egalitarian assumptions of the left, Republicans and conservatives have not responded coherently to the
arguments put forward by their newly invigorated opponents. Only Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin,
in a major speech at the Heritage Foundation on October 26, sounded the alarm: Sowing social unrest and
class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger, he said. Pitting one group against another only
distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this countrycorporate welfare that enriches the powerful,
and empty promises that betray the powerless.
SPRING 2016
62
INDIVIDUALISM SHOULD TRUMP EQUALITY/COMMUNITY

THE REALIZATION OF OPPORTUNITY DEPENDS ON THE INDIVIDUAL-Reisman 15
It must be realized that opportunities are never a matter merely of external circumstances that are served
up on a plate, as it were. They always depend on what the individual himself brings to the external
circumstances in the way of skills and abilities. These skills and abilities in turn are never the automatic
result of the individuals genetic inheritance. They are the cumulative product of what the individual has
done with his life up to that point. They reflect his initial choices to use his genetic inheritance to deal with
external circumstances in ways that developed certain skills and abilities, and then further choices to use
those skills and abilities to deal with further external circumstances in ways that developed still further
skills and abilities, and so on up to the present moment.
SHOULD FOCUS ON THE INDIVIDUAL OVER THE COMMUNITY-Epstein '98
[Richard; Principles for a Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty with the Common Good; 1998; page 1112]
Natural rights theories regard themselves as theories of individual entitlement, not of social good. In
general they seek to articulate the permanent and immutable truths of any legal order that they believe to
be good in all societies over all times. In dealing with the basic relationships between individuals, they
stress the importance of individual liberty and personal autonomy and defiantly pit these against any
supposed measure of social welfare. In dealing with the proper resolution of concrete legal disputes, their
emphasis on the justice of the individual case, the intimate connection between the doer and the sufferer
of harm, makes them overtly anti-instrumental in orientation. They disavow the idea that the social
consequences of any legal rule could justify its adoption or rejection, and thereby reject any abstract
measure of social welfare.Taken to their logical extreme, these natural law theories haveor, at least,
ought to haveas their central maxim, fiat justitia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens
may fall). If consequences never count in deciding the rights and wrongs of individual actions, then
disastrous consequences cannot count either.
MUST FOCUS ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OVER THE COMMUNITY-Bernstein '01
[Andrew; Liberalism vs. Individual Rights; The Ayn Rand Institute; 19 March 2001;
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr012=zrxb4mnif9.app14b&page=NewsArticle&id=5294
&news_iv_ctrl=1602; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
Why do liberals pay lip service to supporting the poor, the elderly, the worker--while invariably endorsing
the violation of the rights of those very individuals? The answer is that liberals repudiate the principle of
individual rights in favor of collectivism. Only groups exist in their thinking, and only "group rights" are valid.
They see life only in terms of collectives--the rich versus the poor, the young versus the elderly, the whites
versus the blacks. Individuals have no reality and no meaning to them.
Therefore, liberals blithely violate the rights of individual workers whenever they believe that "labor as a
whole" will somehow benefit. Similarly, they ignore slavery in the Sudan and Mauritania, because they
believe that to criticize any groups in Africa is to undermine the cause of ethnic minorities in the West (and
in Israel). The interests of enslaved black individuals are thus sacrificed to the liberals' vision of a greater
"collective good."
These injustices will continue until the liberals' collectivism is rejected in favor of the principle of
individualism. Only when it is understood that each and every individual has inalienable rights can mankind
eradicate the egregious violations perpetrated by the liberals or sanctioned by their silence.
SPRING 2016
63

ATTEMPTS AT FORCED EQUALITY DESTROYS INDIVIDUALITY-Coyne '06
This leads us directly to the notion of inequality. Only by freezing individual incomes at some moment in
time are we able to consider class distinctions. Having established these clear-cut classes, one is then able
to see that some have more relative to others. That is, they are unequal.
Initially, we must ask, why is equality the social goal toward which we strive? This is a broad ethical goal
which Krugman completely fails to justify. Is our end goal a state of the world where all individuals have
exactly equal incomes? Is there some degree of inequality (i.e., an "income gap") that is acceptable? If so,
why? If not, why not? These questions aside, let us further consider the notion of equality. [Political writer
Murray N.] Rothbard provides a clear explanation:
Let us take three entities: A, B and C. A, B, and C are said to be 'equal' to each other (i.e., A=B=C) if a
particular characteristic is found in which the three entities are uniform or identical. It follows that A, B, and
C can be completely 'equal' to each other only if they are identical or uniform in all characteristics. We see,
then, that the ideal of human equality can only imply total uniformity and the utter stamping out of
individuality.
Attempts at imposed equality destroy individuality. Individuality allows for specialization, the division of
labor and economic progress. When it is hampered, so are these outgrowths. The critic may vociferously
object: "Krugman is only calling for equality of income, not equality in all areas of life!" Our response is that
the two are inextricably related.
ATTEMPTS TO EQUALIZE HURT CREATIVITY AND INVESTMENT-Coyne '06
Let us return to our discussion of equal income. If all are guaranteed the same income, the result will be
twofold. First, there will be widespread government intervention in attempts to redistribute wealth to
those who are determined to be "unequal". Second, the incentive for investment, specialization, creativity
and entrepreneurship will be destroyed. Krugman rejects the latter claim by arguing that U.S. productivity
in the 1990s was no better as compared to the great postwar expansion.
THERE IS NO DUTY TO COMMUNITY IN THE AMERICAN MODEL--Epstein '02
[Alex; Bush's Un-American and Immoral Call for 'National Service;' The Ayn Rand Institute; 30 January
2002;
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr012=zrxb4mnif9.app14b&page=NewsArticle&id=5319
&news_iv_ctrl=1602; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
This collectivist belief in the supremacy of the group over the individual is the foundation of the nationalservice ideology, which regards the individual as a servant to the nation. And the proponents of "duty" to
the state, although they claim to be patriots, are espousing a view that is fundamentally un-American.
SPRING 2016
64
POVERTY IS THE RESULT OF PERSONAL CHOICE

ENDURING POVERTY IS LARGELY THE RESULT OF PERSONAL BEHAVIOR-Rector '06
[Robert; Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation; Reports of
Economic Inequality Are Greatly Exaggerated; 2006; Gale Group Databases]
The recent Census Bureau report substantially exaggerates the extent of poverty and economic inequality
in the United States. To the extent that enduring poverty continues in our society, it is largely the result of
personal behavior, particularly the lack of work and marriage. Policies that require welfare recipients to
work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid and that encourage the formation of healthy
marriages are the best vehicles for further reducing poverty.
POVERTY HAS MOSTLY TO DO WITH PERSONAL LIFESTYLE CHOICES THAT ONE MAKES-Sawhill '03
[Isabel V.; Senior Fellow and Director of Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution; The Behavioral
Aspects of Poverty; Public Interest; Fall 2003; page 79]
What areas of behavior are we talking about? As I have suggested, three are critical. The first is education;
the second is family formation; and the third is work. These have always been the sources of upward
mobility in advanced democracies. Those who graduate from high school, wait until marriage to have
children, limit the size of their families, and work full-time will not be poor.
This last statement may be surprising, but it is true. Every year the Census Bureau collects detailed
information on a large and representative sample of all households in the United States. From these data,
the government calculates the poverty rate for all households. In the year 2001, 12 percent of all
households were found to live in poverty. The government's official poverty line in that year was $9,214 for
a single individual living alone and $17,960 for a family of four. However, the poverty rate for those
households where the primary wage-earner had finished high school, was married, had no more than two
children, and worked full-time (2,000 hours a year or more) was trivially small1 percent.
Of these three things, the most important is full-time work. To understand the importance of work alone in
reducing poverty, perform the following thought-experiment. First take every family where there is at least
one adult who is not too old or sick to work. Next assume that that adult is employed full-time at a wage
commensurate with his or her education and experience. Under this assumption, almost half of those who
are currently below the government's official poverty line would not be poor. The poverty rate would fall by
a full five percentage points. Contrast this scenario with another, in which we double the amount of welfare
benefits provided to America's poor. One might imagine that this would make them far better off. In fact, it
does not. It reduces the poverty rate by only one percentage point.
Poverty in America is overwhelmingly associated with the failure to work on a full-time basis. Many
immigrant families do well in the United States despite their lack of education because they tend to form
stable families and work harder than many similarly disadvantaged native-born Americans. Yet these
mobility-enhancing behaviors, and the attitudes that foster them, often disappear within a generation or
two, suggesting that it may be aspects of American culture rather than economic stresses alone that hinder
further progress. The more general conclusion is that attitudes and behavior matter. If you stay in school,
work hard, marry, and have a reasonable number of children, you may still struggle financially, but you will
certainly not be destitute.
SPRING 2016
65

THE POOR ARE POOR BECAUSE OF PERSONAL CHOICES, NOT EXTERNAL FACTORS-Sawhill '03
The wealthy and the poor exhibit different behavioral patterns. The rich have embraced traditional
patterns of behavior, such as getting married, gaining an education, and obtaining steady employment.
The poor, on the other hand, have largely abandoned these patterns of behavior that contribute to
upward mobility. These differences in behavior have accelerated the growing economic inequality
between the rich and the poor. The government should offer incentives such as tax credits that will
promote marriage and employment and thereby alleviate the problems faced by the underclass.
THE POOR MAKE CHOICES THAT CREATE THE CONDITIONS OF POVERTY-Sawhill '03
The reactions to this study were as interesting as the findings themselves. Some people, including Dash
and Suskind, embraced my research for providing the kind of big picture in which their own stories
could be embedded. A much more common reaction from scholars, however, was to suggest that
talking about the culture of the underclass was tantamount to "blaming the victim." Bad behavior and
poor choices, in this view, were an understandable adaptation to poverty and the lack of opportunity
in people's lives. Although my research on the underclass was given a polite reception, most of the
academic community has coalesced around the view that bad behaviors are a consequence, rather
than a cause, of poverty. The result was that scholars continued to define the underclass simply in
economic terms.
The reason for this reaction has more to do, I think, with ideology than with reality. Most academics,
myself included, feel considerable sympathy for those who are poor or disadvantaged. We understand
that none of us is perfect; and that while bad habits and poor discipline are widespread, they are more
consequential for those living on the margin, where any slip-up may tumble someone over the edge.
Moreover, children's starting points are very uneven. As a result liberals are wary of taking a
judgmental stance, and fear that by "blaming the victim" they will undercut the political will to provide
more resources to the poor. The problem with this mindset is that it requires avoiding or downplaying
some unpleasant facts....
IN A FREE SOCIETY, COMPLAINS ABOUT INEQUALITY ARE LITTLE MORE THAN WHINING-Reisman 15
In a free societywith its superabundance of opportunities, with no fixed deadline on the process of
developing ones skills to better exploit themall talk of inequality of opportunity must be judged as just so
much whining and excuse-making. In such a society, everyone, whatever his starting point in life, is able to
raise himself very far, if that is what he chooses to do. He can miss many, many opportunities, and still
there will be more. He can begin improving his ability to exploit them at any time, and start moving up from
that moment.
SPRING 2016
66

ENDING THE RICH-POOR GAME WITH EXTERNAL INTERVENTION WILL NOT CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR THAT
CREATED THE POVERTY IN THE FIRST PLACE--Sawhill '03
In a famous exchange between [Ernest] Hemingway and [F. Scott] Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald is reputed to have
said, "The rich are different from the rest of us," to which Hemingway replied, "Yes, I know, they have more
money." Liberals have long contended that Hemingway had it right. There is nothing wrong with the poor
that a little more money wouldn't cure. This view is, I believe, profoundly misguided. Money can alleviate
the harsh conditions of poverty, but unless it is used to leverage changes in behavior, it will have little
lasting effect.
Not only does behavior matter, it matters more than it used to. Growing gaps between rich and poor in
recent decades have been exacerbated by a divergence in the behavior of the two groups. No feasible
amount or income redistribution can make up for the fact that the rich are working and marrying as much
or more than ever while the poor are doing just the reverse. Unless the poor adopt more mainstream
behaviors, and public policies are designed to move them in this direction, economic divisions are likely to
grow.
SPRING 2016
67
THE PUBLIC DOES NOT SUPPORT EFFORTS TO REDISTRIBUTE

DESPITE PERCEPTIONS, PEOPLE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN TO FIX THE RICH-POOR GAPLinn '12
http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/10116228-more-see-class-conflict-between-richand-poor; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
Despite the perception that there is a growing conflict, the Pew report said they did not find clear support
for things like government measures to address income inequality.
In addition, peoples perceptions of how the rich get rich have not changed much in recent years.
ALTHOUGH THE PERCEPTION IS THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT HAP, THERE IS NO ILL WILL OR
GRIEVANCES AGAINST THE WEALTHY-Linn '12
http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/10116228-more-see-class-conflict-between-richand-poor; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
More than 4 in 10 respondents said they think people are wealthy because they were born into wealthy
families or know the right people. But a nearly equal percentage said they think they earned their money
through hard work, ambition or education.
While the survey results show a significant shift in public perceptions of class conflict in American life, they
do not necessarily signal an increase in grievances toward the wealthy, the report said.
More than 4 in 10 respondents said they think people are wealthy because they were born into wealthy
families or know the right people. But a nearly equal percentage said they think they earned their money
through hard work, ambition or education.
AMERICANS SUPPORT ALLOWING INEQUALITY TO REWARD TALENT AND HARD WORK-McCall '06
[Leslie; Visiting Associate Professor of Sociology at Northwestern University; The Rising Risks of Rising
Economic Inequality: Do Americans Care?; The Privatization of Risk; 7 June 2006;
http://privatizationofrisk.ssrc.org/McCall/; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
Before we consider Americans views of growing inequality, and all that it encompasses, we first have to
understand their orientation toward inequality more generally. Here the distinction between inequality in
principle and inequality in practice is a critical one. While Americans espouse principles of equality in the
political realm (e.g., one man, one vote), they are less supportive of principles of complete equality in the
economic realm. Indeed, economic inequality is viewed as fair because it rewards effort and talent, and it is
viewed as necessary because it provides incentives for achievement and innovation, delivering greater
prosperity to the entire society. As long as individual effort and talent are the only determinants of success,
inequality in where people end up is considered just.
SPRING 2016
68

MOST OPTIONS FOR INCOME REDISTRIBUTION OR EVEN EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY ARE NOT POPULAR
DUE TO COST-The Economist '10
[Upper bound: The American dream is simple: work hard and move up. As the country emerges from
recession, the reality looks ever more complicated; The Economist; 15 April 2010;
What can government do to help? Few politicians dare favour too much income redistribution. During his
campaign Mr Obama told an Ohio voter that he wanted to spread the wealth; outrage duly followed.
Conservatives now argue, however, that Mr Obama has carried this creed into office. The health bill
expands care for the poor by taxing the rich, and George Bushs tax cuts for the rich are due to expire at the
end of the year, while Mr Obama has extended those for people of lesser means.
Policies that help equalise opportunity are more popular, and it is here that Mr Obama may have the
greater impact. In February his middle-class task-force touted measures such as expanded child care and,
less encouragingly, support for unionisation. Most promising is his plan to overhaul education. This includes
raising standards and expanding the role of charter schools and merit pay for teachers. Last month Mr
Obama succeeded in passing reforms for college loans, part of a bid to raise stagnant graduation rates.
Paying for such investments will be difficult, however. Democrats wanted the student-loan bill to include
provisions for early education and community colleges. In the end, spending for community colleges was
lowered from $10 billion to $2 billion. The allocation for early education was scrapped entirely.
SPRING 2016
69
EFFORTS TO REDISTRIBUTE WILL DIMINISH SUCCESS

THE ONLY WAY THE GOVERNMENT CAN CREATE EQUALITY IS TO TEAR DOWN THE SUCCESSFUL-Reisman
15
Another possible answer is that, failing the governments ability to create equality of opportunity by raising
up the less fortunate, it should tear down the more fortunate. If it cannot make the stupid intelligent, the
weak strong, and the ugly beautiful, it can find a way to hamper or destroy intelligence, strength, and
beauty, and so achieve equality of opportunity by making everyone stupid, weak, and ugly. It may be
difficult to find anyone who would openly advocate such a policy, but it does follow logically from the goal
of equality of opportunity.
THE IDEA OF EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY MISUNDERSTANDS HUMAN NATURE AND THE CAUSES OF
SUCCESS-Reisman 15
These absurd and vicious implications of the equality of opportunity doctrine should make one begin to
wonder what kind of ideal equality of opportunity really is. In reality, it is not a legitimate ideal at all. It
appears to represent justice only on the basis of a thoroughly confused view of the nature of opportunities
and the causes of human success.
INCREASED POVERTY AND ECONOMIC STAGNATION RESULTS FROM GOVERNMENT REGULATION, NOT
INEQUALITY-Reisman 11
[George; economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine; How The 1 Percent Provides the
Standard of Living of the 99 Percent; 2011; Kindle Edition]
The economic stagnation and decline, the problems of mass unemployment and growing poverty
experienced in the United States in recent years, are the result of violations of individual freedom and its
accompanying pursuit of material self-interest. The government has enmeshed the economic system in a
growing web of paralyzing rules and regulations that prohibit the production of goods and services that
people want, while compelling the production of goods and services they dont want, and making the
production of virtually everything more and more expensive than it needs to be. For example, prohibitions
on the production of atomic power, oil, coal, and natural gas, make the cost of energy higher, and, in the
face of less energy available for use in production, require the performance of more human labor to
produce any given quantity of goods. This results in fewer goods being available to remunerate the
performance of any given quantity of labor.
SPRING 2016
70
REDISTRIBUTION UNDERMINES OPPORTUNITY

THERE ARE LIMITLESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CREATION OF WEALTH AND SUCCESS. IT IS
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION THAT BLOCKS IT-Reisman 15
Indeed, on the basis of what has been established earlier in this book, in Chapter 2, it follows that in the
nature of things there are potentially limitless opportunities both for increasing employment and for raising
the productivity of labor, for there are virtually limitless possibilities for improvement in the satisfaction of
mans wants. Indeed, the potential opportunities for employment always dwarf mans ability actually to
work, which is a major reason why he must be concerned with raising the productivity of his labor.[1]
People may wonder, of course, how it can be true that there are virtually limitless employment
opportunities and yet, at the same time, the world in which we live is characterized by chronic mass
unemployment and the experience of millions is that they have no opportunity for work. There is a simple
reconciliation of these facts. Namely, misguided laws and social institutions deny man the freedom of
exploiting the opportunities for employment that the nature of reality offers him, and so force
unemployment upon him. The problem of unemployment is the result of the violation of the freedom of
opportunityi.e., the violation of mans freedom to exploit the opportunities that reality offers him. The
freedom of opportunity means, to be precise, the ability to exploit the opportunities afforded by reality,
without being stopped by the initiation of physical force.
THERE ARE NO HAVE-NOTS IN THE AMERICA BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUT OF
POVERTY- Azerrad and Hederman 12
Unlike the feudal societies in which the poor could never earn more than mere subsistence wages and the
rich could never lose their estates, Americas commitment to property rights decoupled property rights
from birth.[9] There are no real have nots in America, since all have the right to acquire property.
America is The Best Poor Mans Country since it provides even the poorest with a way out of poverty.[10]
SPRING 2016
71

THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT INCOME INEQUALITY IS A PROBLEM MISUNDERSTAND THAT OPPORTUNITY IS
AT THE CENTER OF THE AMERICAN DREAM-Azerrad and Hederman 12
Today, on the Left and on the Right, everyone talks about rebuilding, saving, restoring, defending, or
rescuing an American Dream that is slipping, fading, eroding, or vanishing.
The loudest voices, all coming from the Left, fulminate against the top 1 percent of earners and blame an
unfair system that allows the rich to line their pockets, leaves the poor in the lurch, and generates
spectacular income disparities. To protect the American Dream, these critics call for greater government
involvement to make things more equal and ensure that everyone gets their fair share.
This gets both the problem and its solution all wrong. Free-market economics is not about dividing up a
dwindling pie, but expanding the pie to serve everyone. Those who succeed do not do so at the expense of
others.
Those who focus on income inequality have embraced a very different American Dream from the one that
is familiar to most Americans. They still use the traditional language of opportunity, but their new dream
has very little in common with the real American Dream.
SPRING 2016
72
REDISTRIBUTION IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC
THE IDEA OF LEVELING OPPORTUNITY IMPLIES THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY, THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF EUGENICS, AND ELIMINATION OF DIFFERENCES-Reisman 15
The notion of equality of opportunity, however innocent it may sound at first, is actually vicious and
absurd. In its logically consistent form, it implies the destruction of the institution of the family, the
implementation of a governmental program of eugenics, and the elimination or destruction of every
personal attribute that represents an advantage of one person over others. In a positive vein, what has
been shown is that what is actually important in connection with opportunities is the establishment of a
free society and its corollary the freedom of opportunity. In such a society, the individual is free to exploit
the virtually limitless opportunities offered by the combination of his nature and the nature of the world.
He must pick and choose among them. And he progressively creates better and better opportunities for
himself by successfully exploiting the best of the opportunities available to him at any given time.
EFFORTS TO REDUCE INEQUALITY WILL JUST DAMAGE DEMOCRACY BY GIVING MORE POWER TO
LAWYERS, LOBBYISTS, AND CONNECTIONS-Cochrane 14
[John; professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business; What the Inequality
Warriors Really Want; Wall Street Journal; 20 Nov 2014; reprinted at
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-inequality-warriors-really-want; retrieved 31 Dec
2015]
When you get past this kind of balderdash, most inequality warriors get down to the real problem they see:
money and politics. They think money is corrupting politics, and they want to take away the money to
purify the politics. As Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez wrote for his 2013 Arrow lecture at Stanford
University: top income shares matter because the surge in top incomes gives top earners more ability to
influence [the] political process.
A critique of rent-seeking and political cronyism is well taken, and echoes from the left to libertarians. But if
abuse of government power is the problem, increasing government power is a most unlikely solution.
If we increase the top federal income-tax rate to 90%, will that not just dramatically increase the demand
for lawyers, lobbyists, loopholes, connections, favors and special deals? Inequality warriors think not. Mr.
Stiglitz, for example, writes that wealth is a main determinant of power. If the state grabs the wealth,
even if fairly earned, then the state can benevolently exercise its power on behalf of the common person.
No. Cronyism results when power determines wealth. Government power inevitably invites the trade of
regulatory favors for political support. We limit rent-seeking by limiting the governments ability to hand
out goodies.
SPRING 2016
73

THE PUBLIC SHOULD REJECT EFFORTS TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH, WHICH WILL UNDERMINE
OPPORTUNITY AND FREEDOM- Garrett 08
[Thomas; PhD, Economics, US Income Inequality: Its Not So Bad; October 2008;
https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/October-2008/US-Income-Inequality-Its-NotSo-Bad; retrieved 27 Dec 2015]
The unconstrained opportunity for individuals to create value for society, which is reflected by their
income, encourages innovation and entrepreneurship. Economic research has documented a positive
correlation between entrepreneurship/innovation and overall economic growth.9 A wary eye should be
cast on policies that aim to shrink the income distribution by redistributing income from the more
productive to the less productive simply for the sake of fairness. 10 Redistribution of wealth would
increase the costs of entrepreneurship and innovation, with the result being lower overall economic growth
for everyone.
ONLY A TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT COULD ENSURE INCOME INEQUALITY- Azerrad and Hederman 12
Embedded within the liberal rhetoric on income inequality is the unstated premise that fairness demands
something approaching income equality. The exact opposite is in fact the case. Only a ruthlessly efficient
totalitarian government could ensure that all incomes were equal. Income equality, or a state approaching
it, could be achieved only through draconian redistribution, thereby denying many the just fruits of their
labors and unjustly giving others unearned rewards. It is one thing to shoulder a higher tax burden to
support those in need and quite another to do so in order for self-anointed experts to redistribute income
in accordance with their hazy and unjust notions of social justice.
THE DEMISE OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE PROPERTY IS THE DEFINING TRAITS OF NAZISM AND COMMUNISMWaxman '06
In 1964, one of the most influential left-wing legal scholars in the country published an article attacking the
efforts of Hale's generation of reformers to justify "the triumph of society over private property" and
arguing that their "idealistic concept of the public interest [had] summoned up a doctrine monstrous and
oppressive." n83 Charles Reich, in The New Property, argued that the laissez-faire thinkers were
fundamentally correct to define private property as "the very foundation of individuality." n84 Indeed, he
echoed Knight and von Mises in arguing that the denial of the "absolute character of property" was one of
the defining traits of feudalism, Nazism, and Soviet communism.
SPRING 2016
74

TAKING AWAY ECONOMIC FREEDOMS IS AKIN TO TOTALITARIANISM--Waxman '06
Frank L. Knight, former president of the American Economics Association, was even more explicit in linking
Hale's arguments to the threat of communist totalitarianism. While he recognized the "need for some
provision - beyond voluntary charity - for having the strong, or fortunate, share the burdens of the weak, or
relatively unlucky," he argued that the free market "has been shown to represent the utmost in free
association" and that the state should only "exceptionally ... interfere with market freedom by coercive
regulation." n70 In Hale's "general dislike for freedom in business enterprise," and tendency to make
freedom "interchangeable with equality," Knight found a dangerous "pretense ... that any great or rapid
change in society can be artificially brought about without at the outset destroying freedom and gambling
on some dictatorship." n71 Libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises went even further, directly asserting
that Hale's critique of property rights would lead to "totalitarianism of the type of the Hitler
Zwangswirtschaft."
IF THE GOVERNMENT IS IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING, THAT NECESSITATES A DICTATOR-LIKE EXECUTIVEMilsted '06
[Carl; Senior Editor; Freedom and Equality: They Go Together; The Free Liberal; 27 September 2006;
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/002329.html; retrieved 26 Dec 2015]
Equality requires freedom. It is good to be the dictator. It is better to be the dictator for the proletariat.
Where Marxists succeeded in centralizing all power and ownership to the state, the result was party leaders
with enough power to make a god-emperor envious.
This was not the intent. But it was the inevitable result. Centralize all ownership and the leader gets
incredible power. Attempts to mix centralized power with democracy break down because democracy is
inefficient. When government has limited responsibilities, this inefficiency can be tolerated. When
government is in charge of everything, a strong executive is necessary.
SPRING 2016
75
REDISTRIBUTION UNDERMINES RIGHTS

PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY JUST AND ESSENTIAL TO LIBERTY- Azerrad and Hederman 12
To the tired complaint, originating in Marx, that in a capitalist economy only the wealthy own the means of
production, the Founders would respond that each person in fact owns the most important means of
production: himself and his labor, whether physical or mental. As Abraham Lincolns own retelling of the
American Dream makes clear:
A young man finds himself of an age to be dismissed from parental control; he has for his capital
nothing, save two strong hands that God has given him, a heart willing to labor, and a freedom to
choose the mode of his work and the manner of his employer; he has got no soil nor shop, and he
avails himself of the opportunity of hiring himself to some man who has capital to pay him a fair
days wages for a fair days work. He is benefited by availing himself of that privilege. He works
industriously, he behaves soberly, and the result of a year or twos labor is a surplus of capital. Now
he buys land on his own hook; he settles, marries, begets sons and daughters, and in course of time
he too has enough capital to hire some new beginner.[12]
Property rights are therefore fundamentally just, and they are inseparable from liberty. Where property
rights are not protected, liberty is always in jeopardy.
FREE MARKETS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR ECONOMIC FREEDOM- Azerrad
and Hederman 12
The right to property also entails the liberty to dispose of ones belongings as one sees fit. Free markets are
therefore an absolutely necessary component of economic freedom. The essential feature of free markets
is that they are open to all and are governed by rules that do not discriminate. All markets need rulespure
laissez-faire economics is a myth. The rules, however, cannot be excessive and provide preferential
treatment to some. They must also be transparent so that all who engage in economic transactions
understand the rules of the game.
Straightforward as this may sound, however, it is worth remembering that free markets have been and
sadly remain the exception across the world. The norm remains a plenipotentiary state that claims
jurisdiction over every aspect of life. From this state flows a torrent of laws and regulations that impose
heavy compliance costs (that are, of course, passed on to consumers) and often create barriers to the
market by artificially protecting the entrenched players and denying entry to newcomers.
SPRING 2016
76

TOO MUCH FOCUS ON EQUALITY WILL UNDERMINE OUR FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE LIVES WE WANTAzerrad and Hederman 12
To aspire to achieve something approaching income equality would be to force all into the same mold and
elevate monetary matters above all other considerations. An excessive focus on equality of income would
unfairly constrain the full range of options that America offers its citizens. Income equality forces everyone
into the same mold.
The fact that people weigh other nonmonetary considerations in choosing a career should also remind us
that there is more to human flourishing and the pursuit of happiness than dollars and cents. Economic wellbeing is a crucial component of most peoples conception of the good life, but it is not exhaustive. To focus
obsessively on income levels is to look at life through a rather narrow prism. As Irving Kristol once
remarked, Poverty does not always dehumanize, and relative affluence can have its costs in human
termscosts that are actually, if often dimly, felt.
SPRING 2016
77

2016 Spring Income and Democracy Uil

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Spring Income and Democracy Uil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

US INEQUALITY IS ESPECIALLY BAD

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INEQUALITY UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INEQUALITY DESTROYS THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INEQUALITY DISTORTS THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL PROCESS

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INEQUALITY UNDERMINES EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INEQUALITY THREATENS ELITE DOMINANCE OF DEMOCRACY

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INEQUALITY CREATES CLASS DIVIDE THAT THREATENS DEMOCRACY

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INEQUALITY UNDERMINES THE MIDDLE CLASS

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INEQUALITY DECREASES PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INEQUALITY DESTROYS THE RULE OF LAW

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016

INCOME AND DEMOCRACY

Texas UIL LD Handbook,Spring 2016