The 400 wealthiest families in the U.S. aren't just filthy rich, they are downright dirty. Collectively, these households own $1.37 trillion dollars; a number so high that it's nearly impossible to comprehend. Here are 11 shocking things $1.37 trillion can buy that you can't.

In the U.S., accumulating this kind of wealth is the "American Dream." Getting rich is the result of hard work; padding your bank account is applauded and encouraged. But at what cost? Have we created economic policies that cater to the wealthy, in hopes that we will someday be among them?

Perhaps in today's economy, we have allowed the wealthy to get too far ahead financially.

Case in point: today, the wealthiest families in the U.S. are sickeningly, obscenely rich, to the tune of $1.37 trillion dollars. And unlike the rest of us, they don’t have outstanding medical bills or student loans, trouble paying credit card debt, or live paycheck to paycheck.

So how much is $1.37 trillion dollars? To demonstrate just how much money this is, here are 11 things that the richest 400 households in the U.S. can buy with their "hard-earned" cash:

• The richest 400 households can pay off every student loan for every single student in the entire United States. No more paying for an education, so that you can get a good job so that you can... well, pay off your education.

• The richest 400 could pay your rent, and the rent of every single renter in the entire United States for three years.

• The richest 400 could pay the mortgages of every house in the whole country for 14 full months. 

• The richest 400 households can buy every single house that was foreclosed on in 2007 and 2008.

• The richest 400 households could pay the annual salaries of 19 million families for one year. So go ahead, take that year-long, family vacation around the world you’ve always dreamed of.

• The richest 400 can pay off all credit card debt for every single person in the entire United States. Imagine that! No more credit card debt looming over your shoulders!

• The richest 400 households can afford to give a $10,000 bonus to every single worker in the entire country. What would a hardworking person like you do with that extra money?

• The richest 400 can afford to buy a new car for every family in the United States. Meanwhile, many of us must ignore the flashing check engine light.

• The richest 400 can pay for 3 ½ years worth of gas for every driver in the country.

• The richest 400 households can afford to triple the number of teachers in the United States, then give every single one a $30,000 raise. Teachers are being laid off everywhere, their salaries are being cut, and they are suffering. Teacher-to-student ratios in schools are abysmal. But what can we do about it when so much wealth is in the pockets of so few families?

• The richest 400 families alone could replace 70% of all money lost in the Great Recession, for everyone! How much money did you, your parents, or grandparents lose in the Great Recession of 2008? 30%, 50% of your portfolio? Not only do the rich still have enough money to fund their wildest dreams, but they can also fund your retirements.

As you can see, the wealthiest families in the U.S. are doing just fine. And with this money has come a great deal of political influence, often in the form of tax breaks and tax loopholes. Their influence on policy has made it easy for the rich to stay rich [and get richer].

And until this winner-take-all economy changes, it will remain nearly impossible for us regular folks to get ahead, no matter how hard we work.

Ten years ago, the great con known as the Bush tax cuts was signed into law.

We were told that the budget surplus left by the Clinton administration would be better off in the hands of the taxpayers. Those tax breaks were to stimulate the economy, create jobs and lead us all to the American Dream.

Of course, the story of the past decade has been much different:

The lion's share of the tax breaks were stuffed into the pockets of a small percentage of taxpayers. The top 10 percent of earners received 55 percent of the tax benefits; the top 1 percent alone grabbed 38 percent. And, at the tip top of the income scale, the top .01 percent of households snatched an average cut of $520,000, or 450 times the average break for a middle-income family.

The current unemployment rate of 9.1 percent is more than double the rate in the same month a decade ago. In more human terms, 13.7 million people are currently looking for work but can't find a job. And those figures are upwards of 76 percent higher if we include the under-employed and folks discouraged by a still-thin job market.

As for the American dream of white picket fences and a home to call your own, overall home foreclosures were two-and-a-half times above the 2001 rate by the end of 2010. Today, roughly 3.7 million homes are in danger of foreclosure.

Chart h/t U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Historical Data

Policy-makers should be addressing the dire unemployment and foreclosure epidemics that plague our economy instead of focusing on the long run deficit. But it is worth mentioning that, for all the hubbub about the size of government and federal spending, the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion between 2001 and 2008. And they remain the policy change responsible for the biggest share of our projected deficits for the next ten years.

It couldn't be more obvious; if you care about the deficit, end the Bush tax cuts. If you care about the economy, end the Bush tax cuts. If you care about suffering families who can't find a job getting forced out of their homes, end the Bush tax cuts. It's past time to begin getting our economy back on track. Ending a policy that lines the pockets of millionaires is the right place to start.

The results are in. The Bush tax cuts are a massive failure. Ten years is ten years too long. End the Bush tax cuts now.

Do you think it’s time to raise taxes on millionaires and corporate tax dodgers?

States are facing their largest decline in revenue on record. The response from elected officials has been downright harmful, shortsighted, and economically unsound. Cutting to get out of a deficit is like digging to get out of a ditch. It puts everything we value at risk. And as we state in our new report—Flip It to Fix It: it doesn’t have to be this way.

By design, our state tax structures are designed to fail. Why? Because every state in the U.S. has a regressive tax structure, meaning it takes a greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from the wealthy. In tough economic times, trying to raise adequate revenue through a regressive tax structure is like trying to squeeze water from a stone.

A new study, released today by the Tax Fairness Organizing Collaborative at United for a Fair Economy, asks the question: What if there was a solution to state deficits that would raise significant revenue, encourage investment, and create jobs—without cutting vital public services? And what if the revenue required by such a solution could be generated solely by making tax systems as fair as most Americans think they ought to be?

As this study demonstrates, this can be achieved by inverting each state’s tax structure. In other words, taking each state’s current distribution of state and local taxes and flipping it, with a pivot point at dead center (the 50th percentile). In this inverted state and local tax model, the wealthiest 20 percent pay the share of state and local taxes currently imposed on the least wealthy 20 percent, and vice-versa, with the fourth quintile also trading places with the second.

Every single state would benefit tremendously by inverting their existing tax structure.  All combined, states would generate an additional $490 billion in revenue—immediately eliminating their deficits with cash to spare for investing in job creation and other stimulants to the economy. The flipped structure would be progressive, which is not only more economically sound, but also consistent with the majority of Americans’ perception of “fair.”

Read the full report in our resources section.

If you’re looking for a great book to deepen your thinking about the causes and consequences of inequality, here are three of my favorite reads of the last few months.

Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, by Paul Pierson & Jacob Hacker

Many progressives point to the election of Ronald Reagan as the great turning point in our economy, ushering in a new age of inequality, but that misses a much bigger story. In this eye-opening and insightful book, Pierson and Hacker document the dramatic shifts in the political landscape that took place in the decade prior to Reagan’s election. As unions were in decline, corporate America was organizing like never before, hiring armies of lobbyists and filling the coffers of political campaigns. By the late 70s, they were able to stop President Carter’s agenda dead it its tracks, effectively crippling his presidency. Pierson and Hacker’s book goes further by documenting the continuation of this trend through the 80s, 90s, and today. Taken in context, the recent Citizens United ruling and the assault on public sector unions in Wisconsin and elsewhere are the continuation of a long-term pattern that must be turned around. The core take-away from this book is that organizations matter… a lot.  If we are to turn the tide back in our favor, we must organize a real movement from the ground up, because being right just isn’t enough.

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, by Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett

The negative social consequences of inequality is fairly intuitive, but Wilkinson and Pickett take it to an entirely new level with hard data and great analysis. The book examines the way in which inequality, and the increased social stratification that goes with that, reaches deep down into the human biology, triggering primal fight-or-flight instincts, reducing trust levels, and increasing stress. Using statistical data comparing developed nations around the world and states within the US, they document clear correlations between a wide array of social indicators – including physical and mental health, obesity, crime, bankruptcy, and more – with higher levels of inequality. One clear message from The Spirit Level is that inequality is bad for everyone, including those at the top of the economic ladder.

Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, by Robert Reich

Reich takes on inequality from a different perspective. Instead of arguing the morality or social implications of inequality, he focuses on the economic basics. Without a strong middle class, the economy stalls. Over the past few decades, middle class Americans have used various coping mechanisms to stay ahead despite stagnant wages for the bottom 90%, including shifting to two-income households and taking on debt, but these families have since hit a wall. He proposes numerous policy solutions to reverse the growing inequalities and revive the middle class, including a “reverse income tax” that actually pays out to anyone earning under $50,000, coupled with graduated rates for higher-income households topping out at 55%; taxing capital gains and dividends the same as wage income; and expanding public investments in mass transit, Medicare for all, and more. If you’re looking for a good book that explores the economic trends and growing divide of the last few decades, this may be the book you’re looking for.

Happy reading!

The daunting budget deficits facing states across the U.S. are no joke, particularly when the well-being of our communities is on the line. But members of the Tax Fairness Organizing Collaborative are responding with innovative advocacy, using creativity in the face of potentially devastating slash-and-burn proposals.

Here’s how two states—North Carolina and Rhode Island—have taken matters into their own hands, employing creative approaches to their advocacy that engages people in an otherwise contentious process:

North Carolina Goes ‘Back in Time’
In North Carolina, legislators are responding to the state’s revenue shortages with a proposed slash-and-burn budget approach. If passed, the state would lose tens of thousands of state jobs, including teachers, firefighters, and mental health workers.

In response, Together NC organized an innovative street theatre demonstration during the House vote on the budget, complete with a horse and buggy, period costumes, and street theater. Their message? A cuts-only approach will set the state back decades.

You know what they say: when the going gets tough, bring in the horse and buggy.

Together NC organized the protest this week during the House vote on the state budget. Here are the demonstration details from the group’s media release:

A group calling themselves the Back In Tyme Budget Players arrived wearing antiquated dress and traveling in a horse and buggy. While speaking from the steps of the General Assembly, they sent the message that the House budget will push North Carolina backward.
 
"The props and costumes are fun, but they're meant to convey a very serious message," said Rob Thompson, a coordinator of the Together NC coalition. "If we pass this cuts-only budget, it will set North Carolina back decades in terms of education, public safety and economic prosperity."

The group’s creative action was bold, attention grabbing, and provided a clear visualization of the group’s key advocacy message: North Carolina should take a more modernized approach to balancing the state’s budget.

Rhode Island Calls for Rebalancing
Creating a state budget can be contentious, messy, and downright confusing for those not actively involved in the process. Perhaps this is why Ocean State Action’s smart reframing of the state budget debate captured so much attention.

The group re-stated the state’s complicated budget challenges with a simple question: Would you rather raise taxes on the wealthiest Rhode Islanders or cut critical public services?

Here’s a summary of the group efforts from WBRU:

Ocean State Action wants lawmakers to raise taxes on the wealthiest Rhode Islanders to avoid more cuts to public services. The group pitched the proposal yesterday as an alternative to Gov. Chafee’s sales tax expansion. Executive Director Kate Brock says the state could raise $88 million next year with a 2 percent surtax on incomes over $500,000, and that the revenue could prevent funding cuts to schools, roadwork and public safety.

The group’s smart and simple reframing of the budget debate, combined with a series of rallies and actions in the state capitol, garnered a great deal of media attention in Rhode Island and throughout New England.

With 44 states and the District of Columbia projecting budget shortfalls for fiscal year 2012, the challenges facing state legislators in every corner of the U.S. are daunting. But as these budget battles wage on, it's refreshing to see activists responding with smart and creative advocacy that feels accessible, understandable, and engaging to folks who have the most at stake. 

As North Carolina and Rhode Island demonstrate, it’s possible to acknowledge the seriousness of an issue in a way that attracts the public’s attention. Simplicity, common sense, and creativity are never out of order.

Photo credits: NC Justice Center's Photostream and GoLocal Prov

The problem with President Obama's commitment to "comprehensive immigration reform" is that, like George W. Bush's, his measures thus far also antagonize immigrants – documented or not. But why antagonize working immigrants during this severe an economic crisis? Even undocumented workers are significant contributors to the U.S. economy, having paid over $11 billion in taxes last year.

The Immigration Policy Center, in partnership with our friends at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, released data that urges a more cooperative approach – versus a punitive one – to dealing with immigration policy.

[H]ouseholds [headed by undocumented immigrants] paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes. That included $1.2 billion in personal income taxes, $1.6 billion in property taxes, and $8.4 billion in sales taxes. […]

These figures should be kept in mind as politicians and commentators continue with the...debate over what to do with unauthorized immigrants already living in the United States.  In spite of the fact that they lack legal status, these immigrants—and their family members—are adding value to the U.S. economy; not only as taxpayers, but as workers, consumers, and entrepreneurs as well.

Undocumented workers are certainly contributing more to the public coffers than many U.S. corporations, including General Electric, which actually claimed billions in tax benefits last year. All without a single 'thank you' to U.S. taxpayers, including the undocumented.

These revelations prompt larger questions about how we relate to one another in this country. Periods of economic strife inevitably lead to the scapegoating of one group or another, be they immigrants, people of color, teachers or union workers.

It's important to recognize that our "immigration" problem is about much more than immigrants. It's about labor. It's about globalization and foreign policy. It's about race, culture and more. It's a complex tangle of issues that will require careful and holistic consideration. Progress will not be made with finger-pointing policies.

One thing's for sure: this country needs revenue. It makes sense that we avoid making things worse by attacking a population that's clearly supporting that need.

Stay tuned: President Obama will address the nation from the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, TX, laying out his framework for comprehensive immigration reform on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. (EST).

In Friday's Wall Street Journal (p. A15 of the print edition), columnist Stephen Moore does his best to marginalize and discredit the growing chorus of high-wealth individuals, including members of UFE's Responsible Wealth project, who support raising taxes on wealthy people like themselves. But his best is little more than a collection of weak arguments and name-calling.

I wish I had a dollar for every time a wealthy liberal has declared he thinks he should pay more taxes. That list includes Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bill Gates Sr., Mark Zuckerberg and even Barack Obama, who now says that not only should rich people like him pay more taxes, they want to pay more. "I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me," he said of his tax-hike plan. "They want to give back to the country that's done so much for them."

The idea that the nation's primary wealth and job creators—i.e., the people who carry the bulk of the tax load—aren't doing enough for the country is a bit insulting. But the president is right that there is a seemingly endless number of terribly wealthy, guilt-ridden individuals who want Americans to pay more taxes.

Okay, let's get this much straight. It's not about "guilt." It's about "responsibility" and a deeper understanding of what makes wealth possible. Responsible Wealth members understand that their wealth is not in spite of, but because of our tax system and the investments its makes possible. Abigail Disney made this argument in a USA Today column last summer. Without a taxpayer funded interstate highway system, there would be no Disneyland. Without our courts, no copyright protection for Mickey Mouse. Without our publicly funded education system, no creative artists filling Disney Studios.

The simple fact is, the public investments made possible through our tax dollars are not the enemy of prosperity, but the foundation upon which economic prosperity is built. Bill Gates noted the taxpayer funded investments that led to the creation of the internet, without which, Microsoft would be a very different corporation today. Jerry Fiddler, whose Wind River Systems company made the embedded software for NASA's Mars Rovers, readily acknowledges the role taxpayer-funded investments played in his business success. Judy Pigott, whose family wealth comes from the manufacture of Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks, would be telling a very different story without the federally-funded interstate highway system. The list goes on.

Despite the assertions of Moore and others who hold his anti-government views, taxes raised to fund investments in the common good are not taken out of the economy, but rather moved from one part of the economy to anther to better meet our nation's priorities. Government expenditures, whether it is building a school, investing in high-speed rail, or aiding workers displaced by plant relocations, are just as much a part of the economy – stimulating economic growth and jobs – as a wealthy person deciding to buy a fourth home.

Government, as aptly described by President Abraham Lincoln, is simply a vehicle for doing things together that we cannot as easily do as individuals – whether that is pushing at the outer bounds of our shared knowledge through public research and exploration, leading our nation into a sustainable future through green energy and transportation investments, or sowing the seeds of prosperity for the next generation through a publicly-funded education system available to all, not just those who can afford it.

A clearer view of the symbiotic relationship between public investments and economic prosperity helps us understand how public investments yield so much more economic bang-for-the-buck than tax cuts. In a report from Moody's, Mark Zandi notes that each dollar the federal government gives away by making the Bush income tax cuts permanent yields about 29 cents in economic stimulus. By comparison, each dollar the federal government spends on infrastructure investments yields $1.59 in economic stimulus. Even more, each dollar of unemployment benefits yield $1.64 in economic stimulus, but that's another story (about the importance of a strong middle class to keep our economy going).

Moore spends most of his column though trying to make the weak argument that if these wealthy individuals want to pay more, they're nothing stopping them from writing a check to the IRS. Well, we've heard that one before... Just last month in fact from Sen. Orin Hatch. The short answer is that taxes are not charity. As former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once stated so eloquently, "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." For the long answer, check out the post we wrote in response to Sen. Hatch's comment. 

Beer socials are a great way to build community with your neighbors. But who knew they could be such an effective forum for economic justice movement building?

This month, I was invited to present UFE's flagship workshop, "The Growing Divide," at a meeting of Drinking Liberally's chapter in Windsor, CT.

Drinking Liberally is a national project that brings together folks with progressive ideals through social events. Their slogan: "Promoting democracy one pint at a time." Local watering holes, they say, are ideal for these meetings because, "Bars are democratic spaces - you talk to strangers, you share booths, you feel the bond of common ground."

Twenty-three locals filed into Windsor's Union Street Tavern to learn and share thoughts about the inequalities of income, wealth and, in turn, political power we're dealing with as a nation.

Then, to focus the discussion closer to home, Amy Thompson from TFOC member group, Better Choices for Connecticut, pulled up a barstool to share details of their state-level tax justice initiatives, and how those present could get involved.

Through this event, bar-goers were offered the opportunity to build solidarity with other members of their community, and were provided with concrete ways to support the economic justice movement.

Visit the Drinking Liberally website to learn how to join or start a chapter in your community. And, as always, please drink responsibly.

Yesterday, we learned of a vicious attack on the labor studies program at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) and two of the program's educators, Judy Ancel (UMKC) and Don Giljum (UM-St. Louis). Andrew Breibart, the same rabble-rousing fraud who engineered the attacks on Shirley Sherrod and ACORN, using chopped up video footage to deceive the public, is once again behind the lies.

This time, Breitbart is using doctored footage from labor history classes at UMKC to give the impression that the instructors were advocating violence on the part of union members.

Details of the attack are available in a response by Judy Ancel, director of UMKC's labor program.

Fox News and their local affiliates are already amplifying this attack and leveraging it to continue the assault on teachers, unions, and the public sector, in general. Giljum, who is also a manager with the Operating Engineers union, Local 148 in St. Louis, has been asked by his union and by the UMKC to resign his positions.

AFL-CIO strategist Nick Unger commented on this ugly display:

Public education (including post-secondary) and the post-Depression/World War II public sector and trade unions are structural elements of modern democracy. Twenty-first century democracy is built on more than the right to vote. Eliminating these structures—unions, public education and the public sector (and mass transit and more)—removes the underpinnings of democracy, the obstacles to total corporate domination.

Nick’s observation provides a very important frame for a narrative that bears repeating by all progressives, including unions, environmentalists, LGBT advocacy groups, the peace movement, racial justice workers, immigrant rights activists, etc. It's that this is an issue of democracy.

Since our inception, UFE has put forward an analysis to help explain the growing divide between the top one percent and the rest of us. Over the last 30 years, a destructive pattern of rules changes (e.g., tax cuts for the wealthy) and a shift in power (e.g., the declining membership of organized labor) have driven economic inequality to heights not seen in the U.S. since just before the stock market crash of 1929. And as UFE’s mission statement makes clear, this growing gap not only undermines the economy but “corrupts democracy.”

The people bankrolling Breibart, Wisconsin Governor Walker and other corporatist-GOP drones and Fox News, are enjoying ever-growing bank accounts and investment portfolios as a result of those rules changes. These are the likes of the Koch Brothers, the Waltons, Pete Peterson, and other billionaire puppet masters, pulling strings and coordinating attacks on the remaining power of workers (collective bargaining, academic freedom, the right to organize, etc.).

Fortunately, a growing number of people who believe in democracy, economic and social equity, sustainability, and fairness are mad as hell and will take it no more!

Please join us in support of legislation that would prevent over one billion dollars in budget cuts in Massachusetts.

WHAT:  Joint Revenue Committee Hearing
WHEN: Thursday, May 5, 2011, 10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
WHERE: Massachusetts State House, Gardner Auditorium

An Act to Invest in Our Communities is a legislative proposal that would increase taxes on only the most financially well-off households, raising $1.2 billion in additional revenue to plug a significant portion of our state's $2 billion budget shortfall.

We can’t cut our way out of this deficit. We need continued investments in our schools, our children and our communities to rebuild our economy. This will require new revenue – raised in the fairest way possible – that will help maintain essential public services relied on by all Massachusetts residents.

A broad and diverse statewide coalition is working together to pass An Act to Invest in Our Communities. Hundreds of supporters are expected to fill the Gardner Auditorium hearing room on May 5, and we hope you'll be there with us.

Two very different federal budgets were considered this month by the U.S. House of Representatives: Rep. Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity," which was approved by the House, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus' (CPC) "People's Budget."

While both have their ideological streaks, only the latter assumes a firm and rational position on deficit reduction – without economic gimmicks claiming that lower taxes will miraculously produce additional revenue. And most importantly, the CPC's budget takes aim at extreme economic inequality in the U.S and demands more truly shared sacrifice.

Of course, with a corporatist-conservative majority in the House, we couldn't have expected reason to prevail there. However, since the House and Senate still have to find middle ground on the budget, which will then have to be made official by the President, sensible budget ideas continue to stand a chance.

To help make sense of all the partisan rhetoric, our friends at the National Priorities Project (NPP) defined the 2012 budget debate in clear terms, comparing the savings and expenditures of these proposals at polar ends of the budget spectrum. They point to the three most impactful deficit reduction strategies and explain how each budget deals with them:

1. Reducing social safety net costs (e.g., Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security)
2. Reducing defense/security spending
3. Raising revenue with increased taxes

The CPC's budget would reduce the deficit nearly three times more than the House GOP budget between 2012 and 2021, and it would do so without saddling most of the burden on low- and middle-income families (which the House GOP budget does). 

* The CBO baseline assumes that Congress will make no changes to current law over the next decade and that Congress will allow for Bush era tax cuts to expire in 2013.

NPP also provides a generous overview of the components of each budget, as well as each plan's operating mode vis-á-vis the role of government, highlighting three key distinctions:

The fundamental differences between these two budgets revolve around the role of the government in the economy and the workings of the free market. The Ryan plan relies on free market forces to bring prosperity that will eventually “trickle down” to the lower and middle-classes by putting more money in the hands of businesses and wealthy individuals through tax cuts. The CPC proposal assumes there is a need for the government to make up for the failings of the free market system and to provide programs for the less fortunate.

A second distinction lies in the solution to the growing deficit problem. Chairman Ryan believes that the source of the problem is out of control spending and that slashing government programs alone will reduce the deficit. The CPC believes that raising revenues is as important as managing spending when dealing with the deficit because current taxation policies have reduced government income.

A third difference is the role of tax policy. The Ryan plan reduces corporate taxes and personal income taxes for the wealthy in an effort to spur economic growth, while the CPC approach uses taxes as a mechanism to reduce the growing income and wealth gap.

One additional item worth mentioning is that the CPC plan acknowledges the past successes of government investments—thanks to adequate revenue—in creating the circumstances for innovation, job creation and economic growth. Government intervention made possible one of the largest economic expansions in U.S. history after World War II.

On the other hand, the Ryan-GOP budget relies entirely on the impotent and discredited notion of trickle-down economics by calling for more of what we've experienced for the past decade, which has also contributed to historic levels of inequality: tax breaks for the rich and corporations. To this, Paul Krugman scratched his head:

When I listen to current discussions of the federal budget, the message I hear sounds like this: We’re in crisis! We must take drastic action immediately! And we must keep taxes low, if not actually cut them further!

You have to wonder: If things are that serious, shouldn’t we be raising taxes, not cutting them?

It doesn't take a Nobel laureate economist to see the value in such an approach. With the "People's Budget," the CPC has proposed just that – higher taxes, but on the wealthiest among us, who can certainly afford to contribute more to help keep our supposed civil society in working order.

While Congress may seem to work in strange, counterintuitive and angering ways, it's still our job as citizens to barrage them with a mega-dose of reality. The reality here is that we need a budget that serves the people, not just the rich and corporations.

Emily Kawano, UFE board member and director of the Center for Popular Economics, and UFE's Steve Schnapp joined Cynthia Lin of WORT-FM in Madison, WI, the epicenter of recent GOP attacks on public workers, to explain the power of popular economics education in building a movement for economic justice.

They also discuss the role of movement support organizations – like UFE – in supplementing, enhancing and amplifying the work of grassroots social and economic justice groups across the country.

Click here to download the interview (forward to 27:45 to hear from UFE's Steve Schnapp).

“I want to live in America.”

I was twelve years old, shelling peas with my mother in our kitchen in Limuru, Kenya, when I first uttered those words. My mother paused and said to me, “Well, then you better study hard and do well in school. The door will only open for those who knock.” 

My mother’s advice was a guiding force for the nine years to follow. I completed high school with excellent scores, and went on to receive my B.A. at the University of Nairobi. Then in 1994, while working as an organizer in my community, I received a scholarship from USAID, which allowed me to build on my local development efforts through a course in Washington, D.C.

Finally, I’d made it to the land of opportunity! America was in many ways true to my imagination: full of kind and generous people who were curious about life in other places, highly resourced institutions that worked efficiently, excellent public transportation, beautiful buildings and fast cars all around me.   

But, walking through some of the poorer neighborhoods of D.C., I encountered something I hadn’t imagined. I found that much of this country’s wonderful offerings did not reach all of its citizens. Some of the extremes of poverty I witnessed weren’t much different from those of the Nairobi slums.

It made me wonder: How could so much need exist in this land of plenty?

The poorest D.C. residents clearly had very limited access to productive and meaningful economic opportunities. For some, even the most basic needs went unmet.

I was often asked how it was possible that I, a young woman from Kenya, was able to attend graduate school while so many here are unable to attain even a high school diploma. Many of those baffled by my circumstances were African Americans, who didn’t view a college education as something they could ever reach. 

Six months later, I went back home to Kenya, my vision of America significantly altered by the time I had spent here.

More than a decade has passed since my first trip to the U.S. Today, I live here with my family, and have made a career out of understanding the factors that make extreme inequality possible.

If we view economic inequality in the U.S. through a racial lens, it becomes clear that Black Americans have experienced diminished progress in recent decades. For example, from 1947 to 1977 Blacks gained five cents to each dollar of median family income for White workers, but in the three decades since, they have gained only one cent.

The American reality may have been far from a dream for people of color in the 1940's, but upward mobility has since become even more difficult. The stagnation of wages for the lowest earners, depression-like unemployment rates among people of color and increased economic segregation have helped to create racialized pockets of destitution. As a result, people of color depend far more on unemployment insurance and other social safety net programs than do Whites.

This is directly attributable to pre-existing wealth disparities and ongoing economic policies that disproportionately benefit wealthier Americans.

To make matters worse, conservative politicians at all levels of government are calling for drastic and poorly informed budget cuts. Such proposals would be damaging to vital programs such as education, food safety, environmental protection, housing assistance, and community services, to name a few, and would be particularly debilitating to communities of color.

An austerity plan will exacerbate low and middle income Americans’ struggle to make ends meet, causing demand to fall, the economy to contract and the jobs crisis to continue unabated. And, it will only worsen the vast inequalities in our economy.

The American promise certainly beckons, and I am a living testament to the power of its allure. But, without a bold and progressive policy approach to address economic inequality, such a promise will never be fulfilled. Changing this reality will require each of us to join together in a movement for greater equality and justice for all.

--

Read UFE's report, State of the Dream 2011: Austerity for Whom?, for more on this issue.

This op-ed by Wanjiku Mwangi, UFE's Racial Wealth Divide Initiative Leader, was originally published on April 23, 2011 in The Black Commentator, a magazine that provides insight and analysis on issues affecting African Americans.

UFE's Mazher Ali shares news of Responsible Wealth's "Tax Wealth Like Work" campaign on Workers Independent News' Labor Radio, emphasizing progressive tax policy as a common sense measure to help avoid slash and burn budget measures that exacerbate the economic crisis and hurt the most vulnerable citizens. Taxing investment income the same as wages and salaries would raise more than $80 billion annually.

Click here to download the interview.

UFE's Federal Tax Policy Coordinator, Lee Farris, joined Linda Pinkow, host of "What's Left," to spread word about ways people can get involved in the fight for federal tax and budget justice.

Click here to download the interview (forward to 19:15 to hear from UFE's Lee Farris).

Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) just doesn’t get it – taxes are not charity. His idea that rich people who recognize that their taxes must go up should "write a check to the IRS” is just plain nonsense… nonsense that we’ve heard before.

Eric Shoenberg, a member of our Responsible Wealth project, was quoted in an AP article this weekend. As a high-income American benefitting from the preferential treatment of income from wealth, Schoenberg recognizes that his taxes are absurdly low. Schoenberg, as part of the Tax Wealth Like Work campaign, called for Congress to raise his taxes and that of other high-wealth Americans to restore fairness to our tax system and avert damaging budget cuts. Senator Hatch was quoted in the same article with a much dumber idea:

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There's nothing stopping you.

"There's still time before the filing deadline for them to give Uncle Sam some more money," Hatch said.

Schoenberg said Hatch's suggestion misses the point.

"This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there's no such things as collective goods that we produce," Schoenberg said. "Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?"

Schoenberg’s response hit the nail right on the head. But this isn’t the first time we’ve heard this argument. It came up last year when our 2010 Tax Fairness Pledge garnered national attention. Back then, after columnist Dana Milbank of the Washington Post made a comment to the same effect, The Economist fired back with a great rebuttal.

…Here's the thing: taxes are not charity. It would be a bad idea for wealthy people who feel they should be paying more taxes to instead contribute large amounts of money voluntarily to reduce the national debt. The first, less important reason for this is that any individual's contributions would be meaninglessly small; they can make far more difference by using the same amount of money to advocate for higher taxes, as these millionaires are doing. But the second, more important reason is that even if a million millionaires got together and voluntarily donated money in such quantities that it made a measurable dent in the deficit, it would be even worse, because they would be giving license to other people to continue pay less than their fair share of taxes. It's an invitation to free-riding, with the public-minded rich subsidizing the irresponsible and selfish.

…even if America had a balanced budget, this kind of argument would be illegitimate. At a pragmatic level, you can't run government functions on voluntary donations because voluntary donations aren't sustainable. You can't count on them. …strong modern states need to be able to tax their populations to pay for public goods.

At a more principled level, this kind of argument is asocial and irresponsible. It's the argument of a free-rider. …Government spending is collective spending, and the taxes we pay for it are collective taxes. Like it or not, this is collective action, and the arguments we have about it have to be collective as well…

Click here to read the full response to this argument from The Economist. Now, if only we could get Sen. Hatch to read it.

If you read Sunday's Associated Press (AP) story, "Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically," you may be left with the false impression that United for a Fair Economy (UFE) is a network of wealthy individuals who support higher taxes on themselves. Well, that's close, but not exactly right. UFE is a cross-class organization with supporters of all financial means who understand that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart. We have several program areas where we seek to advance progressive policies and support movements for long-term change.

The AP story was referencing a member of UFE's Responsible Wealth project. Responsible Wealth is a network of 700 business leaders, high-wealth, and high-income individuals who understand that inequality is bad for everyone, including themselves. Through the Responsible Wealth project, high-wealth individuals work to reign in CEO pay through shareholder activism, advocate for progressive tax policies at a national level, and work in cross-class alliances with state groups working to advance progressive policies at a state level.

In addition to the Responsible Wealth network, other projects of UFE include our Popular Economics Education initiative that provides tools for grassroots groups seeking to better understand the forces behind economic inequality, the Racial Wealth Divide project that explores the intersections of race and economic inequality, the Tax Fairness Organizing Collaborative supporting 28 state groups working on progressive tax policies at a state level, and our federal tax advocacy deeply engaged in preserving a strong estate tax, rolling back the Bush tax cuts for top income-earners, and ending the special tax breaks for income earned from wealth.

If this sounds good to you:

• Make a tax-deductible donation to support the work of United for a Fair Economy.
• Sign up on our email list today by filling in your email at the top, right of this page.
• Join our Facebook fan page (click the Like button on the FB page).
• Follow us on Twitter.
• Explore the web site and learn more about the work of UFE.

Note: The later versions of this Associated Press story included a corrected reference to both the Responsible Wealth project and UFE.