The Tyranny of Uncontrolled Guns

Despite the fact that the Second Amendment arose to allow citizen soldiers to keep their arms even during peacetime (“a well regulated Militia”), that the only portable weapons available in 1787 were muskets and flintlocks, and that the modern view of gun control was a narrow 5-4 and very recent 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, gun zealots always refer to the “tyranny of gun control” and the right to self-defense when logical gun restrictions are proposed. Self-defense? Statistically in the United States, excluding law enforcement shootings, there are 36 criminal gun homicides for every justifiable, self-defense gun homicide. 

Despite the fact that the Second Amendment arose to allow citizen soldiers to keep their arms even during peacetime (“a well regulated Militia”), that the only portable weapons available in 1787 were muskets and flintlocks, and that the modern view of gun control was a narrow 5-4 and very recent 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, gun zealots always refer to the “tyranny of gun control” and the right to self-defense when logical gun restrictions are proposed. Self-defense? Statistically in the United States, excluding law enforcement shootings, there are 36 criminal gun homicides for every justifiable, self-defense gun homicide. 

Today’s piece is a follow-up to my recent Assault Weapons, US Trained Seditionists & Assaults blog. The story is old. Logic and responsibility fall to gun zealots hiding under a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. As the Boulder effort suggests: “In 2018, the Boulder City Council made national news for unanimously voting to outlaw assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

“With plenty of military-style rifles for sale nearby, the ban — a response to the deaths of 17 people in a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. — was unlikely to stop anybody from buying one… But its proponents wanted to send a message to lawmakers up the chain… ‘My hope is that we will see more bans at the state level, and one day at the federal level, so these weapons will no longer be available,’ Boulder Councilman Aaron Brockett said at the time.

“Local gun groups, backed by the National Rifle Assn., immediately challenged the ban in court. On March 12, Boulder County District Judge Andrew Hartman threw the ban out, ruling that state law prevented cities from making their own gun rules… Ten days later — Monday [3/22] — a gunman turned a Boulder supermarket into a bloodbath, bringing more pain to a region that has a long history of mass shootings and renewing a national debate over gun control.” Los Angeles Times, March 25th. In fact, red state legislatures across the land are actually loosening restrictions on carrying and owning guns!

In the wake of never-ending mass shootings with semi-automatic military-grade assault weapons (such as the AR-15, pictured above, which was used by the Boulder killer), gun control clearly has overwhelming popular support. “Nearly two-thirds of Americans support tougher gun laws in the wake of two mass shootings that rocked the country in the last week, according to a new USA Today-Ipsos poll released on Wednesday [3/24].” TheHill.com, March 25th.  Still the GOP blindly fights even the most modest gun control legislation.

The standard right-wing gun zealot response to such murders – “our prayers are with the families of the victims” – not only rings repetitively hollow but is actually a poke in the eye to those who must endure the personal misery of a preventable mass shooting. They always point to the shooter as the sole cause… never the ubiquitous availability of mass-people-killing machines that are clearly not intended for “hunters” and recreational shooters.

“Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert are facing backlash for offering their ‘prayers’ to victims in Boulder despite pushing for gun rights in the aftermath of the recent mass shooting.

“Mr Cruz launched into a staunch defence of firearm ownership at a hearing on Tuesday, falsely accusing Democrats of trying to take guns away from ‘law-abiding citizens… Every time there is a shooting, we play this ridiculous theatre where this committee gets together and proposes a bunch of laws that would do nothing to stop these murders… What happens in this committee after every mass shooting is Democrats propose taking away guns from law-abiding citizens because that’s their political objective.’” Independent.co.uk, March 23rd 

Yet there are right-wing uncaring, unsympathetic zealots, like Cruz and Boebert (and a number of other advocates of gun owners’ “rights’) who are even fighting the modest legislation proposed by the Biden administration to tighten up background checks and tracing who the gun buyers are. There is no excuse for these callous and absurd defenses of owning military grade assault weapons, and a majority of Americans agree with that sentiment.

In countries where such assault weapons are banned, there are virtually no mass guns killings. A knife assault can only go so far before citizens or police bring the perpetrator under control. But in under a minute, an armed and angry lunatic can kill dozens of people with a readily available AR-15. Lest we forget Columbine… or worse, Las Vegas in 2017:

“Police say Stephen Paddock, a 64-year-old man from Mesquite, Nev., opened fire on the Route 91 Harvest Festival from the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. Concertgoers reported seeing flashes of muzzle light coming from the upper floors of the hotel and hearing bursts of gunfire over a period of nine minutes.” Time Magazine, 10/3/17. 59 human beings were murdered in minutes. The shooter ended his own life, but if assault weapons had been banned, these and hundreds of other victims of such mass shootings in the United States would be alive today. 

Let me put this another way: simply compare the “tyranny” of controlling/banning assault weapons specifically designed to kill any number of people very quickly – with virtually no recreational or self-defense justification – against the genuine tyranny of being gunned down by a volume of bullets spewing out of a military grade assault weapon. When you are attending a music concert, going to school or just shopping for groceries. Pretty making going anywhere USA a dangerous risk. There is no excuse! NONE!

I’m Peter Dekom, and there is no credible justification for legitimizing routine civilian ownership of military grade assault weapons.

When Losing Wars isn’t Lesson Enough

The United States spends almost 40% of the aggregated global military budget. Four times what China spends and an amount equal to the blended total of the next ten largest military spenders combined. Ten times the Russian expenditures. We have 800 overseas military bases – China has three – and eleven top-of-the-line nuclear carriers, each worthy of building an entire fleet around. China has three, not-quite-so-sophisticated nuclear carriers, although in total naval vessels, theirs is a larger navy… but hardly the equal of what we maintain. They have about 600 first level jet fighters; we have 2000. We also have 20 times the number of nuclear weapons. 

The United States spends almost 40% of the aggregated global military budget. Four times what China spends and an amount equal to the blended total of the next ten largest military spenders combined. Ten times the Russian expenditures. We have 800 overseas military bases – China has three – and eleven top-of-the-line nuclear carriers, each worthy of building an entire fleet around. China has three, not-quite-so-sophisticated nuclear carriers, although in total naval vessels, theirs is a larger navy… but hardly the equal of what we maintain. They have about 600 first level jet fighters; we have 2000. We also have 20 times the number of nuclear weapons. 

So when our military leaders testify how China is doing this or Russia is doing that, basically how they are threatening the United States by these military expenditures, how do you think we appear to the world as a military threat… because we dramatically outspend and out-deploy our military like no other?

Attempts to audit the waste and inefficient expenditures within the US Pentagon have come up against an unfathomable military taxonomy of budgetary acronyms that simply have stymied any meaningful results. Federal auditors literally gave up. Congress is addicted to approving military requests for more money, even in the face of losing. Like Vietnam. Or trying to create a pro-American Iraq but instead handing ideological control to Iran. Or spending decades in Afghanistan and the Iraqi/Syrian sector, only to watch as most of Afghanistan is back under Taliban control – we are finalizing a peace treaty with them even as there is a totally different government in Baghdad – and as the Assad regime, which we vowed to topple as we also took on ISIS, is still running Syria with Russian and Iranian backing.

We do not seem to be able to win most of the wars we actually fight, and it would seem reasonably safe to conclude that by now, every nuclear nation on earth – even North Korea – understands that an all-out nuclear conflict is an unwinnable race to mutually assured destruction. Still, we mount major new weapons initiatives, build new carriers, advance stealth aircraft and dream of space lasers. Even as our archaic power grid is completely vulnerable to hacking, our financial system is dependent on an easily distortable digital network and our own social media can be turned against us at critical times… like during an election. Every time I have visited China over the last decade, I reluctantly had to marvel at their own infrastructure, modern and efficient in most large cities. Not exactly what I have experienced in my own country.

Also, Russia does so much more with less. Unholy alliances with powerful autocrats willing to cooperate with Putin’s anti-American directives. Hacking and disinformation campaigns. Setting up tests to make sure they can shut down our power grid in relevant urban centers. As we will ultimately spend $1.7 trillion on an amazing but maybe too-complex-to-maintain troubled F-35 aircraft (pictured above), one that can be configured for carrier use, vertical take-offs and landings, or traditional stealth fighter/bomber capability. It is certainly the best out there, the envy of our enemies… but not of our taxpayers. 

Let me put this another way. China is spending roughly the same $1.7 trillion on its “Belt and Road Initiative.” As we spend military money to “protect America and her global trade and security interests,” China’s B&R Initiative is focused on creating trade-driven infrastructure in countries providing foodstuffs and raw materials to China and buying China’s manufactures in return – to the treaty exclusion of the United States. As we spend money to protect (but not grow) our economic links to the world, China’s focus is on growing that trade structure directly. Very long-term commitments. By narrowing her military might to Asia, China can make do with fewer military resources and still exercise the necessary regional power.

The military hero of WWII, General Dwight David Eisenhower, followed Harry Truman into the US presidency. In his 1961 farewell speech at ending his term in office, Eisenhower uttered these words:  Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

But we obviously did not heed his admonition. Today, military vendors are strategically located across the land, in many states and congressional districts, to insure that congressional votes for military expenditures are always in local self-interest. We cannot win sustained ground wars against deeply embedded local insurgents – so-called “asymmetrical warfare.” The predominant wars that we have fought in recent history and either stalemated or lost. Those fancy and very sophisticated new weapon systems, trillions and trillions of dollars’ worth, just do not work to defeat the guerilla fighters we have faced. Our military is geared dramatically to fight and defeat traditional organized militaries, which we only occasionally meet on the battlefield. 

In 371 BC, the ancient military superpower of Sparta fell. Increasingly cloistered and isolationist, anti-immigrant and heavily focused on building and maintaining an indigenous army to the virtual exclusion of all other values, Sparta did not change with the times. It wasted its resources on old-world (even then) assumptions. Are we making the same mistake? We are paying more and more to protect less and less.

Think about how China is building virtually unbreakable trade links with the rest of the world while we rattle our luscious sabers. Their military is more than enough to protect its desired sphere of influence. While we keep following the same-old/same old. Our infrastructure is decayed. Our educational systems are getting worse so fast. Our government is less representative than at any time in our history. Our power and influence, backed by sanctions, have not moved China or Russia to back down on any major pressures we have asserted. And even our allies are not necessarily joining us in a harsh chorus against obvious foes. 

I’m Peter Dekom, and it seems that common sense has left our American building some time ago.

Universal Healthcare Inches Forward

Doctors, insurance companies, hospitals and large pharmaceutical companies have been traditional opponents of any form of ubiquitous universal healthcare.  There were well over sixty Republican congressional efforts to overturn the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA, also called “Obamacare”), and obviously none succeeded. 

Doctors, insurance companies, hospitals and large pharmaceutical companies have been traditional opponents of any form of ubiquitous universal healthcare.  There were well over sixty Republican congressional efforts to overturn the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA, also called “Obamacare”), and obviously none succeeded.

Doctors, insurance companies, hospitals and large pharmaceutical companies have been traditional opponents of any form of ubiquitous universal healthcare.  There were well over sixty Republican congressional efforts to overturn the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA, also called “Obamacare”), and obviously none succeeded. 

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius) ruled that the ACA was supportable as a “tax” but not as a “mandate” for state expansion of Medicaid. Almost half of the states (all Republican led) thereafter announced that they would exercise their right under that ruling to opt out of Medicaid expansion, leaving almost 5.9 million of our nation’s poorest without access to affordable health insurance. But Republicans still wanted total repeal.

 In 2017, using the budget reconciliation process to sidestep a Democratic filibuster, Congress eliminated the individual and employer mandate from the ACA (via the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act). Republicans were chipping away at the ACA. Total repeal? Also in 2017, the last serious GOP effort to repeal the ACA Senate died when it was clear that GOP Senator and Arizona Republican John McCain, joined by two other Republicans, opposed that bill.

Then in early 2018, 20 red states, later joined by the Trump administration, filed a lawsuit (Texas vs United States) claiming that when Congress ended the mandatory participation requirement, that it effectively defunded the ACA, which represented a de facto repeal. After the 2018 mid-terms, two states pulled out of the litigation, leaving 18 states still in the mix. Almost immediately after taking office, the Biden administration pulled the Department of Justice’s support of these states, which won initially at the federal trial court level (in Texas). 

At oral arguments immediately after the November election (11/10), GOP hopes seemed to fade further as even the Republican-appointed Chief Justice noted to the Texas AG: “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act.” That the Court would sustain a repeal of the ACA and leave approximately 23 million Americans without healthcare now seems a very remote possibility.

Although many Republicans still oppose the ACA, claiming that like Social Security and Medicare (some even claiming public education), the ACA represents creeping socialism, polls show that a majority of Americans support ACA. To get the actual definition of what “socialism” really means, not as the flagrant misuse of the English language, see my December 17th Socialism, Communism and Social Programs blog, with some pretty ordinary dictionary breakdowns. But with our experience with the pandemic, we have gone through some startling realizations.

First, it was the federal government that a. the Trump administration subsidized development of the vaccines and b. through expansion from the Biden administration, paid for the actual inoculation. Second, family practitioners and even some specialists noted a distinct downturn in patients willing to visit their offices – they were “COVID-scared” – for routine check-ups and even for emergency necessities. Incomes for so many doctors simply dried up. Some hospitals began to struggle under the strain. As COVID exploded, tons of uninsured patients were ferried in – ambulatory, car, Uber and, too many, by ambulance. Third, even for those with “good policies,” many discovered that between deductibles and co-pays they still faced staggering medical bills. See my January 31st 3.4 Times What Medicare Approves blog. In short, some of the bastions opposing universal healthcare are changing their minds.

Further, the United States has passed trillions and trillions of dollars in COVID stimulus and recovery bills, showing how woefully unprepared we were for this pandemic… and any other medical catastrophe we just might face in the immediate future. Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, etc. already had safety nets and universal healthcare in place, which did not require the same massive new spending bills that poured out of the US Congress.

Just as the brouhaha against Medicare ultimately subsided, so it seems the GOP mantra to repeal the ACA is sliding into a milder form of containment. Doyle McManus, writing for the March 17th Los Angeles Times, reminds us: “Ronald Reagan, then a budding politician, campaigned furiously against the proposed health insurance program for senior citizens in 1961, warning that it would be a fatal step toward socialism. President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, ignored Reagan’s complaints and pushed Medicare through Congress in 1965. Within three years, the program was so popular that the next Republican president, Richard Nixon, never even tried to dismantle it…

“The $1.9-trillion COVID relief bill that Congress passed last week [second week of March] did a lot more than provide pandemic aid: It also included the biggest expansion of Obamacare in the program’s history. And here’s what was strange about that: Republicans raised hardly any objections.

“From the Affordable Care Act’s passage in 2010 through President Trump’s failed reelection campaign last year, GOP politicians have vowed to repeal the federally run insurance plan. But the last time Republicans really tried to scrap Obamacare was in 2017, and that attempt failed. Since then, their attacks have been little more than lip service.

“In his many speeches last week denouncing President Biden’s COVID relief bill, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell mentioned Obamacare only once, and then only to complain that the program was becoming too generous to upper-income families. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, once a leader of the anti-Obamacare jihad, didn’t mention the program at all.” The United States remains the only developed country on earth without universal healthcare. Our per capita medical expenditures are more than double the average in that developed world, and our life expectancy statistics – the metric of a successful healthcare system – were falling even before the pandemic. How did the ACA change, and what does the future hold?

“Biden eliminated the income cap and imposed a ceiling of 8.5% on the share of income that a family would be asked to spend on premiums. That new provision is temporary, which makes it likely Congress will debate it again just before the 2022 midterm election. But will Republicans really want to propose clawing subsides back from middle-income families right before an election?

“Now Biden wants to expand the program further — not only by making the increased subsidies permanent, but also by adding a government-administered insurance policy (known as a “public option”) and perhaps by allowing people under 65 to buy into Medicare. Polls suggest that both of those proposals are broadly popular — but the public option is likely to draw strong opposition from hospitals and doctors, because they fear it will create downward pressure on their prices.” McManus. 

We can expect lockstep GOP opposition to such expansion, but many believe that the massive GOP loss of House seats in the 2018 mid-terms was significantly related to GOP attempts to dismantle the ACA. GOP opposition to healthcare comes at a steep price. Their opposition will undoubtedly be a fighting point until universal healthcare becomes an American reality. An inevitability.

I’m Peter Dekom, and it is time to ramp up a path to universal healthcare and join the rest of our peer nations in what should be a 21st century right… and not a privilege for those who can pay for it.

A Spin-off Political Party

A Spin-off Political Party

The Spring Break Party

The level of irresponsibility of many political leaders, particularly governors in high-volume COVID states, sanctioning a general reopening of businesses and often making safe distancing/mask wearing optional, threatens to bring us yet another COVID infection surge just as we are turning the corner on containing the virus. This time however, older Americans – those most likely to have been vaccinated – are less the super-spreader risk than are those under 50, particularly those irresponsible and exceptionally naïve spring breakers in Florida beach communities like Miami and Miami/South Beach. Numbers show that we are experiencing the first statistically significant uptick in coronavirus infections since January.

As evidenced by the fear-laden pause in Europe’s deployment in the AstraZeneca vaccine, since shown to have been an unjustified reaction, the virus is anything but gone. As Italy and France reimpose lockdowns, the reduced number of those vaccinated has sent new cases soaring in Europe. The unjustified sense of invulnerability of young American spring break partygoers, flocking to Florida beaches mostly from other states, augurs badly for the coming months, even as the rollout of vaccine accelerates. Apparently unconcerned about their ability to spread the disease to others, particularly their own family, and perhaps unaware that even the mildest and even undetectable cases of COVID-19 can bring serious long-term aftereffects (PASC) that could impair their lives perhaps forever, party fever seems to have trumped the most basic notion of common sense.

The virus does not care that human beings’ rail against anything that limits human contact, that there is a (spring) breaking point where isolation cannot contain pent-up desires to restore and celebrate normalcy; the virus loves that reaction. We are watching more flights being booked, cruises being fully loaded, hotels taking reservations, even Las Vegas is filling up, as people suppose that that there is enough “containment” such that the pandemic is over. But as larger groups of people aggregate, even in high-vaccine dose nations, the expansion of exposure simply allows the virus to mutate into strains that defy (in whole or in part) the effectiveness of the vaccines that are being deployed. Add to that the politization of vaccination – in the United States, half of all Republican males refuse to be vaccinated – and the utter lack of vaccines in many non-first world nations… the notion of global herd immunity dissipates fast.

“In each of the metro areas of Miami, Tampa and Orlando, coronavirus cases have begun to rise among people aged 25 to 49 years old, according to The Miami Herald. The rise comes after months of decline in each of those areas, and the uptick has been particularly significant in Miami…

“The slight rise in cases is happening amid a surge in tourism across the state, where coronavirus restrictions are particularly lax. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, was one of the first state leaders to reopen bars, restaurants and beaches at full capacity in September... DeSantis also refused to implement a statewide mask mandate early into the pandemic, and instead stated that he preferred to let city leaders decide whether to implement them locally.

“Miami Beach—one the state's most popular spring break destinations—has such a mask ordinance in place, but revelers have largely been seen ignoring protocols… So far, over 1,000 arrests have been made in Miami Beach in the past week [the third week in March], after thousands of partygoers gathered in unruly crowds, refusing to wear face masks and also defacing property. Half of the arrestees had come from out of state and included 42 felony charges and 100 confiscated guns, Miami Beach Police said.

“On Tuesday [3/23], Democratic Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber blamed the issue on mixed messaging from the DeSantis... ‘I don't think we've done a great job statewide,’ Gelber said in an interview with Fox News. ‘What I think we didn't do well enough was really preach to people with one voice that they need to wear a mask and be smart ... [Visitors] were not getting that here. They were getting a lot of mixed messages, and I think that hurt us.’…

“The influx of spring break tourism also comes at a time when more than 70 percent of people age 16 or older have not yet received the coronavirus vaccine in Florida. So far, 24 percent of the state has received at least one dose of the vaccine, while 13.4 percent have been fully vaccinated, according to a New York Times database.

“Earlier this month, DeSantis said that the state would never reenter lockdown, even if its COVID-19 case numbers significantly worsened… ‘To even contemplate doing any kind of lockdown, honestly, it's insane, so that's not going to happen in the state of Florida,’ he said on March 12. ‘We like the fact that people have been able to work here ... so we're going to continue doing what works, but under no circumstances would we entertain doing anything of the sort’

“As of Wednesday [3/24], Florida ranks third out of the states with the highest overall number of reported coronavirus cases, according to the Times. Over 2 million people have contracted the virus in Florida, and 32,819 have died since the start of the pandemic.” Newsweek, March 24th. Self-proclaimed Trump-successor-in-chief, DeSantis has been one of those governors marginalizing the impact of COVID-19. He seems unconcerned that hard numbers and agonizing misery constantly contradict his beliefs. Tens of thousands of spring breakers have converged on Florida.

Outrageous behavior has only exacerbated the harm in those Florida beach communities. “Two North Carolina men on spring break in Florida have been charged with drugging and raping a woman who later died, possibly of a drug overdose, in Miami Beach, police said Tuesday [3/23]… Meanwhile, in Panama City Beach, a man has been charged with fatally shooting a teenager from Kentucky and another Florida man died when he jumped from the 23rd story of a beach resort with a parachute that did not open, authorities said.

“The deaths and alleged crimes come amid continuing chaos in South Beach, where police have arrested hundreds of partyers involved in violence and property destruction. Most of those involved have not been college students on spring break, but adults from Florida and out of state, authorities have said…

“South Beach was relatively calm Monday night [3/22], according to police. Since February, however, there have been more than 1,000 arrests there amid brawls and damage to property. City officials imposed a curfew from Thursday through Sunday each week until April 12, including the nighttime closing of causeways leading to Miami Beach from the mainland.” Associated Press, March 24th. We are going to live with a lingering version of COVID-19, made worse among those who insist on gathering without preventative measures, perhaps for a few years to come. 

   I’m Peter Dekom, and we are unlikely to see a clear and definitive “all clear” date for complete virus-free normalcy anytime in the near term, so learning how to live within reasonable prudential limits becomes a necessity.

A K-Shaped Recovery

Stock market and home values have soared to record levels while hourly workers and small businesses remain stuck in economic mud. Economists call what’s happening a K-shaped recovery with an uneven impact on different income levels that could stunt overall recovery and justify another round of federal financial relief. CFMAdvocates.com

Stock market and home values have soared to record levels while hourly workers and small businesses remain stuck in economic mud. Economists call what’s happening a K-shaped recovery with an uneven impact on different income levels that could stunt overall recovery and justify another round of federal financial relief. CFMAdvocates.com

For most of America, the pandemic has created unparalleled hardship. “[A new poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research] shows that about half of Americans say they have experienced at least one form of household income loss during the pandemic, including 25% who have experienced a household layoff and 31% who say someone in the household was scheduled for fewer hours. Overall, 44% said their household experienced income loss from the pandemic that is still having an impact on their finances.” CBSNews.com, March 10th.

But between the deficit busting 2017 massive corporate tax cut and the COVID-excuse to cut personnel and costs, asset-based wealth has soared like never before. As artificial intelligence driven automation upgrades, easily instituted during this pandemic, have taken the money that used to be paid to the displaced workers and put that money into the pockets of the owners of the relevant companies, income inequality has reached unprecedented polarizing numbers. Sure, a few larger companies (like retail outlets and malls, performance venues and movie theaters) have contracted from the pandemic, it’s the small businesses like restaurants and dry cleaners that have taken it in the teeth. Not to mention the workers whose employers simply disappeared… forever.

For companies trading in necessities or those able to expand online sales operations, the pandemic has been a gift from God. But as California just learned from tax revenues generated mostly by those earning more than half a million a year, producing an unexpected $15 billion income tax windfall to the state, this pandemic has definitely made the poor poorer and the rich vastly richer. And as small businesses died, big tech delivery giants stepped to fill the void.

Kristin Toussaint, writing for the March 23rd FastCompany.com, tells it as it is: “It’s officially been a year since many of the country’s COVID-19 lockdowns began, and for many Americans it’s been a year of struggling to work from home while caring for kids, or a year of being unemployed and anxiously awaiting more federal aid. For American billionaires, though, it’s been a year of record profits: In the past year, the combined wealth of the nation’s 657 billionaires has increased more than $1.3 trillion, or 44.6%. These billionaires now have a combined net worth of $4.3 trillion, exemplifying the idea of a K-shaped recovery.

“That figure comes from the latest report from the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank that has been tracking billionaire wealth during the pandemic since its first “pandemic profiteers” report in April 2020 that showed how billionaire wealth bounced back after the initial stock market crash. A year later, billionaires are still seeing their wealth grow, and there are 43 new billionaires who didn’t even exist at the start of the pandemic.

“Fifteen billionaires who saw their wealth grow the most—including Tesla’s Elon Musk, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg—saw a combined increase of $563 billion since March 18, 2020, when COVID-19 lockdowns began. Even among those top billionaires, some saw bigger earnings than others: Musk’s wealth increased by $137.5 billion, or 559%, and Bezos’s by $65 billion, or 58%. In that same year, almost 80 million Americans lost their jobs; as of February 27, 2021, 18 million were still collecting unemployment…

“Billionaires in technology saw the biggest boon, including Snapchat founders Murphy and Spiegel; Twitter’s Dorsey; and Roku’s Wood. Those in finance and investment were also big profiteers, like Gilbert of Quicken Loans. And automotive industry billionaires had the biggest percentage point increase in wealth—317% based on an increase in wealth of $172 billion—though the report says that was largely thanks to Musk. 

“As a company, Zoom, which became a household name during the pandemic, as it was used for everything from work meetings to virtual birthday celebrations to schooling, saw its profits increase 4,000%, from $16 million in 2019 to $660 million in 2020 (on which it paid no federal income taxes). Cofounder Eric Yuan’s wealth increased 153%—from $5.5 billion to $13.9 billion—and he didn’t even crack the top 10 list of ‘pandemic profiteers.’” The notion of giving rich folks lots of money – tax breaks and deregulation under a misguided notion of supply-side economics (trickle down theory) and that a rising tide floats all boats – never works. NEVER.

See my February 14th When the Political Foundation Plank is Simply Wrong blog, which features this simple summary: “Michael Hiltzik, writing for the February 7th Los Angeles Times, spent some time scanning the relevant research, particularly a new study published by the London School of Economics run by David Hope of the LSE and Julian Limberg of King’s College London. That analysis examined tax cuts enacted by 18 developed countries, including the U.S., over the 50-year span from 1965 to 2015. The answer was simple: based on hard data, supply side economics never works. We already know the later 2017 US corporate tax cut held true to the continued failure of every measurable effort to implement those high bracket tax cuts. Anywhere. Everywhere!!!”

We have so tilted the playing field in favor of big corporations, many of which pay little or no federal tax, that coupled with the underlying big-company benefits generated by the pandemic noted above, the level of income inequality seems so irretrievably one-sided today that absent some major changes in our tax code, the income polarization can only get worse. Add voter suppression, gerrymandering, the influence of big money via Citizens United vs FEC, Congressional gridlock and the death of the American dream of upward mobility (per my March 18th Stuck! Blog), there are no signs that ordinary Americans are going to improve their lot against the mega rich anytime soon. Biden’s wishes to the contrary. If you really look at Trump populism, the subtext is that “the economy doesn’t work” for his supporters either. Hmmmm!

I’m Peter Dekom, and if an economy fails to work for a vast majority of the population, eventually the society that supports that system will eventually fail as well.