GOP Response to Occupy Wall Street 'Predictable'

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery." — Charles Dickens

I don't get it. As Dickens notes, poverty can make you miserable, but it doesn't
take great wealth to make a person happy. Yet, the fondest dream of many
Americans is to be fabulously rich.

However, psychologist David Myers notes, "Once their rush of euphoria wears off, state lottery winners typically find their overall happiness unchanged... Growing up poor puts one at risk for certain problems, but so does growing up rich. Children of affluence are at greater-than-normal risk for substance abuse, anxiety, and depression..."

Myers continues, "Equally interesting are studies showing that individuals who strive hardest for wealth tend to live with lower well being, a finding that 'comes
through very strongly in every culture I've looked at,' reports Richard Ryan.
This is especially so for those seeking money to prove themselves, gain power,
or show off rather than support their families."

Nonetheless, the American pursuit of great wealth continues unabated to the point where income inequality has become the center of a controversy triggered by the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York.

That demonstration has spawned similar rallies throughout the United States and indeed the world. According to the New York Times, "Occupy Wall Street is a diffuse group of activists who say they stand against corporate greed, social inequality and other disparities between rich and poor."

Well, what evidence is there of income inequality? The 400 wealthiest Americans have a greater combined net worth than the bottom 150 million Americans. The top 1 percent of Americans possess more wealth than the entire bottom 90 percent. That's pretty extreme disparity.

Now, at this point, I would encourage any political conservatives reading this column to unclench their fists and stop holding their breaths. I am not advocating a re-distribution of wealth whereby the mega-rich simply hand over their money to
poorer folk.

Basically, I don't want their money, thank you very much. I'm happy
enough without it.

However, I do want fairness in our economic system. I want to see the rich pay their fair share in taxes. As billionaire Warren Buffett has noted, he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than any of the 20 people who work for him in
his office.

I want to see banks held accountable for their reckless practices
(enabled by a lack of regulations) that triggered the current Great Recession. I
want to see more attention paid to finding jobs for the unemployed.

And most of all, I want Republicans, and to a lesser extent some Democrats, to stop coddling and protecting the mega-rich and corporations in return for generous
campaign contributions designed to ensure these politicians' re-election.

Congress is broken; many members of the House and Senate care more about their re-election than they do the well being of the United States. That is a shameful and depressing fact of life.

The threat posed to the ultra-wealthy by the Occupy Wall Street movement triggered a predictable angry response from the market's Republican beneficiaries.

Eric Cantor, the GOP House majority leader, called the protesters "mobs" who are
"pitting Americans against Americans." Rush Limbaugh said they are "anarchists"
and "union thugs." Republican Sen. Rand Paul claimed the protestors will
start seizing iPads because they believe rich people don't deserve to have them
(yes, he really said that). 

My favorite response came from the ultimate flip-flopper, Republican presidential
candidate Mitt Romney.

At first, Romney said the protests were "dangerous" and "class warfare." Apparently after seeing polls showing Americans supporting the protestors, Romney changed his tune because he then said, "I worry about the
(bottom) 99 percent in America... I understand how those people
feel."

Why such an irate response to the protestors?

New York Times' columnist Paul Krugman writes, "What's going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street's Masters of the Universe realize deep down, how morally indefensible their position is... This special treatment (of the wealthy, banks and corporations) can't bear scrutiny - and, therefore, as they see it, there must be no scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage."

Expect the sliming of the protestors to continue.