THERE IS A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT IRONY embedded in the notion that ours is an “information rich” society. It is that one of the most crucial problems facing American society today is our lack of understanding of the fundamental economic realities of our time and our land. That lack of connection with reality is the source of great confusion when the public is confronted with crucial choices.
Following some data on our current plight, I will introduce some startling findings concerning the striking disparity between public perception and reality about our society’s distribution of wealth and, most dramatically, their preferences.
I open with a piece from CNN Money, “Workers don’t share in companies’ productivity gains,” from March 2013:
“Companies are on a tear in terms of productivity and profits, but they aren’t sharing much of the gains with their workers. The gap between hourly compensation and productivity is the highest it’s been since just after World War II. This divergence is one of the major drivers of the nation’s growing income inequality.
“‘A bigger share of what businesses in the U.S. are producing is going to the owners of the firms and the people who lent money to the firm, and a smaller share is going to workers,’ said Gary Burtless, senior fellow in economic studies at The Brookings Institution.”
One of the most significant findings concerned the relationship between productivity and compensation:
“Productivity, which measures the goods and services generated per hour worked, rose by 80.4 percent between 1973 and 2011, compared to a 10.7-percent growth in median hourly compensation, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, which crunched the numbers last year.”
For a powerful summation of this current economic squeeze on workers, I draw upon a New York Times piece, “Our Economic Pickle,” by Steven Greenhouse from January of this year:
“(The) major factor contributing to income inequality: stagnant wages. For millions of workers, wages have flatlined. Take Caterpillar, long a symbol of American industry: while it reported record profits last year, it insisted on a six-year wage freeze for many of its blue-collar workers.
“Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of America’s gross domestic product. Until 1975, wages nearly always accounted for more than 50 percent of the nation’s G.D.P., but last year wages fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. Since 2001, when the wage share was 49 percent, there has been a steep slide. … (O)verall employee compensation — including health and retirement benefits — has also slipped badly, falling to its lowest share of national income in more than 50 years, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share over that time.”
There is agreement among both conservative and liberal economists that outsourcing jobs overseas, new technologies that raise productivity and profits while payroll is sliced, computerization and use of robots are all significant factors in this process.
One of the most dramatic and telling statistics involves the relationship between worker productivity and worker compensation, as noted above. Add to that the reality that “since 2000, productivity has risen 23 percent while real hourly pay has essentially stagnated.”
Further, “Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California-Berkeley, found that the top 1 percent of households garnered 65 percent of all the nation’s income growth from 2002 to 2007, when the recession hit. Another study found that one-third of the overall increase in income going to the richest 1 percent has resulted from the surge in corporate profits.
“Many economists say the stubbornly high jobless rate and the declining power of labor unions are also important factors behind the declining wage share, reducing the leverage of workers to demand higher wages. Unions represent just 7 percent of workers in corporate America, one-quarter the level in the 1960s.
“‘There are very few occupations or industries where unions are strong enough where they can set standards,’ says Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute. ‘There are no standards being set, so companies can push down on wages for all workers, union and nonunion alike.’ …
“Pamela Waldron, a cashier at a KFC restaurant in Manhattan, earns $7.75 an hour after eight years on the job and says she last received a raise in 2007. ‘Being here eight years, I think I should be getting more,’ she said. ‘You can fight for a raise, but I don’t think you’re going to get it.’ …
“Jared Bernstein, who served in the Obama administration as executive director of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, said many steps should be taken to increase labor’s income share, including ‘raising the minimum wage, pushing down the jobless rate, enacting laws that make it easier for workers to unionize and increasing wage subsidies for those on the bottom.’”
Against that sobering backdrop of economic realities, it might be illuminating to consider how the citizens of this great land feel about what would be an equitable distribution of wealth and wages.
According to research carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the U.S., choosing Sweden’s model over ours.
What’s more, the study’s authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: “The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.”
Recent analyses have shown that income inequality in the U.S. has grown steadily for the past three decades and reached its highest level on record, exceeding even the large disparities seen in the 1920s, before the Great Depression. Norton and Ariely estimate that “the one percent of wealthiest Americans hold nearly 50 percent of the country’s wealth, while the richest 20 percent hold 84 percent of the wealth.”
But in their study, the authors found Americans markedly underestimate the disparities in income and wealth. When asked to estimate, “respondents on average estimated that the top 20 percent have 59 percent of the wealth (as opposed to the real number, 84 percent). And when asked to choose how much the top 20 percent should have, on average respondents said 32 percent — a number similar to the wealth distribution seen in Sweden. Most dramatically, when asked for the percentage of total wealth of the bottom 20 percent, they estimated 9 percent. The reality, 0.3 percent!”
One would, I think, be justified in being as outraged at the information disparity as the income disparity.
The authors took a step further and asked 5,522 people to create a distribution of wealth among five “buckets” (or quintiles) such that they themselves would be willing to enter that society at a random place. Their answers could range from a perfectly even distribution, with 20 percent of wealth in each quintile, to a fully biased distribution with 100 percent of wealth in one and 0 percent in the rest.
“We found that the ideal distribution described by this representative sample of Americans was dramatically more equal than exists anywhere in the world, with 32 percent of wealth belonging to the wealthiest quintile down to 11 percent by the poorest.”
In short, Americans, according to this study, not only grossly underestimated the degree of economic inequality but also expressed a preference for an economy with a far more equitable distribution of wealth.
“What was particularly surprising about the results was that when we examined the ideal distributions for Republicans and Democrats, we found them to be quite similar. When we examined the results by other variables, including income and gender, we again found no appreciable differences. It seems that Americans — regardless of political affiliation, income, and gender — want a kind of wealth distribution comparable to Sweden’s, which is very different from both what we have and from what we think we have.”
I, for one, am more than willing to join with the Republicans of Benicia — or of California — heck, why not the whole country! — in framing our case for Swedish-style wealth distribution in this, our beloved land. Finally, a cause upon which we can come together, reframe the dialogue and revitalize the Republic!
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Great article Jerry! I believe one of the greatest impediments to invoking these progressive programs is the lack of understanding and ignorance promulgated by fear on the part of “John Q Public”. The amount of disinformation about American foreign policy and the Affordable Health Care Act are patent examples of why we have so much trouble in “River City”. An increased passion for critical thinking skills and following the money can go a long way to get things back on track. Just as many fought the invoking of Social Security under FDR, Medicare and Civil Rights under Johnson, we are seeing Custers Last stand against Obamacare. Once the rank and file minions start reaping the benefits of health care reforms it will be a big fight to pull it out of their $50K to $75/yr. Republican Tea Party jaws. There is an obvious fear by Conservatives that the impending success of Obamacare with be a further nail on the coffins of Republican intractability, selfishness, and racism.
Harvey using the term racism in the same sentence when talking about Conservatives is a very bigoted statement. You should be ashamed of yourself. The big problem is not having the correct info. You apparently do not have all the info. S/S and Medicare are self funded. They do need some fixing. Obamacare is a pure drain on the economy. Leak in the roof, fix it no need to demolish the whole house. That is exactly what the Dems did on Obamacare. I have said before thaty there are some very good things in Obamacare and they should have been taken care of one issue at a time. Harvey notice the term
Harvey notice the term wealth disribution. Mentioned all through the article. Can that be called Socialism? Is Sweden considered a Socialist country? I will let the readers decide that. Mr. Page did mention in the article at least once the reason for the wide gap. It was a corerect statement. Most workers want full employment. That is usually below 4%. Get there and there will be no talk of wealth distribution like Sweden. Lets put Swedens problems on the table and compare them to what problems we have in the USA and all residence will take ours and let Sweden have their own. The real problem in our country is lack of econ growth. It will not happen by listening to some econ Prof. It will happen when we start using our natural resources properly. You all know what they are. They are at present being regulated and stalled by the present regime. That is where the problem is. Not in the info cycle.
R. Livesay, what’s bad about “Socialism?” Especially in a balanced mixture of social and private motives?
Socialism can work in very small countries with a lot of export business. Very large and diversified countries will not be able to sustain the costs. Free enterprise has always worked and will continue to work. I suggest you ask India, China and Russia what they think of pure Socialism. Where does Putin spend most of his time? Who is buying property in all the affluent areas of the USA. Same folks are investing in the USA also. Not in pure Socialistic countries like Sweden, Finland, Greece and Denmark. All are presently have problems that make ours look like a small bump in the road. R. Shelby would you consider yourself having Socialistic leanings and if so why? Just curious. I am a strong believer in the free enterprise system.
Shelby stated: what’s bad about “Socialism?”
You mean other than:
• It is diametrically opposite of the founding principles of our country.
• Governments representing socialism (or its variants) have committed genocide against tens of millions.
• Is being imposed on us through deception.
• Represents a tyranny of the minority.
• Stifles creativity.
• Punishes success.
• Rewards failure.
• Encourages mediocrity.
• Imprisons opponents.
• Stifles opposition.
• And passes legislation based on outright lies.
Aside from those minor inconveniences Bob, I have no issue with Socialism being established in the
Last sentence should have ended with: “USA”
Hahahaha! “Stifles creativity!” I want to live in a country where DDL feels his creativity stifled! Bring on socialism!
I was reading through the list, and at first I thought it was about religion.
Republican … Racism? Intractability? It was Obama yesterday who staed he wouldn’t talk or negotiate with the GOP. He called Republicans “terrorists”. This the same president who said he WANTS to talk to Iran!
Your comments are bigoted and hateful. We disagree about Obamacare for legitimate reasons. But you choose to hate and lie. And you use hateful and bigoted terms. Shame on you!
He’ll talk or negotiate with the GOP — just not when they threaten to derail the economy (again) unless they get everything they want. That’s terrorism — and yes, it makes the president of Iran look reasonable by comparison.
Good for Obama. I hope he stands firm. I expect this time he will.
He stated yesterday he won’t talk to Republicans. Period. You are factually incorrect. The Republicans believe Obamacare is destructive, and recent events prove so. They passed the continuing resolution for the entire government funding, except funding Obamacare. They are NOT trying to derail the economy, they are trying save it! You are incorrect again!
Hank, we can have a rational debate, but calling Republicans terrorists and stating that Iran is more reasonable than the GOP is simply irrational and beyond any form of logical thought. You are a bomb thrower and hysterical. I will discuss rational matters reasonably but you have proven to be extreme and beyond this discussion. I wish you the best.
“He stated yesterday he won’t talk to Republicans. Period.” Nope. Wrong. Link please. He never said that. Linky link link.
Also too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/opinion/blow-the-captain-ahabs-of-the-house.html
GOP congressman calls fellow House Republicans ‘Lemmings with suicide vests’:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/30/nunes-calls-fellow-house-republicans-lemmings-with-suicide-vests/
Quoting Jon Stewart on the lie that Obama is willing to talk with Iran but not the GOP:
“You’re not helping yourself if it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hardline, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world, but not with Republicans. Maybe he’s not the problem!”
Well put, Harvey!
From the above article:
THERE IS A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT IRONY embedded in the notion that ours is an “information rich” society. It is that one of the most crucial problems facing American society today is our lack of understanding of the fundamental economic realities of our time and our land. That lack of connection with reality is the source of great confusion when the public is confronted with crucial choices.
Well stated, Mr. Page.
More on wealth inequality in this short video below for the community to consider
http://neweconomy.net/content/wealth-inequality-america
Well stated, Jerome, too often it appears we humans and the junkyard dogs are one…Sweden may not be the cure…is there a Plan B? A US Spring I think, we nearly all have computers except the homeless and the destitute…who will represent them? The French Revolution wasn’t all bad.
Beware the forgotten masses, perhaps we’ve had enough…watch for the wake, it may be a rooster tail. Pb
Working men women need to unionize and strike if necessary, that is all the big boy’s understand. I’ve been in two strikes, one in the early ’70’s and one in 1980. They’re no fun, but sometimes must be done.
I meant to say “Working men and women”
RKJ,
Currently the main issue between the Unions and Management is the fact that Unions do not have a ‘dog in the fight’, by that I mean they lack sufficient incentive to see a company succeed.
The best solution is to have them share in success of a company, but to also share in potential lack of success. To do that they need to have a voice at the table of decision making and to be accepted as a partner by management.
We used to have a fund that increased as company profits increased, a piece of the pie.
Jerry,
Perhaps in your next piece you can serve up your thoughts on how to best attain the Swedish Nirvana that is envisioned for America.
Bob: Based on a Pew Rseerach survey most of the people who are racist, are in fact Conservatives. You are correct all Conservatives are not racist. I appreciate that you have toned down your rhetoric, and i do agree with much that you have stated above.
Dennis: We are on the same page as far as unions and management working as a cohesive team for a “win-win” outcome. Unfortunately extremists such as the “Kochs” and many industrialists in Third World countries don’t see the world that way; their greed far surpasses their regard for fairness, humanity, and justice. When human beings are only seen as disposbale and consumable machines for production we get a wide skism in that equation for “win-win”.
Harvey is Pew your only source? Harvey I also am glad you seem to have gotten off your conspiracy issues.
Interesting ideas posted in the article, but comparing the United States economy to that of Sweden is ridiculous for many reasons.
First, Sweden has a total population of 9.5 million. The USA population exceeds 350 million. Sweden is almost a completely non-diverse country. In the USA we celebrate diversity. Sweden has very strict immigration laws; they do not allow insiders into their country and work.
The USA dynamic economic growth models embrace entrepreneurial capitalism that benefits the entire globe in terms of product and services created. What was the last great Swedish invention? Much of the benefits the Swedes enjoy today were first invented by Americans.
Finally, I believe Americans, when they state that they want a more balanced wealth distribution model, really want to see the poor succeed. Polls also indicate that Americans don’t begrudge wealth they simply want the poor to earn more. Sweden is a homogeneous culture of less than 10 million people. They think and act alike. Their values are almost identical. We in America do not want this model. But in embracing our culture we must also accept that some people will fail while others succeed.
We need to focus on the poor. The poor should earn more. Society does have a role in this, but most importantly, the poor must be motivated to succeed. The poor aren’t poor because their neighbor is wealthy, the poor are where they are either due to circumstances or lack of effort and success. We should concentrate on improving our economy and culture so the poor can be elevated. I don’t care so much about wealth distribution, I care about the lives of the poor and seeing them succeed.
Matter stated: I believe Americans, when they state that they want a more balanced wealth distribution model, really want to see the poor succeed.
Excellent point! That is one of the key differences between Conservative thought and the Progressive mentality.
Exactly. Conservatives want to see the poor succeed, progressives actually try to make it happen.
progressives actually try to make it happen.
Good point.
How are the Progs doing in LBJ’s ‘War on Poverty’ by the way? Perhaps you can give us an update from the front lines on that one.
Very base of you to think it’s some kind of insult to insinuate that I might know poverty. A very low, and pathetic, form of humor. I am certain, knowing well what you do for a living, that I earn more. Yet I am not so crass, so vulgar and classless, as to toss it in your face.
Hank said: Very base of you to think it’s some kind of insult to insinuate that I might know poverty.
In all wars there are two sides and in the war on poverty there are the Progressive ‘helpers’, those on the front lines of the battle (as I stated) and then there are the victims: Those in poverty being helped by the Prog fighters.
My comment classified you as one of the Progressives fighting the fight, not one of the victims.
My comment was also on another level: That being that there always has been and always will be some level of poverty, and that LBJ’s “War on Poverty” was a failure.
It is regrettable that you took such an affront to that which was said, as there was no such intention made.
Be more careful with your words.
And I’ll take the War on Poverty over the War on Drugs any day
Conservatives and Liberals both want the poor to succeed. They differ in their approach. Conservatives believe a growing economy with self motivation is the key. Liberals believe in government assistance is the best method. They both try to make it happen. Let the debate continue.
Matter stated:They differ in their approach.
Very true. They also differ in their motivation.
Conservatives know that a significant number of people who were once poor, will often change their thinking, seeking to protect that for which they have worked. The leadership of the Progressive movement (note: this applies to the leaders) know that if they can offer more gifts to the poor, they can curry more votes. Thus those motivated by the ballot box have no desire to truly end poverty. But rather they continue a charade of doing good: The New Deal…. The War on Poverty….Hope and Change.
All are marketing slogans for the same failed policies.
“The leadership of the Progressive movement (note: this applies to the leaders) know that if they can offer more gifts to the poor, they can curry more votes. Thus those motivated by the ballot box have no desire to truly end poverty. But rather they continue a charade of doing good: The New Deal…. The War on Poverty….Hope and Change.”
That’s one very cynical explanation. It has the benefit, to conservative leaders, of demonizing the opposition. Unfortunately it is totally untrue. But what good would it do to insist that progressive motivations in all the cases you cite were pure? You were injured emotionally by Democrats at some point and are beyond saving. A pity.
Hank if that is the case. Then explain what Mr. Page said about the wide gap. It appears that what Mr. Page is saying has happened. Then the Progressives seem to have failed.
Argle bargle
Bob: Excessive military expenditures and coroprate welfare for profitable companies are a pure drain on the economy that does not improve the health and welfare of the 99%. I know you will invoke the “But it creates jobs” arguement, but is there societal harm or positive outcomes. Their is much more positive human outcome potentially from Obamacare then there is from the military corporate bleed. You will notice that the Chinese are much smarter than the Americans in that regard only spending one tenth of the US on military waste. Manufacturing cigarettes, GMO foods, asbestos, fossil fuel refining, junk foods, lead and mercury products, soft drinks also create jobs, but at what human costs?
Harvey you must have the problem first before you can improve things. Emerging economies will see the problems and fix them. I would rather have a problem to fix than not one at all. Money put into our military independence and strength does more than create jobs. It creates ideas that benefits society. A strong military does contribute to a strong economy. When you have a strong economy you have a revenue stream to do all the safety, health and life style issues that need to be addressed. Without the strong economy we put our country in the situation as we are in now. Even at that we are still the most economically advanced society in the world. What Matter stated above is right on correct. I do not live in a dream world I live in a world of reality. See the problem fix it. Do not create a new problem.
I consider Wealth Distribution to being a Socialist Ideal not Progressive. Or are they one in the same? How anyone could bring Sweden into the picture is beyound me. I think Matter gave a very good explanation of Sweden. There are many more small European countries that fit that mold also. Try Denmar and Finland just two name two. But Sweden is a pure Socialist country with many problems. Lets all just let Sweden take care of their own issues. We will certainly resolve all of ours.
“We will certainly resolve all of ours.” THAT’LL be the day, R. L. That’ll really be the day!!
R.S. keep the faith. Support your country on their way to regain the standing as the world leader. It is called free enterprise and full employment. Conservatives will make that happen.
Bob: “Money put into our military independence and strength does more than create jobs. It creates ideas that benefits society. A strong military does contribute to a strong economy” Doing the above through the military is a very inefficient and vastly immoral way to create jobs. Creating jobs through more public transportation, educational facilities, public recreation, nutrutritional programs, alternative energy, medical reserach, comuunication reserach, etc. will benefit the whole of society and grow the economy in a much healthier and moral way than plundering it on military expenditures. The European societies of countries such as Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland, etc have much healthier happier people because they put people and community as a higher value than Americas intense concentration on “will it make a profit” does. I have no issues with profit as long as profit is not put above the environment, peoples health and welfare, corporate transparency, etc.. The worship of profit in America as a value has become excessive..The power of banks and corporations compared to individual has gottem way out of sync. Our American gluttony for material goods and profit will be our undoing. Americas imperilaistic behavior has created vast hate against us and shown us to be a country of misguided values.
Not hate Harvey, it is called jealousy. Your way does not create jobs. Those jobs come from free enterprise as the needs arise to improve our society. You have is backwards. Your type of job creation comes from taxes. You get taxes from profit which comes from free enterprise which will create job opportunities. Which means full employment. America is not Imperilistic it is creators of ideas that will help all nations. Having a strong military in the past has kept us out of conflicts not got us into them. When anyone appears to be weak they are a target. Just ask the Eastern Eruopean countries. There are many more examples.
Mr. Livesay, it is clear that many progressives on this post would trade economic growth and job creation for redistribution of wealth, government dependence, and social welfare expansion. They want the USA to be more like European countries. What they fail to understand are the costs involved.
The European utopian view is one of homogenous societies that closes all borders, disallows most working immigration, has very little innovative creative population base, and virtually no means to defend themselves. Basically the utopian states need the USA for defense of their lifestyles and innovation/technology. The quasi-socialist economies are basically stagnant in terms of economic growth and creativity due to the heavy hand of government. But that utopian vision is appealing to some. Thankfully, their view is still a minority in this country.
What I cannot understand is how the progressives, while supporting the European model, must also support shutting down our borders and deporting immigrants. But they don’t. They must also support defunding 90% of our military. They would have to support zero population growth and stagnant economic growth. Further, all of the European countries have no Bill of Rights and speech other freedoms are controlled and regulated. I guess these compromises are acceptable to progressives as long as wealth is regulated and healthcare is government controlled.
I choose freedom … With all it’s imperfections.
Very good Matter.
Oversimple, Robert L. You really cannot grasp Harvey’s “way.” Nor do you really grasp what “free” enterprise actually means. Your business experience has not made you a political economist. The antique ideals of your ideology fog your view, depriving your mind of the conceptual fluidity you and this country need.
Bob L: Your disability is that you are “In Love” with this country. When someone is in love they loose objectivity and the ability to “Think Critically”. I neither “Love or Hate” this country, it just is. Your logic that spending money on the military better serves the whole of the population, as opposed to spending it on afore mentioined items such as education, public transit, and alternative energy is greatly flawed in that very little good accrues to public or civiulization in general from miltary spending.compared to benign expenditures.
Harvey I have no disability’s. Do you? Harvey you and Shelby should carefully read my comments. They all are correct and not a dream but reality. I believe Harvey becsause you seem to not understand love it is fogging your thinking. Harvey just where does all this money come from to build your ideas?
Livesay, we do read your comments and they are seldom “all correct.” You have no monopoly on love for, or understanding of our country. Our country is many countries, societies and cultures, and they are not all good! Please grow your brain up.
Robert S. please explain all of that to me. A lot of words that appear to have no meaning. I would say Harvey nor you can grasp the way it actually happens. It does not happen Harvey’s way. Never has and never will. Now Robert will you please lay your plan out. Robert S. it is very simple, you must have folks working to create a income stream. When that happens some of those socialist EU things can happen. In the USA we call it capitalism. That very simply put is called free enterprise which does create all your dreams. Not the Sweden or any other EU country’s model. It appears Robert S. that you and Harvey are living in some sort of dream world. Dreams never create the job and income flow that is needed to get this country going full steam ahead.
Many things must seem meaningless to one who lives inside mental categories both denoted and connoted by abstract nouns. You’re a semantic cripple. “Costly” enterprise does not create all my dreams as it does yours. We all live in constructs of the world which are often not unlike dreams. Some are more accurate in mapping the real world than others. Your maps are ragged, old and inaccurate. Enterprise which has been “too free” has done away with huge numbers of jobs and shipped others offshore.
You self-styled conservatives have trouble grasping the point of any presentation or argument not your own. Jerry’s point is not that the USA should turn into little Sweden, but that Sweden has a better balance between rich and poor, investors and workers. Over here, the top cats have been grabbing all the cookies and not spreading enough around to keep the economy running nicely or the population happy. Wake up.
Robert,
One of the commonalties of your posts is to always talk in esoteric superlatives, used for belittlement rather than furtherance of debate.
Such consistency of tactics is indicative of a person who needs to reinforce his own feelings of superiority, while ignoring his own shortcomings.
You would be better served to reassess your own personal need to obtain this small level of smugness at the expense of those to whom you feel superior.
Does one who has the ‘upper hand’ really need to tell others that they do? Should this not be self-evident?
Your inability to converse without such self-serving proclamations really betrays your anointment as being the superior, only to reveal that which is clearly evident to others; the pinnacle upon which you have placed yourself rests not on a foundation of strength, but one easily weakened by close scrutiny.
Classic inferiority complex.
Robert your words are an attempt to make folks think you are a thinker. Well it appears that if you are a thinker you could lay out in detail all the answers with a well thought out plan. I have never seen that from you Robert. Now once more I will as, Lay out your plan.
The military is the consumate example of “Crony Capitalist Fascist Socialism”. Conservatives have little problem with “Socialism” when it suits their narrow greedy needs, but not when it humanely benefits the health and well being of the average American.