海角大神

The Cory Booker imbroglio has ignited a silly but potentially pernicious debate in the Democratic Party between so-called 鈥減ro-growth centrists鈥� who want the President to focus on how well he鈥檚 done getting the economy back on its feet after the Bush administration almost knocked it out, and 鈥減ro-fairness populists鈥� who want him to focus on the nation鈥檚 widening inequality and Wall Street鈥檚 (and Romney鈥檚) continuing role in generating profits for a few at the expense of almost everyone else.

According to the National Journal鈥檚 Josh Kraushaar, for example:

Conversations with liberal activists and labor officials reveal an unmistakable hostility toward the pro-business, free-trade, free-market philosophy that was in vogue during the second half of the Clinton administration鈥�.. Moderate Democratic groups and officials, meanwhile, privately fret about the party鈥檚 leftward drift and the Obama campaign鈥檚 embrace of an aggressively populist message鈥� [T]hey wish the administration鈥檚 focus was on growth over fairness.

This is pure bunk 鈥� or should be.

Fairness isn鈥檛 inconsistent with growth; it鈥檚 essential to it. The only way the economy can grow and create more jobs is if prosperity is more widely shared.

The key reason why the recovery is so anemic is so much income and wealth are now concentrated at the top is America鈥檚 the vast middle class no longer has the purchasing power necessary to boost the economy.

The richest 1 percent of Americans save about half their incomes, while most of the rest of us save between 6 and 10 percent. That shouldn鈥檛 be surprising. Being rich means you already have most of what you want and need. That second yacht isn鈥檛 nearly as exciting as was the first.

It follows that when, as now, the top 1 percent rakes in more than 20 percent of total income 鈥� at least twice the share it had 30 years ago 鈥� there鈥檚 insufficient demand for all the goods and services the economy is capable of producing at or near full employment. And without demand, the economy doesn鈥檛 grow or generate nearly enough jobs.

Wall Street is part of the problem because it鈥檚 responsible for so much of the concentration of income and wealth at the very top 鈥� and for much of the distress still felt in the rest of the economy after the Street nearly melted down in 2008.

The Street has turned a significant part of the economy into a giant casino involving mammoth bets with other peoples鈥� money. When the bets go well, the rich owners of the casino (Wall Street executives, traders, hedge-fund managers, private-equity managers) become even richer. When the bets go sour, the rest of us bear the costs.

The casino also requires continuous transfers of wealth from ordinary taxpayers. Some are built into the tax code. One is the preference of debt over equity (interest on debt is tax deductible), which awards Wall Street banks like JPMorgan for risky lending and awards private-equity firms like Bain Capital for piling debt on the firms it buys.

Another is the 鈥渃arried interest鈥� rule that, absurdly, allows private-equity managers (like Mitt Romney) to treat their income as capital gains even when they haven鈥檛 risked any of their money.

The biggest of all is the invisible guarantee that if the biggest banks get into trouble, taxpayers will bail them out. This subsidy reduces the big banks鈥� cost of capital relative to other banks and fuels even more risky lending.

None of this is fair. It鈥檚 also bad for economic growth and jobs 鈥� as we鈥檝e so painfully witnessed.

Translated into presidential politics, all this means the President should be talking about fairness and growth and jobs, and explaining why we can鈥檛 have the latter without the former.

It also means he should be attacking Mitt Romney because Romney is part of聽the system of casino capitalism that has harmed America and held back growth 鈥� and Romney wants even less regulation of Wall Street (he鈥檚 vowed to repeal Dodd-Frank).

And because the budget Romney has put forth would gut public services vital to the middle class and poor, while cutting taxes on the rich and on corporations even more than they鈥檝e already been cut.

In other words, Romney epitomizes the unfairness of the American economy in this new Gilded Age. For that same reason, Romney is the quintessence of an economic approach shown to be anti-growth and anti-jobs.