The other day I read Wisconsin had the greatest loss of the middle class since 2000, and it was the worst in the country. From the surface, I found myself wondering what this actually meant. 14.7% decline since 2000. It means “the median household income in Wisconsin was $60,344 in 2000 but now stands at just $51,467 after adjusting for inflation. That’s a dip of 14.7 percent.” (Cap Times). I also thought, but did not know, it might be possible all incomes went down, meaning the better off, or the upper middle class or even the 1 per-centers (if we really have any).
I have no immediate way of find this out even tough the Pew Charitable Trust, a well know accumulator of information, may have it. The entire purpose of the article in the Capitol Times was, I am fairly confident, to demonstrate that the policies of the present administration, under one Scott Walker, was doing very poorly. This piece of information is now being noted around the state as his popularity is falling noticeably.
In other words, have Scott Walker’s policies been an utter failure. It would seem from the point of view of the middle class it is a disaster, and from the point of view of any even slightly left leaning liberal and some conservatives, it is worse than a failure. The guy is a loser supreme. He is a loser supreme in the world of growth and development. I mean, this guy as a governor is rock bottom dead last.
He is often compared to the Governor of Minnesota who has been making great gains in growth and development. Things over there are flying high. Over and over I hear it.has higher tax on the rich, improved schools, more business development, you name it, the place is flying off the economic charts in true Keynesian style. Everyone is cheering and I am wondering out loud. Is that good or bad?
At the same time I am hearing of all this growth in Minnesota, I am also hearing, and hearing it loud, we as Americans have to reduce our fossil fuel emissions due to obvious climate change. The gathering in Paris has pounded on this issue has have every serious environmentalist and scientist in the world---and they have been doing it for years.
Here is the catch. The only time emissions have dropped globally in the last decade was during the last nasty ‘08 recession--as the chart demonstrates. It is the only time. It is also true the Russian emissions dropped when it collapsed financially.
My point is this. If during Walker’s administration, Wisconsin has had a drop in the numbers of folks the middle class, which almost implies a recession of sorts, is it not true that our emissions may also have dropped? In other words, his failure, and lets admit it, it has been by modern definition, a miserable failure in a multitude of ways, has also been a success in possibly cutting back emissions---and notably Minnesota has been a failure in that all the growth has done nothing but increase emissions.
Wisconsin, with it’s failure under Walker, by default in that he did not intend it, has in fact been a leader in cutting emissions? Should we vote to save the world by cutting emissions, or do we vote for more growth (the source of all of our problems)?
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/report-wisconsin-worst-in-nation-on-shrinking-middle-class/article_f802788b-2405-5e5f-9fe3-522939779911.html
No comments:
Post a Comment