"As described in Mr. Obama's budget, these two economists (Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez) have shown that by the end of 2004, the top 1% of taxpayers "took home" more than 22% of total national income. This trend, Fig. 9 notes, began during the Reagan presidency, skyrocketed through the Clinton years, dipped after George Bush beat Al Gore, then marched upward. Widening its own definition of money-grubbers, the budget says the top 10% of households "held" 70% of total wealth."Para el WSJ, donde se publicó este artículo, la denominada Figura 9 del presupuesto de Obama (esa que se ve acá arriba) se podría entender como la piedra Rosetta de la administración. O sea, la llave para entender las políticas del presidente. De esa figura, entonces, si la clave es la concentración del ingreso, se desprenden cosas así, textuales del presupuesto:
"There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."
Sin embargo, este 1% (o el más amplio 10% más rico de USA) no parecería tener la menor intención de financiar un proyecto económico del tamaño que planteó Obama, y mucho menos, de características redistributivas ("The White House says its goal is simple "fairness.") e impulsado por la izquierda americana (a los economistas del estudio se los nombra como los rock stars de la izquierda intelectual). De ahí, que el presidente sea un tipo rencoroso:
"The "top 1%" isn't just going to pay for these policies. Many of them would assent to that. The rancorous language used to describe these taxpayers makes it clear that as a matter of public policy they will be made to "pay for" the fact of their wealth -- no matter how many of them worked honestly and honorably to produce it. No Democratic president in 60 years has been this explicit."
