U.S. senators respond almost exclusively to the interests of their wealthiest constituents

[Jackpine Radical]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/are-we-being-ruled-self-centered-jerks-what-new-studies-reveals-about-ultra-wealthy?akid=10863.187861.XeIkos&rd=1&src=newsletter889594&t=10

{A} study to be published in Political Science Quarterly by Thomas Hayes, a scholar at Trinity University, finds that U.S. senators respond almost exclusively to the interests of their wealthiest constituents – those more likely to be unethical and less sensitive to the suffering of others, according to Piff.

Hayes took data from the Annenberg Election Survey — a massive database of public opinion representing the views of 90,000 voters — and compared them with their senators’ voting records from 2001 through 2010. From 2007 through 2010, U.S. senators were somewhat responsive to the interests of the middle class, but hadn’t been for the first 6 years Hayes studied. The views of the poor didn’t factor into legislators’ voting tendencies at all.

As Eric Dolan noted for The Raw Story, “The neglect of lower income groups was a bipartisan affair. Democrats were not any more responsive to the poor than Republicans.” Hayes wrote that his analysis “suggests oligarchic tendencies in the American system, a finding echoed in other research.”

[Autumn]

1. Got that right.

rec

[djean111]

2. Like that is a surprise.

[CrispyQ]

3. No surprise there.

[LuvNewcastle]

7. Yes, it is fixed. n/t

[LearningCurve]

15. Hadn't seen this graphic before

Thanks.

[Wilms]

4. Ouch!

“The neglect of lower income groups was a bipartisan affair. Democrats were not any more responsive to the poor than Republicans.”

So in this regard, there really is NO difference between the two parties.

[FiveGoodMen]

22. There's as much difference between the parties...

...as there is between the "good cop" and the "bad cop" in one of those suspect interrogations on TV shows.

[Wilms]

47. That thought had crossed my mind.

Over and over again for quite some time now.

[Laelth]

5. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

[neverforget]

6. Money buys power. Shocking.

I think my first clue were the rich senators getting richer after leaving office.

[Octafish]

8. Funny how that works.

Money trumps democracy, and Democrats, too.

[Rex]

9. Plutocracy...everyone say it together.

We no longer live in a country where our reps in office care what we think about them. Crime pays well and they know it.

[G_j]

10. oligarchic tendencies

quite an understatement

“The neglect of lower income groups was a bipartisan affair. Democrats were not any more responsive to the poor than Republicans.” Hayes wrote that his analysis “suggests oligarchic tendencies in the American system, a finding echoed in other research.”

[Jackpine Radical]

11. Understatement is a time-honored academic tradition.

[avaistheone1]

12. k&r for Truth

[Supersedeas]

29. the numbers don't lie

[bvar22]

13. Worth repeating again:

[font size=3]"The neglect of lower income groups was a bipartisan affair. Democrats were not any more responsive to the poor than Republicans.” [/font]




You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[Mojorabbit]

60. You will know them by their works for sure. nt

[JEB]

14. Money is speech,

power, justice, God in USA. Poor people can FOAD. And that's the way it is.

[hfojvt]

16. I don't like the way that was stated

"The views of the poor didn’t factor into legislators’ voting tendencies at all."

Because it is pretty obvious that there is no such thing as a monolithic "view of the poor". As if ALL poor people agree on various issues. So if the poor are split on an issue 65-35 and the Senator goes with the 35, is it fair to say that "the view of the poor was ignored" on that issue? Certainly the view of 35% of the poor was perfectly represented, and 35% is a pretty large group, even if not a majority.

Second, I wonder how those terms are defined? Is there even a standard definition for "poor", "middle class" and (as used in the title) "wealthiest"?

My own reckoning (one which does not seem to be widely used, but which I will argue for nonetheless) is to classify the top 20% as rich, the middle 60% as middle class and the bottom 20% as poor. "Middle class" as used by politicians though, almost always seems to include the 80-98% group as part of the "middle".

Doing so, in my view and observations, allows them to pass legislation and claim that it benefits the "middle class" when MOST of the benefits really goto those in the 80-100% group, and much, much less of the benefits goto those in the 20-60% range.

See, for example, the Obama/Bush tax cuts. Obama claimed that he wanted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for the "middle class" and now claims that he has done so. Yet the final result is that the top 1% gets 18% of the benefits and the bottom 60% gets 19% of the benefits. The top 5% get 36% of the benefits, compared to just 35% for the bottom 80%.

Yet these are marketed as "middle class tax cuts" by nominal Democrats.

[Rex]

18. Yes there is, making 16k a year or less.

Ever heard of the poverty line? The statement is a fact, legislators don't write policy to help out the homeless or those below the poverty line. Your own formula aside, that is what they are claiming and it is true.

[hfojvt]

30. "Ever heard of the poverty line?"

Is it really necessary to write things like that?

The poverty line, at best, only defines one of those terms - poor - and not the other two - middle class, or wealthiest.

I would broaden the question though. So they don't write legislation to help out the poor. Why should they, since the poor are only 15% of the population? That's far from a majority.

My own question would be whether they write policy to help out the bottom 80%, which is a huge majority. And it appears to me that neither party represents that huge majority.

[rock]

17. When I was a young teen and first learned some politics

I simple couldn't believe that it was legal to give money to politicians. You know for running their campaigns (wink, wink).

[sinkingfeeling]

19. Does this surprise anybody?

[Lasher]

20. This is bullshit.

I believe Senators do respond more to the interests of wealthy. But when Nolan says there are "...oligarchic tendencies in the American system..." he exposes a foregone conclusion that there is no real difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

And Hayes drives the illusion home. I wonder how he accounts for proposals to increase the minimum wage or fund the food stamp program? Party line votes on such legislation are a Senate tradition. Yet the views of the poor didn't factor into legislators' voting tendencies at all?

[jtuck004]

23. No, it's not. It's researched and documented behavior. As far as min wage and food stamps,

that's not much more than the wealthy asshole who gives to the church and community, or even the Democratic Party (like our biggest banks) and then create a Ponzi scheme which results in their becoming even more wealthy while 10 million of our neighbors are foreclosed on and dragged from their homes into the street, or their plants shuttered and their jobs shipped overseas, while they are given a buck or two on a street corner.

One can, of course, believe what they want. There are a whole raft of people in this country who think their eyes and ears lie to them, who don't believe in birth certificates and peer-reviewed scientific conclusions. That's nothing new.

[bluestate10]

48. Wealthy people make their concerns known to their Senator. Most middle class and even

more poor people don't write or phone their Senators, so their interests get pushed aside, even Senators fight for the middle class and poor without being asked.

A simple fact of life is that those that make their presence known get noticed. It is a common dynamic in business. It is a common dynamic is every day life.

[jtuck004]

51. "even Senators fight for the middle class and poor without being asked. " That kinda pisses on all

those folks that are out striking in front of food stands and in state capitals, it seems.

On a percentage basis you are correct, but if the politicians gave a flying rats ass we wouldn't be funding their buddies vacation and multiple-home lifestyle, while 50 million people, many of them children,and many of them working for a living, have to subsist on food stamps (less in November, thanks to those politicians, while the banks and those living on corporate welfare from the taxpayers aren't losing a penny) and 10 million families - not individuals, FAMILIES, were thrown out of their homes as we turn this into a rental economy owned by wealthy people who create low-wage jobs for their own enrichment.

A simple fact of life is that most politicians are owned, and the decisions they make reflect the interests of the wealthy. If most politicians were anything but political prostitutes, it might be different.

[MisterP]

24. actual study vs. shouting "this cannot BE!"

[hfojvt]

37. an actual study, eh?

Do you remember the study by the Professors that claimed a huge drop in economic growth when debt exceeds 90% of GDP? The one that turned out to be bullsh*t?

That one was an actual study too.

And I think Lasher makes a very good point here, because there clearly ARE differences betweeb parties when it comes to things like raising the minimum wage, SCHIP, food stamps, LIHEAP, unemployment extension, HUD and so on.

With studies, and articles about studies especially, it is better to read the fine print than to quickly accept some writer's conclusion.

Which polling questions did they look at? Which votes?

[Lasher]

39. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Hayes says the views (interests) of the poor didn’t factor into legislators’ voting tendencies at all. That claim cannot hold up against the party line roll call votes that I cited. Democrats cater too much to the wishes of the wealthy, but it goes beyond the pale to imply that there is no difference between the parties. To believe both parties are exactly the same, you need to somehow account for that difference. I wish you'd at least attempt to do that.

It is fallacious to imply I have no data to support my argument. Surely you don't expect me to link the actual votes for you. A record of them is easy to find.

[hfojvt]

41. that is a good point

and one problem may be the legislative process. For example with the minimum wage. Between Republican fillibusters and Bush veto threats the minimum wage was not increased until Republicans added "small business tax cuts" to the package. The FINAL bill was part of Iraq appropriations and voted against by mostly Democratic Senators
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00181

So how the heck do you measure THAT?

Democrats often do a crappy job of representing the bottom 80%, but to claim that there is little to no difference between the parties in this respect, is simply not true.

[Lasher]

42. Yes, there are more examples to cite.

How about the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? The GOP Senate resorted to reconciliation to push that through. And if memory serves, Lord Vader himself cast a tie breaking vote to pass one round of them. But I thought the point could have been effectively made without having to mention more than I initially did.

I am starting to suspect that the 'both parties are just the same' bullshit might be coming more from editorializing by the article's author, Joshua Holland, than it is from the actual study. But I have neither the time nor the inclination right now to locate and analyze the actual study.

[jtuck004]

21. I notice this is not in Late Breaking News. n/t

[SoapBox]

25. No Shit, Sherlock!

Well.....DUH!

[blackspade]

26. I am so not shocked....

[B Calm]

27. Well duh. . . but voters keep voting them back in.

[Jackpine Radical]

32. If we maybe had a media that weren't owned by the greedheads,

maybe the people would have some clue about what's actually going on.

"Low information voters" are not entirely to blame for their lack of information.

Especially when they have to either work 3 jobs to feed their families or devote most of their time hunting for well-provisioned dumpsters.

[Egalitarian Thug]

43. The voters pick from among whom they are allowed to see. n/t

[Doc Holliday]

28. It's the Golden Rule.

"He who hath the gold maketh the rules."

[felix_numinous]

31. Our Representatives

should be periodically evaluated for job performance--besides election reform.

I admire what Iceland did, and that they broke up the banks.

[DeSwiss]

33. And this surprises no one.

- Which is the REAL problem.

K&R

[Zorra]

46. At least we have this ~ "Then what, Tom?"

Tom: Then it don’t matter. I’ll be all around in the dark – I’ll be everywhere. Wherever you can look – wherever there’s a fight, so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad. I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry and they know supper’s ready, and when the people are eatin’ the stuff they raise and livin’ in the houses they build – I’ll be there, too.

Ma: I don’t understand it, Tom.

Tom: Me, neither, Ma, but – just somethin’ I been thinkin’ about.

http://vimeo.com/54490126

"And who's the Shawnee Land and Cattle Company?"

"It ain't nobody -- it's a company!"

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. K&R You sure about that "almost" part? n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

35. It was a quote from the original article.

[KamaAina]

36. The full article is in this month's issue of DUH! magazine.

On newsstands now.

[DallasNE]

38. Citizens United Was Handed Down In 2010

So this study covered a period before Citizens United impact could be felt. "Unethical and less sensitive to the suffering of others" defines purely the House Republicans.

[Jackpine Radical]

40. Here's the abstract. You might email the author for a copy.

Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate

Thomas J. Hayes [e-mail]

Abstract

To what extent do members of Congress respond unequally to people in different economic situations? How does partisan control of the agenda change the way in which Senators respond to the poor? Using data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, and multiple roll call votes, I examine Senate responsiveness for the 107th through 111th Congresses. The results show consistent responsiveness toward upper income constituents. Moreover, Republicans are more responsive than Democrats to middle-income constituents in the 109th Congress, and a case study of the 107th Senate reveals that responsiveness toward the wealthy increases once Democrats take control of the chamber.

[gopiscrap]

44. Gee what a fucking surprise

that's why we need public campaign funding with very strict limits and enforcement.

[Dustlawyer]

45. They needed a study for this?

Let me see:
Question:
Who gives them and their Super Pacs scads of money?
Answer:
Corporations and the 1%!

Question:
Who can keep them in office where it is legal to commit "insider trading?"
Answer:
Corporations and the 1%!

Question:
Who do these politicians (Republicans & Democrats) answer to first?
Answer:
Corporations and the 1%!

Why is it so hard to believe that most, not all, politicians are bought off?

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. Wow, that's really surprising to me.

Said no one, ever.

[woo me with science]

50. K&R

[cui bono]

52. Hm... wonder what the same study of a U.S. President would show?

I wonder...

[Scuba]

53. Kick.

[valerief]

54. U.S. Senators ARE the .01%, too. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

57. 50% of them take lobbyist jobs when they leave.

That sure as hell helps cover the tracks of the bribery.

[valerief]

59. Right! nt

[woo me with science]

55. kick

[cantbeserious]

56. Legalized Bribery - Campaign Contributions

eom

[Plucketeer]

58. Man - ain't that the truth! nt