A Request for NC Senator Hagan to Address Moral Issue of Wealth/Income Inequality vs Poverty

Aug 29, 2011   //   Politics

I voted for NC Senator Kay Hagan.  I consider her a thoughtful individual who has positively acted to support many progressive policies (ref).

This past week I issued correspondence to her office raising a significant moral issue facing our country; that by making cuts to safety net programs for the needy, the victims of the Great Recession, without shared or proportional sacrifice at the top, the GOP is placing a higher value on tax benefits to the wealthiest than human life itself.  One of the consequences of poverty is that it claims lives, and there is little doubt that the increased poverty we have experienced during this economic downturn is resulting in a greater number of lost American lives.

Just four hours after I issued that correspondence to her office I received an electronic response that could only have been a ‘form letter’ regarding funding for the WIC and SNAP (formerly Food Stamp) programs.  As that did not address the moral issue I had raised, I sent a follow-up communication.  I asked that she bring the matter before her colleagues in the Senate and have those who support such policy defend it before the US public.

I encourage all to write their elected representatives and demand a balanced approach during this economic recovery.  To request that they fight for programs, tax policies, and the right to negotiate fair salaries that will rebuild the purchasing power of our broad middle class, thus creating demand and stimulating job creation (ref).  And to invest in America, especially while we can borrow money at such low rates; to take on some ‘good debt’ by rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure and educational institutions – growth-oriented projects that will increase our competitivenesss, grow our future economy, put our nation back to work (ref) and reduce poverty.  And the wealthiest should participate, just as they did during the more than 3 decades following our record Post WWII debt.

Can a motivated public make a difference in spite of the unlimited sums of special interest money that can now be spent on political campaigns?  All one has to do is to look at the example set in Wisconsin where a committed and incensed public stood up and demanded accountability, in the form of recall elections, regarding policies that damaged the middle class.

We, as individuals and as a country, are defined by our actions, our moral character.  We must not accept cutting safety net programs (food stamps, unemployment benefits) to the victims of the Great Recession, without first requiring shared, and even proportional, sacrifice at the top.  For not doing so places a higher value on tax benefits to the wealthiest than the lives of the less fortunate in our country during economically difficult times, and reflects a set of values that none of us as Americans should tolerate.

Dear Senator Hagan -

I voted for you in the last election.  Senator Dole’s ‘Godless’ claims against you were not only incorrect, but violated the ‘no religious test’ provision of Article 6.  I, as you, have done well in my career; my perspectives have been shaped in having lived my life at income levels that define poverty, the middle class and the wealthy. I left my corporate pursuits several years ago to care for, and support, my wife who was stricken with serious illness.

I am both upset and disturbed regarding the response I received from your office this past week.  I received a ‘form letter’ regarding the Food Stamp program that was issued on the same day as my correspondence.  There was obviously no thought put to it, nor do I believe that anyone could have taken the time understand what I had communicated.  The matter I raise involves a significant moral issue for our country.  The GOP, in proposing cuts to safety net programs during a period of increased poverty and poverty-related deaths (the victims of The Great Recession), without requiring shared or proportional sacrifice at the top, has placed a higher value on tax benefits to the wealthiest in our country over human life itself.  One of the consequences of poverty is that it claims lives, and with increased poverty associated with the Great Recession there is little doubt that this economic downturn is taking the lives of more of our citizens, perhaps as many as 1.2 million/year in total.  This significant moral issue should go to the floor of the Senate and before the country itself.  Those supporting such a position should be made to defend it before the public.  It is a statement of values that none of us as Americans should tolerate.  My belief further is that this is evidence that our Congress is now beholden to a different ‘person’ in retaining their job; a ‘person’ in the form of corporations and special interests that can donate unlimited sums of money to political campaigns.

I look to you to bring this very serious moral issue before your colleagues in the Senate.  Should you wish, and I am no stranger to public speaking, I would be glad to address the Congress myself on this matter should the opportunity present itself.

The points I make above are documented in this article that was contained in my prior correspondence: http://www.artonissues.com/2011/08/income-and-wealth-inequality-americas-moral-crisis/

Dr. Art Kamm

Recent Posts


Gun Violence and Human Rights: Welcome to the Family

With two separate human rights committees declaring this year that rampant gun violence in the United States constitutes a violation of our government’s duty to protect life, gun violence finds itself as being but one member in a family of related disorders in our country. It is beyond coincidence that all disproportionately affect the same victims and that all are fostered by the same hateful and discriminatory ideology held on the political right. Although other members of this family claim far more lives than does gun violence, it is the dramatic and highly publicized nature of major gun violence events that raises public outrage as well as tens of millions of dollars in funding. Our country now has the demography to weaponize human rights in our political process. And gun violence prevention, with its resources and political connections, can accomplish much more than just its own cause, and far more quickly, by simply changing its focus.


Gun Violence Prevention and the Democratic Party: A Tactical Abyss

Is the gun violence prevention movement really taking head-on an issue that is held by as little as 2% of the American public as being the most important factor in voting for Congress? Both Democratic candidates and gun violence prevention advocates ignored the market while failing to energize important segments of their customer base this past election. Until the gun violence prevention movement re-positions its product into one that better resonates with what is driving voters during elections, the issue will continue to be a largely inconsequential one in shaping Congress. But the movement also needs the help of Democratic candidates to light the fires.


Placing Gun Violence into a Human Rights Framework: Our Moral Imperative

Today’s gun violence prevention movement has developed the organizational structures, political connections and deep financial pockets to impact both Congress and public opinion. The use those resources to inject human rights into our political dialog, along with the voices of Congressional allies, becomes a moral imperative for our leaders.

Featured Article


The Year the GOPs Con Game was Exposed

The GOP’s decision to reinstate tax cut policy in 2001 exposed their hand. It was not about deficit reduction, growing the economy, or job creation. It was about ideology and, no doubt, special interests. It was a backdoor approach where government revenue was cut in an attempt to curtail spending on popular programs they otherwise could not take head-on. This while obstructing the work of Congress, spinning a web of deceit about the benefits of their policy, and weakening our country’s financial standing. It’s time to play hardball during ‘fiscal cliff’ negotiations and force them to be specific about what spending cuts they are talking about to offset the tax benefits they wish to preserve for the wealthiest. They wouldn’t have the nerve.