Systems designed to funnel wealth upward

I finished the book The Brightness Between Us by Eliot Schrefer. It is described as the sequel to The Darkness Outside Us (my discussion of that book is here), but it actually alternates between sequel and prequel. I’ll start by saying I enjoyed the book and find it a fitting continuation of the story of the love between Ambrose and Kodiak that developed on a spaceship. I start with that because I really can’t describe this book without including things I refused to say about the first book, not wanting to spoil it. So much of my discussion must be a spoiler alert. The true mission of the first book, not revealed until well into it, is that Ambrose and Kodiak are to settle a new planet. The spaceship is staffed by a series of clones of the two men, each new pair having to relearn the mission they thought they were on was a lie. Once on the planet they activate the gestation devices and start creating a family. Yeah, this contrasts with my discussion of the book A City on Mars, which I discussed last month. That book considers a minimum number of people to make an outpost of humanity viable. And, yeah, that number is a great deal larger than two. In the sequel side of this story the two children created by the gestation devices are coming up to their 16th birthdays. The devices were used more than twice, but these two are the only ones still alive. The family is getting by, but discovering the planet gets hit by comets a lot more frequently than earth does. One of the children is beginning to have mental health issues, which they’re not equipped to deal with. That is another issue A City on Mars considered. In the prequel side the original Ambrose learns the true mission of the spaceship – and why he’s not on it and his clones are. Ambrose is the scion of the hugely powerful corporation that built the ship and plays a giant role in global politics. Of course, he rebels. He goes off to find the original Kodiak, also bumped from the flight. They worry a war might finish off humanity. There is an interesting interplay between the prequel and sequel parts of the story. The originals discover things that are playing out on the new planet. The author says he consulted people at NASA. Even so, I found some aspects of the science a bit dubious. For example, as one more comet approaches (and we knew there would be) one of the children is told to limit outside exposure due to the comet’s radiation. That word implies nuclear fission, and I’m pretty sure comets have very little of that, certainly none that would affect the surface of a planet while it is still in space. Walter Einenkel of Daily Kos reported that Tennessee Republicans redrew Congressional districts in the Memphis area to eliminate a Democratic seat. The entire Tennessee delegation will now be Republicans. This redistricting effort is directly a result from last week’s Supreme Court decision to gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Since Memphis is majority black its district was protected by Section 2. With that gone so is the district.

While GOP state Rep. Todd Warner entered the House chamber wearing a Trump 2024 flag as a cape—and was roundly booed by protesters—Democratic state Rep. Gloria Johnson called the legislative session a “white power rally, and a white power grab.” The measure passed along party lines [in the House], 64 to 25, as protesters blared alarms and chanted “shame,” a sentiment that followed the all-white Republican lawmakers as they left. ... Democratic state Rep. Justin Pearson, who represents the predominantly Black Memphis, spoke before the vote, invoking Tennessee’s history of slavery, lynchings, and mass incarceration. “I want you to know—and I want my nephews, sons, and the future to know—no matter what you do,” Pearson said. “No matter how much you try and break us and make us bend and make us quit, we will still be here!”

This action is “absolutely racist and regressive.” Emily Singer of Kos reports that Chief Justice John Roberts is pouting.

“I think at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, [that] we’re saying we think this is what things should be as opposed to this is what the law provides,” Chief Justice John Roberts complained Wednesday. “I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do. I would say that’s the main difficulty.” Yes, darn those “people” who think that you put your finger on the scale for President Donald Trump and Republicans when you declare him to be above the law and tear up settled cases to take away Americans’ rights and stack the deck for Republicans!

An Associated Press article posted on Kos begins:

The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a voter-approved Democratic congressional redistricting plan, delivering another major setback to the party in a nationwide battle against Republicans for an edge in this year’s midterm elections. The court ruled that the state’s Democratic-led legislature violated procedural requirements when it placed the constitutional amendment on the ballot to authorize the mid-decade redistricting. Voters narrowly approved the amendment April 21, but the court’s ruling renders the results of that vote meaningless.

This is a part of the redistricting wars and Democrats had hoped to gain 4 seats in Virginia. Voters had previously approved an amendment to the state Constitution to have a redistricting commission draw districts rather than the legislature. That means an effort to override the commission must also be in the form of an amendment to the Constitution. To get an amendment before the voters the legislature must approve it twice, with a statewide election in between. And this is where the justices got picky. The first approval was in October. But early voting for the November election was already underway. So does an “election” mean the one day, or the entire time that citizens are voting? Back in January a lower court ruled an election is the entire time citizens are voting. The Supremes let the vote proceed before hearing the case. Then they ruled against the vote. The court is not obviously liberal or conservative. In Friday’s pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted Jill Lawrence of the Los Angeles Times:

I’m not alone in hoping for a tough and confrontational 2028 nominee, someone who is aggressive, persistent and, when necessary, as ruthless as the forces on the opposite side. This person also must have the energy to undertake the mammoth task of repairing the institutional wreckage of Trumpism. Which suggests Democrats should be checking out younger nominees. Fortunately, newer generations of leaders are emerging. Those who “get it,” in my view, include Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

There are a few others mentioned, some better known, but Lawrence questions whether they would “prioritize thinking big and fighting hard for the fundamental changes we need.” In today’s roundup Dworkin included a series of tweets on the fallout of gutting Section 2. In response to the possibility that these redistricting efforts allow Republicans to keep the US House Brian Rosenwald tweeted:

And let me tell you something, this is going to compel even the most reticent Democrats like me to support drastic changes to the courts. I’ve resisted for years. But this just shows that Republican judges are anti-small d democratic forces in the worst way.

Another from Rosenwald referring to Democratic candidates for president.

You’re not going to be able to win the 2028 primary without being for Court packing. I have misgivings, but a bunch of judges wholly lacking in common sense have made their own bed.

Lakshya Jain tweeted:

More broadly, the House is not a tossup for 2026, even after the current set of redraws. Our surveys consistently show a pretty blue environment (a bit bluer than 2018). Dems are still in position to get ~225 seats — and maybe more — even after redistricting AL/LA/TN.

A majority is 218 seats. Election Enjoyer tweeted:

This is one of the most overlooked pieces of the redistricting war. Several states could flip to Democratic trifectas this November, and that alone opens the door for more Dem-friendly map redraws before 2028.

Egberto Willies of Kos summarized an exchange between Katy Tur of MSNOW and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, with AOC saying billionaire wealth is unearned. From the summary:

The commentary challenged the mythology surrounding extreme wealth accumulation and exposed how billionaires often profit not through individual brilliance alone, but through public investments, labor exploitation, market manipulation, and systems designed to funnel wealth upward. Katy Tur’s reaction appeared awkward and uncertain, reflecting the discomfort the establishment media often displays when foundational assumptions about capitalism are questioned publicly. The discussion expanded by revisiting Tony Dokoupil’s comments on billionaire philanthropy, arguing that charitable giving by ultra-rich elites does not replace democratic decision-making. Instead, the segment asserted that workers, taxpayers, engineers, educators, and government-funded researchers collectively create the wealth that billionaires later claim as personal achievement. ... The conversation exposed a truth many Americans increasingly recognize: extreme wealth concentration is not the natural outcome of hard work alone. It is the product of systems designed to privilege capital over labor. As inequality widens, more people are questioning why a handful of billionaires wield more economic power than entire communities. Progressive movements continue pushing Americans to rethink wealth, democracy, labor, and the role government should play in creating an economy that works for everyone—not just the chosen few.

Thom Hartmann of the Kos community and an independent pundit wrote about how billionaires are stealing from the rest of us. Many people, including myself, have known this is going on, though not knowing the details. This is confirmed by Ashley St. Clair, former brand ambassador and mother to one of Elon Musks’ 14 kids. She created a series of TikTok videos and did a feature for The Washington Post describing the conservative influencer economy. She estimates “roughly 99 percent” of the largest influencers are compensated in some form with the amount locked behind nondisclosure agreements. And that doesn’t need to be disclosed because the content is “political” and not “commercial.” Thanks, Supreme Court! When a point is pushed by a few big influencers it is picked up and echoed by the smaller ones, adding to the echo chamber. Yeah, this is similar to a 2024 case of Putin funneling almost $10 million to influencers that promoted Kremlin interests. Hartmann noted that there is so much conservative money going to influencers Putin could plug into it with no one noticing. The effort started with the Powell Memorandum of 1971, which I’ve mentioned a few times. It suggests that American business “had to build a permanent infrastructure of think tanks, media operations, scholars-on-call, colleges, and legal foundations to destroy New Deal programs like Social Security and union rights.” And rich people responded, creating the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, the CATO Institute, ALEC, Turning Point USA, Hillsdale College, and more. And these groups fund the influencers. The money pays for a constant flow of messages saying such things as: + Working class white people should be afraid of Black and Hispanic people. + Women are stealing their jobs. + Gay and trans people are coming after their kids. + The “trickle down” theory really works, despite 45 years to the contrary. + Deregulation lowers prices. + Fossil fuels are essential and climate science is a hoax. + Russia and Israel are friends; Canada, Germany, and France are enemies.

It’s a deliberately constructed fog of lies and grievance, and it has one purpose: to keep us screaming at each other about bathrooms and brown-skinned invaders while the people writing the checks rob us blind.

One estimate is that since 1975 “$79 trillion has been ‘redistributed upward’ from the bottom 90 percent of Americans to the top 1 percent.” And in 2023 alone that was “$3.9 trillion, enough to give every working American a $32,000/year raise.” That’s while we don’t have a national health care system, going to college means a lifetime of debt, our infrastructure is crumbling, and the climate crisis gets worse. The rich and Republicans rely on this because if their actual policies, which caused all these problems and are widely unpopular, were known the political landscape would dramatically shift overnight. It should be a scandal.

And the next time somebody in your life forwards you a piece of viral right-wing outrage, ask them one simple question: who paid for that post? The answer, more often than not, will be a rightwing billionaire or the fossil fuel, pharma, insurance, tech, or banking industry that made them rich. And once people know that, the spell starts to break.