Summary. This is Part II of a Three Part paper on the title subject. It attempts to reveal how the neo-conservatives (now consisting of virtually the entire Republican Party) have Gerrymandered and passed restrictive state laws in such a way as to let them capture control of state legislatures, the Presidency, as well as both houses of Congress—even when they lose the popular vote in many states as they did in 2016. Such a set of circumstances is made possible by the tilted Electoral System that favors land over people. In addition each state controls the mechanics about who can become an electoral representative, the vote division within that state, and many other details that tend to make each state unique in how they divvy up their votes.

Unlike all other sources, this paper also offers a solution to the dual inequality issues without taxing the rich. No suggestion is made that the solution presented in Part III will somehow miraculously become a fact merely by revealing it. But education is the first step to understanding the two issues. Moreover, the opposition to solving the dual inequality issues will come from  many of the richest persons on planet Earth. Can you or I defeat them on their terms? No way. But 100 million of us can defeat them on our terms. We need to think big—or concede defeat and go home—while they get richer and richer, and we become poorer and poorer.

Definitions: Wealth = Assets minus Debts. Assets = Value of stocks, bonds, and real estate. The data are maintained and kept current by the Federal Reserve in their Flow of Funds reports.

                              *            *            *            *

The tilted Electoral College was a scheme hatched and put into the Constitution that favored slave owners who were also large land owners. Once achieved, the slave owners (and now the neo-conservatives) were able to control legislation that gave more and more tax breaks to the wealthy, while denying more and more legislation to the poor—as they did recently in 1996, 2000, 2010, 2017 and 2018. Most of their funding goes to the political candidates in those states most vulnerable to manipulation. They are able to do so with a relatively small number of billionaires who put up large sums of money to flood the airwaves, and many news sources and outlets that portray the good candidates as evil, and the bad candidates as saints with their huge stockpiles of inherited cash. By my calculation, the Republican neocons hold a 28 vote edge in the Electoral System today, even before a single vote is cast. As Hilary Clinton found out, a 3 million vote plurality is not enough to overcome a rigged Electoral System. There is little wonder that a dull-witted candidate such as Donald Trump could launch a hare-brained campaign to contest his Presidential loss, even when Pres. Biden won both the electoral vote count 306 to 232, and the popular vote by 7 million votes. The Supreme Court seems content to let the status quo stand because they assert it is a matter for states to resolve. The only effective counter- measures that Democrats can take is to get out the vote in huge numbers, especially in those swing states. In the long run, we need to change the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral System in favor a simple national vote, winner take all.

Politics is not my forte. I dislike it immensely. The obscene Electoral System is mainly why. It brings out the worst in those who are disposed to finding refuge among and a dependency on greedy cheats and cowards. Nevertheless, they act as if we do not understand their objectives, and that all is forgiven because their actions are protected by that flaw in the Constitution. My primary concern, however, is the agenda the neocons are following to pass laws that also rig the economy so heavily in their favor that we must inevitably become a feudal system of monarchs and slaves. “We are a nation of laws,” they proclaim, “and you—the remaining 90 percent—are duty bound to obey every one of them.” That includes all new laws that are passed by their legislative puppets. Their overall objective is to control ever more congressional seats, the electoral college, and the Presidency. With that structure intact, they are able to divert funds via legislation away from the needs of all others and into their own pockets, untaxed and unearned. Greed, it seems, is an insatiable trait that consumes the souls of those who are smitten by it.

In terms of legislation, in the past 30 years the neocons have managed to divert about $118 trillion dollars of wealth out of the economy and deposit it into the hands of the already wealthy, making certain it arrives both untaxed and unearned. A sum that large, of course, does not merely leave a hole in the economy. It leaves half our population powerless, hungry, and alone to survive in squalor; with hunger, suicides, mental health issues, illiteracy, crime, etc. as their constant companions. The wealthy neocons buy the loyalty of all those legislators who are willing to give up their integrity for the security their salaries provide them. It is a disgraceful trade-off that is showing itself with greater distaste, violence, and dishonor with each passing day.

The Neo-Conservative Agenda. They definitely have a playbook that lists their objectives and how to achieve and install them. I haven’t seen it, but it is easy enough to surmise and to reverse engineer by following their actions. For starters, they have always been against Social Security and they would eliminate it in a New York minute if they could. They also hate public financing as a means for dealing with the elements of poverty that the dual inequalities have created and caused. Indeed, they would eliminate every program that sustains life for those caught up in the quagmire of poverty. Health care paid by taxes would be eliminated. Aid to dependent children, the aged, and to the disabled would disappear. Public education would be replaced by a voucher system that produced ignoramuses. Jobs for the poor would consist of street cleaners, bed pan carriers, garbage dump attendees, and similar jobs likely under the control of unsupervised thugs with whips and guns. A standing army not unlike China’s or Russia’s of very low-paid obedient soldiers would prevail. Firing squads and castration clinics would be the solutions for disobedience. We already know that mob rule and insurrections are within the scope of their approved activities. Creative minds can extend the list of means and ends that my own cannot conjure up.

Let us now turn to what the future of inequality portends a few years down the road based on its past record

How Bad is Inequality likely to Get? The growth rate of wealth in the US has been relatively constant, compounding at a rate of 7.2 percent annually. Here is an easy view of the past with a projection of a few years into the future.

          1950 $1 trillion           2010 $64 trillion
          1960 $2 trillion           2020 $128 trillion
          1970 $4 trillion           2030 $256 trillion
          1980 $8 trillion           2040 $512 trillion
          1990 $16 trillion         2050 $1,024 trillion
          2000 $32 trillion         2060 $2,048 trillion

The projections are almost certain to come true given a continuing real GDP growth rate of 3.3 percent, and the Fed keeping a keen eye on money growth and inflation. The problem with the projection is that inequality is almost certain to get 16 times worse by 2060. Are the American people strong enough to fight for their fair share? We had better be. By 2070 inequality will be 32 times worse.

Looking Ahead to Part III. The third and last part to this issue outlines how we can make one change in our monetary policy with the potential to reallocate wealth equitably among most of our residents without taking one dime from the rich. In a relatively few years we could see incomes at the low end of our population grow to a national average of $75,000 annually for a family of four. Recall that the Glasmeier/MIT Living Wage is set at that level. It would eliminate poverty as we know it. Let’s show Prof. Glasmeier and MIT that we support their work.