shown any sign of opposing the high general levels of immigration that
have so upset the millions of ordinary Americans who feel beleaguered
by fears of job competition or terrorism and/or by social anxieties. Here, too, the billionaires seem to be seriously out of touch with the American citizenry as a whole.
The fifth and final building block in the structure of evidence about
stealth politics involves our statistical analyses of relationships between billionaires’ talk and their political actions. To put it simply: silence about public policy tends to be particularly common among billionaires who
disagree with majorities of Americans.
In several important cases, the billionaires who spoke out in public
tended to take policy stands that were very different from the policy-
specific actions of most of those who took such actions. On Social Security, for example, most of the few billionaires who spoke out expressed support for current benefit levels. But most of the billionaires who took policy-specific actions on Social Security worked to privatize or cut benefits.
The eight billionaires who spoke out in public about the estate tax
tended (by a small margin) to support it, as a way to provide government
revenue and to require economic winners to “give back” some of the
riches that their fellow citizens helped them amass. But every one of the dozen billionaires who took policy- specific actions concerning the estate tax sought to abolish the tax.
134
chapter six
On immigration, there was not such a sharp contrast between talk and
action. But if the division of opinion among the subset of billionaires who either talked or took policy- specific actions faithfully represents the division of opinion among the whole group of one hundred billionaires, we
can infer that many (roughly half) of them favored maintaining or ex-
panding high levels of immigration generally, while the other half favored only high- skilled immigration. None at all agreed with the majority of the public and favored decreasing levels of immigration.
It is hard to avoid the impression that many or most billionaires were
silent about the specifics of certain public policies at least in part because they disagreed with what most Americans wanted. Open disagreement
with majorities of citizens on important political issues might provoke
even more protesting and unpleasantness than taking a stand on a con-
tentious issue about which opinion is divided but the average (mean or
median) citizen and the billionaires do not stand far apart.
Our multivariate regression analyses added some subtle and elusive—
but important— support for this inference. The most sophisticated re-
gression analysis we reported in chapter 2, for example, established the
existence of rather different statistical bases for the direction of policy-specific actions about tax policy among billionaires who spoke out, as opposed to those who were entirely silent. In particular, a higher level of a billionaires’ wealth— which by itself is associated with more liberal or centrist talk and actions about taxes (and also with more speaking out)—
led to more pro- tax actions among those who made at least one public
comment. But it actually led to more anti- tax actions among the silent billionaires. This indicates that silence tended to conceal anti- tax senti-ments, especially among the very wealthiest billionaires, who have to fork over the most to Uncle Sam.
We believe that these five types of evidence, taken together, indicate
that— on several important issues of public policy— many or most billionaires have actively worked to enact policies opposed to the wishes of most Americans, while intentionally trying to conceal their thoughts and actions about those policies by staying silent about them.
Billionaires’ Impact on Public Policy
It is not easy to figure out exactly how much influence billionaires have on the making of US government policy.
what is to be done about billionaires?
135
Since we lack comprehensive data about billionaires’ policy preferences,
we cannot carry out the sort of influence analysis that can be done with
Martin Gilens’s data— covering nearly two thousand policy decisions— on
the relative influence of “affluent” Americans, average Americans, and major interest groups. That sort of analysis is possible because Gilens gathered extensive data on the policy preferences of the affluent top 20 percent of income earners who show up in national surveys; on the policy preferences of average Americans (from the same surveys); and on the pro- and con-lineups of major interest groups. If we had similar preference data on billionaires, we could investigate how well the billionaires’ preferences predict (and, therefore, presumably affect) policy decisions, taking into account the preferences and alignments of ordinary citizens and interest groups.2 But we do not have— and cannot imagine how to gather— such data.
We can, however, draw some inferences about the influence of billion-
aires on policy from the existing research on affluent Americans and on
multimillionaires; from various scholarly and journalistic accounts of
policy- making processes; and from some of our own research reported in
this book.
Recent work by Gilens and others has made clear that affluent Ameri-
cans and organized interest groups (especially business groups and corpo-
rations) have far more influence on the making of US government policies
than average citizens do. In fact, when one statistically takes account of what affluent Americans and organized interest groups want from government, the average American’s wishes appear to have virtually no influence on policy making at all.3
If affluent Americans have a lot more political influence than aver-
age Americans, it is not much of a logical leap to infer that truly wealthy Americans probably have still more clout. And that the very wealthiest
billionaires have the most policy- making power of all. Indeed, it seems
possible that most or all of the influence apparently exercised by Gilens’s
“affluents” is actually exerted by a small subset of wealthy Americans
among the affluents: by billionaires and their wealthy allies.4
Moreover, the best available evidence on the policy preferences of mul-
timillionaires— the Chicago- area SESA study of a representative sample
of the top one or two percent of wealth holders— indicates that wealthy
Americans tend to disagree sharply with most Americans about many eco-
nomic policies. Again, if multimillionaires disagree with average Ameri-
cans, it is not much of a leap to infer that billionaires may disagree even more markedly.5
136
chapter six
The SESA study was conducted at a time when the United States was
still struggling to recover from the Great Recession of 2008– 2009. At that time, most Americans agreed that the most important problem facing
the United States concerned jobs and the economy. Oddly, however—
despite the slackness of the economy, the absence of inflation, and many
Americans’ cries for economic help— a plurality of the SESA multimil-
lionaires said that the most important problem was budget deficits. Most were averse to extensive government spending on any sort of economic
stimulus or social welfare programs.6
The SESA survey showed that, while most Americans tilted strongly
toward expanding government programs on health care and on Social Se-
curity, the multimillionaires tilted toward cutting each of them. Large majorities of Americans favored setting the minimum wage high
enough so
that no family with a full- time worker would fall below the poverty line, but most multimillionaires disagreed. Majorities of ordinary Americans
favored having the government in Washington “see to it” that everyone
who wanted to work could find a job; favored increasing the earned income tax credit; said that the federal government should provide jobs for everyone able and willing to work who could not find private employment; and
said that the government should see that no one is without food, clothing, or shelter. But when asked the same survey questions concerning each of
those issues, large majorities of the multimillionaires disagreed with most Americans about every one of them.7
Policy disagreements between the SESA multimillionaires and aver-
age Americans extended to other areas of economic and social welfare
policy as well. Regarding health care and retirement pensions, these in-
cluded national health insurance financed by tax money, and raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. For education policy, they included spending on public schools, access to college, and investing in retraining programs. For macroeconomic policy, they included not cutting spending on Medicare, education, or highways in order to reduce
federal budget deficits, and support for economic regulation— especially of “big corporations.” For tax policy, they included use of the corporate income tax and estate tax rates on large estates. In every one of these
cases, the preferences of multimillionaires were markedly out of tune
with the preferences of ordinary Americans.8
Again, since most multimillionaires hold even more economically con-
servative views than affluent Americans do— far more conservative views
than those of average Americans— it is not much of a logical leap to infer
what is to be done about billionaires?
137
that billionaires probably do too. That possibility tends to be supported by the research reported in this book.
If it is indeed true that most billionaires share or exceed the extreme
economic conservatism of the SESA multimillionaires, and that billion-
aires have even more influence than Gilens’s affluents, it seems possible that US billionaires and their allies may bear substantial responsibility for pushing our public policies away from many measures that majorities of
Americans want— including policies that would soften some of the sharp
edges of economic inequality.
In fact, the political clout of wealthy Americans— wielded against many
popular economic- welfare policies— may well have brought us to the un-
happy place where we are today— where millions of citizens have suffered
great economic stress but the government seems little responsive to their needs and wants— and many Americans are very angry about it.
Economic Inequality and Political Inequality
As we approach the question of what, if anything, to do about billionaires and stealth politics, a bit of historical perspective may be helpful.
It is a fact that the United States today— despite our enormous, unpre-
cedented national riches and our astoundingly high level of economic out-
put— is perpetually embroiled in serious conflict over the question of who gets to enjoy how much of those riches. It is also a fact that in the course of some four decades since the 1970s, most working- class and middle- class Americans have seen their wages stay stagnant. Millions of Americans—
particularly in the small towns and cities of Middle America— have faced
job losses, wage cuts, home foreclosures, and health- care crises. Their
children— if lucky enough to go to college— have been stuck with enor-
mous student loan debts and face uncertain job futures. Yet during these
same years the fortunes of the wealthiest Americans have soared. Eco-
nomic inequality has reached peaks not seen in the United States since
the glaringly unequal 1920s or the Gilded Age of the 1890s.9 This is a
great time to be an American billionaire. But to be an ordinary American
worker, not so much.10
Given this historical context, one might expect that democratic account-
ability would move the US government toward vigorous action to help our
battered fellow citizens. It seems natural to expect that— in times of trouble for millions of their citizens— rich democratic countries would act strongly and quickly to help, and that if governments failed to do so, citizens would
138
chapter six
punish them at the polls. Some governments in Europe and elsewhere have
in fact provided such help, while others have implemented austerity policies that moved in the opposite direction. The record of the United States has been mixed, but arguably has fallen more into the austerity camp. Opinion surveys and observations by journalists and others— not to mention various populistic revolts, including the startlingly successful Trump presidential campaign of 201611— all indicate that millions of Americans want help from economic policies, are angry that they haven’t gotten more help, and think their political system and the top elites of both major political parties have let them down.12
How can that be?
Although the very phenomenon of stealth politics means that we can-
not be sure, the answer to that question may take us back to the politi-
cal actions of billionaires and other wealthy Americans. It seems possible that wealthy Americans have a great deal of political clout, and that they have— often secretly— wielded that clout for purposes contrary to the
wishes of most Americans. If so, that may have contributed to the mess
we are in. To the extent that billionaires’ wealth and political influence are central to both our political problems and our economic problems, those
who want to make progress dealing with either one should consider doing
something about billionaires’ distinctive political clout.
What to Do
We do not favor drastic or punitive action against billionaires.
After all, some of America’s wealthiest billionaires have played central
parts in bringing us goods and services that have brightened the lives of millions of Americans: innovative computer hardware (Steve Jobs) and
software (Bill Gates); wondrous web- ware, from Facebook (Mark Zuck-
erberg and Dustin Moskovitz) to a seemingly unlimited stream of clever
new services and applications like Uber (Travis Kalanick and Garrett
Camp) and Snapchat (Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy); the Walmart
and Amazon retail revolutions (Sam Walton, Jeff Bezos); life- saving pharmaceutical products (Patrick Soon- Shiong); and many others.
The fact is that American capitalism has brought forth what a visitor
from the eighteenth or nineteenth century would surely see as miracles of innovation and mass production. A number of smart, creative, energetic,
risk- taking, and (sometimes) self- sacrificing billionaires have played criti-
what is to be done about billionaires?
139
cal roles in bringing about those miracles. Strong material incentives—
including opportunities to amass great fortunes— have undoubtedly been
helpful in spurring their hard work and risk taking.
In our view, many or most American billionaires deserve substantial
economic rewards. The existence of such rewards is probably beneficial
for society as a whole. We are not “levelers” who would try to confis-
cate every bit of billionaires’ fortunes. Far less are we revolutionaries, who— at times of extreme economic and political inequality in various
pla
ces around the world— have been known to yell at the holders of great
wealth and power, “Up against the wall!” or “Off with your heads!”
But it is not radical or revolutionary to point out that most billionaires would not slack off— and indeed would still be richly rewarded for their
efforts— if they had to pay a little more in taxes. As Warren Buffett has often emphasized (citing his own case), great fortunes are not created by a single human being acting alone. They reflect lucky opportunities and
a great deal of cooperation and help from many other people. Indeed,
great fortunes are generally built with a lot of assistance from the legal arrangements, the public policies, and the productive resources of entire societies. It makes sense to ask billionaires to share some of the wealth that is derived, in good part, from others’ labor.
Moreover— and more centrally related to concerns about unequal or
un accountable political power— it does not follow that billionaires or
other wealthy Americans should be allowed to spend every penny they
would like to spend in order to influence politics. Politics is very different from ordinary consumption goods that people should be totally free
to buy and sell. Spending on politics, unlike the purchase of a yacht or a mansion, can directly affect the welfare of millions of other citizens. Massive spending on politics may undermine a central tenet of democracy,
political equality, in which each citizen has as equal a voice as possible in deciding how government policies can best serve all citizens.
If one were to conclude that US billionaires currently have too much
po litical power, it is not difficult to imagine ways in which their power might be counterbalanced or curtailed.
Reformers might begin with— but should avoid the temptation of end-
ing with— direct efforts to reduce the influence of big- money political
contributions to campaigns. The contemporary Supreme Court has made
it very difficult to impose limits on the amounts of money that individuals or corporations are allowed to contribute. So reformers could think about how they might change some of the Court’s rulings— either by crafting
140
chapter six
Billionaires and Stealth Politics Page 21
