Do Most Economic, Social and Political Problems boil down to the Income Inequality in the U.S.?

After the 2024 election, political analysts were trying to determine why Trump won the election by defeating his opponent, Kamala Harris, by 1.5%. Was it that stubborn inflation that started around COVID-19, that was slowly reduce later in the Biden administration? Were people just angry because prices didn't come down fast enough? Did most Americans not realize that the supply chain issue during COVID not play a pivotal role in world wide inflation? Another issue was immigration, Trump and his team hammered the Biden administration on open borders, which seemed to resonate with a certain percentage of the electorate. However, the borders were not completely open, contrary to what voters kept hearing about. Furthermore, many immigrants were political refugees, something that those political ads by the Trump campaign forgot to mention. Regardless, most sane individuals think it's a policy in dire need of reform.

I'd offer another explanation, Income Inequality. Paychecks for average Americans have not kept up with inflation. Even before inflation, some might argue that over the last 40 years, the majority of Americans have less purchasing power. Many younger Americans in their 20s, 30s or 40s realize that they were not have the same standard of living as their parents. Many have never owned a home, it's too costly these days. Over the last 40 years, Income Inequality has significantly gotten worse in the United States. In 1970, the Bottom 50 Percent had 21% of the Total Income. In 2020, the percent fell to 14. A 33% decrease. For those same years, the Top 1 Percent had 11% of the Total Income in 1970, which grew to 19% in 2020. A 73.7% increase. (Percentages are critical in this case to observe this trend.) And that happened in just 50 years. Because this study concluded in 2020, it appears that this downward trend may be accelerating.

When you see poorer Americans claiming that immigrants have taken their jobs, a big reason for this reaction might come down to Income Inequality. Immigration, legal or otherwise would be less of an issue if the poorer Americans were paid more for their labor. (Just to be clear, I'm for regulated immigration. I'm for both parties to come up with a fair immigration policy. No more using the illegal immigration as a political football.)

No one cheers on inflation, now with gas being around $4 - 6 per gallon, people are angry. They may blame their governor if the their state's gasoline taxes are too high. If they back Trump, they blame the Iranians for trying to get a nuclear weapon, or claim there's too much greed within the oil companies. It's ok to be angry, but what if their incomes kept up with the richer Americans over the last 40 years? They may still complain, but the financial situation for the Bottom 50 would be much less dire.

Last year, Trump ended the Obamacare subsidy payments to health insurers. This law was originally designed to help lower-income Americans with their healthcare costs. This will impact about 7 million Americans. So these Americans have two choices: either to pay more for healthcare or eliminate healthcare all together. If the bottom 50% of country's income kept up with the richer Americans in terms of a similar amount of income, they'd have more money to spend. And if America provided basic healthcare to all Americans, with more purchasing power, increases in food or gas would not necessarily be such a tenuous issue. I've included below several examples showing the manifestation of Income Inequality in the United States.

Is there Money in HealthCare???

According to OpenSecrets, the healthcare industry spent roughly $430 million on political contributions in 2024. Maybe they’re bribing politicians to make this industry more affordable for average Americans who have little say in a democracy regarding health care? (Sarcasm.) If you’re a C-suite individual working for a public company in health care, it’s important to determine how much to spend on lobbying in D.C., ensuring the company’s investment pays off. That's not the best part; these contributions to politicians were evenly split between the Republicans and Democrats. Oh, how convenient! If we can’t just blame Republicans and can’t just blame Democrats, then there’s something serious about why money has an inordinate amount of influence vis-à-vis the average American voter.

In another example of Income Inequality, in December of 2024, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, was shot to death in Manhattan, New York City. This occurred during broad daylight and inscribed on the cartridge cases were the words “deny”, “delay”, and “depose”. Over the last several years, it was reported that UnitedHealthcare had denied up to 30% of all submitted claims. Allegedly, the assailant was frustrated with the lack of accountability by our government when it came to overseeing for profit health care. And considering a non-government company had that power to deny claims with very little oversight, for people on a limited budget, such a decision can be financially catastrophic. Just to be clear, I don’t condone what the alleged assailant did in this case. Violence isn’t necessarily the answer. However, I can understand someone financially impacted by a large insurance company decision to carry out such a plan. Will this type of violence increase as this issue becomes more and more acute in the United States?

Let’s Consider the Administration’s Operation Epic Fury

According to a March 2026 Pew Research Center survey, 38% of Americans support U.S. military action against Iran, while 59% oppose it. I sense that it doesn’t necessarily mean that the majority of Americans will have any say in the length or depth of this war. Tyranny of the minority. Most Democrats in Congress oppose this war, as do some Republicans. With minorities in both the House and Senate, Democrats have limited options. Regarding the Congressional Republicans, many are not crazy about the Iran war but are too afraid of being primaried or criticized by Trump, if they dare to question his military strategy in the Strait of Hormuz and Iran.

What planning was involved in this war? Did America’s foreign policy merely follow the Israeli’s because Netanyahu convinced Trump to do so?

If Trump’s main goal now is to eliminate the chance of Iran gaining a nuclear weapon, then what was the point of last year’s attack? According to the BBC, regarding last year’s attack on Iran, Trump said, “Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Claiming that Iran is the bully of the Middle East. If this were true, why did the U.S., along with Israel, attack them again in February of this year? If the Commander in Chief was not fully honest or transparent from last year’s attack, how are Americans to believe him this time when addressing this latest military campaign?

In addition, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, has proposed $1.5 trillion for fiscal year 2027. Their justification is to enhance America’s military capabilities to address global conflicts, especially in the situation with Iran. Have Trump and the Secretary of War realized that for about $35,000, drones purchased by Iran have the capability of destroying much more expensive military weapons? There are many lessons to be learned by attacking Iran; one critical lesson should be how to address this issue moving forward, regardless of how expensive or sophisticated the weapons you’re using. Does this appear to be an administration that is looking out for all Americans? Especially among those in the majority who don’t agree with this latest war. If Income Inequality gets worse along with the federal debt, then what? At what point will those disenfranchised people rise up?

With the Citizen's United Decision, Corporations are People

According to the NY Times, Sherrod Brown and Jon Husted are vying for Ohio's Senate race in November, although this will only be for a two-year term (Mr. Husted was appointed by Ohio's Governor to serve the remainder of Vance's term after Vance left to join the Trump administration as Vice President). In 2024, over $550 million was spent on Ohio's Senate race. This race, later this year will exceed that amount spent on this campaign.

Backing up several years, in 2010, the Supreme Court, in the Citizen's United versus the Federal Election Commission ruled that unions and corporations cannot be prohibited from making donations in elections. The SCOTUS cited the First Amendment protects the right of free speech. Because of this decision over 15 years ago, it allows entities for unlimited political spending. This means that entities with deep pockets can spend an incredible amount of money in order to influence political policy. At the same time, average Americans with the same free speech guarantee but with limited funds to spend on political candidates will not have the same influence on political policy. Said differently, the Bottom 50 of Americans who may be experiencing Income Inequality may have less say on policies that may improve their standard of living. If a rich individual decides to influence public policy by contributing a million dollars to a party or individual, that significant amount of money probably has a good chance to have a say in our federal government. For the life of me, I don't understand how the Citizen's United decision will in any way improve our democracy as large funds donated to candidates will outweigh what their constituents desire. It's may similar to a voter in Tennessee or Michigan being able to vote a million times. Of course, that's not going to happen but it should illustrate how limited campaign finance regulations means that those with the largest contributions are interfering with our democracy. When this occurs, typically the average American will not be on the losing end of the equation.

Another Example of Billionaire Spending in Presidential Elections

In 2008, prior to Citizen’s United, billionaire spending on Presidential Elections was $16 million. After this ruling, spending increased to $231 million. In 2016 and 2020, spending increased to $682 million and $1.2 billion respectively. Another significant increase came in 2024, when billionaires spent $2.6 billion. At first glance, it appears since the Supreme Court decision, spending by the Billionaire Class has at least doubled every four years. Again, why are billionaires spending so much more money in these elections. Most have advisors and professionals to grow their money, so why would they be investing in Presidential Elections? It must be effective. They wouldn't be spending all this money with not strings attached. It must be an effective strategy to significantly influence political policy. Those without this capital are squeezed out of having a say in political policy.

You might ask what areas the very wealthy are interested in bribing or influencing politicians in D.C. These areas may include gun laws, the energy sector, health care, foreign policy, the environment, taxation or the conglomeration of radio and television.

Do Most Economic, Social and Political Problems boil down to the Income Inequality in the U.S.?