Republicans are incorporating Occupy Wall Street lingo into their talking points. Income gap slips into GOP talk

Income inequality, a cause of liberal economists and pundits, is working its way into the discourse of Republicans on Capitol Hill.

It’s a concept that the Occupy Wall Street movement has virtually owned and spread as its protests expand. Democrats have latched on, too, hammering Republicans for economic policies they say favor only the rich. And the Congressional Budget Office released a major report last week, showing that average household income for the top 1 percent of earners increased 275 percent from 1979 to 2007 while increasing just 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent of earners.


So rather than ignore the disparity — and risk looking out of touch — Republicans are acknowledging income inequality. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is discussing it; House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has talked about wealth disparity; and rank-and-file Republicans have started to lace the phrase into talks and interviews.

That fact that Republicans have decided to talk about income equality is a tribute to the power of one simple phrase in today’s political culture — and shows the GOP’s concerns about distributing its own message during a time of economic upheaval. The Republican response, however, is to push an old message — cutting taxes and regulations will boost small businesses and increase income for everyone, including those at the bottom of the economic scale.

“Absolutely, there’s huge income inequality, and it started right here in Washington,” said Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas). “The way we fix that is getting the government out of the way of the private sector so we can put these people to work.”

Not every Republican is comfortable borrowing a phrase from the left — one GOP aide joked, “I sound like such a Democrat” when talking about the disparity between the wealthy and the working class. Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) warned that it conjures up “redistribution of wealth.”

Cantor became the first Republican to grab the income inequality mantle, planning a speech at the University of Pennsylvania that focused on his immigrant grandmother’s success in America and the need to ensure equal opportunities for everyone. The speech was canceled amid reports that a local Occupy Wall Street movement would protest at the event.

In an interview with POLITICO, the majority leader said he’s interested in sparking a “policy discussion” about the gap between the rich and the poor because “that’s what’s really at the heart of trying to figure out how we’re going to solve these big challenges.”

“It is the empathy required for those who are down on their luck and making sure that we speak to them and that the middle class in this country understands that we’ve got the leadership that understands how to deal with that, and at the same time, go about fixing these major problems,” Cantor said in the interview. “And how do you go and demonstrate empathy and how best to do that — and that’s really what that speech was about.”

Ryan took on the issue last week with a speech at the Heritage Foundation, rebutting the president’s “class warfare” rhetoric and arguing that the Republican Party promotes equality of opportunity — as opposed to equality of outcome, which, he says, Democrats are aiming for when they argue for tax hikes on the rich.

Asked Friday why increased wealth among the top 1 percent is not translating into new jobs, Ryan tied the problem to economic uncertainty, telling NPR: “I’ve toured over 200 businesses in my district, asking this very question, and I get the same answer these days: uncertainty on taxes, uncertainty on regulations, uncertainty on debt and, therefore, borrowing costs, interest rates, things like that. There is so much government-produced uncertainty that it is putting a massive chilling effect on growth.”

Rep. Renee Ellmers, a freshman Republican from North Carolina, said she is pleased Cantor and others are discussing income inequality. “Anytime we can take an issue that has become at the forefront and discuss it and discuss our position, that’s a good thing,” she said.

“It’s time for the Republican Party to bring these things forward and talk to the American people about it, because I think if there’s one hurdle that we have, it’s that we are completely misunderstood in what we’re trying to do. Anytime we can talk about these issues and lay out our philosophy in regard to it, I think it’s a good thing,” she said.

Another GOP House freshman, South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, laid out the GOP’s position on the issue this way: “You can acknowledge it and explain it, and you can offer remedies to correct it, or you can ignore it. I think it is foolhardy to ignore it if it’s what the electorate is talking about and thinking about, then you have to address it.”

“The way you address it is different from others seeking the same offices you’re seeking. That’s what the debate should be on,” he said. “I’ve seen statistics that suggest to me that the debate on whether it exists or not is over; the debate has now shifted into what caused it, how do you ameliorate it, and I think that’s a place that is entirely consistent with some of our other arguments.”

Democrats see the Republicans’ rhetoric as evidence that they’re winning the debate. “Their policies are about protecting the tax cuts for the very wealthy at a time [when] the very wealthy have enjoyed enormous income growth, even as the 99 percent are getting squeezed,” said Vermont Rep. Peter Welch, a leading House Democrat.

Republicans are still coalescing around a response to questions about income inequality, but Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a freshman on the Budget Committee, offered this distillation of the Republican argument:

“There’s not a single country or time period in history [when] there wasn’t income inequality. If we’re concerned with ‘the wealthy have too much, let’s tax them and give it away to those in poverty,’ that’s the wrong direction. The issue is how can we provide the maximum opportunity for everyone in America to succeed rather than to say, ‘Let’s take it away from the successful.’ It’s the balance between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.”

That’s not to say it’s an easy subject for the party, which disdains class-based economic critiques. Some members feel that even acknowledging income inequality risks encouraging the sort of rhetoric they’re looking to avoid. Asked about the connotation of the phrase “income inequality,” LaTourette said, “It’s a redistribution of wealth — which is socialist, which is communist and all of that — but I do think that when you pit millionaires and billionaires against everyone else, that’s a nice populist message, and we’ve got to get our hands on it.”

“In all [of] the messages that the president has tested this year, income inequality is probably the one that’s picking up the most steam, at least in my hometown, and so it’s something we’ve got to be aware of,” LaTourette said. “I don’t know if it’s something we need to talk about but … it’s something we need to be aware of.”