More From Emily Litella

Nick Kristof's  column yesterday really does capture the way in which the shift of wealth upward has created a vicious cycle of national failure, in terms of infrastructure and basic public services.

According to Kristof, the World Economic Forum now ranks US infrastructure 25th, down from 8th in 2003-4.  In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our national electric grid a grade of just D+.

But, as Kristof, points out, if you have enough money, you don't have to give a shit. The electrical grid is a disaster? The hottest new must-have items after hurricane Sandy for home owners who have the money are $10,000 backup generators. Companies can't produce them fast enough.

Bothered by crime? Move into a gated community.

Public schools are failing? Send your kid to a private school; you can afford it.

Public library budgets and hours are being cut? Public libraries are for losers who can't afford their own books.

Cuts to our National Park System as well as city parks have forced a cutback in hours and services? Get a 2nd or 3rd home in the country and make your own park. Join a private club.

Unfortunately, poverty, income inequality, and failing infrastructure were not of much interest to either candidate in the election we just suffered through. Yes, the Democrats talked about income inequality, but only insofar as it affected the nebulous, and shrinking, middle class. The only mention of poverty was the Republican assertion that Obama was trying to buy the votes of poor people with food stamps, and their division of the country into makers and takers. Neither candidate dealt with poverty as a growing problem that needs to be addressed as a national issue.

I know, there have always been private schools and some people have always been able to afford 2nd or 3rd homes. But that's not the point. It is the magnitude, the scale of inequality that is so extreme, and getting worse. According to Kristof, the latest census data shows that a full 1% of people in Los Angeles and New York City work as private security guards. That 1% is a really large number if you think about it. (The 1% protecting the assets of that other notorious 1%.)

Kristof titled his article "A Failed Experiment." I think he was referring to the half-century process of redistributing wealth upward, reducing taxes and cutting back on the most basic of public services.  For those more pessimistic of us, it might as well refer to the whole U.S. political-economic experiment.

I don't think the obstructionist Republicans are the only ones at fault. I haven't heard much talk about it lately, but I still believe Obama squandered an opportunity at the beginning of his administration (the supposedly crucial first 100 days, I guess) to bring the country behind him in a commitment to some real fundamental change, ala FDR.

It probably wasn´t original with him, but Rahm Emmanuel is supposed to have observed that a crisis is a terrible think to waste; despite his many accomplishments in the face of rigid obstructionism, I think Obama didn´t take full advantage of the crisis that Bush handed him, at least in the sense of rallying the people behind some significant changes/programs.