Hillary Clinton is coming under social media fire for a clothing choice she made two months ago. The unassuming tweed jacket she had on during an April speech about income inequality didn’t make any sort of splash that day, or even that month. But now it’s all over the news, after a New York Post article about her campaign’s fashion choices valued that particular Giorgio Armani jacket at $12,495.

.@HillaryClinton wears $12,000 Armani jacket while ‘fighting’ for income equality: https://t.co/7QL3WF7kci pic.twitter.com/QQ4nEu8cW3

— BULLETT Media (@BULLETTMedia) June 7, 2016

According to the New York Post, her stylists have recently aimed for more simplistic outfits, trying not to continue Clinton’s previous trend of wearing brightly colored pantsuits. The idea, apparently, was that a more minimalist approach would draw attention away from Clinton’s clothes, and allow her words to be the focus of discussion. The goal was for people to not talk about her clothes–which is impossible. Hillary Clinton can’t afford to wear the same thing every day, like Trump or Sanders. She has to think about what she wears more than her counterparts because no matter what, it will be a subject of discussion.

This back-to-basics plan may have backfired, as Clinton went from a “Pantsuit Peggy” to an “Armani Alicia.” “Veep” fans might be reminded of Selina Meyer’s attempt to stand on a wooden crate to appear down-to-earth, only to learn that it was reinforced with steel and cost $1,200. But why do we reject expensive items like an Armani jacket? When we criticize wealthy people for making exorbitant purchases, we’re mad at them for having money. Would we prefer they hoard their money like a dragon, not turning their payment into paychecks for the people they purchase from? Is it not enough that Clinton donates hundreds millions of dollars every year? You can be mad at Clinton for any of her policy decisions or Senate votes that you disagree with, but throwing shade her way for buying a jacket is a senseless critique.

While we do know that Clinton’s campaign is spending a lot of money to dress one woman, we don’t know how much she paid for the jacket, or if she paid for it at all. Clinton might have been offered this jacket from a representative at Armani, Clinton’s buyer may have cut a wholesale deal on the jacket, or maybe Hill walked into Bergdorf Goodman, slapped 120 Benjamins on the table, and wore the damn jacket home. Regardless, the $12,000 figure is exorbitant and eye-catching, which is why that’s the number in every story about “Hillary the hypocrite.” But does wearing an expensive jacket invalidate your economic plan? Does having a pricy wardrobe mean you can’t care about bolstering the American middle class?

The answer to these questions is of course not. It isn’t hypocritical for a wealthy person wearing expensive clothes to think there should be fewer Americans living in poverty. The Bernie Sanders brag about not having money doesn’t make him any more suited to shape policy on taxes. You don’t need to be middle class to help the middle class. You have to be smart to help the middle class.

Tackling income inequality doesn’t involve slapping millionaires across the face, putting limits on their credit cards, and shutting down Giorgio Armani, Bugatti, and Sotheby’s. It involves creating a set of laws designed to raise wages across the country and end corporate tax loopholes. If the plan is solid, it doesn’t matter how you dress it up.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary’s $12,000 Jacket Doesn’t Mean Jacksh*t appeared first on Law Street.

A recent HBO documentary has been tracking the life of Robert Durst, 71, a member of a huge New York City real estate empire. “The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst,” follows Durst, who has had multiple run ins with the law. The most recent of those just occurred, as Durst was arrested yesterday in New Orleans in connection with the 2000 death of his friend, Los Angeles-based writer Kathleen Berman.

The Durst Organization owns more than 15 prominent New York City skyscrapers, including the Bank of America building, and has been involved in building the massive One World Trade Center. The family’s net worth is estimated to be $4.4 billion, making them the 58th richest family in America, according to Forbes. While Durst is not involved with the family business, and is actually almost completely estranged from his family, he certainly has not had to want for money throughout his life.

Despite his family’s success, however, he’s had trouble with law enforcement. The first high profile incident seemingly occurred in 1982, when Durst was a suspect in the disappearance of his wife, a medical student by the name of Kathleen McCormack. According to a friend, they were fighting shortly before McCormack’s disappearance. He has never been charged, although he was the only suspect, and there’s long been speculation that he was responsible for her disappearance, and by extension, death. For example, a 2010 fictionalized version of the events, “All Good Things,” starring Kirsten Dunst and Ryan Gosling strongly implies that Durst was responsible.

The murder charge that Durst is currently being held on relates to McCormack’s disappearance as well. Officials allege that Durst’s close friend Kathleen Berman was contacted by investigators looking into McCormack’s case. She was supposed to meet them to talk about what she knew. Shortly after that, Berman was found shot in the back of the head. Durst is currently being held on a first-degree murder warrant for that death.

In a strange turn of events, shortly after Berman was killed, Durst was arrested for a completely separate murder. He was arrested for killing his neighbor in Galveston, Texas, a man by the name of Morris Black. After killing Black, he cut up his body and dumped it into a nearby river. In a verdict that shocked many, however, Durst was acquitted on the grounds that he had acted in self defense.

The last episode in the HBO documentary is set to air tonight–and it will be interesting to see if the program can shed anymore light onto the case. After all, last week’s episode showed LA police officers closing in on making an arrest in the Berman case.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post HBO Documentary Subject Robert Durst Arrested on Murder Charges appeared first on Law Street.

People starving or going hungry seems like something out of the past in the United States. After all, aren’t we always telling ourselves how we are the wealthiest and greatest nation on the planet? Although those are certainly debatable points, we are definitely one of the fattest at least, right? Well while the United States is home to immense wealth, happiness, and large waist lines, hunger is still a very real problem here. In fact, one in six people in this country faces hunger every day. That number increases to one in five for children, one in three if the child is black or Latino. The point is that even in the United States, the lone remaining superpower, hunger is still a major issue. Furthermore, if it is a problem here then it is likely a problem everywhere. The question then, is how to solve the crisis? How do we make it, to quote Gone From the Wind, so that, we “never go hungry again?”

Why is there a food shortage?

Production

In looking for the culprit for hunger, naturally it seems wise to look for the root of the problem. However, while it may seem like a no-brainer that hunger is caused by a shortage of food or lack of production, this is actually false. In fact today we already produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet and the amount of food being produced each year actually outpaces population growth as well. Although it is as of yet unclear whether production can keep up with growth indefinitely, right now the amount of food is not the major issue concerning hunger. If the amount of food isn’t the issue, then what is it?

Cost

The answer to that question is several-fold. First as always, cost plays a major role. After all nothing in life is free, especially not lunch. Truthfully though it is not so much a matter of cost as it is a matter of poverty. In fact when it comes to hunger, poverty is inextricably intertwined. Poverty is akin to a disease that weakens the immune system and cost is what is then allowed to spread. While there is clearly enough food to feed the world’s population, it is not equally and appropriately distributed because many groups throughout the world simply cannot afford it.

Along this same vein is the cost of production. While this is certainly less of a problem in the United States with its advanced transportation structure the simple act of harvesting food and transporting it to a market for sale can price out needy people in other regions of the globe.

As a result this can lead to hunger. It can also cause malnutrition, as those unable to afford healthy–or any–food turn to cheaper and less nutritious substitutes. This can further serve as a catch 22 of sorts, as the inferior food makes a person weaker and less healthy and thus less able to find an occupation that could provide nutritious food that would then lead to better health.

Waste

Another major problem is the amount of food wasted. According to the World Food Program, every year one-third of the food that is produced is never consumed and is instead wasted. In addition along with the wasted food are all the wasted resources such as fertilizers and water that go into food production. Thus while enough food is produced to feed seven billion people, it is unlikely there is enough to feed those same seven billion and throw away another third.  The video below provides a more detailed breakdown on yearly waste.

Regional Instability

While waste may be a less apparent reason for hunger, perhaps the most obvious is conflict. Indeed in areas of prolonged and expansive war, hunger is a very serious problem. Not only does the physical destruction from battle destroy valuable farmland, the conflict also forces people off their lands and often into other areas that are already struggling to feed their own people. A real-time example of this is what is currently going on in Syria. With refugees trying to flee the conflict, the means to adequately feed the ever-growing displaced population are fewer and fewer to come by.

Climate Change

Along with cost, waste, and conflict is another growing concern related to hunger–the impact of climate change. According to Worldwatch Institute, climate change could affect many of the agricultural areas that can least afford it such as South and Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. While it may improve the conditions for other needy areas such as East Asia and Latin America, this still greatly increases the chances of malnutrition for the world’s poor. Furthermore it also puts the question of adequate production further into doubt. According to the study, by 2050 there will actually be less food being produced than in 2000. This is especially concerning in that the population by 2050 is expected to grow from approximately seven billion today to nine billion then.  The video below details the dangers of climate change on food production.

Ways to Fix the Problem

Although hunger is an age-old problem and new challenges are rising that exacerbate it, there is still room for hope. That hope comes in the forms of a number of programs aimed at addressing the root causes of hunger and its resulting side effects.

At the grassroots level are programs such as the one initiated by the organization Stop Hunger Now. The approach of this organization is two-fold: first is the actual feeding of hungry children around the world via healthy food packets that are high in nutrition and can improve development, and second are programs aimed at combating poverty, one of the major causes of hunger globally. This includes teaching skills to break the cycle of poverty and educating people on better health practices, which reduces the risk of malnutrition.

Along with private programs are government efforts. In the immediate are programs that address hunger directly, such as those that assist in buying food like SNAP, also commonly known as food stamps. In 2013, one in five households was on food stamps–an all-time high. To help feed all these people the government spent approximately $80 billion in 2013.

There are also government efforts on the global scale as well. One such program conducted by the United States is known as Feed the Future. How this program works is first the federal government selects a number of countries. The next step is the planning phase where the government then tailors programs for each country. Once the planning step is completed, a large investment is made aimed at empowering women, growing high-yield and diverse crops, creating an adequate infrastructure for moving the product once is has grown, and above all else providing an occupation that can help lift people out of poverty.  The video below explains the Feed the Future program in greater detail.

These programs and countless other similar programs are providing a means both to fight hunger at the present and the overall issues underlying it specifically poverty.

Conclusion

In 2000 the United Nations released a set of eight goals it wished to achieve by 2015 known as the Millennial Goals. Number one on the list, eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. This goal was very ambitious, even bordering on unrealistic. Thus by next year hunger and extreme poverty are not likely to be completely done away with.

Nonetheless, the rates of both are greatly reduced. Extreme poverty for example has been cut in half, which as has been alluded to, is essential to ending hunger. Reducing hunger directly has also met with great success, in 2012 and 2013 for instance, 173 million fewer people faced continuous hunger compared with 1990 to 1992. The number of children whose growth has been stunted by poor nutrition has also decreased markedly as well from 40 percent to 25 percent today.

Indeed significant gains have been made in the fight against hunger. While there is still no panacea to end it, all these steps and programs have made more than a dent. Continued efforts to address the main causes will only go further in reducing it; however, to ever completely eradicate it, seismic shifts need to be made in ending problems like inequality, war, and waste. Hunger therefore is not likely to ever be eradicated overnight, instead it will take a continued effort, one hungry mouth at a time.

Resources

Primary 

World Food Program: What Causes Hunger?

United Nations Development Program: Millennial Development Goals

Additional

Do Something: 11 Facts About Hunger in the United States

Freedom from Hunger: World Hunger Facts

Worldwatch Institute: Climate Change Will Worsen Hunger 

Guardian: World Food Day: 10 Myths About Hunger

CBS News; War and Hunger

Stop Hunger Now: Mission and History

CNS News: Record 20% of Households on Food Stamps in 2013

Feed the Future: Approach

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hunger: An Intractable Problem With a Myriad of Causes appeared first on Law Street.

The United States of America. Land of the free, home of the brave. Doesn’t that have a nice ring to it?

Anyone from anywhere, regardless of socioeconomic class, religion, or culture can come and make a name for themselves in the United States. We believe in “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, set your mind on the prize, and go claim what is yours.

Yet each year the range in wealth disparity increases, rendering it more difficult–to a point where it is impossible to succeed economically.

In the United States, there is an immense wealth disparity. The vast majority of capital is owned by the top 5%, leaving 95% with huge levels of wealth disparity.

As the standard of living increases, the federal minimum wage should increases respectively.

A step forward in the right direction was the Minimum Wage Act of 2012, specifying that the federal minimum wage would be increased to $9.80 by 2014.

The question is often asked, why raise minimum wage? This video explains why.

Minimum wage is a mechanism the protects the Average Joe, the working class. The issue is that the “Average Joe” ten years ago is nothing like “Joe” in the status quo. The cost of living has increased exponentially, so much that individuals paid at a minimum wage can barely support themselves, let alone a family.  Often times, families have to rely on food stamps and governments subsidies on a daily basis just to survive.

With an increased minimum wage, the government will be inherently be removed from the lives of Americans across the country and a free market will be able to flourish.

With an increased minimum wage, the gap in wealth subsequently decreases. Individuals, along side their families, have more money to spend and invest. Not only does this end the cyclical process of poverty and create a stronger middle class, but it provides for a stronger economy.

The United States should want to encourage these people to move up to the higher echelons in society, not keep them in the current cycle of cyclical poverty. If we increased the minimum wage, we would inherently have less people on food stamps and government programs, thus more people would be supporting the free market.

By increasing the minimum wage, not only with the United States shrink its ever growing wealth gap, but it will improve the lives of millions of Americans.

[BusinessWeek] [DepartmentofLabor]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Fibonacci Blue via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wealth Disparity in the United States: Minimum Wage appeared first on Law Street.