Study Shows Republicans Favor Economic Inequality

A study of the voting records of members of Congress, recently published in the prestigious online scientific journal PLOS One, shows that “Republicans tended to support legislation increasing economic inequality regardless of their social status,” whereas the tendency of congressional Democrats was in the opposite direction but weaker, because “High status Democrats tended to exhibit less support for legislation that reduces economic inequality than did their lower status” peers. The study “analyzed 13 pieces of legislation, chosen by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS;, that were sponsored by members of Congress between 2010 and 2012.” The IPS is a progressive think tank that was founded by anti-Vietnam-War academics Markus Raskin and Richard Barnet in 1963, and which has championed anti-war and civil-rights issues and consistently opposed economic inequality. It frequently attacks both Democrats and Republicans for what IPS considers to be insufficient focus on reducing inequality. It is not a Democratic think tank in the sense that (for example) the Heritage Foundation is a Republican one, because historically IPS has been hostile toward both Parties — it has been “to the left” of both.

IPS rated bills on the impact that they would have in reducing economic inequality. No Republican think tank has rated bills on the impact on increasing economic inequality; so, there was no think tank “on the right” side that could counterbalance IPS “on the left.” Consistent with what turned out to be the findings in this study, people “on the right” don’t care much about economic inequality or else they support it; but, in either case they aren’t studying proposed legislation as to its tendency to increase or decrease it.

This scientific study, “Noblesse Oblige? Social Status and Economic Inequality Maintenance among Politicians,” was published 21 January 2014, and authored by two of the world’s leading researchers of political attitudes, Michael W. Kraus and Bennett Callaghan, both of whom are psychology professors at the University of Illinois.

The authors wrote that “having lower status in one’s local community predicts lower levels of life-satisfaction better than national income levels [32–33]. Thus, we tested the prediction that relative status differences, even among elite members of society, would predict support for economic inequality.” Their study “involved the use of publically available data for 430 members of the US House of Representatives. The data include 190 Democrats and 240 Republicans. The majority of the sample was male (n = 357) and white (n = 359). Members of Congress had served an average of 11.85 years in office (SD = 9.60).”

“The social status of members of the House of Representatives was assessed using three variables: average wealth, race, and gender. For average wealth, estimated average wealth of 423 members of the House of Representatives was collected from the Center for Responsive Politics.”

They “analyzed 13 pieces of legislation, chosen by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS;, that were sponsored by members of Congress [only Representatives; no Senators] between 2010 and 2012. … Legislation (summarized in Table 1) was chosen by the IPS to appear in the 2012 Inequality Report Card,” and those were the 13 bills that were analyzed here.

They found: “As expected, political party affiliation had a large effect on sponsoring behavior …  supporting reduction of economic inequality significantly more than Republicans. … All subsequent analyses assess social status predictors of legislative behavior while accounting for party affiliation.”

Their “Discussion” said: “It is interesting to speculate about the reasons why status did not influence support for economic inequality among Republicans. One perspective suggests that people who identify as liberal [by which they intended to mean progressive] and conservative tend to operate using distinct moral foundations.” On the hypothesis that Republicans, as conservatives, place higher value upon loyalty: “It is perhaps because of this loyalty that low status members of the Republican Party tended to support economic inequality as much as their high status counterparts.” (By contrast: low-status Democrats might not be so loyal, and therefore might break away more often to side with the Progressive Caucus in the House, which doesn’t even have any Republicans in it but which is highly critical of most bills from members of both Parties, but especially of Republican bills — only of a few Democratic bills.) Also: “It is noteworthy that consistent relationships between support for economic inequality and social status emerged across three distinct measures of social status – average wealth, race, and gender. Importantly, influences of wealth, race, and gender have demonstrated some converging effects in prior research.”

My own comments on this study are: The picture that emerges from it fits very well with the Republican Party being the rich white Christian male Party, and the Democratic Party being instead a collection of lower-status groups, such as females, the non-wealthy, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, etc. — all of the historical rejects from traditional high society in American culture — in other words: the lower-status groups. Whereas the Republican Party is solidly pro-aristocracy at the expense of the public, the Democratic Party is split between the two — mainly pro-public, but with a significant pro-aristocracy contingent (such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton). Whereas there exists a Republican ideology (solidly conservative), there is no Democratic ideology (it’s not solidly progressive), and this also is the reason why the Democratic Party can select Presidential candidates like Obama and the Clintons, who are tools of the aristocracy who simply mouth platitudes about “the need for more equality” just so as to win elections in order to compromise them away with Republicans to achieve “change” that’s no basic change at all, and that’s not even necessarily change in a progressive direction (for example, estate taxes have still been going down, which is a primary goal of the aristocracy, but which has been ferociously opposed by more than 95% of Democrats in both the House and the Senate).


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Politics / World News and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Then how would you explain this ‘Progressive Regressive’?

    Real Income Inequality: A Look at the Income Gap Between Washington D.C. and the Rest of America Katie Pavlich Jan 28, 2014

    • cettel

      That’s irrelevant to what is reported in my article. Here is a response to my article at another site
      which is a much more relevant Republican response to it than any thus far at the present site (It comes from a certain “Bill Johnson”):

      I am a conservative and this comes as no surprise to me. It has been this way since the beginning of time for humans.

      To conserve is to keep what you acquire. And thousands of years ago to survive it was important for humans to covet their food and water so they could survive and thrive. And if they had plenty and enough to share then maybe they could learn to be liberal with food and water to share it to those who simply would not or could not do the work to provide for themselves. But there is no moral requirement for those who earn the living to give it away to those who will not work to earn it themselves. But some have invented this moral requirement as a way to redistribute wealth.

      To me being conservative is not a bad thing. And being liberal to some degree is not a bad thing.

      But if you have people who could work but are not working and who are simply free loading off of others, this is where we have a problem and conservatives are demonized for wanting to cut off the freeloaders.

      I am a fiscal conservative. I tend to keep what I earn. And I do not feel any guilt for it and never will. And if I choose to help those in need I do so privately and as I can afford it. But I do not feel obligated to pay into a welfare state to support thousands and possibly millions of people who are able to work but do not want to. No moral obligation for that. None what so ever. I have no problem with cutting them off. Get to work and get your hands out of my pocket.

      Submitted on Sunday, Apr 6, 2014 at 9:25:20 AM

      • davidgmills1

        How Ayn Randian of you. Of course, you like so many of her ilk probably got a taxpayer education, or your parents, or grandparents did. You didn’t get where you are without the assistance of some type of governmental assistance, directly or indirectly.

        • cettel

          Conservatives deny that; and that’s why that person “Bill Johnson” was objecting to my article here. But at least his objection was relevant to the article. The objections to it at this site have not been: not even relevant.

          • davidgmills1

            Conservatives that refuse to recognize that most of America wouldn’t have a sixth grade education if it weren’t for our public schools just gall the shit out of me. The worst are doctors who got all their education in public schools and still act like they made it without the help of anyone.

          • cettel

            The theory that they adhere to is that anything that’s done for profit will be done more efficiently than anything that isn’t, and especially than anything that’s done by the (democratic) government (they don’t complain if it’s dictatorial, because then “the trains run on time”). They believe that everyone is selfish, and that greed is good because it’s the motivation that built up civilization. This is the basic conservative view: they have contempt for democracy, and for democratic process (including compromise with the democratic opposition — which, in their case, is liberals and progressives); they admire corporate “efficiency” and are looking for a great (dictatorial) CEO to run things in “a free economy” where everybody competes tooth-and-nail against everybody else: they want that type of man for leader, or Fuehrer, or “President” (so long as the poor or minorities don’t have a say in picking him; or, as Adam Smith wrote in 1762: “Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor”). They believe that government exists “to defend the rich from the poor.” Everything else is private, including private (tax-exempt) charity.

          • davidgmills1

            Fascism, or the merger of corporate and governmental power, is neo-feudalism. We are all on the road to serfdom but these idiots don’t think they will be the serfs. It is just amazing how many think they are going to be part of the neo-nobility. Their odds of making it are worse than a 5’6″ guy who can’t run, can’t jump, and can’t shoot, making it in the NBA.

          • Griebel

            We all stand on the shoulders of those who have come before. There are no self-made men. The world is interconnected and interdependent, but since the dawn of history you’ve had guys who had the luck to come out on top wanting to shift everyone’s belief system to justify the idea that they did it all themselves, and it’s all theirs. They deserve it.

            It is always a good path to economic security to stroke these people and come up with clever arguments justifying them. And safer.

          • davidgmills1

            I think very few deserve it and the ones who really do seldom get true financial credit. Norman Borlaug received the Nobel Prize for creating a strain of wheat in the 1960s that probably saved a billion people from starvation. Probably never heard of him. He certainly was not made rich beyond belief.

            To me the real test of whether someone is really worth the money is if they became rich without using the corporate entity to do it. For-profit corporations are based on the idea of limited liability and limited liability is just a euphemism for privatizing profits and socializing losses.

            You really don’t see people acquire vast sums of money unless they take advantage of the corporate shield.

            I am always amused by the libertarian notion of personal responsibility. Yet these are the first people who incorporate for the sole purpose of avoiding it. Galls the shit out of me.

      • Griebel

        Oh, wow, and here’s the true colors flying. People often reveal way too much under pressure. Shit, Zeusse, you’re in the wrong place. There are plenty of organs that will take a guy like you, but you’re just disruptive and offensive here.

    • Here’s how I explain it: people like YOU and the media frame DEMOCRATS as being LIBERALS…and they AREN’T. Real liberals are people like Cynthia McKinney who are totally ignored by the NOT liberal mainstream media (you probably also falsely claim the MSM is “liberal”), and then they call fake liberals “liberal”. Guys like Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity do that.

  • Care to comment on this? Mar 2, 2014 War On Women: NY Democrat Jokes About Drugging Young Girls To “Get Laid”…

  • Jun 16, 2013 Louisiana Senator Elbert Guillory (R-Opelousas) explains why he recently switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. He discusses the history of the Republican Party, founded as an Abolitionist Movement in 1854. Guillory talks about how the welfare state is only a mechanism for politicians to control the black community.

    • That’s fine for 1854, but today’s GOP is all about suppressing the BLACK & minority vote with “voter id” laws. So the guy in the video above is an absolute asshole.

      • At least your willing to come out from under your sheet!

        The NAACP motto ?

        • Court: NC Legislators Must Reveal Documents, Purpose Behind Challenged Voting ‘Reform’

          Emails may show attempted discrimination, tie effort to GOP/ALEC’s nationwide vote suppression tactics…

          A U.S. District judge has ruled that Republican legislators in North Carolina must provide documents revealing their work in passing and implementing a radical election reform bill which, when it was passed last year, was described by opponents as the “worse-than-anyone-would-have-ever-imagined voter suppression bill.”

          Late last week, U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake issued an Order [PDF] in which she rejected a blanket refusal by NC Republican state legislators to provide any documents that relate to the question of whether the sweeping legislation known as the Voter Information Reform Act (“VIVA” aka HB 589) amounted to nothing less than a racially-motivated attempt to deprive African-Americans of their constitutional right to vote.

  • Name

    How many of these does Investigative Historian Zuesse qualify for:

  • cettel

    So far, all the commenters here are in reality-denial. They spout irrelevancies. Unable to deny the overwhelming data, in this piece and the others I’ve presented, that the Republican Party (not Abraham Lincoln but the Party of aristocrats after a conservative had murdered him and the aristocracy took over the Party) has a shameful record, with followers who are obsessed with personal wealth and status, all that those commenters can do here is to divert onto other things and attack the messenger (me). The reality is ignored by them, as if they are looking into the mirror and don’t like what they see, and so look away and fantasize that they saw something not so vile. I never said that there aren’t bad Democrats, too (and I have been quite open about my contempt for Obama and the Clintons, as well as of the other few conservative Democrats), but have only documented that the Republican Party is far worse. Nothing that anyone can say will change that fact, because it’s history for the past hundred-plus years.

    • Name

      The fact that you don’t seem to understand that communists are virulently opposed to fascism, or that aristocrats can be poor and uninfluential, doesn’t help your case. You also seem to think that you’re speaking for a broad class of humanity, but I think you are speaking mainly from your own beliefs. I don’t disagree with what I think you mean, but I can’t be sure of what you mean because you frame your discourse with regurgitated arguments from the Democratic party leadership.

      “We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

  • Undecider

    Democrats also favor economic inequality because they want to strip the money from the poor [via taxation], under this banner of social equality. Meanwhile, they make the entire 99% of the population poor as dirt while monies are siphoned into the pockets of the Big Wigs.

    We’ll see the Republican authored and Democrat implement health care boondoggle used to impoverish society while the connected rake in the billions. How that for social equality? And we haven’t yet gotten into their scam with climate change and carbon taxes.

    These ‘Progressives’ really need to pull their heads out.

    • cettel

      The poor receive a negative income tax in the form of the earned-income tax credit, which was fought for by Democratic Senator George McGovern and then adopted by Republican Richard Nixon after he became President; and it’s the extremity of a progressive tax-proposal.
      On all other tax-matters, Democratic propisals are progressive and Republican proposals are regressive. The most regressive tax-proposal of all is to eliminate estate and gift taxes, so that only earned income is taxed, inherited or other unearned income is received tax-free. That’s totally a Republican proposal, and more than 95% of Democrats in congress have voted against it. The aristocracy oppose estate and gift taxes passionately, because they want their children to be born rich; they want a caste system.

      • USA_objector

        Which party passed the ACA which imposes a $5000 tax on those who opt out of obamacare? Oh, oops. And I resent that you made me sound like a republican shill, when that side sucks equally as much. Coke and Pepsi, coke and Pepsi, coke and Pepsi . . . Hurray for our side! We’re the lesser evil!

        • cettel

          I have said since at least 2010 that Obama is a Republican Trojan Horse, Manchurian candidate in the Democratic Party. Everybody who is blaming “the Democrats” is actually blaming a Republican-in Democratic disguise: Barack Obama. He’s hurting the reputation of the entire Democratic Party.

          • Tsar Caustic

            You’re arguing that people should support the Democratic party while simultaneously saying it’s a party that is led by, and populated by, people that are so confused that not just once, but twice, they ran and elected a Presidential candidate that is actually a trojan-horse for their biggest political adversary.

            And you say that the commenters here are in “reality-denial”! You may want to re-evaluate your position.

          • cettel

            I have documented it numerous times, starting on 8 November 2011 with
            “Obama’s Conservative Presidency: The Manchurian Candidate – Republican-in-Democratic-Clothing” at
            and then later many times such as
            and this one that presents a hypothesis as to how and why and when Obama decided that he would enter politics as a “Democrat” instead of as an overt Republican (which seems to be your question here)

            and I hope that after you’ve read those, you’ll no longer charge that I’m in reality-denial about the matter — but that most Democrats are.

          • Tsar Caustic

            I don’t know how to make my original comment more clear. Obama is the Democratic Party’s candidate, and in fact the LEADER of the party.

            Yet you still want people to support the Democratic Party, even though “most Democrats” (by your reckoning) are so out of touch that they can’t even figure out who they’re electing.

            That’s where you’re in reality-denial.

          • cettel

            And Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and most Democrats in Congress, detest Obama like I do but aren’t free like I am to say so, because splitting the Party as to its office-holders would serve only to strengthen the electoral chances of Republicans winning in 2014. The office-holders in any party are subject to very different institutional constraints than are the party’s electorate; and I write my pieces for the education of voters, not of office-holders. I’m not writing for office-holders. You are the one in reality-denial, and the reality that you’re denying is the reality that my article here documents in depth: Conservatives are far more bigoted, hierarchical, authoritarian, etc., than are non-conservatives; and this is true not only of Republicans in the U.S., but of members and supporters of conservative parties in every nation, even in communist countries.
            Instead of your providing evidence against the scientific studies, you attack the messenger, namely the article’s author. That’s the classic conservative response, according to other scientific studies that have been done.

          • Tsar Caustic

            I do appreciate you continuing to support my point, which is that the Democratic Party is so dysfunctional that it deserves no support.

            As for the my not “providing evidence against the scientific studies” … The rising level of inequality in the world is not in dispute.

            I’m not questioning the study. I’m questioning your (non)-solution. To repeat myself yet again, you are trying to drum up support for a Democratic Party which by your own statements is so utterly broken that it provides a President who might as well be from the other party, and whose senior leadership can’t and won’t do anything about it.

            You may want to look at this post: from here on this very website.

          • Carl_Herman

            And how do you know that the people you list “detest Obama”? How do you know they are not also actors reading from a script to do exactly what we see in policy?

            I don’t think the study you explain is the issue, Eric. I think the point you’re struggling to embrace is the Democratic Party you support is led by War Criminals and bankster looters, in criminal collusion with corporate media to run the biggest fascist empire in world history.

            You’re a smart guy, Eric. You know that Pelosi, Reid, California Governor Jerry Brown, and all Democrats have an Oath of Office to support the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They reject their Oath.

            Democratic leaders lie, lie, lie. They are criminals, Eric. They war-murder millions, harm billions, and loot trillions. There is no fixing this with Elizabeth Warren as president. The truth must be told first.

            I worked to end poverty with these liars for 18 years. Both parties allow a million children to die slow horrific deaths from preventable poverty, despite less than 1% of our income would save their lives, reduce population growth, and reduce whatever terrorism isn’t US false-flags. How’s that for Democratic support for gross economic inequality, Eric?

            But I’ve pointed to these big issues in comments from two previous articles that you didn’t reply to. We know the challenge of accepting Nancy Pelosi is a War Criminal, liar, and looter is difficult. And that said, Eric, it’s time to embrace that truth, yes?

            I suggest you have to go for this “Big Lie” issue first and foremost. Then, if it’s helpful, go to studies with some solution rather than more Democratic support.

          • USA_objector

            Did you not see Pelosi on CNN this past Sunday saying how proud Demos are over Obamacare and that “no democrat” is running away from it? Obama did not pass obamacare, the democratic controlled congress did. They inserted the $5000 tax hit into the bill for those who opt out. Scumbag republicans went along with it, and then go through the motions of trying to “repeal obamacare in its entirety.” Eighty percent of Americans HATE obamacare. Is this an achievement of your party that should make us vote for the lesser evil in 2016?

            You say that the only choice for Americans is one party or the other. Coke or Pepsi. We at Washington’s blog say no thanks. Libertarians need to get together with greens and independents and overwhelm the corrupt duopoly.

          • USA_objector

            Did you not see Pelosi on CNN this past Sunday saying how proud Demos are over Obamacare and that “no democrat” is running away from it? Obama did not pass obamacare, the democratic controlled congress did. They inserted the $5000 tax hit into the bill for those who opt out. Scumbag republicans went along with it, and then go through the motions of trying to “repeal obamacare in its entirety.” Eighty percent of Americans HATE obamacare. Is this an achievement of your party that should make us vote for the lesser evil in 2016?

            You say that the only choice for Americans is one party or the other. Coke or Pepsi. We at Washington’s blog say no thanks. Libertarians need to get together with greens and independents and overwhelm the corrupt duopoly.

  • mmckinl

    It is all about the money … for over 30 years money has poured into politics, purchased and concentrated corporate media while running think tanks and foundations dedicated to a conservative “market based” ideology … Join the Green Party … no corporate money allowed …

    • cettel

      Sure: Help the Republican Party by drawing liberal voters away from Democratic candidates. Splitting the liberal vote is a way to advance the Republican cause, not the cause of progressivism. It’s a way to harm the cause of progressivism.

      Ralph Nader’s “Tweedledom Tweedledee” characterization of the Republican versus Democratic Parties was found fraudulent in the study that this article reports, but you still believe in it. You are a person of faith not science, thereby. Science says there is a very real and important difference between those two Parties. And those are the only two parties that have even a chance to win. Consequently, a scientifically inclined person who feels that the Democratic candidates aren’t progressive enough would be encouraging more progressive candidates to compete against them in Democratic primaries in order to win the Democratic nomination and then take on the Republican. That’s the only way forward. But people of faith (people who reject science) believe differently.

      • mmckinl

        The Democratic Party is a lost cause … and you, Mr. Zeusse, are being propped up to be yet another Democrat apologist/ reformer for the November elections and then the elections in 2016.

        • cettel

          I was kicked out of dailykos after two articles I wrote there that documented that Obama was pushing more of a Republican agenda than a Democratic one and that the charge by liberal Democrats that he was simply “not good at negotiating” was a wrong interpretation of the reality of the man, namely that he works behind the scenes for the oligarchs even while he spouts liberal rhetoric in order to fool liberals to believe that he doesn’t share more the public-policy beliefs and aims of Republicans than of Republicans. For you to allege that I am somehow “propped up to be yet another Democratic apologist” is absurd. I am a progressive Democrat, but a practical one who is concerned not merely with progressive goals but with practical strategy and tactics to attain them. Unlike for example, Nader-supporters, I am a practical progressive. This separates me from third-party supporters, but also from the Democratic-Party oligarchs and their stooges such as Obama and the Clintons. So: nobody is “propping” me up. Only science and reason are my “props.” And only science and reason guide anything that I write.

          • Sarah Burns

            Wow, impressive but tiring nonsensical blather that borders on ruminating pathology: “The blue ones go here, the red over there, I never did this, I am that, practical progressive, reason, logic, my narcissitc diapers” Automating this claptrap of nonsense is a real timesaver instead of manually posting.

          • Griebel

            I don’t think anyone has been arguing that there are no differences “in their hearts of hearts” as it were. Six may really feel itself to *not* be a half-dozen; it may really genuinely wish to distinguish itself from that wicked half-dozenness. It may think differently; it may really care.

            But when the eggs are counted, it’s still six fucking eggs, and we’re being told to suck them.

            In legal-logical form, we could say that the democrats do not specifically *agree* with their counterparts, but they do *concur* on a majority of issues. “Concur” meaning coming to the same conclusion for other reasons.

            As one radical progressive put it, the Democrats are a loyal opposition who are far more loyal than they are opposition.

            But go ahead and attack everyone who dares to show no confidence in it, accusing them of supporting the enemy. Man, we’re not even your fucking allies.

  • Charlie Primero

    The differences between America’s two political parties are vast!

    It’s super-important that you poke a Diebold electronic screen every two years!

    Watch plenty of television to stay informed!

    • Not really!

      Mar 6, 2014 Truth in Media “End Partisanship”

      Ben Swann explains how the new coalition of EndPartisanship org is working to break the 2 party hold on primary elections, which currently lock around 50% of voters out of the process. Plus, Ben details a lawsuit that has now been filed in the state of New Jersey to break that hold.

  • Cheddar Bob

    Here’s a solution: split the country in half, democrats get one half, republicans the other. After 20 years we’ll see how both parties suck.

  • Matt Pidgeon

    The midterms are approaching, the media, all of it, including the MSM and the not-so MSM obediently sensationalize the duopoly party system. While the US has always had a level of corruption where most politicians are bag men/women for big money, the USSC just legalized overt birbery. Elections serve to suppress organized dissent of the ruling class. That’s all.
    This is where websites like Common Dreams, DailyKOS and other lame progressives, and their equally lame Neo-Right counterparts at Naked Capitalism, double down on their additional taskings as benign statist mouthpieces. forget about obsfucating, ignoring or misrepresenting pressing societal problems with a passing editorial complaint as per the daily norm. Gentle, politically correct “criticism” of Government or industry vanishes – election time is a full bore reminder from Big Brother that your vote equals freedom. It makes no difference whether we take it in the face from that party or the other, rebellion now!

  • Tsar Caustic

    This stream of posts on the theme of “Democrats Good, Republicans Bad” is getting tiresome. Whatever differences there may or may not be between the two corporate parties are largely irrelevant to me.

    George Washington: I hope you’re near the end of this experiment. If I want the kind of articles that Eric Zuesse has been posting (and which seem to be over 50% of the posts recently) I know where to find them on other sites. I read washingtonsblog precisely because. at least in the past, I didn’t have to wade through that kind of party cheerleading.

    • The moderator and writer is on vacation, and will soon return. Everybody needs some time away, and a break.

  • Aangirfan

    “Republicans tended to support legislation increasing economic inequality regardless of their social status.”

    Republican states have more child abuse!

  • davidgmills1


  • Jun 18, 2013 Center for Freedom and Prosperity – The Chilean Miracle Shows that Economic Liberty is the Best Way