Is it a shock that after the Citizens United decision, Target was among the first companies to write a huge check to a political campaign?
THE REMARKABLE thing about the American middle class is that we still have one, given the job losses, housing bust, and 401(k) wipeout of the past three years—and considering that for 35 years, politicians (and the bankers who own them) have been hammering away at middle-class institutions.
[SNIP]
Is it any surprise that today our leading reactionaries come from retail behemoths like Wal-Mart? Is it a shock that Target was among the first companies, in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, to write a huge check to a political campaign? That fast-food chains are tenacious opponents of a higher minimum wage? That hotel owners from New Orleans (PDF) to Santa Monica (PDF) have fought against "living wage" laws? Having thwarted the unions, they now target the government—its taxes, its regulations, and above all, its wage standards.
So: Most of the nation's remaining jobs are in services, where pay depends largely on acts of Congress. Houses are no longer valuable commodities. Private pensions are largely kaput, and many 401(k)s were also wiped out in the crash. What's left to protect economic security for ordinary Americans?
And Social Security prevents poverty. It's wealth, exactly like a big bond that you can't sell. If the monthly benefit is $1,000 and the interest rate is 2 percent, the bond is worth $600,000—and that's a bond you own, right now. You don't have to save for it: You've paid for it, up front, via the payroll tax. And there's more. As health care expert Harold Pollack has pointed out, Social Security's Disabled Adult Child program (PDF) is an insurance policy worth more than $400,000, protecting you if you happen to have a mentally or physically disabled loved one—something that could be only a car crash away.
Medicare has also been a huge success: popular, efficient, and less costly per "unit of care" provided than private medical care. Medicare is a big insurance policy you've already paid for, in full, that takes effect at 65—an age when private insurers wouldn't touch you. That's wealth, too, a huge buffer between sickness and bankruptcy.
Are you surprised that these programs are under attack? The same forces that went after the unions in the 1980s, that relentlessly pushed free-trade agreements while manufacturing jobs evaporated, and that destroyed housing values in the 2000s— they're on the prowl again. If Social Security and Medicare are cut, finance and insurance companies will skim the cream—the wealthier, healthier participants—while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves. Social Security and Medicare, they think, are easy prey, once we've been softened up by scare stories about how they're on the "brink of bankruptcy" and we "can't afford them."
It isn't true, of course. Social Security and Medicare can't go bankrupt, just as the Pentagon can't. They're not in some separate bank account or lockbox—they're government programs that we either choose to pay for or don't. And not only can we afford them, they're a bargain, providing modest comfort and decent care to people who would otherwise financially burden their families—or die.
The attack will come right after the election, when the Bowles-Simpson commission on deficit reduction issues its report. It will almost surely recommend deep cuts in Social Security, probably in the form of an increase in the retirement age. This is a direct cut in benefits, targeted in an especially nasty way at minorities and all others who work harder, earn less (PDF), and live shorter lives (PDF) after retirement than, say, college professors or senators. (Emphasis added)
The cochairman of that commission, former GOP senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, has made his views clear. In an August email (PDF) to the head of OWL (née the Older Women's League), he called Social Security "a milk cow with 310 million tits." He wants you to think of Social Security as welfare, not something you've earned—a boondoggle, rather than a program that puts money into the economy every day. (Emphasis added)
The fact is, even if you were never an autoworker, were never in a union, never owned a house, even if you've never been sick and never got anything else from the New Deal—whoever you are, Social Security and Medicare help you right now. They support your business: Spending by old folks is part of the income of small and large companies everywhere, an effective and stable support for the economy. Social Security provides survivors' benefits that raise children in your schools. It will keep your parents off your back. And when you do get older, Social Security and Medicare will protect you, and they will protect your children from bankrupting themselves over you. That is, if these programs are protected, now, from their assailants.
The House has agreed to vote on the Bowles-Simpson package—whatever it eventually contains—if it passes in the Senate. So it will come down to the Senate. Will the Democrats hold the line? Or will they give in to this assault on the last bastion of the American middle class? (Emphasis added)
About the Author: James K. Galbraith teaches economics at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin. He is a contributing writer to Mother Jones.
Both the House and the Senate going red is not good for the country.
Social Security -- NEVER forget that you have actually PAID into the social security program. It is something you have earned. It takes a certain minimum number of quarters (is it still 40?) to qualify for social security.. So, there is significant earning and contrbution to the economy as well as in direct payment into FICA before you qualify for social security payment. It is upto the Government to MANAGE that investment.
We also pay into Medicare. Yes, the program is underfunded and we know the effects of that. That does not mean that it is what we are buying into. What we are buying in payment into the Medicare program in every paycheck (for employees) and income tax payment (for self-employed/small business owenrs) is that assured healthcare when we retire beyond the retirement age.
So, if you hear "entitlement" it IS!! You are ENTITLED to it because you contributed to it. Is it a Welfare program? No.
But they are definitely on the chopping block.
If Senate goes to Repubs, they will be cleansed in grand scale. You will be forced to invest your money and manage your money your way.. and buy your own insurance and manage your health risks etc --- all in your ripe old age... Of course, there will be some associations like AARP or state level Insurance companies or (if health care reform survies) some insurance exchanges (where insurance companies have no option but to get on the same page and offer prices on comparable matrix) that will nicely manage it FOR you at some membership fees and insurance dues of course. There is a LOT at state in the senate going Republican..
Is it a shock that after the Citizens United decision, Target was among the first companies to write a huge check to a political campaign?
Corporate America has underwritten this election.
The biggest gainers of the election will be corporations.
You hear of tax relief extension by just two years... and "jobs will be created" -- If that was true, we would have had lots of jobs created in the US...the tax breaks have been there for what now? 6 years? Yet, we have seen huge declines in job level in the U.S... Yes, "jobs will be created" but not in the U.S...
Stock market will grow... because the corporations will make profits OUTSIDE the US and with the continued benefit of corporate tax relief and corporate REPATRIATION tax relief (also part of Bush tax cuts that is expiring that Repubs want to extend), corporations will be swelling their bottomlines.
-- Edited by Sanders on Wednesday 27th of October 2010 11:31:17 PM
__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010 Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010
This article from Mother Jones is a bit biased in trying to place the blame all on Republicans. As I recall, some prominent Dems have called for raising the Social Security age also. FireDogLake rightfully took them to task. Such a shame Democrats don't behave like Democrats and it is for this reason I don't feel any particular loyalty to helping them out right now.
Some House Democrats have tried to use John Boehner’s comments about raising the retirement age against Republicans in the fall elections, but that becomes impossible to do when Steny Hoyer keeps going out and undermining the effort by mimicking Boehner.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer reiterated Tuesday that raising the retirement age for Social Security benefits should be on the table as an option for cutting the deficit — even though some of his fellow Democrats have ripped the idea and groups have started airing ads against it [...]
“Age is one of the considerations that is obviously on the table,” Hoyer said. “It was in 1983” when the last major Social Security commission resulted in raising the retirement age to 67 [...]
He sought to portray the split between the two parties on Social Security as one party being for privatization and the other against it rather than on the retirement age issue. Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) also mentioned a higher retirement age as a possibility.
The left hand doesn’t know what the other left hand is doing. The DCCC pounced on Boehner’s comments on the retirement age. Nancy Pelosi told Netroots Nation she was firmly against any increase. But Hoyer and Clyburn have been touting this consistently. If the leadership is split on this issue, you know that the rank and file isn’t unanimously against it. One can only include that a retirement age increase, which is a benefit cut of up to 20%, would pass the House of Representatives, inside whatever package of recommendations comes from the cat food commission.
Raising the retirement age only makes sense if you buy the familiar arguments about increased life expectancy and less workers per retiree, both of which have been debunked. And making the retirement age 70 offers far less bang for your buck in balancing the system than lifting the payroll tax cap so it does what it was designed to do, namely cover 90% of all earnings.
Here’s the punch line. Hoyer and Clyburn will join Pelosi, John Larson, cat food commission member Xavier Becerra and other House Democrats on the Capitol steps this morning for an event honoring the 75th anniversary of the Social Security Act of 1935. I wonder if they’ll celebrate the majesty of forcing ironworkers and tree surgeons to work until the end of their seventh decade, or keep that to themselves just for today.