The End of Social Security | MyFDL
President Obama's so-called payroll tax holiday is a shot in the gut of Social Security. Does he want to end economic security for the elderly? As Nancy Altman explains, the payroll tax holiday will ratchet up the pressure to cut and delay Social Security benefits because it means an expanded shortfall from the Social Security trust fund. Obama didn't get the 14 votes on the Deficit Commission needed to kneecap Social Security -- but I guess he found another way.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The Worst Off Get Screwed Over Again
Obama's soul-chilling, mind-numbing, spirit-sapping capitulation on the Bush tax cuts supposedly in a "deal" for extended Unemployment Insurance -- leaves out the more than 2 million workers who have exhausted their 99 weeks of UI. By next year at this time, there will be an estimated 6 million 99ers -- so not only does Obama's tax deal spread injustice by fattening the rich, it will also spread misery and poverty.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Poverty Rises
Poverty Jump and "Shredding the Safety Net" -- Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA):
The rise in poverty in 2009 -- the largest number of people in poverty in the 51 years poverty has been measured -- should be a wake-up call to politicians in both parties who have spent the past 30 years shredding the safety net. The spread of poverty in the past year is only partially explained by the economic collapse of 2008 and the prolonged, acute problem of unemployment that followed and continues. Since 1980, income supports for low-income people have been withdrawn, eroded, and withheld. Notwithstanding the current recession -- deep and intractable as it is -- economic support for poor Americans has remained meager, stingy, and inaccessible.
Between December 2007 and April 2010, TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] caseloads increased only 12 percent -- even though a 48 percent rise in Food Stamp caseloads attests to the exponential growth in need during that period. The minimal rise in TANF enrollments is not due to an improvement in the economic circumstances of low-income families, especially single mother families. In fact, single mothers are disproportionately unemployed, disproportionately shunted into part-time employment, and disproportionately paid very low wages. The low comparative rise in TANF enrollments is due to the active discouragement of welfare participation by eligible families, the rigid conditions for welfare participation, and the rise of ineligibility due to draconian time limits under so-called 'welfare reform.' The grim new poverty numbers expose a state of economic emergency for low income Americans. It is time to end the 30-year war on the poor and re-dedicate ourselves first to alleviating current misery and then to eliminating poverty.
For more information on the just-released poverty data, see:
http://www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/reading-between-the-lines.pdf
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf
http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350.pdf
The rise in poverty in 2009 -- the largest number of people in poverty in the 51 years poverty has been measured -- should be a wake-up call to politicians in both parties who have spent the past 30 years shredding the safety net. The spread of poverty in the past year is only partially explained by the economic collapse of 2008 and the prolonged, acute problem of unemployment that followed and continues. Since 1980, income supports for low-income people have been withdrawn, eroded, and withheld. Notwithstanding the current recession -- deep and intractable as it is -- economic support for poor Americans has remained meager, stingy, and inaccessible.
Between December 2007 and April 2010, TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] caseloads increased only 12 percent -- even though a 48 percent rise in Food Stamp caseloads attests to the exponential growth in need during that period. The minimal rise in TANF enrollments is not due to an improvement in the economic circumstances of low-income families, especially single mother families. In fact, single mothers are disproportionately unemployed, disproportionately shunted into part-time employment, and disproportionately paid very low wages. The low comparative rise in TANF enrollments is due to the active discouragement of welfare participation by eligible families, the rigid conditions for welfare participation, and the rise of ineligibility due to draconian time limits under so-called 'welfare reform.' The grim new poverty numbers expose a state of economic emergency for low income Americans. It is time to end the 30-year war on the poor and re-dedicate ourselves first to alleviating current misery and then to eliminating poverty.
For more information on the just-released poverty data, see:
http://www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/reading-between-the-lines.pdf
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf
http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350.pdf
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Meet The 18 People Who Could Determine The Fate Of Social Security | TPMDC
Meet The 18 People Who Could Determine The Fate Of Social Security | TPMDC
Why did President Obama appoint a bunch of millionaires to meet in secret about cutting Social Security in the name of deficit/debt reduction? Why did he put Social Security on the commission's agenda? Social Security does not contribute to the deficit/debt. There are solvency problems within Social Security -- a shortfall in payouts thirty-plus years from now. The shortfall problem can be addressed within the framework of the Trust Fund by raising the cap on income that is subject to FICA contributions. The projected Social Security shortfall and debate about how to fix it do not bear upon imminent deficit causes and cures. Do not let the deficit commission make Social Security the scapegoat for true fiscal reforms such as raising taxes on the rich, cutting corporate welfare, ending wars.
Why did President Obama appoint a bunch of millionaires to meet in secret about cutting Social Security in the name of deficit/debt reduction? Why did he put Social Security on the commission's agenda? Social Security does not contribute to the deficit/debt. There are solvency problems within Social Security -- a shortfall in payouts thirty-plus years from now. The shortfall problem can be addressed within the framework of the Trust Fund by raising the cap on income that is subject to FICA contributions. The projected Social Security shortfall and debate about how to fix it do not bear upon imminent deficit causes and cures. Do not let the deficit commission make Social Security the scapegoat for true fiscal reforms such as raising taxes on the rich, cutting corporate welfare, ending wars.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
White House unloads anger over criticism from 'professional left’
The Hill Mobile - White House unloads anger over criticism from 'professional left’
According to the White House, progressive critics of Obama-style triangulation/centrism "ought to be drug tested..." Gibbs's ad hominems and overall disrespect for independent thinking makes me wonder why. After all, too many progressives (including some in the "professional left") have bent over backwards to rationalize, justify, and excuse the myriad disappointments emanating from the Obama Administration. There's a lot of mischief either in the works or coming down the pike that we need to resolve to fight -- inequalities in health provision codified in the new health care law; assaults on social security and medicare in the name of debt reduction; deepening stratification of educational quality in the name of education reform; cuts in food stamps and other poverty programs despite rising need for assistance; draconian immigration practices and elitist gestures toward reform; not to mention the disastrous war in Afghanistan. The White House would do well to stand up to the enemies of peace, equality, equity, and justice -- rather than assail those who call them out.
According to the White House, progressive critics of Obama-style triangulation/centrism "ought to be drug tested..." Gibbs's ad hominems and overall disrespect for independent thinking makes me wonder why. After all, too many progressives (including some in the "professional left") have bent over backwards to rationalize, justify, and excuse the myriad disappointments emanating from the Obama Administration. There's a lot of mischief either in the works or coming down the pike that we need to resolve to fight -- inequalities in health provision codified in the new health care law; assaults on social security and medicare in the name of debt reduction; deepening stratification of educational quality in the name of education reform; cuts in food stamps and other poverty programs despite rising need for assistance; draconian immigration practices and elitist gestures toward reform; not to mention the disastrous war in Afghanistan. The White House would do well to stand up to the enemies of peace, equality, equity, and justice -- rather than assail those who call them out.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
t r u t h o u t | A Long Stay
383,524 immigrants currently are being detained by ICE -- many of them in private detention centers. Only around 16% of detainees are represented by attorneys. Check out: t r u t h o u t | A Long Stay
Friday, July 9, 2010
Why Progressives Disappoint Themselves
Eric Alterman shares many insights in his analysis of why progressives have little to celebrate even though Democrats control the federal government (Kabuki Democracy: Why a Progressive Presidency Is Impossible, for Now | The Nation).
He describes and explains the new countermajoritarianism, pinpointing systemic and individual reasons why conservatives have so often derailed what might have been progressive Democratic initiatives. The problem, though, is that there hasn't been a lot that's progressive in many Democratic initiatives of late, starting with health care reform. So ultimately, Alterman's analysis passes the buck for progressive disappointments -- exonerating Obama and Democrats in Congress by pointing to the influence of factors beyond the Democrats' control -- monied minorities, "the American political system," GOP obstructionist parliamentary games, and more.
We do live in a political universe in which money and media power can drown out, manipulate, or pervert majority will. Polls tell us that even if popular majorities did control how government acts, they would not necessarily or automatically push for inclusive or redistributive or even fair public policies. Political culture and ideology can crimp our solidarity with others, just as the rules and structures of politics can make it difficult to legislate generous policy. But none of these impediments make political solidarity and policy generosity impossible. History teaches us that "change" can happen and can move the polity in a progressive direction.
In Who Cares?: Public Ambivalence and Government Activism from the New Deal to the Second Gilded Age Katherine Newman and Elisabeth Jacobs remind us that individual and collective traits like courage, leadership, and moral compass matter a lot in politics -- and are essential to achieving significant policy change. They look at presidencies that accomplished major social policy innovation to help low income and economically insecure individuals and families, showing that both Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society were not achieved because the proposed policies were popular but because political leaders actually led. As Newman and Jacobs put it, "The essence of leadership is not registering the popular will and transforming it into policy but setting a course and sticking to one's guns in the face of growing resistance." The authors are not calling for elite indifference to public opinion, but correcting the debasing and corrupting impulse to equate democratic decision making with following the preferences of fat cats, polls and focus groups.
Newman and Jacobs compel us to think about the precarious relationship between leaders and public opinion, raising familiar questions about the meaning of representation (weather vane?) and the obligations of representatives (re-election?). The health of the democracy requires us to always think about these questions, and always to demand answers to them from our actual and would-be leaders. But a healthy democracy also requires leadership -- not positioning, difference-splitting, pandering, and pleasing, but advancing bold visions in concrete policy proposals that serve our best principles rather than our narrowest self-interests. Of course compromises will be struck and clear proposals will blur at the margins and become messy within. But if you start in the messy middle and erase the margins of political debate -- as Obama did in the health care debate -- you might end up with a few system tweaks but you certainly won't accomplish progressive change.
The two hallmarks of progressive policy innovation -- Social Security and Medicare -- face uncertain futures as Obama's deficit commission considers strategies to ensure federal "fiscal responsibility." As William Greider explained, "The president intends to offer Social Security as a sacrificial lamb to entice conservative deficit hawks into a grand bipartisan compromise in which Democrats agree to cut Social Security benefits for future retirees while Republicans accede to significant tax increases to reduce government red ink." (William Greider, "Whacking the Old Folks," http://www.thenation.com/article/whacking-old-folks). The commission's work is behind closed doors and its recommendations will not be issued until the end of the year. Whatever the commission does recommend may well be received as fait accompli, the triumphal product of bipartisanship. In creating and charging the commission, our supposedly progressive president has created the occasion for a potentially devastating assault on Social Security and Medicare. What George Bush couldn't win in the name of the "ownership society" Barack Obama may well win in the name of the "deficit-free society." Billionaire Pete Peterson, who has campaigned against Social Security for decades, supports the Obama initiative, including with some of his billions.
The present course does not bode well for progressive policy. But perhaps if progressives hold ourselves and our putative leaders accountable for our own disappointments we could force a change of course. Now that would be change I can believe in.
He describes and explains the new countermajoritarianism, pinpointing systemic and individual reasons why conservatives have so often derailed what might have been progressive Democratic initiatives. The problem, though, is that there hasn't been a lot that's progressive in many Democratic initiatives of late, starting with health care reform. So ultimately, Alterman's analysis passes the buck for progressive disappointments -- exonerating Obama and Democrats in Congress by pointing to the influence of factors beyond the Democrats' control -- monied minorities, "the American political system," GOP obstructionist parliamentary games, and more.
We do live in a political universe in which money and media power can drown out, manipulate, or pervert majority will. Polls tell us that even if popular majorities did control how government acts, they would not necessarily or automatically push for inclusive or redistributive or even fair public policies. Political culture and ideology can crimp our solidarity with others, just as the rules and structures of politics can make it difficult to legislate generous policy. But none of these impediments make political solidarity and policy generosity impossible. History teaches us that "change" can happen and can move the polity in a progressive direction.
In Who Cares?: Public Ambivalence and Government Activism from the New Deal to the Second Gilded Age Katherine Newman and Elisabeth Jacobs remind us that individual and collective traits like courage, leadership, and moral compass matter a lot in politics -- and are essential to achieving significant policy change. They look at presidencies that accomplished major social policy innovation to help low income and economically insecure individuals and families, showing that both Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society were not achieved because the proposed policies were popular but because political leaders actually led. As Newman and Jacobs put it, "The essence of leadership is not registering the popular will and transforming it into policy but setting a course and sticking to one's guns in the face of growing resistance." The authors are not calling for elite indifference to public opinion, but correcting the debasing and corrupting impulse to equate democratic decision making with following the preferences of fat cats, polls and focus groups.
Newman and Jacobs compel us to think about the precarious relationship between leaders and public opinion, raising familiar questions about the meaning of representation (weather vane?) and the obligations of representatives (re-election?). The health of the democracy requires us to always think about these questions, and always to demand answers to them from our actual and would-be leaders. But a healthy democracy also requires leadership -- not positioning, difference-splitting, pandering, and pleasing, but advancing bold visions in concrete policy proposals that serve our best principles rather than our narrowest self-interests. Of course compromises will be struck and clear proposals will blur at the margins and become messy within. But if you start in the messy middle and erase the margins of political debate -- as Obama did in the health care debate -- you might end up with a few system tweaks but you certainly won't accomplish progressive change.
The two hallmarks of progressive policy innovation -- Social Security and Medicare -- face uncertain futures as Obama's deficit commission considers strategies to ensure federal "fiscal responsibility." As William Greider explained, "The president intends to offer Social Security as a sacrificial lamb to entice conservative deficit hawks into a grand bipartisan compromise in which Democrats agree to cut Social Security benefits for future retirees while Republicans accede to significant tax increases to reduce government red ink." (William Greider, "Whacking the Old Folks," http://www.thenation.com/article/whacking-old-folks). The commission's work is behind closed doors and its recommendations will not be issued until the end of the year. Whatever the commission does recommend may well be received as fait accompli, the triumphal product of bipartisanship. In creating and charging the commission, our supposedly progressive president has created the occasion for a potentially devastating assault on Social Security and Medicare. What George Bush couldn't win in the name of the "ownership society" Barack Obama may well win in the name of the "deficit-free society." Billionaire Pete Peterson, who has campaigned against Social Security for decades, supports the Obama initiative, including with some of his billions.
The present course does not bode well for progressive policy. But perhaps if progressives hold ourselves and our putative leaders accountable for our own disappointments we could force a change of course. Now that would be change I can believe in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)