The first modern social security program was begun by that notorious bleeding heart Otto von Bismarck in the 1880s. With it, the Iron Chancellor successfully undercut the socialists and communists, kept peace with the working class and helping Germany become a major power until he was dismissed by Kaiser Bill and the fuse was lit on the bloody 20th century. American Social Security began in the New Deal after a long fight with reactionaries and they've never let go of their dream of destroying it. Social Security is one of those "entitlements" we keep hearing about from our leaders in politics and business, as well as in the media, that must be "reformed."
I don't know about you, but I've worked full time since I was seventeen-and-a-half, paying for the Greatest Generation's Social Security. It is hardly an "entitlement," a word loaded with welfare for the undeserving. It is a social insurance program where younger generations pay for the retirement of older generations, and it's worked fine for 70 years. But no small amount of oldsters now want to break this foundation of the social compact. They got theirs. Now the dastardly baby boomers will "break the system." Well, no. Social Security is fine and needs, at best, modest modifications. Unfortunately, even President Hoover, the supposed leader of the supposed Democratic Party, accepts the premise that broad "entitlement reform" is a sine qua non of fixing America.
Medicare is a problem. This program of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society is not sustainable because of America's private, for-profit health-care system with its hugely inflated and ever rising costs. George W. Bush's Medicare D added greatly to the problem by offering seniors a prescription drug benefit without raising taxes or forcing pharmaceutical companies to competitively bid to provide drugs. Yet Medicare is not an "entitlement," either. Most Americans have paid taxes for most of their working lives for this addition to the nation's modest safety net. The right wants to eliminate Medicare, while President Hoover wants to "compromise" (read: eliminate Medicare).
So this is where we stand, dear readers. No one will fight for us. No one with political power will state the obvious: Taxes need to be raised, especially on the rich, and the money-driven medicine racket must be fundamentally changed. The ignorant rabble of the Tea Party, 44 percent of whom are on Medicare, drive the agenda. And comments such as "keep your government hands off my Medicare" show their grasp of the issues.
Among my questions for the right is: In your perfect world of "work until you die," where are the jobs for older people?
The nihilist fantasies driving the republic would not even be possible without these evil "entitlements" and all the other ways that the federal government and the fumes of the commons keep our society propped up. This mindset would not be possible without the remains of the common wealth it took a century of work to create, which has been looted by the Wall Street playerz for 30 years. These "rugged individualists" and "real Americans" would have no traction without what is left of a "we" society. But I fear they will get their way — they are getting their way — and a nasty, brutish future awaits us.
I started noticing the meme 20 years ago: "I know Social Security won't be there for me when I retire". It was easy to understand how it got started: Boomers are greedy and were going to take it all. Or in talk radio's version: liberals are going to spend us into oblivion. For the truest of believers, there was the unassailable wisdom that any kind of social democracy was theft, which is why you must vote for Ron Paul.
The right-wing think tanks and propaganda mills that finance this alternative reality have been working this for a long time, really since the late '70s. They got Milton Friedman's PBS series, Free to Choose, taught as an economics course in public classrooms. They got the Sunbelt entrepreneurial class (real-estate agents, mostly) believing that any taxes were funding the lifestyles of ghetto-dwelling Cadillac-drivers. And finally they got fundamentalist hayseeds thinking that they were "producers" and honorary members of the plutocracy for that reason.
Whenever you see the polls that clearly state that most Americans want to see taxes raised on the rich, that health-care is too expensive and that a public option is a good idea, or that defense spending is excessive, you can be sure that they are not polling Real Americans who agree with Dick Armey, the Koch brothes, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Because money talks, loudly and incessantly. And it tells the rest of us what it wants in no uncertain terms. And that if we disagree, we can always move to another country.
This is why so many of us have simply given up. There's no cure for this madness short of a catastrophe that finally breaks the hypnotic trance. And even then, there's no guarantee Real Americans will see. I studied for a year in Germany back in the early '70s. I talked to older Germans who still protested that they behaved like they did during WWII out of simple patriotism. I didn't argue with them because I was their guest, and I knew something about my fellow Americans, too. We had gone through a wrenching war in Vietnam where the lies and bullshit were as obvious as the corpse of a baby in the village of My Lai. Yet, we trusted the liars, frauds, and killers anyway and told the hippies to take a bath. When I talked to Germans, I finally understood the fundamental human problem isn't geographic or ethnic.
I saw a news item the other day where a girl in rural Missouri was told to apologize to a boy who raped her. This was not the movie Winter's Bone or Boys Don't Cry. This is real America, where Rush rules and Christianity is the default tribalism. We don't talk sense to this America anymore than we'd teach a pig to talk or a fish to fly.
Sorry about that rant. Here's something more edifying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnQwTS-K6jI&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: soleri | August 18, 2011 at 01:05 PM
Please help me get my head around this Medicare scenario: an aging population is living longer and acting sicker, with "dia-besity" at epidemic levels. Costs to treat them are rising. Are the Golden Agers costing considerably more than the system can support? Has anything meaningful happened with tort reform, even though much of the over-testing is doc's defense against malpractice claims. Can we agree to focus on the abuses/excesses in the medical system by untangling that 2,000 page dog's breakfast called Obamacare? Or is Congress running with an IQ that prevents anything this complex?
Posted by: morecleanair | August 18, 2011 at 04:50 PM
In 2012, one third of the Senate and all of the House seats are up for re-election, in addition to the presidency.
With President Jello diligently seeking "compromise" from those unwilling to do so, and the Democratic Party Leadership taking its cues from him (probably the other way round, actually), it looks like another wasted opportunity.
There are many progressives in the Democratic Party, but they've been marginalized by a party leadership which has moved considerably to the right over the years; meanwhile, House and Senate whips look the other way while a small number of Blue Dogs hold out, tipping the balance of power toward Republicans.
The "bully pulpit" is only an advantage if it's used aggressively to frame the terms of debate, to draw in working and middle class voters by explaining to them exactly what they have to lose should the Republicans consolidate their control or even maintain the current deadlock, and to debunk the myths which conservatives and their media proxy bombard the electorate with.
Here's a chance not only to retake control of the Congress from Republicans, but to boot the Blue Dogs and regain some semblance of party discipline (a House -- or Senate -- divided cannot stand); but if that isn't a priority of party leadership (and it isn't, because by and large they're conservative themselves) then expect Republicans to fill the vacuum with uncontested, fiery rhetoric.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 18, 2011 at 05:00 PM
Forgot the "dying breed" Blue Dogs link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/blue-dog-democrats-a-dying-breed/2011/07/25/gIQA7KGoaI_blog.html
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 18, 2011 at 05:01 PM
Your wish is my command, "morecleanair":
* Tort reform would save only about 2.4 percent of total healthcare costs:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/September/14/ft-cost-benefit-tort-reform.aspx
* Obesity is and has been on the rise and does contribute to the cost of healthcare through increases in chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease: obesity currently accounts for 9.1 percent of medical spending (double the expenditure in absolute dollars of a decade ago, though I'm not sure whether that is measured in inflation-adjusted dollars or not); but by 2018 is expected to account for fully 21 percent of healthcare spending.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-11-17-future-obesity-costs_N.htm
You can't legislate dieting and exercise. What you CAN do is: (a) make sure there are enough primary-care physicians to provide regular preventive screening to catch such diseases early, when their treatment is less costly; AND (b) make sure that people actually use such services, by making them affordable (i.e., covered by health-insurance). Obamacare, as you call it ("morecleanair"), actually mandates the latter, starting in 2014. Regular doctor's visits offer not only the opportunity for early diagnosis but regular education, advice, and friendly pressure to modify behavior.
Government could also make smoking more expensive, thus discouraging it. Smoking is still the number one cause of preventable deaths in the United States.
* Experts agree that aging contributes minimally to the high growth rate of healthcare spending:
http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx
(Citing: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-HealthTestimony.pdf )
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 18, 2011 at 05:39 PM
I've always thought that setting monthly premiums based on a formula of maintaining a healthy weight, keeping a record (online perhaps) of diet and exorcise, etc would motivate people to live healthier. Perhaps something like that was outlined in the 2,000+ pages in Obama's health care plan?
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 18, 2011 at 08:11 PM
Thanks for your thoughtful piece.
Interesting times,like the ancient curse says. What puzzles me is where's the tipping point if there is one? And what would it look like? Or have the corporate elites won the class war and we all get to be peons again? We needed a Lincoln and we got JP Morgan instead.
Posted by: Don Smith | August 18, 2011 at 09:38 PM
On way to recruit people into religious fervor - and therefore, 'religious' control - is to marginalize or eliminate secular forms of economic support. Amen.
Posted by: Rev. Right | August 19, 2011 at 04:38 AM
@soleri:
"Sorry about that rant."
It was a good rant.
Posted by: Petro | August 19, 2011 at 09:38 AM
Here's something related to the deficit/debt topic, for those who saw Robert Robb's column today.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/08/18/20110818robb081911-left-gratitude.html#
* * *
My comment:
Well, Robb seems to be confusing the fiscal year (which runs from October of the year BEFORE it is numbered) with the calender year. In fact, Obama's first budget was the FY 2010 budget. Obama took office in January, 2009, and the FY 2010 budget started October 1, 2009. The FY 2009 data, which shows federal spending at 25 percent of GDP, and the deficit at 10 percent of GDP, resulted from a budget voted through while Bush was still in office.
Obama's first budget, and the only one for which actual numbers (rather than estimates) are available (since FY 2011 won't end until the end of September) shows a reduction of federal spending to 23.8 percent of GDP and a reduction of the deficit to 8.9 percent of GDP. The former is close to federal spending under Ronald Reagan in 1983 (23.5 percent of GDP); the deficit in 1983 was 6 percent of GDP, which Robb identifies as being the maximum under FDR in non-wartime.
Note, however, that the Great Recession was both deeper and longer in its aftermath than the recession in the early 1980s which Reagan had to deal with, and federal revenues are at a 50 year low. When the economy is weak, income drops and so do taxes assessed on income.
See page 25 of the following document for documentation:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
It's true that estimates from the FY 2012 budget show federal spending and the deficit rising again, temporarily, as percentages of GDP, for FY 2011; but that isn't due to the stimulus, since that has already mostly been spent and the money for it was allocated earlier. A look at the revenues column shows that in part it's the result of an expected drop in revenues as a percentage of GDP. Whether the rosier, subsequent estimates through FY 2014 come to pass, depends in large part on how the economy performs.
That's why it's so important to increase economic activity (hiring, consumer spending) NOW. The Obama stimulus, which experts widely credit for preventing a nasty situation from becoming much, much nastier, has all but expired. The spending cuts by misguided state and local governments pursuing fiscal austerity at the expense of economic activity, together with increased energy and food prices, have largely offset the federal stimulus.
http://wallstreetpit.com/81936-how-austerity-is-ushering-in-a-global-recession
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 19, 2011 at 04:43 PM
while eating a handfull red vines and drinking Bombay gin and tonic, the following scenario came to mind:
NEWS: 2013
President Bachmann
Vice President Palin
Secretary of State Christine O'Donnell
The Annual Budget will be printed with a centerfold of the three ladies in a heterosexual-appropriate pose.
In order to promote and sustain necessary troop levels to fight our seven undeclared wars, a WEEKLY drawing will be held with three lucky recruits spending a night in the White House with each of the three leaders of our nation. Should the lucky recruits not be attracted to our three lovely leading ladies, they may choose from a list of available choices:
Rush "The butt" Limbaugh
Shawn "The Squealer" Hannity
Bill "High balls" O'Reilly
Glenn "Blowing Gabriel's Horn" Beck
Ann "But I'm a Man" Coulter
and finally, Barack "Will you respect me in the morning" Obama
Wow, red vines and gin, the LSD of the new century.
Posted by: azrebel | August 19, 2011 at 07:12 PM
http://chartsbin.com/view/559
Here's a cool chart that shows global comparisons of income inequality, the so-called Gini index. In the past 25 years, American inequality has risen 25% as taxes and benefits increasingly disfavor the working and middle classes in favor of the rich.
The war on "entitlements" is just one more aspect of this war as right-wing ideologues take on the last bulwarks of the American middle class as part of their winner-take-all economic strategy. Previously, most of the erosion occurred on the fiscal side as the wealthy saw a dramatic cut in their taxes. In other advanced nations, even with globalization and technology putting pressure on economic equality, strong labor law (meaning strong unions and proportional political support) have kept the middle class strong. Needless to say, their tax systems maintain much stronger progressivity than ours.
Looking at this chart, it's useful to see who our international peers are - nations like Mexico, Argentina and Iran. More importantly, you can judge by the trendlines the nations we're getting closer to, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala.
Posted by: soleri | August 20, 2011 at 01:35 PM
Thanks for that GINI map, soleri. The data from the U.S. are from 2007 so the situation is probably even worse now.
Notice that Norway comes in with an incredibly low 25.
Norway enjoys the second or third highest (depending on which measure is used) per capita income in the world (above the United States).
Norway held first place in the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index for 7 of the last 9 years (since 2001), including 2009.
Norway has universal healthcare, subsidized higher education, and a comprehensive social security system. Hourly wages and productivity levels are among the highest in the world, yet the difference between the incomes of CEOs and the lowest paid workers is among the lowest in the developed world.
Foreign Policy magazine (those Communists!) judged Norway to be the world's most well-functioning and stable country in 2009. The state owned banking sector comfortably rode out the global financial crash. The current unemployment rate is around 3 percent (in 2007 it was just 1.3 percent). Norway runs a 7 percent state budget surplus and was the only Western country to do so as of July 2009.
In Norway, 1/3 of its publicly listed companies are state owned, and the state has large ownership positions in key industrial sectors. The Labour Party has controlled the government there for most of the time since WW II. Taxes are higher there than in the United States, but because incomes are high (being shared so much more equally) and many services are subsidized, the actual cost of living for the average family is one of the lowest in the world.
Though it exports oil and gas in large quantities, Norway's own generation of electrical power is more than 98 percent hydroelectric.
The conservative response to Norway is to claim that it is riding high on its revenues from oil and natural gas exports, which it distributes to its citizens as a kind of lucky largesse. Yet, these exports constitute only about 1/5 of Norway's GDP: and the real question is how well these resources are managed. Nigeria has large oil resources, but has squandered them rather than manage them for the public weal, as Norway has since the 1960s. Regardless of its sources of income, the conservative argument that government can't manage public wealth efficiently for public benefit simply doesn't apply to Norway.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 20, 2011 at 03:30 PM
P.S. Much of that information comes from something I posted to Rogue back in February, 2010.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 20, 2011 at 03:33 PM
A couple more facts:
Norway's sovereign wealth fund, a government pension fund for the general public, is among the most highly capitalized in the world, and helps even out the boom and bust cycle associated with Norway's economy.
Recently, Norway's pension fund was the largest in Europe and has been one of the largest capital funds in the world, giving Norway a very high savings rate. Investment of the fund is governed by ethical guidelines and this, as well as many other aspects of Norway's government, are highly transparent both to its citizens and to international researchers.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 20, 2011 at 03:36 PM
Emil: thanks for your clarification. I appreciate your research and the depth of your knowledge.
Posted by: morecleanair | August 20, 2011 at 03:57 PM
President Obama has been laying the groundwork already for another sellout in the Super Committee process. No doubt everyone noticed how Leon Panetta has said that the defense cuts that would be triggered should Congress fail to reach a deal on the second round of cuts called for in the debt ceiling deal are unacceptable. That's code for Obama saying, once again, that he's going to surrender the leverage he has, then cut a bad deal and say it was the best he could do given his lack of leverage. Look for something like raising the eligibility age for Medicare and/or Social Security, plus benefits cuts. The former will likely cost money rather than save it, as 65 and 66 year olds defer necessary medical care because they can't afford to get it from private insurers, then enter the system sicker.
You can see it coming a mile away, and it will conclusively resolve the debate about whether President Obama is operating in affirmative bad faith or merely inept. He's inept like a fox.
Posted by: CDT | August 20, 2011 at 06:38 PM
Senator Kyl is on the Super Congress - I can't imagine which way he will go. Pass the red vines please.
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 20, 2011 at 07:16 PM
Three times in the last two weeks,when I've gone to the post office, a person has entered the drive thru area traveling in the wrong direction. I've watched as their brain processes their situation. They realize they can't reach the mailboxes since they are on the other side of the car. Then they put their car in park, get out, walk around their car and put the mail in the mailbox. They walk back, get in the car, look at us waiting for them to get out of the way. They procede to execute a 12 point turning maneuver, and drive away the correct way through the exit.
So, I have to ask you:
1. How would they deal with this in Norway?
2. How does the US rank in GINI IQ averages?
3. Why did they appear angry at me because I had the gall to go through the drive thru the correct way?
4. If you mail a letter backwards, does it come back to you?
(These were not people suffering from oldtimers syndrome, these were folks in their 30's, 40's.)
Posted by: azrebel | August 21, 2011 at 01:41 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44220205/ns/politics-more_politics/
SSI is in trouble because of the recession. What's interesting in this story are the comments to it. The majority apparently think we're in trouble because half of America is composed of drug-addicted freeloaders.
Their evidence? Well, anecdotes, and talk-radio certitude.
We're at war with each other. Or call it an auto-immune disorder, if you will. The "haves" are definitely unhappy with their less fortunate neighbors.
Posted by: soleri | August 21, 2011 at 05:16 PM
Excuse my ignorance, and I may not understand what Soleri wrote, but how do some people think that SSI (disability or retirement) is going to drug addicts? It is a way to justify their greed or lack of civic responsibility? Maybe I should start watching Fox News to try decode their way of thinking...
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 21, 2011 at 09:18 PM
I'm not worried: Billy Graham said up there in heaven, we'll all drive golden Cadillacs.
Posted by: pbm | August 22, 2011 at 06:19 AM
PSF, SS evaluates disability independent of whether someone has drug and/or alcohol issues. Hence, there are addicts who get disability but not for the addiction per se.
What we see here is a common rhetorical trick (see also: demagoguery) where the existence of marginal or inappropriate benefit awards become proof of systematic rot. It would be like people on the left seizing on cost overruns in the Pentagon in order to create a straw man argument against defense spending.
BTW, I've been told several people I should apply for a disability at the VA because of hearing loss (back in the day we did rifle training without ear protection and I lost a substantial amount of hearing, particularly on the higher frequency end). I'm a bit skeptical about all that but I met a veteran who gets a 70% disability for sleep apnea, a sore back, depression, and the like. In other words, it just isn't people you don't like milking the system - it's also people who are Real Americans. This isn't about virtue or its lack so much as tribal allegiance. Medicare isn't socialism if it goes to Teabaggers, only if it benefits minorities.
Posted by: soleri | August 22, 2011 at 06:48 AM
Interesting...so what, do Neo-Cons want those applying for SSI to undergo random drug testing? I don't see how that makes sense if someone qualifies for SSI based on a real disability or reaching retirement age. I guess that's where the straw man argument comes into play; just doesn't seem reasonable.
As for the hearing loss that occurred in the military, you are correct. When I left the service I was encouraged to apply for benefits due to slight hearing loss from being around aircraft and performing "high-altitude exercises." I thought it was rather silly and didn't entertain the idea but I do know people who are collecting V.A. disability for knee and ankle "injuries" that they sustained in the military and others with the "hearing loss" problem.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 22, 2011 at 11:14 AM