EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Protecting Social Security: It's a Flat Tax, Stupid!
Let me make a postulate: In a democracy, if there is a legislative proposal that would significantly benefit 80 percent of the population and cost them nothing, and that would be paid for by a insignificant tax on the richest 20 percent of the population, who themselves would receive some benefit from the added tax, that proposal would be overwhelmingly approved.
If you accept that postulate, you would have to conclude that the US is no longer a functioning democracy.
Look at the latest study out of the Senate Special Committee on Aging titled: "Social Security Modernization: Options to Address Solvency and Benefit Adequacy."
That just-released report, prepared by committee staff with the help of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, lays out the shortfall facing Social Security as America's Baby Boomer population begins to retire. It concludes that the alternative to raising the retirement age to 70 from the current 66, increasing the already onerous Social Security payroll tax by another 1% of income for both employees and employers, and reducing the annual cost-of-living adjustment for benefits by 1% (meaning retirees would fall further and further behind the cost of living each year), would simply be to eliminate the cap on the income that is subject to the Social Security tax.
Let me make that clear by putting it another way.
The committee report states that if the Social Security tax applied to all income instead of just the first $106,000, as things stand now, then Social Security would be completely funded at least through 2075. In fact, instead of a $5.3 trillion shortfall, there would be a 16% surplus! The report states that even if those wealthy folks who had their higher incomes taxed were able to collect higher benefits--as much as $6000 a month in current dollars--the added tax dollars raised would still ensure that the system would remain funded through 2075 and beyond.
Yet despite this obvious solution, we are continually warned in grave tones by the corporate media, by members of Congress, by President Obama and by Wall Street hucksters like Peter Peterson, that Social Security faces a crisis. We are continually told that benefits will have to be reduced, especially for current workers. We are continually told that the retirement age will have to be raised, so that people who work at strenuous, stressful, mind-numbing jobs will have to wait until they are 70 to slow down and spend time with their families.
How in hell would you explain this in a high school civics class?
Social Security, surely the single most popular program to come out of the New Deal in the 1930s, is currently the only thing keeping 44 percent of America's elderly out of poverty. Nearly a third of its benefits are paid to poor children who have lost the wage earner in their family, to widows, to the permanently disabled and to the extreme elderly. Twenty-five percent of beneficiaries depend upon Social Security payments for 90% of their incomes, thanks to the failure of most employers to offer any kind of a pension to their workers. This is, in short, a critical program that protects our elderly, our disabled and our poor. And it ensures everyone a basic income in their old age--an average of $1300 per month for life--and with very little overhead.
Yet this program, currently underfunded, is in danger now.
It is threatened not because of demographic changes, but because of corporate lobbyists and ideologues who want it killed. And these twisted, greedy people are desperately trying to keep the vast majority of American people who are depending upon Social Security for their old age from doing the logical thing, which is to tax the rich and make them and their employers pay the same flat rate that they pay on their income--15%--so that the system will be secure indefinitely.
In a real, functioning democracy, this would be simple. No candidate for federal office would dare to suggest cutting benefits and raising Social Security taxes, and all would be calling for making the rich pay their fair share. This is, after all, not even about progressive taxation. It's about a flat tax, long beloved on the right, on all income (and in fact, the committee was just talking about wages, not about investment income, which if subjected to the Social Security tax, would allow for a reduction in the current Social Security tax rate).
If we can't get this simple thing right with the government we have, we need a new government.
If the shameless scare-mongering over Social Security isn't a cause for rebellion, for a wholesale "throw the bastards out" rejection of the rat's nest of corporate whores currently filling the halls of Congress, I don't know what would be.
Then again, if the American public is so catatonic that it cannot recognize its own interest, maybe we should all just hang it up and admit that democracy in America is a lost cause.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
52 Comments so far
Show AllSometimes I think that if I hear Obama uttering the euphemistic phrase "difficult choices" one more time, I'm going to run down the street screaming.
Every time I hear Obama sounding like a neocon, I e-mail my alleged "liberal" Senators and Congressman and remind them that I will not vote for them until they quit rubber stamping Obama's corporate welfare programs disguised as populist legislation.
In addition to running down the street screaming we need to remind our electeds not to be dragged down by Obama.
Oh I do all that too, but knowing all the while that they're all one impenetrable wall of demopublican-republicrat corporatist shill hypocrites, I still might wind up screaming in a distant ward.
Bliss Doubt - For me, it's when Obama talks about the CORE VALUES of the American people just after he okays some more drone bombing or kisses Israel's ass just after they have bulldozed down some more farms and olive groves in Gaza and shot the owners for protesting.
The MAN IS A SICKO, and YES, we need to throw out the whole bunch in this government and start over without a Federal Reserve. Now all we have to do is figure out how to do that since our electoral process is worthless now because candidates who are approved by Corporate might are the only ones who are going to receive campaign funding.
Shortly after taking office, GW cut huge percentages of tax requirements from the bulging pocketbooks of the very rich and Corporations with their off-shore ownership pay very little and some got rebates going back ten years from Little Georgie.
Just recouping those fair-share tax windfalls, plus cutting the Pentagon budget in half, and hiking Social Security payment input from the high rollers would give us all we need. But again ... how are we going to do that when the Sock Puppet and his little marionette friends turn off the sound of the Voice of the People.
We don't have a government worth diddly squat anymore, but still most people don't get it because they are so busy playing with their iPods and texting the next door neighbor.
The other favorite phrase of Obama's that is so phony, but that I have deeply felt for years now through the GW mess and now this guy: "I'm really heartbroken." I question whether this figurehead in the White House has much of a heart at all.
However, I am not so heartbroken that I won't gladly run down the street screaming with you. Of course, then we will be declared terrorists and tasered to a standstill. Waterboarding anyone?
There's gotta' be a way, and it's not going to the polls with a choice of more bought-and-paid-for bimbos.
Enjoy the sunshine while it lasts.
/cm
Come to think of it, running down the street screaming is kind of what we used to do back in the '60s/'70s, instead of politely walking down defined pathways lined by cops.
Maybe we need to go back to "running down the street screaming" and in large numbers, not just as individuals, and we might start getting the changes we need.
Dave
Visit the new news collective website ThisCantBeHappening at www.thiscantbehappening.net
There is no need to scream. The seniors are armed with anger and lining up to vote at the polls. Social Security needs to be understood by the young and I am afraid that more of them have been falling for the "personal accounts" trap. Without employment for the growing unemployed young, the less likely Social Security will be designed to withstand future attacks. There is also a growing pessimism among the young that Social Security won't be there for them anyway. They could be right given the growing likelihood that this administration can counted upon to raid it for Wall Street or to pay for the Military Industrial Complex. Last year in VA's gubernatorial election, the long voting lines were mainly seniors and I could hear them discussing their concerns on Medicare, Social Security, and their kids' future. Most of them sounded strongly in favor of Mcdonnell and less in Deeds oddly enough but we are seeing this spreading to other states like wildfire what with Obamacare accelerating it. This can't be happening now but it is and there is nothing to my knowledge that can stop it.
Yes, college students should be screaming and protesting louder than anybody because they have more to lose from Obamacare, Obama's dilution of social security and medicare, etc.
Every baby boomer who delays or cancels retirement from their family wage job represents an additional family wage job that will not be available for young Americans, primarily college grads.
Unfortunately it is not just young Americans who believe that social security will not be there when they need it. I know many 50 somethings who, after hearing FOX and other neocon mouthpieces repeat the same "social security is doomed" message every day for the past 30 years (without rebuttal from Dems) consider that message to be a fact, not an opinion.
Lack of critical thinking skills is an epidemic afflicting Americans of all ages.
"Lack of critical thinking skills is an epidemic afflicting Americans of all ages."
That is the truest comment on this article.
I donate to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. Since it's officed in DC, I wondered if it wasn't some Orwellianly named committee to do the opposite, so I did as much diligence as I could. The Chairwoman Barbara Kennelly is a former senator. She sends out a newsletter periodically. I got one just a few days ago. The front page was a very easy to read assessment that blows through all the myths being used by both republicans and democrats as they aim their hatchets. She also offers theories on how easily SS can be saved, and how important it is.
Site: http://www.ncpssm.org/
I used to subscribe to Campaign for America's Future but a few things I saw in their propaganda made me pretty sure that they take in donation money to buy nails for our coffins.
You know Max, the people I talk to who are seniors or who are approaching retirement age are complacent. They think they're grandfathered and they'll get theirs. They think it's each man for himself. They don't care. In Europe they hit the streets in mass protest when their growing body of EU era neocon shill leaders threaten cuts to national pensions. Sadly, I doubt we'll see anything like that here.
It is a huge mistake to look at Social Security as just an entitlement program which most seniors including the ones you and I have come across are doing. From what I had studied about the formation of Social Security, it was not about money but about the ability to get this nation to respect and care for the elderly when they were in dire conditions. The irony is that for all the dedicated efforts to provide benefits for seniors 65 and over in the USA, respect and care for the elderly has actually declined over the years while in most other nations, it actually went up. Even in India, China, Japan, etc... the elderly actually get far better care than in the USA and in those countries, there is some form of universal health care for everyone which includes the elderly. I assume that the same can be said of Europe. You are almost correct about the slim chances of people taking it to the streets. The best we have seen is some old paid heckler at a town hall meeting asking government not to take away his medicare. I would presume that in Europe, people will correctly distinguish concepts from mere objects so that their protests are doing for the betterment of society as opposed to weak protesting at best for personal purposes. Until most of us look beyond the money, SS will continue its slow slide towards privatization.
I have not seen one major news story that did not call Social Security Disability an "entitlement" (essentially calling it "welfare"), so there's no wonder people make the mistake. This is intentional government and media propaganda. Social Security Disability is not an entitlement it is an insurance program that people pay for with taxes taken out of their paycheck. If you were given an insurance settlement because of a car accident they would not call it an "entitlement" (Welfare!), they would say that if you were injured (and it is someone elses fault) you should get a settlement. You deserve the money because you paid for the insurance.
Most people who work and live long enough become disabled, so the language that the power brokers use, (entitlement) is designed to cause lack of respect for the elderly and the disabled - as if they didn't work for what they are supposed to get!
Obama has said that he wants more disabled people to be put back to work. Getting them decent healthcare has not been much of a priority (even if it would help them become healthier and possibly be able to work). Disabled people have to go to twice as many doctors appointments to get diagnostic tests and care as well insured people ( and are more likely to be prescribed medication and antidepressants without diagnostic tests being performed!) - so who is getting rich off this? ...The insurance companies, pharmacuitical corporations bureaucrats and HMO's.
Medicaid is the "entitlement" for the poor and Social Security Disability is an insurance program. People need to understand this difference. Both are disfuntional bureaucracies because of the influence of corporations seeking a profit.
It chaps me raw too when I hear Social Security called an entitlement program. Does anybody notice how much of their paycheck goes into it every month? It's a whopping godawful amount from even the smallest salary, yet the politicians and pundits continue to call it as if it were some sort of government welfare. I'm fond of pointing out that the government doesn't pay into it, but only steals from it.
Bliss Doubt and Revenge Girl,
Thanks for getting me out of my confusion and sunken feeling about SS. I was referring to an article on Social Security (http://www.moderateindependent.com/v3i1ss.htm) but I do admit that if SS isn't properly funded, there will be no SS and respect for the elderly will wither away.
Speaking of money from paychecks that goes into SS, a former coworker once complained about it and he thought fairtax is the way to go. Says him "It's my money and I want to do what I want with it !" He likes 401k to Social Security because he thinks money will grow there. I tried to explain to him about the history of shrinking 401ks and he dismissed it and claimed that growth will always come back. I had a chance to meet him after he lost his job and he still believes in 401ks over Social Security to keep his taxes low. He now works but his annual salary is 8k less.
Most workers in the US pay more money in payroll taxes (social security, unemployment, etc) than they do in income taxes. It is a HUGE burden.
It isn't an entitlement Max, and I think it's important not to call it that. Every working person pays into it their whole working life, and their employers pay into it. It isn't some sort of unfunded mandate, and having read so much of early 20th century history, I credit it with creating the strongest middle class the world has ever seen. I don't see how anybody can look beyond the money, when Social Security, though it does have other purposes, functions mainly as a national pension program. If I didn't pay so gdsob much into it every month, I wouldn't feel so strongly about it.
Okay, sermon over.
I take your point about the importance of universal health care when it comes to dignity in old age, or any age. It does seem a tough sell here. I also recognize the reality you point to with the old guy at the town hall meeting. We have a guy who plagues our city council meetings here in San Antonio. His name is actually Joe Finger, and they call him "The Finger". At the same time, I remember some NPR coverage of the town hall meetings in the run-up to Obamacare, where protesters said they didn't want government run health care. Speakers would ask if Medicare users in the audience were happy with the program. Hands went up, and speakers pointed out that Medicare was government administered health care.
Government administered, not government funded, would be the distinction I would be careful to make. My former boss considers herself a conservative Republican, yet can't wait until she turns 65 and becomes eligible for Medicare. Or is it 62?
Another Common Dreams user pointed out that insurance, plain old private insurance, is socialist, because people who buy it want the coverage, but hope never to have to use it, and those who do use it are often covered for health care which is way beyond their earning power.
XO
Hey! I am right behind you!
This is a simple logical solution which unfortunately has a slim chance of being passed. Do you really think that the pigocracy would allow any more of their "hard earned money" go to the workers who actually generated it with their labor?
Do you really think that the phony residing in the White House would risk being referred to as a "tax and spend liberal"? Perhaps a massive outbreak of civil disobedience could effect this, but that would mean us geezers whould have to leave out T.V. sets and hit the streets which is very unlikely. I'm game though.
No "taxing and spending liberal" label for Obama...he reminds us how pro-corporate and anti-worker he is every chance he gets. His September 9, 2009 Obamacare speech revolved around preserving insurance company profits and ignored any real health care issues.
Arrest arch-criminal Alan Greenspan to start. He recommended the high payroll tax rate in the late 80's to fund social security, providing a windfall to our political leaders to mask the true governmet deficit. President Chimp implemented tax cuts because 14 years later, after milking the working class, Greenspan warned of budget surpluses built from the high payroll tax rate for social security. String that bastard up first, then implement your flat tax with income ceilings removed.
And don't forget to vote against any Senator who earlier this year voted in favor of reconfirming Greenspan's protege and successor, Ben Bernanke.
gus: Greenspan, despite being a fool who thought he knew enough, could not have had any influence had politicians everywhere had enough brains to know that he was wrong. They didn't want to know.
At this point, does anyone think that increasing taxes on anyone will do anything except enrich the politicians and their puppeteers. That 1980's payroll tax increase would have been fine if they had deposited that money in local banks. However much surplus had been created in your county, city or state would be in local institutions. But, they spent $3+ trillion on war and empire.
Nothing will fix anything until we get our priorities straight.
"That 1980's payroll tax increase would have been fine if they had deposited that money in local banks."
Except for the savings and loan debacle of the 1980's where many local banks went under, and small investors lost their life savings. They always figure a way to get the money - and we all know who "They" are. That's why it's so difficult to come up with a solution to the problem - the same corrupt people will be conniving from the inside to profit off of any new "Fix".
Local banks are prone to takeover by the bigger banks. Credit unions would have been better I think.
Good point. I forgot about the S&L debacle for a moment. maxpayne says credit unions and those would probably have been the better bet.
"The same corrupt people will be conniving from the inside to profit off of any new 'Fix'." That does seem to be the most important problem to solve and the toughest.
And the ultimate point is that they pissed it away, don't want to admit it and want to maintain the status quo of sucking us dry. Their problem is we have been pretty much sucked to death and they may have nowhere to turn now that Dubai is sinking.
SS is not 'keeping me out of poverty', but it is keeping me independent.
I don't think jobs are a zero-sum game. The meme of working seniors 'taking jobs from the young' is a pernicious myth IMO.
People 'approaching retirement' are 'seniors'? Ageism in this culture is deep and wide. There are at least two generations over the age of 62/65; calling those under retirement age 'seniors' is inaccurate and unnecessary.
Of course, the wealthy should pay more SS; we read that Bill Gates types currently pay their share in the first few minutes of each new year while the working poor labor suffer deductions from every hour all year long.
Well, folks, we have had opportunities to support at the polls folks who would enact the changes we need and we refuse because they "can't win" ..... Remember, people get the government they deserve.
Just as "only Nixon could go to China", only the Dems can destroy Medicare/SS and they are well on their way. Rep. attacks on these programs are recognized and vigorously fought. Dem. attacks, in the name of "fiscal responsibility", slip under the radar and go unchallenged.
We must stop pointing all our fingers at the MSM. Our "progressive media" either ignores this issue or dismisses it, along with so many others that might incriminate the Dems and our "historic" Pres. (in fact, Obama's legacy, ironically, may be that he is the Pres. who oversees the final dismantling of that safety net begun to be built by FDR.) It is not simply because such media has only limited exposure, it is also because they refuse to use what they have to tell such truths.
Frankly, it's getting rather tiring to keep pointing this stuff out. The right wing is actively "taking its party back" ala scott Brown, Rand Paul, etc. The left wing is pouting and continues to support ANY Dem, no matter how conservative. We are allowing the social safety net forged by the last generation to rot and putting our poor progeny in the same position of destitution the pre SS/Med generation faced.
Shame on us, our ancestors are rolling in their graves.
Concerning our "progressive media, see this link about Obama from Feb 2008! Why didn't the "progressive" media talk about this?
http://www.zcommunications.org/obama-s-money-cartel-by-pam-martens
The fact that this information was out there in public, available to anyone, including any journalist with the slightest pretention of doing his/her job, and instead the "progressive media" not only jumped on the Obama bandwagon but even actively supressed this information, raises a simple question: Are they stupid or bought?
"Progressive" journalists like Katrina Vander Heuvel and Robert Scheer remind me of Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin. Are they going to claim that "nobody could have known", when in fact they had all the information at their fingertips and even flying into their faces?
"Our progressive media" is mostly just a branch of the MSM. The people who run it belong to and/or get their money from the same group of people who run the MSM. They run with the same crowd.
Our MSM BTW is owned by the very same corporate types who want to gut Social Security, Medicare and all other public services, who want to privatize everything including sidewalks, who would be perfectly happy if the US became like Mexico where a few wealthy people live in palaces guarded by private armies while most of the population scrapes for scraps. These same characters view the middle class as an overhead item to be scratched-off ASAP and would rejoice at the rivers of shit flowing in the streets because the "soclialist" sewer systems no longer work, and laugh at the chidren standing in them trying to sell tacos because their parents can't afford to send them to private schools.
Why should these people care about the American people if they can get cheaper help anywhere in the world and sell anywhere in the world. Besides, with the increasing colorization of the US population there is no longer even any racial solidarity between the wealthy and the workers, they can get their colored help anywhere.
Thanx for the article link! It is so like so many others I was frantically collecting and sending to DN during the run-up to the election (before my computer died). But I realized that even as good an outlet as DN would go only so far in pointing out Obama's shortcomings - they couldn't bring themselves to do anything which might seriously jeopardize an opportunity for "the first African-American Pres."
When I used to say (and still do) that Obama is the best investment Wall St. ever made, people are taken aback.
Too many "progressives" still equate the Dems with progressivism, if not in activity, at least in aspiration - their blindness is the undoing of the left in this country. The Dems haven't aspired to be "progressive" for at least 2 decades. When even folks like Kucinich knuckle under, there can be little doubt the jig is up.
For an example of what I speak of re SS/Med in the above post, check out:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=554
I am beginning to fear that the only way SS and Med have a chance is to link Dem survival with their survival and, sadly, apparently the only way that will happen is if the Rep. win again and the Dems will be forced to come to the programs' defense in order to maintain their guise as an "opposition" party. If the Dems win again, the sheep's clothing will remain on the wolf and he will keep chomping until these programs are all gone. This will be true until we cut the umbilical cord to the Dems. I have been hoping (and voting 3rd party) that way for over a decade, but I am getting old ......
The left is mired in identity politics and no meaningful coalitions are being built - when, among groups who have taken a beating under the Dems, even labor, arguably among those hit the worst, refuses to abandon them, it is bad indeed. Each group tries to carve out its own fiefdom and jockeys for it's place at the table as the pols anesthetize potential revolt bit by bit by throwing each constituency a bone (actually, more like a dog biscuit). So labor won't insist on a public option, let alone single payer, as long as its health care plans are exempted from a "cadillac tax". An African-American commentator on GRITtv, pre-election, says that AAs, "short of child rape", will support Obama. Women, though angry at the treatment Clinton got in the primaries, seem satisfied with a few female appointees and don't make a sound about healthcare, until their sacred cow, reproductive freedom, seems threatened. And on it goes, as each group, chewing on their biscuit is then thrown under the bus. And yet they come back for more - "I love you, master, beat me again!" No one will draw a line in the sand and say "beyond this, I will not go" and so the sand becomes quicksand as the tide comes in. Perhaps a country apparently so totally in the grip of obvious self destructive tendencies can, indeed, go nowhere but down. I, myself, will not surrender to the despair these positions invite because it is only despair which guarantees defeat, but I am also getting tired ......
And as for those of us frantically urging coalescing around a third party candidate who would, indeed, represent "the People", we are told that WE are the ones undermining the cause. What happens when such absurdities can pass for "reasonable argument"?
Dave, are you here?
Will you continue to support - with your votes - sold out Democrats? Will you allow the media scams ("OMG, Racist slurs against Obama!" a scam, clear and simple) to shape your thinking?
We need to take this excellent idea and run with it. Let's get cracking.
Flat tax ... why not a progressive income tax? Let the big moneymakers pay accordingly. Let the big investors pay accordingly. Let the big spenders on destructive behaviours get their asses cut. Next, our government simply needs to stop 'borrowing' money from SS, actually pay back all the money they have 'borrowed', have a more equitable income tax structure so that the wealthy pay into SS on every dollar of income/wealth accrued each year including on capital gains ... any wealth production or accumulation, get rid of all the loopholes the wealthy have available to them to avoid paying taxes, and STOP THE WARS! Stop the wars, cut the MIC budget to a level driven by PEACE ... not WAR!
It is straightforward. It is simple. Remember Al Gore wanted SS monies in a 'lock box'. Most people didn't get the concept then and they still don't get it.
Thanks for explaining the FAQ page to SS! Here's a link for those who would like to see:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
Also, I found this one interesting as well, which discusses all the crap that happened to SS during the Reagen Administration:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/1983amend.html
*Remember, "This is an archival or historical document and may not reflect current policies or procedures" hehe
Sure would be nice to find the true culprits of trying to do away with this wonderful security system...flat tax is at least an idea worth discussing instead of ignoring!!!
I am not sure, but are you confusing the "flat tax", ala Steve Forbes, et.al., with the flat tax discussed in this article?
Forbes' flat tax refers to an income tax that is exactly the same % for all incomes - highly regressive.
The "flat tax" concept in this article refers to the fact that the payroll tax is applied only to payroll earnings under ~$106, 000. What he is suggesting is that this tax be applied to ALL payroll earnings.
Arguably, this suffers from the same problem of regressivity, but the LACK of SS taxes on higher income is adding insult to injury.
Catatonic...Yup.
Americans are catatonic, and they're never going to wake up. If they were going to, it would have already happened. The same SS recipients who cheered Bush when he snuck through the back door to the White House are the very same elderly Americans who are most likely to vote republican.
As the writer so accurately points out far too many Americans anxiously vote against their interests. Go figure.
Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News and many other Right Wing media howlers have huge audiences who hang on their every word. There is no cure for stupidity.
There is no cure for stupidity. Absolutely right. There is, on the other hand, a cure for ignorance, which can alleviate some of the effects of stupidity.
"If you accept that postulate, you would have to conclude that the US is no longer a functioning democracy." Bingo.
I might have thought it so, but then healthcare 'reform' happened.
And, worse, this non-reform was passed by the 'secular socialist party' that, according to Newt Gingrich, is a greater danger to America than Nazi Germany or Stalins USSR ever were. Gingrich says this to curry favor with America's latest throw-up of a 'grass-roots' populist movement, the Tea Partiers.
No, no functioning democracy here. Many clowns, no democracy.
Right! Which makes so many of these discussions fatuous.
Those words--"we are no longer a functioning democracy"--should be a rallying cry, not a wail of defeat. Maybe we should stop wringing our hands (me included--this is not an attack) and MAKE our democracy function. "We the people" need to first establish, then show our solidarity and willingness to stand up to the machine (the MIC, the "establishment," the apparatchik, the nomenklatura--call it what you will). We are not expendible, individual consumer units with an expiration date and a value up to our net wages. We are families, neighbors, and communities, and it's time we started acting that way. Resist systemmatic disenfranchisement!
Whoops. Started channeling my inner socialist there...
Hear, hear! (or is it Here, here!?) Either way, Amen!
Sorry. I might have mentioned (as in other posts) that I believe that only campaign finance reform will change the system sufficiently to regain our democracy.
Money corrupts. Unfortunate but, generally, true. And money infests the entire process of making laws, to the point where 'our' representatives will send their laws to their corporate backers to be written by them, at their advantage (who else can afford the lawyer fees?).
I do believe our democracy is disfunctional. I don't believe just 'throwing the blaggards out' is going to fix it. The problem is endemic to the democracy. To get reelected, you need money, to pay for media exposure. To get money, you need to suck up to the VERY forces working against the people who got you elected to office in the first place. And, in an economy that is RIGGED to promote the value of MONEY over the value of LABOR, the power to get reelected is in short supply indeed (because, ya know, the supply itself is illusory, and gamed by the people who control it).
This democracy needs campaign finance reform. Throw the money out (or, at least, build some distance between IT and 'our' representatives). There's not a party in America that wouldn't benefit from such a process. And we would all benefit, in the end. Its a conservative truism that we are all motivated by profit. Like all truisms, it is partially correct. We are all such motivated, but that doesn't mean we don't want a FRAMEWORK within which to motivate ourselves. Like a child taking its first step, we need gravity to tell us what we can and cannot do. Hence, this is a failure of governance, not of capitalism. Even though the failure was created by the capture of governance by capitalism.
"Gingrich says"
Here is where you make your first mistake. How about "Palin says"?
Gingrich said it. Likely, Palin said it as well, but my evidence is against Gingrich. That is amazing enough for me, considering how Republican Obama already is. My God, he's to the right of Richard Nixon on most issues!!! To say nothing of Eisenhower.
Truly, this entire nation, complete with its parties, has drifted horribly to the right in the last 50 years. That is what (retiring Supreme) Stevens has noted. A Republican, promoted to the bench by Republican President Ford, he is now the LIBERAL on the court. That should tell us something, if nothing else does.
"The committee report states that if the Social Security tax applied to all income instead of just the first $106,000, as things stand now, then Social Security would be completely funded at least through 2075."
So why can't the idiots in Congress get a clue? Or is that why they're idiots? Because they're incapable of getting a clue?
Or because they're all making more than $106,000?
If S.S. is fully funded then there will be no way for the corps to scare the hell out of us in hopes that we'll put our money in privatized accounts.
Do you ever hear of defense contractors wailing about the unfunded liabilities of the military? They don't care about that because they already have their hands in that money pot all the way up to their elbows.
My local paper said a 1.1 percent increase in contributions from employer/employee would completely fund S.S. at a 103 percent fully funded rate until 2075.
A $500 wage would cost both me and my employer and extra $5.50 each per week. If my employer can't come up with that small amount per week per employee then that company will soon be filing bankruptcy papers.
The reason the corps. want to privatize S.S. is to get their greedy little hands on a mountain of cash so that they can, wait for it, wait for it, invest it in Goldman Sachs because, wait for it, wait for it, the gov't is incompetent.
Actually Lindorff's idea is the best one. It doesn't cost me, my employer or those that are self-employed.
How about a Robin Hood Tax of say 25%? How much coin would that generate a year? I came up with a figure, but I'm not sure my math is correct.
I'll join you and Mr. Lindorff in the screamfest Bliss Doubt. The solutions are so simple and are SO right in front of us.
So what if it's an entitlement? Aren't all working and poor people entitled to a comfortable retirement, especially if they paid into the system?
Yes, just take the damn cap off of it. I have been yelling that to my legislature for decades now.
I suppost the top 1% get a sense of grandeur by crushing the lower 99%.
SS tax rate is 6.2% each for employer and employee. For the self-employed it is 12.4% (Medicare is separate and already has no $106,800 taxable limit).
But there is a much bigger loophole that, combined with eliminating the $106,800 cap, would not only keep SS solvent but would produce sufficient additional income to fully fund single-payer health insurance for all Americans - eliminating the 100% exemption on "unearned income" - income derived from interest, rents, profit, etc.
One thing that is not mentioned is that the federal government owes Social Security 2.5 trillion dollars that it misappropriated. That money, along with normal revenues, should keep the program solvent for sometime. I personally don't believe SS is a good retirement system. The U.S. federal government is not a bank, and I think Paul O'neil had a good ideal when he suggested that an annuity system would be a means to replace SS. He suggested opening a $24,000 annunity for every citizen born in the U.S. This would actually save money. A pay as you go system is unfair. I knew a man who died at 66 and received 6 SS payments. All that money he paid into the system, and neither he nor his family saw a fraction of what he put in. I think inheritable accounts that can be built up over a lifetime, such as what O'Neil suggests, but which are put into very safe investments, perhaps special guaranteed municipal and/or state bonds. That retirement money that our government pissed away could have been put to good use in rebuilding our state and local infrastructures.