about thoughts of Bernie Sanders. Thank you Mha Atma.
Ed
From: earthactionnetwork@earthlink.net
http://www.thenation.com/article/155097/hands-social-security
Hands Off Social Security
Bernie Sanders
The Nation: September 30, 2010
A White House deficit commission is reportedly considering deep benefit cuts
for Social Security, including a steep rise in the retirement age. We cannot
let that happen. The deficit and our $13 trillion national debt are serious
problems that must be addressed, but we can and must address them without
punishing America's workers, senior citizens, the disabled, widows and
orphans.
First, let's be clear: despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security
is not going bankrupt. That's a lie! The truth is that the Social Security
Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter-century. Today's $2.5
trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social
Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary
until 2039. Got that? In case you don't, let me repeat it. The people who
have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report
that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to every eligible
beneficiary for the next twenty-nine years. It is true that by 2039, if
nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80
percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to
make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.
The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing antigovernment crowd is
based on the fact that Social Security, a government program, has been
enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For seventy-five years,
in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for
tens of millions of Americans.
Despite this outstanding record, Social Security has become a political
football. For ideological reasons, some in Congress believe that government
should not be in the business of providing benefits to seniors or the
disabled. They want to privatize Social Security. Others say, incorrectly,
that Social Security is going bankrupt, so benefits should be reduced and
the retirement age set at 70. I strongly disagree with both assertions.
While the critics profess concern about Social Security's financial future,
their fuzzy math ignores the fact that this highly successful program has
not added a dime to our deficit. From the day when the first check landed in
the Ludlow, Vermont, mailbox of retired legal secretary Ida May Fuller on
January 31, 1940, Social Security has more than paid for itself.
With regard to the future of Social Security, there are some really
dangerous ideas out there, and one proposal that makes a lot of sense.
One of the worst ideas is to privatize Social Security. After the greed and
recklessness of Wall Street caused markets to collapse in 2008, does anyone
still seriously believe it would be a good idea to turn the retirement
security of millions of Americans over to Wall Street CEOs whose dishonesty
and irresponsibility have no end? Their administrative fees alone would take
a 15 percent bite out of workers' retirement investments, not to mention the
real threat of another stock market collapse. In sharp contrast,
administrative costs for Social Security are less than 1 percent of the
program's budget. Most importantly, despite economic conditions and the ups
and downs of the stock market, Social Security has never failed to pay full
benefits to every eligible beneficiary.
Another horrible idea is to move the retirement age up to 70. That would
cheat today's young workers out of about 15 percent of their retirement
benefits over a lifetime. The proposal also ignores the reality that
millions of workers in demanding professions simply cannot continue to work
until they are 70. The upshot for them would be reduced lifetime benefits
for retiring "early." Lower-income workers, those less likely to have other
savings, would be hurt the most.
In the midst of all of the destructive rhetoric and ideas out there with
regard to Social Security, there is one proposal that is simple, sensible
and would keep Social Security strong and solvent in a fair and just way.
Under the law today, the Social Security payroll tax is levied only on
earnings up to $106,800 a year. That means millionaires and billionaires get
off scot-free on all of their income above that amount. In other words, an
individual who earns $106,800 pays the same Social Security tax as a
multimillionaire. That's wrong. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on
those with the most income, say over $250,000 a year, would correct this
inequity. According to CBO, applying the tax to all income would provide all
the revenue that Social Security needs for the foreseeable future-for our
kids and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
As we mark the anniversary of Social Security, now is the time to pat
ourselves on the back for a job well done. For seventy-five years, Social
Security has lifted millions of people out of poverty and has provided
stability and dignity for the elderly and for other vulnerable Americans.
Our goal today must be to make sure that Social Security will be as strong
and stable seventy-five years from now as it is today.
***
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obama_and_the_progressive_paradox_20100929/
Obama and the Progressive Paradox
By E.J. Dionne, Jr.
Truthdig: Sep 29, 2010
A couple of hours before President Barack Obama offered a boffo revival of
his 2008 campaign persona during a boisterous rally at the University of
Wisconsin, Sen. Bernie Sanders was analyzing why the president was in a
political pickle in the first place.
Sanders, the independent from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats,
speaks warmly of Obama. But unlike the man in the White House, Sanders
actually is a socialist and believes devoutly in grass-roots, class-based
politics.
And it is his faith in the power of a progressive movement organized around
a clear set of commitments that lies at the heart of Sanders' critique of
where the president went wrong.
"Think back to two years ago," Sanders said during an interview in the only
Senate office decorated with a medallion of Eugene V. Debs, the legendary
American Socialist leader. "There were rallies involving 80,000 to 100,000.
Obama was running the best campaign I've seen in my lifetime-and I'm pretty
critical."
"Why are we where we are today?" he continues. "The most serious mistake the
president made was not, in a sense, continuing the thrust of his campaign,
and forgetting all he accomplished."
Sanders does not discount what Obama and congressional Democrats achieved
through the economic stimulus, health care and financial reform. But he
argues that by replacing a mobilizing approach and clear progressive goals
with an insider strategy aimed at compromising with a few moderate
Republican senators, Obama deactivated his own enthusiasts. These are the
very people the president was trying to motivate in Madison.
"While Obama and the Democrats have a large number of achievements, it was
not enough," said Sanders. "We needed to be bolder."
Yet Sanders will do all he can to help Democrats win this fall, and therein
lies the paradox for progressives. It's true that many on the left are
frustrated with White House calls for them to buck up and grow up. Jane
Hamsher, who blogs at Firedoglake, sees the administration's taunts as
setting up the left as a "fall guy" if Democrats lose.
But progressives keenly understand how much their aspirations would be set
back if an increasingly right-wing Republican Party wins one or both houses
this fall.
That's why liberal blogs are already rallying behind scores of Democratic
candidates. It's why "the enthusiasm gap" about this year's election is
slowly closing. It's why labor and civil rights groups have organized their
One Nation Working Together march this Saturday. (And, yes, it's another
sign of Fox News' continuing ability to set the mainstream media agenda that
you have heard far less about this rally than you did about Glenn Beck's.)
And it's why the polls have begun to show signs of a modest Democratic
revival. Buried in the eighth paragraph of a Wednesday Wall Street Journal
story on its survey with NBC News was this fact: When likely voters were
asked which party they wanted to control Congress, Republicans led Democrats
by three points, but that was down from a nine-point GOP lead just a month
ago. Could the plates beneath this election be shifting?
Obama's trip to Madison was therefore more than a journey down memory lane.
It reflected the White House's realization that Sanders is right that there
is no substitute for a president making a coherent argument, taking on
opponents who are eviscerating him daily, and acknowledging his dependence
on those who brought him to office. "I need you fired up!" he declared in a
stump line that could not have been more accurate. "You can't lose heart!"
The president was not reluctant to draw class lines or ideological
distinctions. He cast Republican support for a $700 billion tax reduction
for the wealthy against the cuts it could force in Head Start and student
loans. He criticized his opponents' "blind faith in the market" and the idea
of letting "corporations play by their own rules."
Thus the irony: A president who largely disdained a mobilizing strategy for
his first year and a half in office has returned to his community-organizer
roots to try to salvage an election. Here's the further irony: He has a real
chance of pulling it off, which leads to a question. If Obama succeeds, will
he continue to keep his supporters engaged and "fired up," as Sanders
suggests he should? Or will he go back to an insider strategy that helped
bring him to the brink of this precipice?
E.J. Dionne's e-mail address is ejdionne@washpost.com.
© 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
No comments:
Post a Comment