Strengthen Social Security

"Clueless." "Stupid." "Middle-class welfare." Sometimes a guy who likes facts and figures gets slapped in the face by reality, and apparently today's my day. Several recent stories showed me how some of these "austerity economics" advocates in Washington really feel about the middle class. I guess I always knew it intellectually, but these stories made me feel it on a visceral level. They let me know me exactly what these politicians and pundits feel toward me,my family, and the people I grew up with:

Contempt.

We're not talking about lofty and imperious disdain, either. This isn't the old-school,"look down your monocle with a lofty air" genteel antipathy once practiced by the gentlemen at the club. We're talking about complete and utter contempt, a repugnance so white-hot it feels like it could melt your face off.

Debts of a Salesman

How else are we to interpret remarks like these from John Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representatives? "People in Washington assume that Americans understand how big the problem is," Boehner said of Social Security, "but most Americans don't have a clue." Boehner added, ""I think the president shrank from his responsibility to lead. He knows the numbers as well as we do."

More »»

Let's begin with a multiple choice test. The United States of America is:

a) a for-profit corporation;
b) a family, like the typical American family in a 1960's sitcom;
c) a nation -- with a national economy and nation-sized problems.

If you answered "c," there's good news and bad news. The good news is that you answered the question correctly. The bad news is that you probably have no future as a pundit, where recycling bad metaphors is an essential job skill. (On second thought, that's probably good news too. You undoubtedly have better things to do with your time.)

Two metaphors keep reappearing in our national debate like comets on a too-tight orbit. One says that the government's finances are like a family budget, and the other says that the country needs to be run more "like a corporation." Both are routinely used as "nonpartisan" illustrations of the need to cut spending.

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard these misleading analogies, I'd have enough money to buy Alan Simpson a cow. more »

More »»

Call it a "general strike" ... from above. Republicans in Congress are trying to paralyze the government with their new budget bill, using a "disrupt and defeat" strategy to prevent it from delivering services promised to the the nation's citizens and required under current law. It's fiscal sabotage, plain and simple. Will people fight back?

The GOP'S first attack is on Social Security, slashing its budget in order to deprive people of vitally needed services. While the "austerity economics" crowd talks disingenously about future Social Security cuts in the coming decades, they're actually trying to cripple its activities starting right now.

House Republicans passed a budget which cuts $1.7 billion from the operating budget for the Social Security Administration (SSA) for the rest of 2011. That would damage its ability to deliver the benefits that were paid for by the working men and women of America. And remember: These same Republicans just held the government hostage in order to win a tax break for the wealthiest of Americans -- a deal that will cost the public treasury hundreds of billions of dollars. Now they're turning on the elderly, the disabled, and people who have lost a loved one. more »

More »»

George Orwell would be proud. The latest Washington catchphrase deserves a place of honor in the 1984 lexicon, right between "War Is Peace" and "Love Is Hate." It's a virus of the language that's spreading faster than the stomach flu.

"The President's budget punts on entitlement reform," reads a statement by House Republicans. "Our budget will lead where the President has failed, and it will include real entitlement reforms." "You have to do entitlement reforms if you are serious about this budget," says Rep. Paul Ryan.

Reality check: Nobody's proposing 'entitlement reform.' That term is a cloaking device for some very ugly intentions. It's a meaningless manufactured phrase cooked up by some highly-paid consultant, and it diminishes the sum total of human understanding every time it's used. The phrase is a euphemism for deep cuts to programs that are vital and even life-saving for millions of elderly and poor people, but it's politically unpalatable to say that. So it became necessary to come up with yet another cognition-killing term designed to numb us from the human toll of our political actions. "Entitlement reform" is the new "collateral damage."

More »»

We discussed the implications of the Madison movement in an interview on "Russia Today" television yesterday. more »

More »»

Sometimes it's worth looking at current events through the eyes of a historian chronicling the end of an age, or those of a district attorney in a time of corruption. Come to think of it, the two perspectives aren't all that different.

However you look at it, calling the Wisconsin struggle a "labor dispute" is like calling the Battle of Normandy "a fight over a beach." There's a war on, one that's best understand by using an Latin expression popular among prosecutors: Cui bono? Who benefits? Gov. Scott Walker's union-busting budget contains buried goodies for somebody, including possibly the Koch Brothers who paid to have it drafted. More importantly, it's another step toward replacing the American dream of prosperity for all with imperial visions of massive wealth for the few. more »

More »»

Thanks to the generous support of billionaires and self-interested corporations, think tanks have seeded our political discourse with a lot of mistaken ideas about government spending and deficits. more »

More »»

Slasher-Movie Economics

A vicious, savage, axe-wielding killer stalks the political landscape, yearning to draw blood, slash victims, and amputate limbs. That's not my description of austerity economics - that's how its fans talk about it.

"Austerity" is defined as "the trait of great self-denial (especially refraining from worldly pleasures)." Austerity economics, on the other hand, is the practice of denying others things that they need while at the same time ensuring your own continued privilege and comfort. This practice is usually accompanied by a round of self-congratulation for showing such courage and discipline. Its usually sinister spell has seduced Republicans into aiding and abetting felons with budget cuts that would make them de facto accomplices to a thousand crimes. And what the president's about to do will literally send chills down a million spines.

Anne Applebaum nearly worked herself into a case of the vapors when Austerians got elected in Great Britain, when she palpitatingly repeated the phrases used by journalists there to describe the new government's budget. The new British leaders, said journalists, were "axe-wielders" who were inflicting "vicious," "savage," and "swingeing (sic) cuts." (Is that what "bangers and mash" really means?)

More »»

Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post just wrote an article entitled "Obama won't endorse raising retirement age or reducing Social Security benefits," where she reports that the State of the Union speech will not include any suggestions for cutting retirement benefits.

The Wall Street Journal reported the story differently, saying that cuts will not be spelled out but will be hinted at: "White House officials ... have assured Democratic lawmakers that the president will not explicitly call for cuts in Social Security benefits, though he will say changes are needed to put the program on a solid fiscal footing." The Journal adds: "Mr. Obama will call on both parties to be prepared to put everything on the table."

Even if the Journal's darker account is more accurate, the executioner's hand has been stayed for the moment. That's a victory for the American people, who oppose these cuts by large majorities across the political spectrum. more »

More »»

Whatever the President says about Social Security in his State of the Union speech, the push to cut it will continue. A great deal of time, effort, and money has been expended to make sure that it does, and to promote a very limited set of policies for reducing retirement benefits. The centerpiece of those proposals is a plan to raise the retirement age to age 69 by 2075.

This harsh idea is being defended with a promise that there will be a "hardship exemption" for workers whose jobs are too demanding. But that's a promise that's destined to be broken.

There are many reasons why this solution won't work, and here are eight of them: The future is unpredictable. It will be difficult and bureaucratic to define "hardship." The definition of hardship is too limited. Age discrimination leads to unrecognized hardship. It will create cumbersome administrative and legal processes. They're not setting enough money aside. Hardship's impact will be discriminatory. And last but not least, relying on the 'hardship exemption" calls on us to trust politicians even as they're in the act of breaking a commitment.

Let's look at those eight reasons more closely: more »

More »»