“Doom And Gloom”: A History Of Paul Ryan’s Attempts To Dismantle Social Security
That House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) supports the privatization of Social Security is well known. Ryan proposed $1.2 trillion in cuts and the partial privatization of Social Security upon taking control of the Budget Committee in 2011, and he has constantly warned about the supposed doom facing the program if major reforms aren’t enacted immediately.
But Ryan’s attempts to gut the most popular entitlement program in America go back quite a few years, as Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker profile of the conservative hero makes clear. Ryan’s fight against Social Security has been ongoing since he pushed President George W. Bush to privatize the program in 2005:
Under Ryan’s initial version, American workers would be able to invest about half of their payroll taxes, which fund Social Security, in private accounts. As a plan to reduce government debt, it made no sense. It simply took money from one part of the budget and spent it on private accounts, at a cost of two trillion dollars in transition expenses. But, as an ideological statement about the proper relationship between individuals and the federal government, Ryan’s plan was clear. […]
Two weeks after Bush’s Inauguration, Ryan gave a speech at Cato asserting that Social Security was no longer the third rail of American politics. He toured his district with a PowerPoint presentation and invited news crews to document how Republicans could challenge Democrats on a sacrosanct policy issue and live to tell about it.
Bush ultimately went with a slightly less radical proposal that still failed in the Senate and caused Republicans massive losses in the 2006 mid-term elections. But Ryan, undeterred, told Lizza that the failure of privatization was simply due to marketing, not that the plan was unpopular:
What some might interpret as the failure of an unpopular idea Ryan insisted was mostly a communications problem. “The Administration did a bad job of selling it,” he told me. Bush had campaigned on national-security issues, only to pitch Social Security reform after reëlection. “And . . . thud,” Ryan said. “You’ve got to prepare the country for these things. You can’t just spring it on them after you win.” The lesson: “Don’t let the engineers run the marketing department.”
Aided by the mainstream media’s spreading of the lie that Social Security is “going bankrupt,” Ryan has been able to thrust Social Security “reform” back onto the table, and it was embraced during the primary by virtually every Republican candidate.
What Ryan and his Republican colleagues continue to ignore, however, is how easy fixing Social Security would be if they weren’t so insistent on protecting the wealthiest Americans from a single tax increase. By lifting the payroll tax cap that currently limits Social Security contributions to the first $110,100 in income, Congress could ensure the program’s solvency for the next 75 years — longer than the program has been in existence to this point.
That wouldn’t fit Ryan’s belief that the government doesn’t have a role in helping protect the financial security of the American people. But it would prevent millions of Americans from losing the much of their retirement savings, as they would have during the 2008 financial crisis had Ryan’s plan to privatize Social Security become law.
By: Travis Waldron, Think Progress, July 30, 2012
Distilling Mitt Romney’s Position On Immigration
Former Gov. Mitt Romney underwent a tough and fair interview with Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier.
Romney seemed particularly, well, Romneyesque on immigration.
The confusion stems from the fact that, between 2005 and 2007, Romney gave every indication of supporting something like President Bush’s reform proposal: a system whereby illegal immigrants “come out of the shadows” and to the “back of the line” of the citizenship application process.
In 2006, the Associated Press was apparently unclear enough on Romney’s position to write this:
Meantime, one of McCain’s potential rivals for the GOP nomination, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has made it known that he supports the president’s immigration position, saying that Republicans who have broken rank with Bush “made a big mistake.”
The same year, Romney said, “I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country.”
He called elements of the Senate bill sponsored by John McCain and Ted Kennedy “reasonable proposals.”
As seems undeniable, Romney took a hard line on illegals when he decided to run for president. That much we know. But I’m still trying to suss out how, precisely, he threads the needle. In the interview with Fox’s Baier, Romney insisted that illegal immigrants who come forward must park themselves in the “back of the line,” behind those who’ve come here legally.
But this was a central feature of both the Bush plan and McCain-Kennedy plan, which was praised by business types as well as conservative activists like Linda Chavez, Grover Norquist and Jack Kemp.
The Weekly Standard‘s Fred Barnes wrote of the Bush plan:
Earned citizenship would permit the 12 million immigrants living illegally in the Unites States to apply for citizenship. They would be required to work for six years, commit no crimes, pay back taxes, and learn English. Then and only then could they get in line to become citizens [emphasis mine], a process that takes five years.
As far as I can tell, Romney found the thinnest of the reeds on which to lean his newfound opposition to the McCain-Kennedy bill: that it would allow immigrants to collect Social Security benefits they’d amassed while working here illegally.
Does Romney really expect anybody to swallow that?
By: Scott Galupo, U. S. News and World Report, November 30, 2011
Christian Hypocrisy From The Religious Right
W.W.J.D.? How about what would Jesus say? What would he say about the way we treat the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, the elderly?
I haven’t gone and gotten all religious on you, I promise. I was listening recently to an interview on the radio with a man from the Council of Churches on poverty. He reminded me how those on the religious right use the Bible and specifically the words of Jesus to defend their desire to overturn Roe v. Wade and fight against abortion, or to define marriage between and man and a woman to prevent gay people from marrying.
But what about the issue of those who are suffering? Those who are in need? Where are the religious right on that? Why isn’t it a value or moral to help a sick child, an elderly person or someone who is hungry?
The Bible contains over 300 verses dedicated to the poor and social injustice. In all of those verses it is clear God is concerned for both; so why aren’t those who claim to follow him?
Those on the religious right want to defund programs such as Social Security, Medicare, welfare, food stamps, healthcare, etc. What I want to know is: why aren’t these so called people of God offering their homes to the homeless, food to the hungry, a coat to someone who is poor and cold?
The concept of “it takes a village” was not Secretary Clinton’s idea; it originated with the teachings of Jesus. Don’t take my word for it, read his words. (In some books they’re in red; that should make it easier for you.)
With the current cuts in federal programs, more and more people are being turned away from shelters, yet at a time when the economy is bad, the unemployment rate is high, people keep losing their homes and there are more people living below the poverty line than in 50 years; what do we expect these people, some of whom are children, to do?!
Those in the churches aren’t helping, many church doors are locked to these people. When you phone a religious organization asking for help, they’ll send you to a shelter; which is government funded, which their congregation wants to cut the funding for. See the problem?
And it goes beyond our borders. In the horn of Africa where there is severe famine and where children are dying daily, the United States gives less than we have in the past, thanks to the cuts in funding.
I find it hard not to gag when I read “In God We Trust” on our currency when we don’t follow God’s laws. The religious right will fight hard to give a tax credit to a rich man, but doesn’t want to pay for a blanket for a homeless one. Didn’t the Bible say something about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? In America, it’s the other way around. If you’re rich, it’s like heaven; if you’re poor, it’s hell.
I was scared and shocked when I agreed with something Pat Robertson said recently. He said the right are being too extreme and to tone it down. He should’ve told the religious right to do something I think they’ve stopped doing long ago; read the book they so readily use to further their agenda.
By: Leslie Marshall, U. S. News and World Report, October 26, 2011
In Seach Of Human Liberty And Equality, The Constitution Is Inherently Progressive
Progressives disagree strongly with tea party views on government, taxation, public spending, regulations and social welfare policies. But we credit the movement for focusing public debate on our nation’s history, the Constitution and the core beliefs that shape American life.
This conversation is long overdue — and too often dominated by narrow interpretations of what makes America great.
Since our nation’s founding, progressives have drawn on the Declaration of Independence’s inspirational values of human liberty and equality in their own search for social justice and freedom. They take to heart the constitutional promise that “We the People” are the ultimate source of political power and legitimacy and that a strong national government is necessary to “establish justice, … provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.”
Successive generations of progressives worked to turn these values into practice and give meaning to the American dream, by creating full equality and citizenship under law and expanding the right to vote. We sought to ensure that our national government has the power and resources necessary to protect our people, develop our economy and secure a better life for all Americans.
As progressives, we believe in using the ingenuity of the private sector and the positive power of government to advance common purposes and increase freedom and opportunity. This framework of mutually reinforcing public, private and individual actions has served us well for more than two centuries. It is the essence of the constitutional promise of a never-ending search for “a more perfect union.”
Coupled with basic beliefs in fair play, openness, cooperation and human dignity, it is this progressive vision that in the past century helped build the strongest economy in history and allowed millions to move out of poverty and into the middle class. It is the basis for American peace and prosperity as well as greater global cooperation in the postwar era.
So why do conservatives continue to insist that progressives are opposed to constitutional values and American traditions? Primarily because progressives since the late 19th century rejected the conservative interpretation of the Constitution as an unchangeable document that endorses laissez-faire capitalism and prohibits government efforts to provide a better existence for all Americans.
Progressives rightly charge that conservatives often mask social Darwinism and a dog-eat-dog mentality in a cloak of liberty, ignoring the needs of the least well-off and the nation as a whole.
As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his 1944 address to Congress, “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. ‘Necessitous men are not free men.’ People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
Yet according to modern conservative constitutional theory, the entire Progressive, New Deal and Great Society eras were aberrations from American norms. Conservatives label the strong measures taken in the 20th century to protect all Americans and expand opportunity — workplace regulations, safe food and drug laws, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, limits on work hours, the progressive income tax, civil rights legislation, environmental laws, increased public education and other social welfare provisions — as illegitimate.
Leading conservatives, like Texas Gov. Rick Perry, claim that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) even argues that national child labor laws violate the Constitution.
They lash out at democratically enacted laws like the Affordable Care Act and claim prudent regulations, including oversight of polluters and Wall Street banks, violate the rights of business.
This is a profound misreading of U.S. history and a bizarre interpretation of what makes America exceptional.
There are few Americans today who believe America was at its best before the nation reined in the robber barons; created the weekend; banned child labor; established national parks; expanded voting rights; provided assistance to the sick, elderly and poor; and asked the wealthy to pay a small share of their income for national purposes.
A nation committed to human freedom does not stand by idly while its citizens suffer from economic deprivation or lack of opportunity. A great nation like ours puts forth a helping hand to those in need. It offers assistance to those seeking to turn their talents, dreams and ambitions into a meaningful and secure life.
America’s greatest export is our democratic vision of government. Two centuries ago, when our Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to craft the Constitution, government of the people, by the people and for the people was a radical experiment.
Our original Constitution was not perfect. It wrote women and minorities out and condoned an abhorrent system of slavery. But the story of America has also been the story of a good nation, conceived in liberty and equality, eventually welcoming every American into the arms of democracy, protecting their freedoms and expanding their economic opportunities.
Today, entire continents follow America’s example. Americans are justifiably proud for giving the world the gift of modern democracy and demonstrating how to turn an abstract vision of democracy into reality.
The advancements we made collectively over the years to fulfill these founding promises are essential to a progressive vision of the American idea. The continued search for genuine freedom, equality and opportunity for all people is a foundational goal that everyone — progressives and conservatives alike — should cherish and protect.
By: John Podesta and John Halpin, Center For American Progress, Published in Politico, October 10, 2011
Obama Isn’t Trying To Start ‘Class Warfare’ — He Wants To End The Republican War On The Middle Class
History will record that on September 19, 2011, the Republicans made a huge political miscalculation — a miscalculation that could potentially doom their chances for victory next year.
If I were a Republican, the last thing I’d want to talk about is “class warfare.”
For 30 years — whenever they have been in power — Republicans and their Wall Street/CEO allies have conducted a sustained, effective war on the American middle class.
Much of the success of their war has resulted from their insistence that it didn’t exist. They have talked instead about how the economy needs to reward all those “job creators” whose beneficence will rain down economic prosperity on the rest of us.
They fund right-wing organizations that divert our attention by whipping up worry that gay marriage will somehow undermine heterosexual relationships. They start wars that help pad the bottom lines of defense contractors but do nothing to make us safer.
And all the while they quietly rig the economic game so that all of the growth in the Gross Domestic Product goes into the hands of the top two percent of the population — while they cut our pay, destroy our unions and do their level best to cut our Social Security and Medicare.
There has been a “class war” all right — a war on the middle class. And the middle class has been on the losing end.
Today the truly rich control a higher percent of our wealth and income than at any other time in generations. Income inequality is higher than at any time since 1928 — right before the Great Depression.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, “the richest five percent of households obtained roughly 82 percent of all the nation’s gains in wealth between 1983 and 2009. The bottom 60 percent of households actually had less wealth in 2009 than in 1983… ”
Today, 400 families control more wealth than 150 million Americans — almost half of our population.
American workers have become more and more productive — but they haven’t shared in the income generated by that increased productivity, so now they can’t afford to buy the products and services they produce.
The success of the Wall Street/CEO/Republican war on the middle class rests, in part, in the old frog in boiling water story. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, they say, the frog will jump right out. But if you put a frog in a pot and gradually turn up the heat until it boils you end up with a cooked frog.
Republican policies have gradually shifted wealth, income and power from the middle class — and those who aspire to be middle class — into their own hands and for obvious reasons they haven’t wanted to focus too much attention on “class warfare.”
So now if the Republicans want to talk about “class warfare” — in the words of George Bush — “bring ’em on.”
In fact, President Obama isn’t proposing to start a “class war” — he wants to end the war on the middle class.
Among other things, he has proposed that America live by the “Buffett Rule” — by Warren Buffett’s suggestion that he and his fellow billionaires should have to pay effective tax rates at least as high as their own secretary’s.
Obama pointed out yesterday that requiring hedge fund managers to pay effective tax rates as high as plumbers and teachers was not “class warfare.” The choice is clear: either you increase taxes on the wealthy — or dramatically cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits. It is, as the President said, “simple math.”
Whereas Republican proposals to rein in the deficit by cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits are intended to continue this war on the middle class, the President’s plan — in stark contrast — addresses the three factors that actually caused the deficit in the first place.
From 1993 until 2000, Bill Clinton had successfully pushed back much of the Republican anti-middle class agenda. When he left office, America had a prosperous, growing economy, increasing middle class incomes, and budget surpluses as far as the eye could see.
Bush changed all that. The anti-middle class warriors were back in power, and they took the offensive. They passed massive new tax breaks for the rich, and set out to break unions.
Three Bush/Republican policies led directly to today’s deficit:
• Giant tax cuts for the wealthy;
• Two unpaid-for wars that will ultimately cost trillions;
• Trickle-down economic policies that did not create one net private sector job and ultimately caused the financial collapse that led to the Great Recession.
The Obama deficit proposal reduces the deficit by directly addressing these three factors — that actually caused the deficit — rather than demanding that the budget be balanced by taking even more out of the pockets of ordinary Americans.
A trillion dollars — 1.2 trillion with interest — is cut by ending the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those who argue that you shouldn’t count these reductions toward deficit reduction, because Obama already planned to end these wars, are ignoring the fact that they were a big reason why we have a deficit in the first place.
Second, Obama’s proposal eliminates the Bush tax cuts for the rich — and demands that millionaires, billionaires, oil companies, and CEO’s who fly around in corporate jets, pay their fair share.
Finally, the Obama plan includes a robust jobs package to jumpstart the economy and put America back to work. The Republicans have no jobs plan at all — none whatsoever. In fact, their plan is to simply let the Wall Street bankers and CEO’s continue to siphon as much as possible from the pockets of ordinary Americans.
The combination of Obama’s jobs and budget plans have set the stage for a clear, sharp battle for the soul of America. They have posed a stark contrast that is not framed as a battle over conflicting policies and programs — but as a struggle between right and wrong.
That battle will continue throughout this fall — and into next year’s elections.
These proposals, coupled with the President’s urgent, passionate advocacy, have transformed the political landscape.
The major iconic fights that will dominate American politics over the next 14 months will be the President’s jobs proposal, his call on millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share, and the Democratic defense of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Democrats and Progressives have the high political ground on every one of these defining issues — and I don’t just mean slightly higher political ground — I mean political ground like Mount Everest.
By huge margins, Americans prefer to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires rather than cut Social Security and Medicare. The choice is not even close — in most polls something like 8 to 1.
And who can possibly question that the number one priority of voters everywhere in America is jobs?
The Republican policies that led to the Great Recession did more damage than anyone knew. Many Republicans actually thought they would benefit politically by the long, slow economic slog that ensued in its aftermath. After all, no sitting President had won re-election in a century when the economy was not good or materially improving — except one.
Harry Truman won re-election in the midst of a bad economy in 1948 by running against the “Do-nothing Republican Congress.”
President Obama’s jobs and budget proposals have set the stage for just that kind of battle.
His proposals have simultaneously energized the progressive base and appealed to middle class swing voters — especially seniors — who agree entirely that the government should keep its hands off the Social Security and Medicare benefits they have earned, and turn instead to taxes on millionaires and billionaires to close the budget deficit that the Republican “class warfare” policies have created.
And it won’t hurt that these proposals have prompted the Republicans to turn the spotlight on the subject of “class warfare” itself. They should be careful what they wish for.
By: Robert Creamer, Strategist and Author, Published in HuffPost, September 20, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 