Remember this - always!

I wrote about this more than a year ago. In fact, I first wrote about it more than 29 years ago. But events of late have pushed this back to the forefront of my political thoughts, pushing hard enough to get through a wall of struggles with burnout and depression to get me to write this, even if it's the only thing I manage to get out this summer.

Because I want the following quote burned into the consciousness of every single leftist, every single progressive, every single liberal, every single person on the entire left half of the American political spectrum and even those to the right of that line who are not yet beyond the reach of reality. And it is this: and yes it is deliberately in a great big bold font to emphasize its importance:

“‘Back to 1900’ is a serviceable summation of the conservatives’ goal."
- George Will, syndicated column, January 2, 1995

Yes. That's what he wrote. "Back to 1900." And every single thing conservatives say and do, every single thing they promote, every single proposal they make, every single emotional button they go to push, should be seen through that lens. They want to reproduce the social and economic relations that existed 125 years ago. They want to, in their own words, go "Back to 1900." And that is exactly what they have been trying, are trying, and will continue to try to do. Go back.

Back, that is, to a time before legal labor unions or effective anti-monopoly laws, a time of widespread child labor and twelve- or fifteen-hour work days and six- or even seven-day work weeks. Before regulations requiring safe working conditions, a time when being killed at work was a major cause of death.

Back to a time before environmental protection laws or consumer protection laws, a time when patent "medicines" were common and government "regulation" was more about promoting corporate interests than regulating them because caveat emptor was the rule of the day.

Back to before Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment or disability insurance, before any kid of public insurance, including for health, was even under discussion and decades before it was taken seriously..

“Back to 1900.” Back to when poor people were considered genetic defectives who deserved their condition and the way to deal with poverty was to shove it out of sight.

Back to a time when education was largely a perk of privilege, only half of children went to school, only 6.4 percent graduated high school, and the majority of adults had no more than eight years of schooling.

Back before civil or voting rights laws, back when women couldn’t vote, wives were chattel, blacks were either “good n*****s” who got called “boy” or “uppity n*****s” who got lynched, racism (against Irish, Italians, Chinese, and others as well as blacks) was institutionalized, sexism the norm, and gays and lesbians were sick or perverted while as far as “polite society” was concerned, bi, trans, or other flavors of the queer community simply didn’t exist.

Back to a time when valuing Protestant Christians over other religions and other people's rights was unremarkably ordinary and some, including atheists, were subject not only to social discrimination but also legal barriers to participation in society.

Back, in short, to a time when the elite and powerful were in their mansions and the rest of us were expected to know our places, live lives of servitude without complaint, and then die without making a fuss.

“Back to 1900” is indeed “a serviceable summation” of the right wing’s goal, which is to undo a century of progress toward economic and social justice in order to benefit their selfish, warped, morally warped lives.

Maya Angelou wisely said "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

We should have been paying attention when the fanatics were openly declaring what they wanted, who they were and are, and we either ignored it or dismissed it as hyperbole.

We shouldn’t have. Because they showed us, they told us directly - and we didn’t listen.

We can at least listen now. And then do more.

And we, each of us, can start by burning that quote into our minds.

Footnotes: For those who may not know, George Will is what passes for an intellectual among the right. And if anyone doubts the quote, I still have the column that I clipped out of my local paper. And it is a quote, not a paraphrase.
 

070 The Erickson Report for February 9 to 22

 

070 The Erickson Report for February 9 to 22

Episode 70 of The Erickson Report covers just two topics, the two we said last time we were going to address:
- guns, and
- attacks on Social Security.

[Sources used to follow shortly]

The Erickson Report is news and informed commentary. It is advocacy journalism, using facts and logic while never denying it has a point of view. We proudly embrace the description "woke" (“aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues, especially issues of racial and social justice" - Merriam-Webster dictionary).

Comments and responses are welcome either here or at whoviating dot blogspot dot com.

063 The Erickson Report for October 6 to 19, Page 3: False claims about the future of Social Security

Oh, guess what! It's "Social Security is going bankrupt!" Season again!

At least every couple of years we experience a spate of articles on how Social Security is on the verge of some sort of catastrophe. It's running out of money! Or it will in a few years! It's unsustainable! Huge benefit cuts are just around the corner! We have to DO SOMETHING! OMG OMG OMG!

And it's always the same old, same old: the same old arguments and the same old predictions and the same old false comparisons. Several years ago someone said debating some climate change deniers was like debating a well-trained parrot that had learned about a dozen phrases it would spew out at random. It really is much the same here except there is even less variety in the arguments.

Our latest example comes from one John Csiszar, a financial planner writing on the "10 biggest problems facing Social Security."

Several of the problems are, frankly, temporary and based on conditions of the moment - for example, low interest rates. Those that aren't, are those same old, same old things that sound drastic but really mean little or nothing. But it's worth going through them so you can arm yourself against them when they come up, which they will because they always do.

One is that "life expectancy is rising" - actually, it hasn't these part few years, but let that pass as another hopefully temporary phenomenon - which makes for longer retirements and a bigger drain on the system. Except that greater life expectancy has also lead to people working longer and even putting off retirement voluntarily, not due to economic need. And many retirees work part time - I do - and so continue to contribute something to the system even during retirement and may even, if they earn more than a certain amount, see some of their benefits taxed back, as some of mine are.

A really deceptive argument is the one that goes "too many beneficiaries" due to the baby boomers. But the demographic bulge represented by that group was seen coming and in 1983 the tax rate for social security was raised specifically to create a surplus to deal with that coming bulge. Baby boomers were in effect pre-financing their own Social Security benefits.

So when you hear about the SS account "going to zero" around 2034, it's that surplus that will have been spent, returning SS to the pay-as-you-go status it has been on for most of its existence, which now extends back over 80 years.

And let me here address something subtle: The talk about looming "massive benefit cuts" that are always part of these discussions. Your social security benefits are calculated on a number of your highest-earning years, which for most people are ones nearing retirement, simply assuming they have been getting raises during their working years. When you hear about the benefit cuts, they are cuts from projected benefits. But over time, wages tend to rise a little faster than inflation, which in turn means that over time, the initial benefits for new retirees, measured in real terms, that is after accounting for inflation and so a measure of how much stuff you can actually buy, those initial benefits gradually provide a somewhat higher standard of living that the initial benefits for previous retirees.

Which means that by the time these benefit cuts come, the result could easily mean that new retirees have the same standard of living - can buy as much stuff - as people retiring now can. That's not something to be welcomed, certainly, but it is even further from the disaster it's intended to sound like by making you think they are cuts from the current level of benefits, not from the higher projected ones.

Getting back to the arguments in this article, another deceptive one is the "not enough workers" claim. This is that the worker-to-retiree ratio is shrinking. Sixty years ago there were five workers for every person receiving SS.  More recently it had been down to 2.8 workers per beneficiary and now, according to Csisza, it's down to - gasp! - just 2.1.

Sounds dreadful - except that the figure itself is useless. Workers don't just support retired people, they support all non-workers, including their children and their spouse or partner if they don't work and in some cases others. Even as the number of retirees is growing, family size is shrinking. So over these decades, even as the ratio of workers to retirees is expected to go down, the ratio of workers to non-workers is expected to go up: more workers per non-worker.

Sixty years ago, there were 1.05 workers per non-worker; by 2030, demographic trends say there will be 1.27. So by the logic of the argument, we will be better able to support Social Security in the future than we are now!

The burden on workers will be much that same, it's just that in effect, some portion of that burden will have shifted from supporting their children to supporting their parents.

But then of course, the real issue is Congressional stalemate, the refusal of politicians to do what's needed to fix this!

It is true that there hasn't been significant Social Security legislation since the 1980s, but a good part of the reason for that is that the only solutions usually offered - and the only ones offered here - are ones that just dump the burden on workers: Raise the retirement age (which in fact has already been done)! Cut benefits! Raise the payroll tax!

Want to know how to protect SS for the next 75 years, which is as far out into the future the trust fund managers' projections go? And do it without harming the interests of workers? First, remove the cap on the SS wage base. Right now, any earned income you make over $142,800 a year is not subject to SS payroll taxes. So someone making, say, 1.4M a year pays the same SS tax as someone earning one-tenth as much. Such a move would only affect the richest 8% of Americans. Which is why, of course, it hasn't been done.

But I'd go even beyond that. Remember, that tax applies to earned income. Income from passive sources, such as dividends, interest, pensions, or income from a business in which you don't have an active role, are not subject to payroll taxes. Frankly as far as I'm concerned, if you can spend it the same, it can be taxable the same. Which again would primarily affect the richest among us - which is why it isn't even on the table.

Bottom line - an appropriate expression here - SS may need some tweaks and fiddles - and it has been tweaked and fiddled with a number of times over its history - but it is not going bankrupt, not about to collapse, not in need of major surgery, and for young folks, yes it will be there for you when the time comes so long as we don't let the economic elites screw you over.

063 The Erickson Report for October 6 to 19

 

063 The Erickson Report for October 6 to 19

Sources:

Correction regarding school book bans
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2022/09/062-erickson-report-for-september-22-to.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/book-bans-opinion-poll-2022-02-22/
https://hartmannreport.com/p/americans-used-to-understand-public
https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/floridas-hidden-voucher-expansion-over-1-billion-from-public-schools-to-fund-private-education

Follow Up on the shooting of Shireen Abu Akleh
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2022/05/054-erickson-report-for-may-19-to-june-1.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2022/06/055-erickson-report-for-june-2-to-15.html
https://theintercept.com/2022/09/20/shireen-abu-akleh-killing-israel/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXjVDKILC3s
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/06/1121252
https://theintercept.com/2021/11/29/boycott-film-bds-israel-palestine/
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-bds-legislation
https://theintercept.com/2022/09/22/rashida-tlaib-israel-adl/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmZ0ZFgYWf8
https://bit.ly/3xMztNc
https://bit.ly/3dxZyJn
https://bit.ly/3r0OXcG
https://bit.ly/3C3Zlqr

False claims about the future of Social Security
https://whoviating.blogspot.com/search/label/Social%20Security
https://www.gobankingrates.com/retirement/social-security/debt-free-future-biggest-problems-facing-social-security/

Brief comments on Iran and Ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/site-search/?query=iran&date=past_month&offset=0
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/analysis-braced-to-crush-unrest-irans-rulers-heed-lessons-of-shahs-fall-analysts/ar-AA12FAAb
https://ajmuste.org/aj_mustes-life-of-activism

036 The Erickson Report for April 22 to May 5, Page Three: Noted in Passing

036 The Erickson Report for April 22 to May 5, Page Three: Noted in Passing

Next, an occasional segment called Noted in Passing, where we touch on a couple of things we wanted to make sure got mentioned even if only quickly.

First up, the Ohio legislature is considering a GOPper-backed bill to change the name of an Ohio state park from Mosquito Lake State Park to Donald J. Trump State Park.

So basically changing the name from referencing one disease-carrying pest to another. Doesn't seem like much of a change to me.

It does remind me of the earlier efforts by GOPpers to have something named for Ronald Reagan in every single county in the US. But at least they had the decency to wait until he was dead.

-

And here we go again: Sen. Witless Romney is proposing legislation to deal with the - according to the right-wing - supposed looming financial crisis of Social Security and Medicare, a disaster that is forever imminent but never actually arrives.

This time it's to be bipartisan 12-member "Rescue Committees," one for each of the trust funds with a deadline of 180 days to draft legislation to "improve" each program while securing long-term funding, with any such legislation receiving "expedited consideration" in, that is, to be rushed through, Congress.

It's claimed that this is a "bipartisan" effort because three of the 12 co-sponsors in the Senate are Democrats. The three are Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and Mark Warner. Truly a varied group.

Oh, and we have long known the way to secure the long-term funding for SS and Medicare: remove the cap on income subject to the taxes, a change that would only affect those making over $143,000, that is, the richest 8% of Americans.

 

But wait, that's the rub: It would mean taxing the rich, so that's obviously off the table.

-

Elizabeth Warren

On a happier note, here's another sign that Israel is finally losing its stranglehold on US policy in the Middle East, as progressives and even liberals become more open to questioning the so-called "special relationship."

On April 19, Elizabeth Warren, while continuing to support military aid to Israel, proposed conditioning the aid on none of it being used in the occupied territories. Quoting her: "By continuing to provide military aid without restriction, we provide no incentive for Israel to adjust course."

Not a very radical proposal by any means - personally, I would simply end military support altogether - but it wasn't that long ago that even suggesting Israel had to "adjust course" was beyond the pale.

-

On an unhappy note, the Arkansas House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a resolution specifically allowing the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Federal courts - including in a case directly involving Arkansas - have repeatedly held that teaching creationism in the public schools is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is religious instruction, a fact to which the bill's main sponsor responded by saying she hoped the newly reactionary SCOTUS might feel differently.

-

Finally, while most Americans have weathered the pandemic financially, about 38 million say they are worse off now than before the outbreak began in the US.

Overall, 55% of Americans say their financial circumstances are about the same now as a year ago, and 30% even say their finances have improved, but 15% say they are worse off.

Not surprisingly, the problem is more pronounced at lower income levels and among non-whites. Some 29% of Americans living below the federal poverty line say their personal finances now are even worse that they obviously were a year ago, while 47% of Hispanics and just 39% of Black Americans say they have been able to put aside some money recently, compared to 57% of whites, and. Black and Hispanic Americans are about twice as likely as white Americans to say they have come up short on bill payments.

Despite some recent degree of recovery, the United States still has 8.4 million fewer jobs than it had in February 2020, just before the pandemic struck.

036 The Erickson Report for April 22 to May 5

036 The Erickson Report for April 22 to May 5

This episode:

- Some thoughts prompted by the Derek Chauvin conviction
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/20/watch-live-jury-delivers-verdict-in-derek-chauvin-murder-trial.html
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2021/4/15/22383392/adam-toledo-shooting-video-released-chicago-police-bodycam
https://theconversation.com/being-skeptical-of-sources-is-a-journalists-job-but-it-doesnt-always-happen-when-those-sources-are-the-police-159173
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/officer-who-fatally-shot-daunte-wright-police-chief-have-resigned-n1263949
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/minnesota-police-chief-says-he-believes-officer-meant-grab-taser-n1263817
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-veteran-officer-could-have-mistaken-glock-taser-fatal-shooting-n1263976
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-similar-to-duante-wright-shooting-other-cops-have-claimed-gun-taser-mixup-20210412-7b34zo47kzhtpj4n3rxjl37mze-story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/us/brooklyn-center-police-shooting-minnesota.html

- Afghanistan
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/04/us-nato-troops-withdraw-afghanistan-911-us-official-says/173326/
https://apnews.com/article/world-news-afghanistan-troop-withdrawals-islamabad-015703a459088547531a755819897040

- Noted in Passing
https://www.aol.com/news/ohio-republicans-aim-rename-state-174607622-163054145.html
-
https://www.aol.com/finance/romney-introduces-legislation-tackle-social-163327974.html
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
-
https://theintercept.com/2021/04/19/israel-aid-elizabeth-warren-j-street/
-
https://ncse.ngo/creationism-bill-advanced-arkansas
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
-
https://www.aol.com/finance/poll-15-americans-worse-off-120630775-134039730.html - And Another Thing
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/12/100-years-on-eclipse-1919-picture-that-changed-universe-arthur-eddington-einstein-theory-gravity
https://www.alternet.org/2021/03/black-hole/

What's Left #1

What's Left
for the week of November 3-9, 2016

This week:

What we face with a Clinton administration
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/02/2364-rare-and-potentially-my-only.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/06/2508-update-what-to-expect-from-hillary.html
http://time.com/4532511/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-emails-john-podesta/
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-wall-street-financial-industry-may-control-retirement-savings
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/nomi-prins-hillary-clinton-will-continue-the-big-bank-protection-racket.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDBt1y0rgew
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/22/emails-show-clinton-campaign-weighing-keystone-xl-decision.html
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/16/hillary-clinton-picks-tpp-and-fracking-advocate-to-set-up-her-white-house/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/05/2472-some-updates-on-secret-trade.html
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34629-chamber-of-commerce-lobbyist-tom-donohue-clinton-will-support-tpp-after-election
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/terry-mcauliffe-hillary-clinton-tpp-trade-226253
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/08/2588-tpp-headed-for-lame-duck-showdown.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjMGHb_I_bo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/did-wikileaks-make-hillary-clinton-look-two-faced-or-clear-eyed/2016/10/12/ae59f3ba-8fc7-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.a2eca67c566c&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1
http://time.com/4532511/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-emails-john-podesta/
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/14/journalist_hillary_clintons_criticism_of_snowden
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/23/hillary-clinton-national-security-plan-isis-baghdadi
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2009/08/here-we-go-again.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/02/1915-little-thing-wall-street-and.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
http://www.voanews.com/a/libya-rival-governments-vie-control/3554992.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-concerned-force-libyas-capital-095220442.html?ref=gs
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/unblinking-stare
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/12/um-what-happened-to-that-no-blank-check.html
http://www.alternet.org/world/5-most-hawkish-positions-embraced-hillary-clinton
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/11/left-side-of-aisle-84-part-3.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/14/face-it-a-vote-for-hillary-clinton-is-a-vote-for-war.html
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33299-clinton-syria-fact-check-safe-zones-ground-troops
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/hillary-syria-fact-check_b_8333396.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zone-third-debate_us_58084280e4b0180a36e91a53
http://www.infowars.com/clinton-on-no-fly-zone-in-2013-youre-going-to-kill-a-lot-of-syrians-in-2016-could-save-lives/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-foreign-policy-elites-not-sorry-to-see-obama-go/2016/10/20/bd2334a2-9228-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html#comments

Summing up: the role of the left

Re-introducing myself

217.1 - Refuting the lies about Social Security

Refuting the lies about Social Security

Well, a couple of weeks ago I had some anniversaries to note: The 50th birthdays of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Voting Rights Act, and the 70th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And now I have another birthday to mark. On August 14, Social Security turned 80. And in what should have come as a surprise to no one, the date was met with a spate of widely-distributed articles claiming that the system either is or soon will be on its death bed.

Make no mistake: The claims you no doubt have seen that Social Security is "running out of money" or needs an "overhaul" which invariably involves cutting benefits or "will go belly up" in less than 20 years or, this one addressed to younger workers, "won't be there" when you get to retirement age, are all lies. Flat out lies.

I refuse even to call them misunderstandings or inaccuracies. They are lies, lies intended to undermine support for a program that the right wing has tried to bring down from the get-go, a program which they hated at first because it was government support for those in need and have come to hate even more because it has worked so damn well.

Oh, and I do mean from the get-go.

When Social Security originally was being considered in Congress, opponents claimed it would bring an end to American freedom. Seriously. For example, one member of Congress warned that the people would feel "the lash of the dictator" while another said Social Security "opens the door to a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants" and a third insisted it would "end the progress of a great country."

They haven't stopped trying to undermine it, they've just changed tactics to regular waves of fear-mongering about how "unaffordable" and "unsustainable" the system is.

And, again, it's all lies.

One widely-circulated article was from Stephen Ohlemacher of Associated Press, headlined with some version or another of "Social Security at 80: Is it time for an overhaul?" Because it was from Associated Press, it appeared in newspapers major and minor all across the country.

It is hard to imagine that this article would have been more biased against Social Security if it had been written by some far right-wing think tank. But for that same reason, plus its wide publication, it provides a template to rebut the lies.

It starts with the boiler-plate fear mongering:

Social Security’s disability fund is projected to run dry next year. The retirement fund has enough money to pay full benefits until 2035. But once the fund is depleted, the shortfalls are projected to be enormous.

Okay, let's deal with the disability issue first because it's a bit subtle. Social Security actually has two funds: the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, which is what we usually think of when we think of Social Security, and Social Security Disability Insurance. The money that comes in from payroll taxes is distributed between those two funds, with most going to the former.

Eleven times over the years, the trustees of the funds have adjusted what percentage of the monies coming in goes to each fund, depending on which one needed an extra little boost at the moment. Such shifts have been routine and uncontroversial. The last time one of these re-allocations of tax income was done was in 1994 and it was predicted at that time that the Disability Insurance fund would need to be replenished - guess when - in 2016. The need for replenishment is exactly what has been expected for the past 20-plus years.

The reason, the only reason, this presents the possibility of a crisis is that on the first day of the new Congress in January, the GOPper leaders of the House of Representatives adopted a rule which said that it would be out of order for Congress to reduce the actuarial balance of the Social Security retirement account. But obviously there is no way to reallocate any money to the Disability Insurance fund without affecting the balance of the retirement account. The effect would be small, but it would not be zero. Put bluntly, the "crisis" in the Disability Insurance fund was deliberately created by the right-wing in the House.

But the article mentions this rule only in passing, never explains its effect, but does describe it falsely as related to "improv[ing] the overall financial health" of the system, and allows the disability program to be called "plagued by waste and abuse" without challenge or evidence.

Next up, saying "the fund will be depleted" in 2035 is total and complete garbage. Starting back in 1977, payroll taxes were increased to build up a surplus to deal with the baby-boomer demographic bulge in retirees everyone knew would be hitting around 2010. The trustees' latest report says that the Social Security Trust fund now has $2.8 trillion in assets and that amount is expected to grow until 2019.

At that point, payments will exceed income and the system will have to dip into that surplus to pay full benefits. That is what will be "depleted" in, its now predicted, 20 years from now: the surplus. The surplus that was deliberately created to deal with the increasing demands on the system. The surplus that was deliberately created so it could be drawn upon. At that point, the system would be back on the pay-as-you-go basis on which it has existed for almost it's entire life.

More scare tactics:

In 1960, there were more than five workers for every person receiving Social Security. Today there are fewer than three. In 20 years, there will be about two workers for every person getting benefits.

Omigosh, how will we ever afford it?

Except that "workers versus retirees" is a useless and deceptive statistic. Workers don't just support retired people, they support all non-workers, including their children and their spouse or partner if they don't work. Even as the number of retirees is growing, family size is shrinking. So over those next few decades, even as the ratio of workers to retirees is expected to go down, the ratio of workers to non-workers is expected to go up: more workers per non-worker. The burden on workers will be much that same, it's just that in effect, some portion of that burden will have shifted from supporting their children to supporting their parents.

But wait! Come 2035, when we're back to pay-as-you-go, Social Security would collect enough in taxes to pay only 79 percent of scheduled benefits. A 21% benefit cut! Horrors! We have to cut benefits now to avoid that big hit later!

Well, yes, the 79% figure is true - if you also assume that nothing is done in those 20 years. The system has been tweaked and adjusted numerous times over its life and it will probably have to be tweaked again, but presenting it as a choice between "cut benefits now" and "cut benefits more later" is a false choice.

And here's an interesting thing I bet no one has told you: Note the reference to "scheduled" benefits. The trustees make calculations of future costs and benefits based on various scenarios of how the economy might play out over the years. Initial benefits for a new retiree are calculated on a wage base. The thing is, over time, wages tend to rise a bit faster than inflation. Which means projected - that is, "scheduled" - initial benefits also rise a bit faster than inflation. The bottom line is that 79% of scheduled benefits in 2035 will provide about the same standard of living as current benefits do today.

Oh, and one other little tidbit to add in here: Three years ago, instead of predicting being able to pay 79% of scheduled benefits in 2035, the prediction was being able to pay 75% of scheduled benefits in 2033. Which means, of course, that projections are somewhat better than three years ago.

Finally, there is of course the "scare with big numbers" gambit.

Over the next 75 years, Social Security is projected to pay out $159 trillion more in benefits than it will collect in taxes. That is not a typo.

Wow. Scary. Except: The US GDP is now $17.5 trillion a year, so even if you assume no expansion of the economy at all, over the same 75 years the economy will generate over $1.3 quadrillion in goods and services.

You want really big numbers? We'll give you big numbers. Between 1933 and early 2015, the mean annual real (i.e., non-inflated) growth in the US GDP has been 4.4%.

If that average was maintained, in that 75th year, when the accumulated payments beyond income of Social Security would be $159 trillion, the US GDP, in that single year, would be over $440 trillion. The magic of compound interest.

And if it seems silly to try to calculate out how big the US economy will be in 75 years, it should seem even sillier to talk about cutting benefits to present and future retirees based on projections every bit as tenuous.

Finally, what would I do about Social Security? I would remove the cap on wages subject to Social Security taxes, which is now $118,500 a year. Don't give me any bull about that's going after "the middle class." $120,000 a year is more than about 92-93% of US income-earners. That is not middle class.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/14/1412097/-Social-Security-at-80-It-s-Time-to-Expand-Benefits
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/things-know-social-security-80-overhaul-time/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/02/1916-outrage-of-week-changing-rules-to.html
http://www.ncpssm.org/PressRoom/NewsReleases/Release/ArticleID/1432/Analysis-of-the-2015-Social-Security-Trustees-Report
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/04/left-side-of-aisle-54-part-1.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Social_Security_in_the_United_States
http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate

Left Side of the Aisle #217

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of August 20-26, 2015

Refuting the lies about Social Security
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/14/1412097/-Social-Security-at-80-It-s-Time-to-Expand-Benefits
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/things-know-social-security-80-overhaul-time/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/02/1916-outrage-of-week-changing-rules-to.html
http://www.ncpssm.org/PressRoom/NewsReleases/Release/ArticleID/1432/Analysis-of-the-2015-Social-Security-Trustees-Report
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/04/left-side-of-aisle-54-part-1.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Social_Security_in_the_United_States
http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate

More on the three secret trade deals
http://eu-secretdeals.info/ttip/
http://corporateeurope.org/international-trade/2015/07/ttip-corporate-lobbying-paradise
https://stop-ttip.org/what-is-the-problem-ttip-ceta/
http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/lang--en/index.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/06/20/thirst-profit-corporate-control-water-latin-america
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html
http://www.rt.com/news/264745-wikileaks-secret-tisa-documents/
http://www.rt.com/news/271138-wikileaks-tisa-leak-documents/
http://www.rt.com/usa/167088-wikileaks-tisa-secret-trade/

201.5 - Footnote: more on Social Security

Footnote: more on Social Security

Two footnotes to the item about Chris Christie's camouflaged attack on Social Security:

One is that CPI and Chained-CPI are not the only measures of inflation the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses in producing inflation figures.

Another is the CPI-E, "E" for "elderly." It's intended to reflect the fact that us old folks tend to spend relatively less of our income than younger folks do on things like clothing, recreation, transportation, and food and more on housing and health care. So CPI-E weights its measure of inflation based on that difference, so it's a better measure of the inflation rate experienced by seniors - which means, for the most past, folks on Social Security.

Here's what's important: CPI-E usually shows a higher inflation rate than the standard CPI does. Which means that, contrary to those who say we should cut the cost of living increases for seniors, the facts say that those increases are already too low.

Despite the ranting and raving of the reactionary budget hawks and their Dimcrat echoers and enablers that the old geezers have it too soft, it is more likely that we have been short-changing them for years.

The other thing, and it's important to remember this, that President Hopey-Changey has on more than one occasion directly offered to approve two of Chris Christie's proposals, two proposals to cut Social Security benefits - raising the Medicare eligibility age and switching to Chained-CPI - in previous budget negotiations with the right-wingers in Congress.

These people are not on your side. Unless you are of the elite, unless you are of the comfortable, they are not on your side. Noblesse oblige is not support, it is not being on your side.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.ncpssm.org/PublicPolicy/SocialSecurity/Documents/ArticleID/1159/The-CPI-E-%E2%80%93-A-Better-Option-for-Calculating-Social-Security-COLAs
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/07/footnote-to-preceding.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/07/sealing-our-fates-part-two.html

201.4 - Update: Chris Christie on Social Security

Update: Chris Christie on Social Security

Last week, I raised the amazing possibility that I might, and I did emphasize might, agree with NJ Gov. Chris Christie on something after he proposed an income cap on receiving Social Security benefits. I did say I was wary both because it would turn Social Security into a partly means-tested program, which it never had been, and because the history of right-wing attempts to undermine Social Security said I should be wary, but okay, I was willing to look at his fleshed-out proposal and to at least consider the idea.

Well, we have his fleshed-out proposal and, guess what, history wins again.

Gov. Krispy Kreme did indeed propose phasing out Social Security benefits for people earning more than $80,000 non-Social Security income with a final cut-off at $200,000.

Beyond that, he also proposed raising the retirement age, which is already going up to 67, two mnore years to 69, raising the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67, and coupling cost-of-living increases to what's called Chained-CPI.

That last part requires an explanation. Cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security have always been based on the Consumer Price Index, or CPI. It's the inflation rate we normally hear about. Chained-CPI calculates inflation in a different way, based on the premise that consumer choices change as prices change. It assumes, in the most commonly used "for instance," that if the price of beef goes up too much, you as a consumer will switch to cheaper cuts of meat.

On it's face, that doesn't seem a wildly unrealistic assumption, but here is the effect: Bear in mind that this is a very oversimplified example; I'm only using two commodities - beef and chicken - rather than an entire market basket of goods and services and the numbers are just for the purposes of illustration. But it does serve to make the point.

Okay. Suppose the price of ground beef goes from $4.00 per pound to $5.00 per pound, and that's getting a little pricey for you. So you switch to chicken, which has gone from $3.20 per pound to $4.00 per pound. The CPI says the inflation rate is 25% because that's how much the price for those commodities has gone up.

Chained-CPI, however says that even though the price of meat has gone up 25%, your cost is still $4.00 a pound, it hasn't gone up at all, so the inflation rate is zero even as the prices rise.

What this means at the end of that day is that by its nature, Chained-CPI, by assuming you always will and always can secure a lower-priced alternative to a product or service, always produces a lower inflation rate than regular CPI.

Chris Christie

So switching to Chained-CPI would be a stealth benefit cut for people on Social Security because while they would still get cost-of-living adjustments, the increase always would be less than it otherwise would have been. And the effect is cumulative, so the longer you're on Social Security (i.e., generally, the older you are), the bigger a gap you'll experience. It's a benefit cut - but it's one the politicos and their rich funders hope you wouldn't notice.

So Krispy Kreme's proposal, in sum, would mean having to work longer to get Social Security and getting less when you finally do. Work longer, cut benefits, and make it a means-tested program to justify cutting it further.

Balance is restored: Chris Christie is an ass.

Sources cited in links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC1WQwwetW8
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/04/14/3647048/chris-christie-says-cut-social-security-lol-sure-bro/
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/16/chris_christies_dangerous_social_security_demagoguery_cloaking_the_plutocrats_agenda_in_populist_rhetoric/

Left Side of the Aisle #201

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of April 23-29, 2015

This week:

Good News: "Fight for 15" movement grows
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/04/15/3647217/fast-food-strikes-2015/
http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php/sid/231993321
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/04/01/3641883/mcdonalds-minimum-wage/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/search?q=minimum+wage&max-results=20&by-date=true

Good News: potential breakthrough in treating Alzheimers
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/16/1378226/-Researchers-at-Duke-have-made-breakthrough-on-Alzheimer-s-treatment
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/alzheimers-breakthrough-scientists-may-have-found-potential-cause-of-the-disease-in-the-behaviour-of-immune-cells--giving-new-hope-to-millions-10176652.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

Update: more RFRA nonsense
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/17/bobby_jindal_presses_louisiana_gop_to_pass_religious_freedom_bill_that_would_put_indianas_to_shame/
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/louisiana-goes-broke-discrimination-bill
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/16/michigan_business_owner_refuses_to_serve_gay_people_because_you_cant_put_a_car_together_with_all_bolts_and_no_nuts/
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/17/this_man_knows_as_much_about_jesus_as_i_do_about_fixing_cars_homophobic_repair_shop_gets_destroyed_by_yelp_reviewers/
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/16/3647710/mechanic-will-legally-refuse-service-gay-people-michigan-updates-laws/
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/17/three_quarters_of_americans_believe_sexual_orientation_should_be_a_protected_class/
http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-04-16/150417_bloomberg_283759_v2.pdf

Update: Chris Christie on Social Security
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC1WQwwetW8
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/04/14/3647048/chris-christie-says-cut-social-security-lol-sure-bro/
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/16/chris_christies_dangerous_social_security_demagoguery_cloaking_the_plutocrats_agenda_in_populist_rhetoric/

Footnote: more on Social Security
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/07/footnote-to-preceding.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/07/sealing-our-fates-part-two.html

Outrage of the Week: fast-tracking TPP
http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-deal-isnt-secret-says-us-official-access-text-highly-1793274
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/19/obama_seeks_fast_track_for_tpp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/bernie-sanders-michael-froman-tpp_n_6419874.html
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/tpp-the-largest-corporate-power-grab-youve-never-heard-of/

Clown Award: South Carolina
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/10/1376728/-South-Carolina-argues-to-Supreme-Court-that-it-can-discriminate-against-gays-AND-women
http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_State_of_South_Carolina.pdf
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/04/09/south_carolina_we_can_discriminate_against_women_so_why_not_gays.html

200.2 - Surprise! I might agree with Chris Christie on something

Surprise! I might agree with Chris Christie on something

In a bit of not actually Good News but at least surprising news, I might - heavily emphasize might - agree with NJ Gov. Chris Christie on something.

He has proposed an income cap on Social Security benefits. He proposes that if you have more than $80,000 a year in non-Social Security income, your benefits start to get phased out to the point where if you have $200,000 a year in non-Social Security income, you do not receive any Social Security benefits.

This certainly could help solidify benefits for the vast majority of us who don't make $80,000 (much less $200,000) a year by reducing the drawdown from the trust fund. But again the key word is "could" and as always the devil is in the details.

Because there are some real potential downsides to this, which is why I'm wary of it even as, well, I'm willing to take a look at it. For one, it would, admittedly in a minimal way but still it would, make Social Security a means-tested program, which it has never been. Once you cross that line, it becomes easier to talk about cutting benefits because they're no longer based on what you put into the system but on some argued-about level of "need." That alone could disqualify his plan.

Another issue is the fact that Christie talked about the impact on "younger taxpayers" of Social Security benefits going to those who, yes, we have to admit, clearly could get by without them. But that reference hints at the possibility that his proposal does not involve cutting the benefits of the rich to protect the benefits of the rest but rather of cutting the benefits of the rich to justify cutting the Social Security tax rate, potentially putting the stability of the trust fund at risk by reducing the amount of tax funds coming in.

In other words, this could just be another in the achingly-long string of right-wing attempts to undermine Social Security, attempts that quite literally date back to the program's inception.

So okay, I will listen, I will look at the fleshed-out proposal, but I remain quite suspicious, not only because history tells me to be, but also because this proposal comes as part of a PR campaign to present Christie as someone "not afraid to ask the hard questions." And whenever a conservative talks about "asking hard questions," the answer is usually "screw the poor and middle-class."

Sources cited in links:
https://news.yahoo.com/video/christie-proposes-income-cap-social-172635702.html

Left Side of the Aisle #200

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of April 16-22, 2015

This week:

Good News: a step toward normalizing relations with Cuba
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/cuba-terror-list_n_7064762.html?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=WorldPost
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/14/obama-removes-cuba-from-state-sponsor-terror-list/

Surprise! I might agree with Chris Christie on something
https://news.yahoo.com/video/christie-proposes-income-cap-social-172635702.html

Hero Award: Ashley Jiron
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/04/10/restaurant-owner-leaves-touching-note-for-dumpster-diver/21165463/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/pbj-restaurant-dumpster-trash-free-meal-oklahoma-city_n_7055672.html?cps=gravity_2082_4328149088083721193
https://www.facebook.com/pbjams66/photos/a.1526644477615662.1073741829.1524750647805045/1587459304867512/?type=1

Just for the fun of it: Satanists want their Bible in schools, too
http://kfor.com/2015/04/06/oklahoma-teacher-under-fire-for-handing-out-bibles-at-school/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/04/04/oklahoma-elementary-school-teacher-hands-out-bibles-to-her-third-graders/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/oklahoma-school-district-reluctantly-stops-handing-out-bibles-after-atheist-group-threatens-to-sue/
http://www.texomashomepage.com/story/d/story/devil-worshipers-want-book-given-to-oklahoma-child/16169/NLID0mNRwUC30eMEYF6XgA

RIP: Percy Sledge
http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/article18494591.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8raabzZNqw
http://www.eonline.com/news/646061/soul-singer-percy-sledge-dead-at-age-73
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/14/entertainment/percy-sledge-dies-feat/

Clown Award: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/14/robert-f-kennedy-jr-apologizes-for-holocaust-remark-in-speech-against/?intcmp=trending
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

Celebrating the 200th episode with a brief history of public access TV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/public-educational-and-governmental-access-channels-peg-channels
http://www.publicaccesstv.net/history01.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_W._Friendly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public-access_TV_stations_in_the_United_States
http://acommunitytv.org

191.6 - Outrage of the Week: changing the rules to damage Disability Insurance

Outrage of the Week: changing the rules to damage Disability Insurance

Now it's time for one of our regular features, it's the Outrage of the Week.

The Outrage of the Week this week points back to something I've been considering for a while.

About six years ago, I began collecting what I called "The Rules," or, more completely, "The Right-Wing Rules for (Avoiding) Debate." The last time I updated them, about four years ago, there were 17 such rules, ranging from the direct "Deny, deny, deny" and "Attack, attack, attack" (Rules 1 and 2, respectively) to such as "Seize control of the Clock of History. Insist that all events outside the time frame most advantageous to your argument are irrelevant and must not be considered" (Rule 15).

It started out as a rather light-hearted undertaking, just poking fun at evasions and foolishness, but over time it became more serious, it became an indictment of the efforts of the right wing to avoid actual, factual, engagement on issues and to substitute accusation and obfuscation for investigation.

The list is, I said, "about deceit. About intellectual cowardice. About being a bully. About being a liar. It's about being an American rightwinger."

I mention that now because it's high time for Rule #18, which is "When the rules of the game do not guarantee you a win, change the rules."

That was on full display as the new Congress opened. The very first day of the new Congress, House GOPpers passed a rules package for the year that included one saying it would be out of order for Congress to reduce the actuarial balance of the Social Security retirement account. This, they said, was to "protect" Social Security

But what that means in practice, and the real intent of the rule, is that money cannot be shifted from one Social Security account - the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, which is what we usually think of when we think of Social Security - to what is in fact another Social Security fund: Social Security Disability Insurance. But the funds in the Disability Insurance account have to be replenished or recipients - who are among the most vulnerable of our population - could see a 20% cut in their benefits by the end of next year. The normal way to do that would be to simply shift tax funds coming in from one account to the other. That is, a little less of the inflow going to the Old Age Fund and a little more going to Disability. This has been done 11 times before - and has gone both ways, depending on which account needed the extra nudge at that time. It has been uncontroversial and routine.

But not now. With this rule, such inter-account reallocation of taxes becomes impossible - because, obviously, there is no way to reduce the amount of tax money going into the Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund without reducing the actuarial balance of the fund, which is calculated in part on an assumption of the portion of total Social Security taxes going to that fund.

And the thing is, this is no sudden crisis, this is no failure of the Disability Insurance fund, and most importantly, the right wing line that disability in recent years - just "in recent years," mind you - has become a sort of substitute welfare is a flaming lie: The last time one of these reallocations of tax income was done was in 1994 and it was predicted, expected, at that time that the Disability Insurance fund would need to be replenished in 2016. The need for replenishment is exactly what has been expected for the past 20-plus years.

So now the right wing, which has been trying to destroy Social Security since it was first created, and still failing at that, is now changing the rules in an attempt to undermine the smaller target of Disability Insurance while squawking and quacking that it's all about "protecting" seniors, the same seniors whose hard-earned benefits they have spent decades trying to strip away.

It is nothing short of an outrage.

Sources cited in links:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/01/rules-all-of-them-so-far.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/06/huffpost-hill_n_6426026.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/house-rule-could-hurt-vulnerable-disability-beneficiaries/
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4168

Left Side of the Aisle #191

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of February 12-18, 2015

This week:
Good News: number of Ebola cases down sharply
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Health/ID/2650956696/
http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2015/02/positive-results-ebola-drug-upsets-plans-trials
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-end-african-ebola-role-1423612366

Good News: same-sex marriage comes to Alabama, mostly
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/01/23/3615155/federal-judge-rules-alabamas-ban-sex-marriage/
http://www.towleroad.com/2015/02/eleventh-circuit-denies-stay-of-alabama-marriage-ruling-gay-couples-can-marry-february-9.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/02/09/who-is-roy-moore-the-judge-at-the-center-of-alabamas-muddled-gay-marriage-situation/
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/alabama_chief_justice_roy_moor_4.html
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/09/3620785/supreme-court-just-gave-clearest-sign-date-will-side-marriage-equality/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/24/gay-marriage-iowa-freedom_n_6538624.html

Not Good News: still a long way to go on LGBT rights
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/states-sex-education-gay-marriage
http://www.app.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/04/smith-bashed-distinction-gay-rights-human-rights/22883825/
http://www.ohchr.org/en/udhr/pages/introduction.aspx
http://www.care2.com/causes/creating-the-perfect-family-one-state-law-at-a-time.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/11/us-usa-kansas-brownback-idUSKBN0LF02S20150211

The little Thing: NYC to have elite force of cops to deal with protests
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/12/1374-outrage-of-week-bill-bratton-for.html
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/bratton-unveils-plans-for-new-anti-terror-police-unit/

The little Thing: "Wall Street- and business-friendly" equals "moderate"
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/01/1891-good-news-antonio-weiss-gives-up.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/antonio-weiss-lizabeth-warren-treasury-114539.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/spending-bill-992-derivatives-citigroup-lobbyists

Outrage of the Week: changing the rules to damage Disability Insurance
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/01/rules-all-of-them-so-far.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/06/huffpost-hill_n_6426026.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/house-rule-could-hurt-vulnerable-disability-beneficiaries/
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4168

Everything You Need to Know: about holding the powerful accountable
https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/565314432935665665

FCC Net neutrality vote scheduled for February 26
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/04/fcc-net-neutrality_n_6613494.html

Clown Award: Kermit Elementary School, Kermit, TX
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-boy-suspended-bringing-ring-power-school-article-1.2099103
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/texas-boy-9-suspended-for-threatening-to-use-hobbi/
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the_day_i_left_my_son_in_the_car/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/maryland-couple-want-free-range-kids-but-not-all-do/2015/01/14/d406c0be-9c0f-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/and-now-the-criminalization-of-parenthood/

137.1 - Same old, same old: having to deal with long-refuted claims from the right wing

Same old, same old: having to deal with long-refuted claims from the right wing

Okay, so I had a week off, we - my wife and I took a vacation, we just got back the other day, yes, we had a good time, saw lots of really impressive scenery, we went by train, which is the only way to go.

But despite the week off I feel a little - well, not with the energy you'd expect after a week off. I'm just in a bit of a funk, my political energies a little drained. The thing is, I know why.

I was reading an article on common science facts that, according to this particular survey, most or at least a lot of Americans don't know. One question - these were multiple choice - was about what element was involved in global warming. The answer was carbon. Now, in terms of global warming, it'd be more accurate to say that it's carbon dioxide that's involved, but the question asked about an element, so carbon.

Here's the point: The question asked nothing about the human contribution to warming, didn't involve people at all. It was strictly about the chemical process involved. But wouldn't you know it, the comments on the article were chock-a-block with claims about global warming being a hoax because the world hasn't warmed in 15 years and besides the climate is always changing and how could people affect the whole planet and blah blah blather blather. And it struck me that these are the same damn arguments you hear every time.

Every damn time you get into an argument with a nanny-nanny naysayer about climate change, you hear the same arguments. No matter how many times they are refuted, the next time around, you hear them again.

I have said before that I loved the line at the website SkepticalScience that said "arguing with some climate change contrarians is similar to attempting debate with a well-trained parrot [that] has memorised some twenty statements that it can squawk out at random." That is an excellent description of the experience.

I was reminded of my rules of right-wing debate, one of which was

When a claim of yours has been debunked, continue to use it nonetheless. When it has been debunked so thoroughly and completely that continuing to use it is counterproductive, stop claiming it for a time, perhaps a few months, after which assert it again as if the debunking had never happened.

Climate change is quite real, thank you very much and in fact a new study by 18 leading scientists says that the generally-agreed standard of having to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) in order to head off the worst effect of global climate change is far too optimistic and the actual level should be about half that, or 1C. Since we have already seen 0.8C warming, the study authors admit that goal is "essentially unattainable.” Which is scientist-ese for "we're screwed."

And yes, the world has warmed over the past 15 years. The claim to the contrary is based entirely on a totally bogus comparison of temperatures for 1998 and 2010. But 1998 was an outlier, significantly hotter than the years before or after it. Shift the comparison at all - compare 1996 to 2008 or 2000 to 2012 - and a clear upward trend is visible even over that short term. And the decade 2001-2010 was clearly warmer than the decade 1991-2000.

What really got to me, though, was the realization that this was not the only area where I was seeing this all right around the same time, seeing hoary, moldy, long-refuted, long-disproven, arguments from the right wing rehashed and re-pushed as if they were fresh insight. It's happening all over.

You want another example? Social Security. We have to cut it, we're told, we have to "trim benefits" because otherwise the who system will go under in about 30 years! The trust fund will hit zero! Omigod! It's a "solvency crisis!" Except that the surplus was deliberately created in order to deal with the baby boomer surge in retirees that everyone knew was coming and so drawing down that surplus was the plan all along!

Yes but at that point we'll have to cut benefits by 23%! Yeah, that's true enough - if we do absolutely nothing at all in the interim, like for example raising or better yet eliminating the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes, which would have no impact on at least 85% of earners but would make the system solvent as far out as the economic projections go, which is 75 years. And that 23% cut is from projected benefits, not current benefits. Even if we do nothing at all, because of the way initial benefits are calculated, that 23% cut would still leave those seniors with a slightly higher standard of living than Social Security provides to those retiring today.

Then there's voter ID. Just recently, there was a move in the Massachusetts House to impose a photo ID requirement on voters. The measure was killed, happily, but the arguments for it struck me: Proponents argued that the measure would a)prevent voter fraud and that b)people can't cash a check, rent a car, or even enter some government buildings without an ID - which are exactly the same arguments, and I mean essentially word for word, you hear every single time someone wants to make it harder for people - the "wrong sorts" of people in their eyes - to vote.

So let's say it again: Renting a car is not a basic function of a republic! It is not a basic human right of a free or at least supposedly free people! It's not something to be actively encouraged. And while there is absolutely no evidence, zero, zilch, nada, of any significant or even noticeable level of in-person voter fraud, the only kind of fraud such legislation would affect, there is clear evidence both from surveys and from actual experience of states that have imposed the demand that these measures make it harder for people to vote - especially among the poor and minorities, precisely those "wrong sorts" that the backers of these bills would prefer were shut out of the political process entirely as part of the on-going attack on The Commons.

And there's more: We see the same old same old in talking about unemployment, about the economy, about Food Stamps, I could spend the whole show on this. But I'm going to cut myself off here so we can move on.

Sources:
http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/07/a-few-basic-science-and-tech-facts-many-americans-dont-know/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/neverending-daily-mail-nonsense.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/01/rules-all-of-them-so-far.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/04/our_current_warming_limits_are_way_too_high_scientists_warn/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304337404579213923151169790
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/03/third-way-social-security_n_4379333.html

Left Side of the Aisle #137

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of December 12-18, 2013

This week:

Same old, same old: Having to deal with long-refuted claims from the right wing
http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/07/a-few-basic-science-and-tech-facts-many-americans-dont-know/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/neverending-daily-mail-nonsense.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/01/rules-all-of-them-so-far.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/04/our_current_warming_limits_are_way_too_high_scientists_warn/?source=newsletter
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304337404579213923151169790
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/03/third-way-social-security_n_4379333.html

Clown Award #1: Minneapolis Community and Technical College
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Community_and_Technical_College
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/02/three_white_college_students_file_racial_discrimination_complaint_against_professor_over_lesson_on_structural_racism/

Clown Award #2: Rick Santorum
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/rick-santorum-nelson-mandela_n_4398155.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS_1wjbsesk
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/06/rick_santorum_compared_obamacare_to_apartheid/

Outrage of the Week: Bill Bratton for NYC police commissioner
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/23/5137516/stop-and-frisk-challenge-rejected-likely-leaving-appeal-to-de-blasio
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/05/our_troubling_new_nypd_chief/
http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/05/brattons-return-buckle-up-de-blasio/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/nyregion/william-bratton-new-york-city-police-commissioner.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/william-bratton-named-nypd-commissioner-article-1.1538251#ixzz2mlEtRBHy
http://www.citywatchla.com/lead-stories-hidden/6134-let-s-set-bill-bratton-s-lapd-record-straight

The little thing: 73% of the vote is "far left?"
http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/05/brattons-return-buckle-up-de-blasio/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_mayoral_election,_2013

Anniversary of Newtown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/471/606/862/?z00m=20671006
http://indiestatik.com/2013/11/20/slaying-sandy-hook-elementary/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/sandy-hook-video-game_n_4305606.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Links for series on guns
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/01/left-side-of-aisle-91-part-6.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/01/left-side-of-aisle-92-part-6.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/01/left-side-of-aisle-93-part-6.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/02/left-side-of-aisle-94-part-6.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/02/left-side-of-aisle-95-part-6.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/02/left-side-of-aisle-96-part-6.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/03/left-side-of-aisle-97-part-5.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/03/left-side-of-aisle-98-part-5.html

Left Side of the Aisle #101 - Part 2

Congressional Progressive Caucus budget

For at least the third year in a row, the Congressional Progressive Caucus produced a proposed federal budget. For the third year in a row, it was one that reduced the deficit as much as or even more than either the GOPper one or the official Dem one and did so without going after Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other domestic program; indeed it improved them.

And for the third time in a row, despite or in fact because of its merits, it went down to crushing defeat, this time by a vote of 84-327. Every GOPper and a majority of Dems voted against it.

So what was in this budget that didn't even deserve to get a majority of the Democrats in the House? Well, it was called the "Back to Work" budget and it focused on economic growth. It proposed $2.1 trillion stimulus and investment package over the next three years, with $700 million in stimulus coming in the first year. The package included $425 billion for infrastructure construction and repair, $340 billion in middle-class tax cuts, a $450 billion public-works program, and $179 billion in state and local aid to relieve the pressure on local budgets.

What would it accomplish? According to analysis, it would create nearly 7 million additional jobs and expand the economy by nearly 6%. It would expand programs on education, clean energy, and jobs, it would improve health care programs, all while protecting not only the Big Three - Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - but also other programs for the poor and the environment.

How would it pay for this? Largely by raising taxes on the rich (to levels still below that of the Reagan years) and cutting unnecessary military spending. In other words, it would stimulate the economy and cut the deficit by $4.4 trillion by implementing a series of measures on both spending and taxes whose support among the American public ranges from mere majorities to overwhelming.

So of course it was dead on arrival.

Why? Well, why wouldn't it be? The fact that it works, the numbers work, and it's based on policies that the public supports don't count for anything when all the "serious" people, all the pundits and politicos, insist that you just have to go after the dreaded "entitlements" monster.

Don't confuse them with facts and certainly don't expect anything to penetrate their insular alternative to reality. Anything that doesn't attack Social Security and the rest, anything that doesn't involve embracing right-wing talking points about how all our economic problems are the fault of poverty pimps and greedy geezers, anything that dares to suggest that maybe the rich should be paying taxes at the same rate they paid 30 years ago (which is a lower rate than they paid 40 years ago), anything that fails to express the required level of panic about "the deficit crisis," is in their minds by definition "unserious," not worthy of consideration.

"Well," all the media mainstays snipe, "of course it wasn't serious: Everyone knew it wasn't going to pass."

Yes, that's true. It's equally true that everyone knew that Paul Rantin's budget had zero chance, but that didn't stop you first from breathlessly reporting its imminent arrival, then drooling over it with loving strokes and lengthy coverage once it came out. The blunt fact is, there were two main differences between those two budgets: One was a real budget that would have worked and would have improved the lives of millions; the other was a minimally-altered rehash of discredited nonsense that would not have worked and would have improved the lives only of the privileged rich. The other difference was that precisely for that reason, the first budget stood outside what the pundits and politicos have decided is the acceptable range of debate and the latter is inside that same range - again, precisely for that reason: The second budget favors the rich over the poor and the needless over the needy and undercuts the Big Three. That is why the second budget got all that coverage and the first one didn't: It fit the acceptable, the "serious" mold, and reality be damned.

Don't believe me about the coverage? Go to Google news or any other decent news aggregator and do a search. You'll find that links to the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget are, almost without exception, to sources like "The Nation," "In These Times," ThinkProgress, Huffington Post, and similar more or less admittedly liberal outfits. Do the same for Paul Rantin's so-called budget and it's full of links to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the major networks, and so on.

The difference between these budgets and their respective coverage comes down to the difference between the rich and the poor, between the powerful and the powerless.

It's not so much that we have government of, by, and for the rich as it is a case of that the rich get to set the rules: They get to define the terms used in the debate, to define the limits of debate, terms and limits which are then faithfully accepted by their media lackeys and political puppets so that the alternatives of which the public is aware are limited to those acceptable to the rich, the powerful, the elite. They don't need to have a plutocracy. They know that this way, they may lose a few skirmishes, but the trend is all in their favor, as our history of the past 40 or 50 years clearly demonstrates. They don't need to rule openly, in fact they prefer not to. They prefer to sit back, to be the man behind the curtain who we are never supposed to see.

An unhappy footnote to this: Rep. Raul Grijalva, author of the Progressive Caucus budget, called the vote "a good showing," adding "every time we present it, we gain another ten votes." Terrific. At that rate, it will take 14 years to get a majority.

Sources:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-back-to-work-budget-didnt-pass.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/14/house-progressives-have-the-best-answer-to-paul-ryan/?tid=pm_business_pop
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/us-budget_b_2897688.html
http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130315/back-to-work-budget-vs-ryanrepublican-budget-which-reflects-polls-and-election-results
http://www.epi.org/files/2013/EPI-Back-To-Work-Budget-FY2014.pdf
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-congressional-progressive-caucus-budget-a-serious-budget-that-the-serious-people-wont-take-seriously
http://www.epi.org/publication/back-to-work-budget-analysis-congressional-progressive/
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Back%20to%20Work%20Budget%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/14/back_to_work_budget_congressional_progressive_caucus_unveils_left_wing_budget.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/289325-house-rejects-dem-budget-plans-gop-slams-obamas-missing-budget

Left Side of the Aisle #88 - Part 1

Chained-CPI takes away benefits

Over the past few weeks I've been telling you bits and pieces about this so-called "Grand Bargain" nonsense, the one where the pundits are saying that because Barack Obama won re-election and the Democrats gained seats in both the House and the Senate, obviously they are the ones who must make concessions to the losers. That would be merely funny if it were not for fact that so many Dummycrats, including President Hopey-Changey himself, appear to agree.

One example is that after months of proclaiming to anyone within public earshot that he absolutely, positively, no doubt about it would not accept extension of tax cuts for those making over $250,000/yr, Obama now says well, okay, make it $400,000 a year. And now, since he's bent that far, there is no indication he won't bend further. There are other concessions in the tax plan he presented, but I'm going to leave those aside to focus on something you've heard about and I want to make sure you understand.

Obama has proposed a change in the way Cost Of Living Allowances, or COLAs, are calculated for federal benefits, particularly Social Security. Now the first thing to remember here is that this whole business is supposedly about the deficit - the most important issue EVAH. To be accurate, that is, the most important issue ever to those inside the Beltway: the well-paid pundits, the well-paid lobbyists, and their corporate paymasters, none of who actually depend on government benefits to keep food on the table or a roof over their heads. Out in the real world, where the rest of us live, Americans are much more concerned about issues like jobs and the economy than the deficit.

But no matter, not to these people. For them, it is all about the deficit - and all about Social Security, even though the second thing to remember is that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. It has its own, independent, revenue stream - the payroll tax - and does not contribute one single penny to the deficit.

But still, Obama has proposed cutting Social Security by about $112 billion over the next ten years and Nancy Pelosi, the top Dum in the House, has embraced it. The method, again, changes the way Cost Of Living Allowances, or COLAs, are calculated. COLAs have always been based on the Consumer Price Index, or CPI. It's the standard measure of inflation. The proposal is to change this to using what's called Chained-CPI.

It's based on the idea that consumer choices change as prices change. It assumes, in the most commonly used example, that if the price of beef goes up too much, you as a consumer will switch to cheaper cuts of meat. On it's face, that doesn't seem a wildly unrealistic assumption, but here is the effect: Bear in mind that this is a very simplified example; I'm only using two commodoties - beef and chicken - rather than an entire market basket and the numbers are just for the purposes of illustration. Suppose the price of ground beef goes from $4 per pound to $5 per pound, and that's getting a little pricey for you. So you switch to chicken, which has gone from $3 per pound to $4.50 per pound. Chained-CPI says that even though the price of beef has gone up 25% and the price of chicken has gone up 50%, your cost has only gone up from $4 per pound to $4.50 per pound, or 12.5%.

Chained-CPI assumes that there is always a cheaper alternative and that you always will - and always can - choose that cheaper alternative. By its nature Chained-CPI will always produce a lower inflation level than the traditional CPI and so smaller COLA increases than CPI. Using Chained-CPI means a cut in your future benefits, a cut that will grow over time, year by year, as a lower inflation figure continues to be presented. The reason politicos and pundits like it is because it's a hidden cut: You would still get a cost of living increase, it just wouldn't be as big as it otherwise would have been, so they're hoping you won't notice.

In fact, Pelosi claimed it's not a cut. Well, military spending is projected to go up by scores of billions of dollars a year over the next decade. But because of an earlier agreement, that increases will be less than originally predicted. That smaller increase is being called by literally everyone in Washington a "cut" in military spending. If a smaller increase in military spending is a cut, then why isn't a smaller increase in your benefit also a cut?

But instead, Pelosi echoed right wing blather that this change is "a strengthening of Social Security." This makes it stronger, she said. By which logic, actual cuts in benefits - not just smaller increases, actual cuts - would make it even stronger and the strongest program, the one impervious to fiscal catastrophes or budget strains would be one that was eliminated entirely. The strongest program is one that provides no benefits at all. This is what passes for thinking among leading Dummycrats.

Know this: Social security is not in trouble. It is not going under, it is not going broke. It may need a little tweaking; it's been tweaked any number of times across its history. In fact, there is one easy fix that would secure Social Security for as many years into the future as you care to look: eliminate the cap on income subect to the payroll tax.

Sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-18/obama-counter-offer-raises-tax-hike-threshold-to-400-000.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/nancy-pelosi-social-security_n_2333285.html