Social Security or Scare Tactics
(1936)
The choice was clear then, and it
still is today… fight GOP gimmicks:
Question: How come if Social
Security is a “Ponzi scheme” or “a monstrous lie” that so many in the GOP over
the years have labeled it, or like their 1936 presidential candidate, Alf
Landon (R-Kansas), called it in his infamous presidential speech labeled: “I can’t promise you
the Moon” – a cruel hoax. Landon's exact speech summary was: “I am not exaggerating the folly of this legislation. The saving it
forces on our workers is a cruel hoax.” (October
15, 1936 campaign speech)
If all that GOP BS were true, then how come SS today, over 80 years of age,
still helps hundreds of millions of seniors and in essence keeps them out of
poverty or the poor house? It makes one wonder: don't Republicans draw the benefits from SS or none of their relatives. All Americans need I remind anyone that SS is a program we have already
paid into our entire working lives and look forward to the return in the sunset years of our lives? But, now somehow all over again, it's bad, awful, going broke, or still a hoax and Ponzi
scheme and it needs to be saved by reform (see the headline below to see the GOP version of save by reform).
The GOP used to say a few short years ago that SS was in such bad shape
that needed to hand it over to Wall Street bankers and brokers or private
account managers to make it better and ensure permanent security.
FYI: So, how effectively would that have worked with Wall Street managing it
say back in starting in the 2007-2008 time frame? Imagine it had been in their
hands then? Would we simply call the massive billions lost then a “Rick Perry oops”
moment? Hardly – so why are we about to
see another GOP “reform and save” scheme that the one I’m about to show you on
the front pages.
Let’s face it, the GOP has a very small vocabulary, yet they have a massive and slick, very slick and effective BS-PR machine: Words like “trickle down, or reform and save, cap and
save, or help those in need, tax cuts will create jobs (breaks for the top and
not food stamps for the bottom), basically that’s it. Then in the end all they
say is: “We serve the American people.” You want a hoax – well that’s as big as
it gets.
Since I have your attention, now I present the lifetime award for the crap trap since 1936 and the award goes to – [the envelope, please]. The winner every year since 1936 is: The Grand
Old Phonies (GOP).
Now that story about the GOP's latest stunt and believe me, it is a biggie that is reported on here from the LA Times and in other places, too. It has this startling headline:
The GOP unveils a “permanent save” for Social Security – with “massive benefit
cut”
What follows is this introduction from a very fine piece of reporting that makes my point, and hopefully gets your
attention, and as they say, whets your appetite for the rest of the story, as the late Paul
Harvey used to say.
Amid
all the hand-wringing over Republican plans to eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid
and repeal the Affordable Care Act, it shouldn't be overlooked that the GOP has
the knives out for Social Security too.
The
latest reminder comes from Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Chairman of the Ways and
Means Social Security subcommittee (BTW: is a former VN POW, age 86) who just
uncorked what he termed a “plan to permanently save Social Security.”
(Okay: Lights, camera, laughing
machine effects, and action).
Followers
of GOP habits won't be surprised to learn that it achieves this goal entirely
through benefit cuts, without a dime of new revenues such as higher payroll
taxes on the wealthy. In fact, Johnson's plan reduces the resources coming into
the program by eliminating a key tax -another way that he absolves richer
Americans of paying their fair share, while increasing the burdens of
retirement for almost everyone else.
Predictably,
this plan has already been hailed by the Committee for
a Responsible Federal Budget, a billionaire's front group that
likes to portray itself as a neutral budget watchdog. (The foundation of hedge fund billionaire Peter G. Peterson, whose
hostility to Social Security is well-documented, provided $3.3 million in
funding for the committee in 2015; that's the equivalent of about half the
group's revenue of $7.1 million in 2014).
(I note: They do have some level-headed
board members, however, check out their homepage).
The
group calls Johnson's proposal “a thoughtful plan and the product of true
leadership.”
But
it also says that “revenue and benefit changes both need to be on the table.” Johnson's plan doesn't meet that standard at
all.
Typically,
Social Security “reform proposals” at least pay lip service to the fact that
the payroll tax has been giving the wealthy a larger and larger pass, by
covering an ever-shrinking percentage of their wages and exempting the capital
gains and dividends that make up a larger share of high-end income.
Johnson's plan doesn't mention that at
all. It does, however, give
higher-income beneficiaries a tax cut by eliminating income tax on benefits
starting in 2045. The tax affects about 30% of retirees by treating at least
half of the benefits of those earning more than $32,000 as taxable income.
By
law, the tax must be credited to the Social Security system. It's scheduled to
bring in as much as $78 billion in 2025. Johnson's
rationale here is murky.
If
Social Security is in such bad shape that he sees the need to slash benefits,
why cut its revenue, too
I
conclude as does that final sentence, why does it cut revenue, too? Who
benefits there… oh yeah, the ones at the top who in turn help certain segments
stay in office with fat PAC checks to dish out more benefits in return for those fat PAC checks… call it a nice and neat symbiotic relationship – don’t you
think?
But,
please don’t brush it off simply as “politics as usual or they all do it.” Some hope and wish the swamp will honestly be drained
– ha – be careful what you wish for after you see that lies on the bottom (and
I emphasize the word “lie”).
Thanks
for stopping by … and stay tuned … Social Security advocates will soon kick into
high gear – mark my words.
No comments:
Post a Comment