Highbrow Magazine - Social Security https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/social-security en The Battle to Save Social Security Wages On https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2150-battle-save-social-security-rages <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Fri, 02/15/2013 - 09:34</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/lmediumobamaSOTU.jpg?itok=VSJZSSBz"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/lmediumobamaSOTU.jpg?itok=VSJZSSBz" width="480" height="268" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2013/02/after-state-of-the-union-experts-tell-obama--leave-social-security-unchained.php">New America Media</a>:</p> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Commentary </strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> WASHINGON, D.C.--Reaffirming his commitment to protect current and future generations who depend on Social Security, President Obama declared in Tuesday’s State of the Union address, “Our government shouldn’t make promises we cannot keep -- but we must keep the promises we’ve already made.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> The president is absolutely correct about this, as he is about the importance of investing in every child, in medical research, in job creation and in healthy and safe communities.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Indeed, we must keep the promise of old-age security that Americans have earned through hard work. The nation’s politicians should be held accountable to keep their word that they will not cut the Social Security benefits of older workers, retirees, people with disabilities and the children of deceased and disabled parents--something that would be especially harmful to many people in racial and ethnic communities.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Does Monday Statement Contradict Promise?</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> However, on Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney signaled to reporters that the president, in his effort to reach a deficit-cutting bargain with congressional Republicans, is considering a seemingly minor change in Social Security--one that could affect the well being of millions.</p> <p>  </p> <p> For example, because half of African-American senior households and more than half of Latino senior households rely on Social Security for 90 percent of their income or more, compared with one-third of white senior households, ethnic older adults  would take the hardest hits were the program's benefits reduced even further.</p> <p>  </p> <p> A change in Social Security that would most assuredly break the promise of policymakers is a proposal that has been discussed repeatedly in Washington as part of all of the talk about cutting the national deficit.</p> <p>  </p> <p> In his State of the Union speech, President Obama did not mention this proposal’s name – the “chained-CPI” – but in Monday’s press briefing, Carney said the White House is willing to put Social Security's annual cost of living adjustments (COLA), on the chopping block--even though doing so would not reduce the federal debt by a penny.</p> <p>  </p> <p> That’s because Social Security is barred by law from borrowing funds to cover its costs; it cannot add to the deficit and should not be part of deficit discussions at all. Why politicians – especially the president -- keep bringing it up is a question our policymakers have never answered convincingly.</p> <p>  </p> <p> For most Americans, the term “chained-CPI” (for Consumer Price Index) causes their eyes to glaze over. But, beware: What this technical-sounding name disguises is a benefit cut that would be especially cruel to ethnic elders.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Proposal Ignores Financial Struggles</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> The idea is to reduce the future cost of Social Security by using a stingier CPI formula. But the very purpose of adding the COLA to checks year-to-year is to keep Social Security benefits up with inflation, and maintain a decent standard of living for retirees, those with disabilities and, when a family breadwinner dies, his or her surviving spouse and children.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Using the chained-CPI would cut already modest Social Security benefits – $13,600 on average -- more each year. This cut would hit Social Security beneficiaries hardest in their 80s or older, or after years of disability when they are most likely to have exhausted their savings.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/2mediumfdrsocialsecurity%20%28FDR%20Libraray%20Wiki%29_0.jpg" style="width: 486px; height: 600px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> Social Security’s moderate benefits, especially compared with other counties, are vital to people with fixed or limited incomes. The current CPI index the government uses fails to measures the inflation seniors and those with disabilities experience because it does not adequately account for health care.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Most Americans assume that Medicare covers health costs, but as important as that program is, people 65 or older spend, on average, more than twice as much on health care as those ages 25-64, about 13 percent compared to 5 percent. Also, the current CPI calculation understates the cost of housing. You may own your home, but, for instance, be one roof-repair away from poverty.</p> <p>  </p> <p> So switching to the chained CPI would provide an even less accurate and less sustainable measure for people trying to make ends meet. And its impact would compound over time.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The chained-CPI would pull $112 billion directly out of the pockets of beneficiaries over the next 10 years and much more thereafter. A typical Social Security retiree would lose the equivalent of roughly $500 a year (in today’s dollars) at age 75 under the chained CPI, compared to the current formula; $1,000 in their 85th year and $1,500 at age 95.</p> <p>  </p> <p> This may not sound like a lot of money, but two-thirds of seniors depend on Social Security for half or more of their income. And one in three seniors rely on the program for at least 90 percent of their income.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The chained-CPI cut would translate into the cost of two weeks of food per month for a 95 year-old widow.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Ethnic Elders and Older Women</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> In fact, the growing impact would be large in almost anyone’s book. Typically, over the years, the chained-CPI cut would amount to $4,600 by age 75, $13,900 by 85, and $28,000 for those fortunate enough to live to 95. How’s that for a Happy Birthday present?</p> <p>  </p> <p> Ethnic elders stand to lose the most because Social Security is usually a greater share of their retirement income. Even before the Great Recession, in 2007, the average household of color had just 16 percent of the wealth possessed by the average white household.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The impact of the chained-CPI would be especially harsh on older ethnic women because they are far more likely than other groups to work in low-wage professions. Also, they are less likely to have other sources of retirement income.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Astoundingly, more than four out of 10 single African-American women or Latinas live below the poverty line today. And the proportion rises as these groups get older.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Because African-American women have the lowest rates of marriage in the United States, they are far more vulnerable to poverty in old age. One out of six single women above the age of 65 live in poverty—triple the poverty rate of married women 65-plus.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Indeed, the chained CPI would drive a disproportionate number of ethnic seniors into poverty. Of the nearly 250,000 Social Security beneficiaries who would fall into poverty due to the chained CPI in 2050, over 160,000 are projected to be black or Latino.</p> <p>  </p> <p> In his State of the Union address, President Obama spoke of the importance of a “secure retirement.” To help make that aspiration a reality, policymakers should be talking about increasing, not decreasing Social Security. A good place to start is with a more, not less, accurate measure of inflation adjustments, so those modest pension amounts do not decline as more and more Americans reach very old age.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Nancy J. Altman, author of</em> The Battle for Social Security, <em>and Eric Kingson, a professor at Syracuse University, are co-directors of Social Security Works, Washington D.C. Widely respected as experts, Altman and Kingson both staffed the federal 1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security reform. Daniel Marans is the policy director of Social Security Works.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <em><strong>Photos: New America Media; FDR Library (Wikipedia Commons).</strong></em></p> <p>  </p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/social-security" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Social Security</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicare" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicare</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicaid" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicaid</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/taxes" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">taxes</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/state-union" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">State of the Union</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/obama" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Obama</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/president-obama" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">President Obama</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/gop" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">GOP</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republicans" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republicans</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/democrats" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Democrats</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/economy-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">the economy</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/retirement" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">retirement</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/benefits" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">benefits</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Nancy J. Altman, Eric Kingson and Daniel Marans</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">New America Media</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:34:36 +0000 tara 2371 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2150-battle-save-social-security-rages#comments What to Expect From Republicans in Response to Obama’s State of Union Address https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2132-what-expect-republicans-response-obama-s-state-union-address <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Tue, 02/12/2013 - 10:42</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumObamaStateofUnion_2.jpg?itok=2tIoLjJo"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumObamaStateofUnion_2.jpg?itok=2tIoLjJo" width="480" height="320" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2013/02/president-obamas-state-of-the-union-speech-under-fire-again.php">New America Media</a>:</p> <p>  </p> <p> The GOP’s response to President Obama's first post re-election State of the Union Address in some ways will be markedly different than in its response to his prior addresses. But in one way it will be the same. Its blatant frontal assault on him didn’t work for four years. So this time the GOP’s rebuttal will be softer and gentler in tone and theme.</p> <p>  </p> <p> But underneath the flowery rhetoric, the GOP’s relentless attack on his policies is still very much in place.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The party that is desperately trying to find some way, anyway, to rebound from the November losses, is banking on their rising star Florida Senator Marco Rubio to soft sell its attack ploy. Rubio will hit the usual GOP fallback themes of freedom, liberty, and free enterprise, restrained spending, and add a new wrinkle, responsible immigration reform.</p> <p>  </p> <p> These aren’t exactly code words and terms, but they’re close enough in that they subtly reinforce the ingrained notion of millions of Obama opponents and critics that he is an unreconstructed leftist, tax and spend, big government, anti-business Democrat. This attack line is very predictable.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The State of the Union speech is always one of the most watched and listened to political speeches. It's a president's report card on the accomplishments, the present and future planned initiatives of his administration and his vision for the country.</p> <p>  </p> <p> GOP and Democratic presidents are keenly aware that their Democratic and Republican opponents know that State of the Union Addresses boost the stature, prestige, and power of the presidency, and usually bumps up the president's approval rating by a point or two. They also know that the opposition's response to the speech is feeble, pale, and little watched or counted by Americans.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The history of the State of the Union speech underscores the power to shape policy and bolster the president's image.</p> <p>  </p> <p> President James Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln flatly called for the end of slavery in the rebellious states. This was the prelude to the Emancipation Proclamation he issued a year later. Woodrow Wilson warned of the dangers of impending war in 1913. Franklin Roosevelt outlined the famed Four Freedoms in 1941. Lyndon Johnson unveiled the outlines of his Great Society program to fight poverty in 1965. Bill Clinton unveiled his health care reform plan in 1993. George Bush in his State of the Union speeches in 2002 and 2003 prepped the nation for the Iraq invasion.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Presidents quickly latched onto the media to give their State of the Union speech more exposure and political wallop. Calvin Coolidge gave the first radio broadcast in 1923. Truman gave the first televised broadcast in 1947.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The GOP’s attacks on Obama’s State of the Union address are not new. They hit their shrillest level with his second State on of the Union address in January 2010. GOP critics leveled all sorts of absurd charges against him before he even uttered a word of his speech.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumMarcoRubio%20%28NAM%29.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 335px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> His first State of the Union Address was hardly spared from withering GOP criticism either. The GOP harangued him for allegedly lashing out at Republicans.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <em>Business Insider</em> headlined its SOTU piece with the question, "A Less Partisan State of the Union Speech?" It scolded Obama for his criticism of the Supreme Court for its conservative majority decision in Citizens United in 2010. The decision opened the floodgate for corporations to pour unlimited dollars into elections with minimal checks and accountability. Major corporations and financial institutions wasted little time in doing that. They poured millions into the midterm election campaigns. The bulk of money as Obama and the Democrats knew went to ads for corporate-friendly GOP candidates and incumbents.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Obama pretty much tipped what he will say this year to a gathering of House Democrats. The centerpiece will be the looming battle over what and how big the GOP-demanded budget cuts should be. A part of that will be to extend the olive branch to obstructionist and intransigent House Republicans to get them to work out a deal to avoid fiscal gridlock.</p> <p>  </p> <p> But making nice with the GOP won’t stop it from again turning the tables and ripping him for allegedly being a polarizing, divisive leader. Former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels did exactly that in his rebuttal speech in 2012 again.</p> <p>  </p> <p> But Obama, as in his annual addresses in the past, is on firm ground in that Americans still overwhelmingly want him and Congress to end the rancor and work together to resolve the crucial problems and issues that face the nation.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Obama will say that and so will the GOP. The difference is that one will really mean it the other won’t. And the other that won’t is not the president.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network, and KTYM Radio Los Angeles.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2013/02/president-obamas-state-of-the-union-speech-under-fire-again.php">New America Media</a></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/obama" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Obama</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/state-union-address" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">state of the union address</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/marco-rubio" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">marco rubio</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republican-response" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">republican response</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/unemployment" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">unemployment</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicare" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicare</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/social-security" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Social Security</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/tax-cuts" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">tax cuts</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/economy-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">the economy</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Earl Ofari Hutchinson </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">New America Media</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:42:55 +0000 tara 2348 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2132-what-expect-republicans-response-obama-s-state-union-address#comments The Ongoing Battle to Save Social Security https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1914-ongoing-battle-save-social-security <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 13:02</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumfdrsocialsecurity%20%28NAM%29.jpg?itok=W4PXlgAC"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumfdrsocialsecurity%20%28NAM%29.jpg?itok=W4PXlgAC" width="480" height="267" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2013/01/photo-franklin-d-roosevelt-signing.php">New America Media</a> and <a href="http://irishecho.com/?p=74393">Irish Echo</a>:</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Editor’s Note:</strong> <em>This week’s fiscal-cliff hanger begs the underlying issues of how Social Security became hostage to political strategies aimed at cutting the program. Peter McDermott of the New York-based </em>Irish Echo<em> looked into the background of how Social Security ended up on the budgetary bargain table. He wrote this story as part of the MetLife Foundation Journalists in Aging Fellows Program, a collaboration of the Gerontological Foundation of America and New America Media.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> NEW YORK--Call it the Martha Raddatz syndrome. It’s the belief held by some media professionals that there’s something broken in Social Security. And it’s a debatable assumption that has played out through the “fiscal cliff” coverage.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Raddatz, a noted international correspondent for ABC News, was criticized for a question she posed while moderating the vice-presidential debate by a number of speakers at the recent Gerontological Society of America conference in San Diego.</p> <p>  </p> <p> “Media elites have convinced themselves that there is a crisis in Social Security,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and co-chair of the advocacy group Social Security Works.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Media  Framing</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> Kingson, who served as a policy advisor on presidential commissions on the issue in the 1980s and ’90s, said there is indeed an increasing crisis around adequate funding for retirement in America.</p> <p>  </p> <p> “But they [journalists] focus on the most conservative framing of the crisis,” he said.</p> <p>  </p> <p> In reality, Kingson added, “Social Security is the one bright spot” in the federal government.</p> <p>  </p> <p> During the vice-presidential debate, Raddatz asked: “Let’s talk about Medicare and entitlements. Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive? Mr. Ryan.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., replied: “Absolutely. Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> But speakers at the conference said that while details, such as how Social Security’s annual cost of living adjustment is calculated might be complex, the fundamentals aren’t. They said the self-funding Social Security—mainly through payroll taxes--is not broken nor is it going broke. Indeed, the system’s finances are secure through the year 2033. After that, without any adjustments the program would only be able to make 75 percent of payments, according to the Social Security Trustees.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <em>Los Angeles Times</em> business columnist Michael Hiltzik, a journalist who understands the issue in Kingson’s view, believes even that prediction for 2033 must be looked at critically. Hiltzik has written, “Will this happen? It might, but it might not.” The trustees themselves warn every year that the forecast is “inherently uncertain.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Hiltzik, who addressed reporters attending the San Diego conference, asked why “so much of the ‘fiscal cliff’ debate in Washington is based on supposedly perfect knowledge of conditions that are 20, or even 70, years away.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> He asked his audience to think of unforeseen events that have shaped the economy in the past two decades. In a column published soon after the conference, Hiltzik wrote, “Here's my list: 9/11. The Afghan war. The Iraq war. The housing bubble. The crash of 2000. The crash of 2008. The crash of Lehman Bros. The iPod. The iPhone. The iPad. The founding of Google. Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy. Obamacare.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Hiltzik continued, “What are the chances that another such list will make the U.S. economy in 2033 look utterly different from what we imagine in 2012? I'd say 100 percent.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Kingson and other advocates argue there are numerous ways to deal with Social Security’s projected shortfall. One would be ending the Bush tax cuts on top earners. Another would be abolishing the current cap on how of one’s salary is subject to the payroll tax. In 2013, that limit is $113,700; earnings above that are not taxed.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/2mediumfdrsocialsecurity%20%28FDR%20Libraray%20Wiki%29.jpg" style="width: 486px; height: 600px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> “Back in 1982, we had a genuine crisis,” recalled Kingson, who served as a staff analyst for the 1983 Greenspan Commission, chaired by then-future Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. “Congress acted and put the system on a very good course.” Generally over the decades, there was a consensus about the issue. “Very good decisions were made by Republicans and Democrats,” he said.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Kingson’s co-chair of the group Social Security Works, Nancy J. Altman was Greenspan’s assistant and once worked as a legislative assistant for Republican Senator John C. Danforth.</p> <p>  </p> <p> “It was a different time,” Kingson said.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>The Issue of Wealth Distribution</strong></p> <p> Besides Social Security, private pensions haven’t kept up since the 1980s, he observed, and the benefits of U.S. economic growth have been redistributed upwards to the richest 1 and 2 percent of the population.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Now, when it’s needed more than ever, the Social Security system is under ideological attack from the right, with the goal, Kingson said, “of taking it apart brick by brick.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Despite its huge popularity with American citizens, Social Security is anathema to many conservative ideologues, being a “collectivist” government program. “Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security: That’s the brass ring for them,” the Syracuse University professor said.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Kingson cited a 1983 essay that outlined how conservatives could advance the cause of Social Security “reform.” The influential article, titled “Achieving a 'Leninist' Strategy,” Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis, appeared in the libertarian Cato Institute’s journal.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Said Kingson, “It provided a roadmap: Tell people of 55 and over: ‘Be happy, don't worry.’ Tell the younger people that it won't be there for them and that it would be better if it were privatized.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> If it had been privatized 30 years ago, Kingson said, “we would have had a national calamity in 2008,” referring to the financial crash.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Privatization was once an extreme idea, but conservative think tanks have had remarkable success in mainstreaming it. For instance, the media now talks in terms of “entitlement” when referring to a program that American citizens pay for.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Kingson said: “They’ve turned an innocuous 11-letter word into a four-letter word.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> But what some conservative journalists label a “Ponzi scheme” pays out in New York State alone an annual $44.8 billion to 3 million people (16.7 percent of residents). The average annual benefit in the state is $13,641.</p> <p>  </p> <p> In a time when home equity has declined and 401k plans have lost value, the “one system that works is Social Security.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Kingson said: “It’s not a savings account. It’s social insurance.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>“A Solution, Not a Problem”</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in signing the Social Security law in1935, “We have tried to frame a law, which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> FDR continued: “The law will flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> “We’ve put strong protections in place and have been able to maintain them over time,” Kingson said. “It’s a solution, not a problem. It’s critical that we strengthen this institution.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> In a phone interview in December, Kingson stressed that during the holiday season “all religions have a similar message. You care for your neighbor and you care for older people, but you also have an obligation to work hard.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> “Social Security is a way that complex societies can put this into effect,” Kingson said.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2013/01/photo-franklin-d-roosevelt-signing.php">New America Media</a></p> <p>  </p> <p> <em><strong>Photos: New America Media; FDR Library.</strong></em></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/social-security" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Social Security</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/fdr" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">FDR</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/fiscal-cliff" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">fiscal cliff</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicare" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicare</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/saving-social-security" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">saving social security</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/social-security-benefits" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">social security benefits</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/obama" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Obama</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/john-boehner" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">john boehner</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republicans" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republicans</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/democrats" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Democrats</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Peter McDermott</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">New America Media</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 18:02:00 +0000 tara 2137 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1914-ongoing-battle-save-social-security#comments Will the U.S. Economy Go Over the Fiscal Cliff? https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1884-will-us-economy-go-over-fiscal-cliff <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Wed, 12/26/2012 - 09:52</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumcongress_0.jpg?itok=vEVCjtiI"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumcongress_0.jpg?itok=vEVCjtiI" width="480" height="306" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/12/wrong-budget-deal-could-push-low-income-families-off-fiscal-cliff.php">New America Media</a>:</p> <p>  </p> <p> WASHINGTON, D.C.— Will the U.S. economy go over the “fiscal cliff” after New Years Day? If so, what will that mean to the country’s most financially vulnerable people?</p> <p>  </p> <p> Former White House economic advisor Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) told reporters on a national telephone briefing Thursday, organized by New America Media and CBPP, that he believes Democrats and Republicans will take the budget negotiations to and possibly over the cliff’s edge.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The result he said could be a mere “bungee jump,” likely to bounce back with a new deal worked out in a few weeks. Or, he warned, political leaders could reach no agreement -- that would quickly plunge the economy into “chaos” with massive automatic cuts under the law to vital public programs—and likely sink the U.S. back into recession.</p> <p>  </p> <p> But even with a budget deal, lower- and middle-income Americans may find themselves losing such lifelines as food stamps, extended unemployment insurance and access to Medicaid benefits.</p> <p>  </p> <p> That could well happen if Democrats and GOP leaders forge a bargain that cuts safety-net programs and other important social supports, while ignoring the short-term security of ordinary people. Putting such protections at risk, Bernstein said, would amount to political “malpractice.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> He stressed that the consequences of such a deal would be especially harmful to ethnic Americans, who have seen the worst impact of the Great Recession, as it has deepened their poverty and unemployment.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Bipartisan tradeoffs too weighted toward federal budget cuts and without a decent balance of tax increases would, Bernstein said, exacerbate the nation’s poverty level that now stands at 15 percent but has risen to 28 percent for African Americans and 25 percent for Latinos. The federal poverty level, he pointed out, is about $11,000 a year for an individual and $23,000 for a family of four, but it greatly understates what most Americans need to make ends meet. Studies have shown that a truer measure of poverty would be double the official threshold, he said, about $40,000 a year for a family of four.</p> <p>  </p> <p> “Diverse low-income families could lose support from essential safety-net programs and basic public functions that foster economic growth and well-being for all Americans,” he said.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The Fiscal Cliff, Explained</p> <p>  </p> <p> The race to the cliff’s edge, explained Bernstein, began in 2001, with the first tax cuts under President George W. Bush. Budget benders in Congress bet the economy—and their political prospects—would improve with the cuts, but knew they could not get the votes they needed to make them permanent. So they gave the tax cuts a time limit of 10 years.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The choice between ending, re-working or continuing the tax cuts, which mostly benefited the nation’s top earners, came up again in 2010. But the Great Recession and a new balance of power in Washington led to temporary fixes—and a reset of the budgetary clock to Jan. 2, 2013.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Congress and the White House were determined to get control of the growing federal deficit once and for all, so last year they created a “supercommittee” of powerful congressional members from both sides of the political aisle to work out a deal.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Congress passed a law saying that if the supercommittee failed to reach a deal by the end of 2012, then the Bush tax cuts would terminate and taxes would go back up to their previous level. In addition, automatic budget cuts would go into effect across the board (except for legally protected entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare) at the start of 2013 – hence, the “fiscal cliff.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumfiscalcliff.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 335px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> The supercommittee did, in fact,  failed to reach an agreement, with Republicans demanding no new taxes and Democrats insisting on a balance of new revenue and cuts that would protect social programs they considered crucial. Subsequent efforts between the parties fall short of a bargain, which is why the American economy continues heading toward January's edge.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Stakes Are High</p> <p>  </p> <p> Over the cliff’s edge, in 2013 alone, there would be about $400 billion in tax increases and $110 billion in cuts to discretionary (non-mandated) federal spending.</p> <p>  </p> <p> As the chief dealmakers, President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, are now pushed to the brink. If they can strike a bargain—even if it comes after the New Year deadline—the public would see little immediate difference, Bernstein said. For instance, workers would see an end to last year’s payroll tax “holiday,” which trimmed 2 percentage points from the wage amount they pay into Social Security.</p> <p>  </p> <p> If the sides can’t reach a long-term agreement, the impact would be more severe. Bernstein cited the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which determined that slashing the budget and raising taxes so much so fast—a big bite of 4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GPD)—could back the U.S. economy into recession again and jack up the national unemployment rate to over 9 percent.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Bernstein went on, though, to explain that lower-income Americans could be dropped hard into deep poverty even if a bipartisan deal is struck, if that deal stops short of the edge but still slashes such real needs as jobs, education, housing, food assistance and health care.</p> <p>  </p> <p> “There’s been a lack of recognition by the negotiators, of the problems people face. They’ve got good jobs and are well heeled, but many have a poor understanding of the impact of fiscal austerity on the economy,” said Bernstein.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Bernstein, who is also an on-air contributor to MSNBC and CNBC, noted that Washington’s budget architects need to go beyond revenue increases and spending reductions and include more economic stimulus measures, such as funding employment programs. He added, “If [budget negotiators] ignore people’s near-term needs, they will make things worse.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> At the bottom of the fiscal cliff there would be a 10 percent reduction in some military spending. But much of the roughly $110 billion that would drop next year would come from a wide range of social programs, such as food stamps, veterans health benefits, housing assistance, education funding, parts of the Affordable Care Act, extended jobless benefits and Head Start preschool programs for low-income children.</p> <p>  </p> <p> One-third of those cuts, Bernstein said, would come from federal grants to states and local governments to run programs for such needs as public safety and infrastructure (maintaining roads, bridges and so on).</p> <p>  </p> <p> Were such reductions to go into effect, Bernstein stated, “By the end of the decade, the United States would cut its funding for public programs to the lowest level since the 1960s.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Current Proposals Carry Risk</p> <p>  </p> <p> Bernstein took aim at some current proposals by budget negotiators.</p> <p>  </p> <p> “The biggest risk would be increasing the Medicare eligibility age to 67,” Bernstein stated. That proposal is badly designed, he said, and would be “a pure shift” of federal costs to the most vulnerable Americans; moving younger, healthier seniors -- and the premiums they pay for doctor visits -- to the private insurance market, forcing many others to go on state Medicaid rolls.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Bernstein also called GOP proposals to “block grant” Medicaid “very problematic.” Were the federal government to end Medicaid’s current status as an entitlement—mandating that states provide care for anyone meeting the program’s basic qualifications—and instead give states an annual block of money, states could simply cut off care when a year’s budget ran out. Many who qualified for help would be left ill and on their own.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The prospect of volatile funding for the program, he said, could cause more states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion under health care reform.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Similarly, Bernstein criticized recommendations by some leaders to reduce Social Security benefits by using a new formula to calculate annual increases intended to help seniors keep up with the standard of living.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Although using the new cost-of-living-adjustment formula might be a more accurate, he said, it would have a compounded effect on the incomes of people as they reach their oldest years. Such a change would jeopardize the well being of the frailest senior population unless it was offset by Social Security increases for older and lower-income elders.</p> <p>  </p> <p> More broadly, Bernstein observed that the current political anxiety over deficit increases in the coming decade is based on government economists’ guesses about how much or little the economy will grow in that period.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Acknowledging that 10-year projections are a “forecasting crap shoot,” Bernstein said that policy makers should recognize them as planning tools, but also keep alternative calculations in mind before making inflexible decisions with negative effects on millions of American families.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/12/wrong-budget-deal-could-push-low-income-families-off-fiscal-cliff.php">New America Media</a></p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Highbrow Magazine</strong></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/fiscal-cliff" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">fiscal cliff</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/us-economy" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">u.s. economy</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/john-boehner" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">john boehner</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/obama" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Obama</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/social-security" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Social Security</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicare" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicare</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/minorities" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">minorities</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/recession" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">recession</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Paul Kleyman</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">New America Media</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:52:49 +0000 tara 2093 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1884-will-us-economy-go-over-fiscal-cliff#comments The Tea Party Is Now a Huge Liability to Republicans https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1870-tea-party-now-huge-liability-republicans <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Thu, 12/20/2012 - 13:18</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumteaparty%20%28Jackie%20M%20Barr%29.jpg?itok=SP2IoiXZ"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumteaparty%20%28Jackie%20M%20Barr%29.jpg?itok=SP2IoiXZ" width="323" height="480" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/12/tea-party-now-a-huge-gop-liability.php">New America Media</a>:</p> <p>  </p> <p> The resignation of South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint from the Senate followed close on the heels of the desertion from the Tea Party of Freedom Works head Dick Armey took some by surprise. DeMint and Armey were the two biggest and most identifiable fish in the Tea Party affiliated pond.</p> <p>  </p> <p> DeMint could be relied on to broker his name ID and prodigious fund raising prowess to every Tea Party backed Senatorial candidate—and loser. Armey was a tireless advocate at big, stagey Tea Party rallies and confabs for the Tea Party’s anti-big government hard line message.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Now both are out. If that wasn’t bad news enough for the Tea Party, GOP conservative House leaders turned on it and ousted Representatives Tim Huelskamp of Kansas and Justin Amash of Michigan, two of the loudest Tea Party position advocates from the House Budget Committee. They were kicked to the curb almost certainly because GOP House leaders know they have to make a deal with President Obama on the budget or risk being further dragged through the public and media mud as being the cause for shoving the nation over the fiscal cliff.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The Tea Party’s brand of patented loose cannon obstructionism is too threatening to a GOP still reeling from the election flop. The ouster of the Tea Party hardliners and desertions by GOP bigwigs from the movement was hardly the first rumbling that the lights are dimming for the Tea Party.</p> <p>  </p> <p> A year earlier, polls showed that far more Americans had an unfavorable view of the Tea Party than when it roared on the scene a couple of years earlier. The disaffection cut across all lines and that included many conservatives. The reason for the plunge in Tea Party backing in Red State districts support wasn’t hard to find. When Tea Party affiliated candidates scored big victories and even upsets of GOP incumbents in some races in 2010, they had one mantra and that was to shrink government, and shrink it fast. Millions of Americans cheered their war call, and voted for the candidates that yelped it the loudest. But it’s one thing to scream about big government, bloated federal spending, and whopping federal debts, and it’s quite another to actually hold Congress, and by extension, the nation hostage in an uncompromising, shrill battle to chop down government.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/2mediumteaparty%20%28wikipedia%20commons%29.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 405px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> The Tea Party, in effect, wildly overreached and many conservatives didn’t like it. Congressional members backed by the Tea Party stalled every piece of legislation that might have put people back to work, demanded draconian slashes in Medicare and Social Security, gummed up the works on debt reduction talks between Obama and GOP House leaders, and wasted congressional time and energy passing bills and amendments to kill health care reform as well as education, health, social service and law enforcement programs locally and nationally. The result was that Congress was at a virtual stall for two years and public approval of Congress dropped to lows that made used car salespersons look like public champions.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The open backlash against the Tea Party wasn’t lost on GOP mainstream leaders, who even in the best of Tea Party days were anxious, if not downright terrified, that their shock battalions might get to unruly, and go too far overboard, and alienate the moderate and conservative independents that they got back in the GOP fold in 2010. They desperately needed them to have any chance of beating Obama in 2012.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Obviously, that didn’t happen. Now with the 2014 mid-term elections shaping up to be a titanic battle for the GOP to hold onto the House and not lose any more ground in the Senate, open advocacy of Tea Party positions becomes even more of a risk. The GOP with the Tea Party drag on it would have absolutely no chance to make any headway on immigration reform. That would kill the slender chance it had to soften opposition from Hispanic voters to the GOP. It would also turn off thousands more conservative voters who want to see government get back on track and get results.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The Tea Party is far from dead. There are many Americans that still think the idea of smaller government, caps on spending, and debt reduction are noble and necessary goals worth fighting for. Millions of them voted for failed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney solely because they bought into his promise to shrink government. Though a majority of Americans now back Obamacare, a significant minority still don’t. And they will continue to make noise.</p> <p>  </p> <p> But having the Tea Party label attached to the GOP is a huge liability that GOP leaders can no longer afford.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a frequent political commentator on MSNBC and a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/12/tea-party-now-a-huge-gop-liability.php">New America Media</a></p> <p>  </p> <p> <em><strong>Photos: Jackie M Barr, Wikipedia Commons (Creative Commons).</strong></em></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/tea-party" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Tea Party</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/gop" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">GOP</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republicans" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republicans</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/2012-elections" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">2012 elections</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/conservatives" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">conservatives</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/right-wing" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">right wing</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/social-security" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Social Security</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicare" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicare</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Earl Ofari Hutchinson </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Jackie M Barr (Creative Commons)</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:18:46 +0000 tara 2078 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1870-tea-party-now-huge-liability-republicans#comments V.P. Debate Moderator Flubs Social Security, Medicare Questions https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1679-vp-debate-moderator-flubs-social-security-medicare-questions <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Sun, 10/14/2012 - 17:35</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumbidenryan.jpg?itok=bjhJ7aPH"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumbidenryan.jpg?itok=bjhJ7aPH" width="480" height="268" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> By all accounts among the media’s punditocracy, Thursday night’s Biden-Ryan debate could well have been a slugfest sold on Pay-Per-View. Vice President Joe Biden, the seasoned veteran at age 69—mocking, taunting and not much caring that he’d offend more genteel independents—went toe-to-toe with the greenhorn, Rep. Paul Ryan, aging in at 42 — looking crisp, if a bit corporate, and keeping cool.</p> <p>  </p> <p> From CNN to NPR, the boxing analogies were taking off the gloves. Ryan, goes the verdict, held his own, while Biden won handily (though with no knockdowns) by reenergizing the Democratic base that had been deflated over last week’s dismal showing by the Democrats’ man on the heavyweight card, President Obama.</p> <p>  </p> <p> As the debate’s referee, Martha Raddatz of ABC News is getting high marks almost all around for regaining a modicum of respect for the media, following Jim Lehrer’s limpid performance in the first presidential debate.</p> <p>  </p> <p> What’s being widely missed by the ringside scorekeepers, however, is that while Raddatz is getting a pass for dwelling too much on foreign policy — after all, her colleagues allow, she is a foreign correspondent -- she badly flubbed the portion of the debate devoted to entitlement programs.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Strong on Abortion, Inept on Medicare</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> That’s no small complaint, considering that the status of Medicare dominated national headlines for over a week after Mitt Romney selected the Wisconsin congressman as his running mate.</p> <p>  </p> <p> On another domestic issue, Raddatz’s tough questioning style is getting credit for throwing Ryan off his otherwise deft footwork when he hesitated at her pointed question on abortion and religion. He seemed to suggest that a Romney-Ryan administration would aggressively pursue anti-abortion policies. That will likely force the GOP campaign to more bobbing and weaving than they’d like in the coming days in hopes of not further alienating the critical women’s vote.</p> <p>  </p> <p> On Medicare and entitlements, though, Raddatz was as inept and ill-informed as an NFL replacement referee. (To defend the mixed sports metaphor, those amateur football officials last month wouldn’t have been any better scoring a boxing match.)</p> <p>  </p> <p> Raddatz began the segment asking, "Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive, Mr. Ryan?"</p> <p>  </p> <p> It’s like asking, “Are old people still beating up on their children and grandchildren’s generation?”</p> <p> Ryan took his opening for a clear shot at the senior solar plexus, answering, “Absolutely, Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> But among the undisputed national experts on Medicare, Yale emeritus professor Theodore R. Marmor—also a critic of many aspects of Obamacare—is among many authorities who emphasize that reducing the cost of Medicare (and Medicaid) requires tackling “the real problem of rising health care costs with sensible cost controls.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Such health care cost controls are practiced in most other advanced economies around the globe, which spend half of what the United States does, and with better health care outcomes.</p> <p>  </p> <p> A better-prepared moderator could have focused the debate on overall health care inflation in the country, and the extent to which the Affordable Care Act (ACA)/Obamacare will or won’t control spending.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Instead the vice-president and his challenger bickered over whether the Romney-Ryan plan calls for “premium support” or “vouchers,” or whether Obamacare is taking $716 billion from Medicare over 10 years to cover non-seniors, or would, as Biden asserted, come from greater efficiency imposed on insurance companies and providers.</p> <p>  </p> <p> (Oddly, like President Obama last week, Biden missed the chance to counter that Ryan’s original proposal included the same $716 billion, but would have taken it out of people’s benefits.)</p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediummartharaddatz%20%28ABCNews%29.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 338px; " /></p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Critical to Women of Color, Others at Risk</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> Joe Baker, president of the Medicare Rights Center, said, “Raddatz characterization of Medicare ‘as going broke’ is misleading and unhelpful. Medicare is not in crisis.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Jeanette Takamura, who headed the U.S. Administration on Aging in the second Clinton administration, said in an e-mail, “It feels like the media is inclined to portray both programs as nearly bankrupt. There is a lot of misrepresentation of the programs in general that seems to be difficult to turn around.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Now dean of Columbia University’s School of Social Work, Takamura stressed that most Americans remain unaware of how critical the programs are for “populations at risk of impoverishment. Older women, particularly single women, living alone, and women of color, would be in greater jeopardy if not for their Social Security benefits.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Regarding Social Security’s finances, the program’s most recent trustees report shows that there is currently $2.7 trillion in the surplus fund created as a cushion to help the extra large boomer population retire while reducing the burden on their much small children’s generation. That surplus fund will about another trillion before the system begins to spend the account down. It was originally a financial booster shot that the govermnet thought should be added (including a payroll tax increase so boomers would pay a bit extra for their retirement) and then used up as they retire.</p> <p>  </p> <p> That is, today's seniors really did pay for your own Social Security. The system's actuaries -- think of them as the nations number one stistical nerds--had the figures pretty close to what they were--except for one.</p> <p>  </p> <p> You likely don't know--which is why Martha Raddatz was supposed to find out for you and pose an honest question--that the number crunchers and policy wonks decided that to pay workers a modest pension securely over 75 years--just to be safe--they would need to apply the payroll tax to 90 percent of all American income the calculated would earned over that period.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The rich could keep 10 percent of annual U.S. earned wages, said the logic, so they would not feel gouged and would continue supporting the system politically.</p> <p>  </p> <p> That's why the payroll tax today is applied to only the first $110,200 (it goes up slightly with inflation each year). So someone earning $1 million doesn't pay into Social Security for $889,800 of that money. This was the deal struck by Ronald Reagan's vaunted Greenspan Commission back in 1983 to save Social Security.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>The 1 Percent and 47 Percent</strong></p> <p>  </p> <p> What the actuaries and politicians of 30 years ago did not count on was that very wealthy people would suck up far more of overall U.S. wealth after that--you know, the 1 percent--while ordinary Joes and Janes (Mitt Romney's 47 percent)  saw their wages stagnate.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Today, using the old formula, Social Security taxes only 83 percent of U.S. Income. So by bringing the level back up to 90 percent--such as by taxing some income above that $110,200--would do a lot to restore that shortfall. Unfortunately, both Republicans and many powerful Democrats would rather cut average benefits and raise the full Social Security retirement age, which also amounts to a big cut.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Oh, and did I mention that because it is a closed pay-in/pay-out system--Social Security doesn't add a penny to the National Debt. When conservative politicians and columnists of both parties say Social Security's trust fund (the big surplus) is just a bunch of IOUs, ask yourself why the same people and their bailed-out banks still recommend U.S. treasuries as the safest investments in the world.</p> <p>  </p> <p> So referring to the program as nearly “bankrupt” is absurd. Nancy Altman, author of The Battle for Social Security and co-founder of the advocacy group Social Security Works, calls the program “the poster child for fiscal responsibility.” The program is prudently managed, cost-effective and carefully monitored.</p> <p>  </p> <p> There are dozens of respected experts like Altman in Washington, D.C., who could have offered a more diligent journalist a more temperate perspective. Raddatz may personally believe opinions to the contrary, but she failed the public and failed journalism by loading her views (or poor understanding of the issues) into questions for men vying to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. By the way, back in 1983, Altman was Alan Greenspan's assistant on the famous commission. So knows a thing or three about the program.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Joe Baker of the Medicare Rights Center commented, “Raddatz’s question feeds into fears among younger Americans that Medicare will not be there for them. It is hyperbole and it is irresponsible, partly because it reinforces much of the fear mongering that is problematic about the national dialogue related to the deficit in general and, most recently, the fiscal cliff.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> <em>Readers can find a thorough new comparison of Obamacare with the Romney-Ryan health care plan on the website of the <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2012/Oct/Health-Care-in-the-2012-Presidential-Election.aspx">Commonwealth Fund</a>.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <em>Excellent nonpartisan fact sheets (the kind not laundered with a spin cycle) on both  Social Security and Medicare are posted by the <a href="http://www.nasi.org/research/social-security">National Academy for Social Insurance</a>.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong><em>Photos: New America Media; ABC News.</em></strong></p> <p>  </p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/vice-presidential-debates" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">vice presidential debates</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/joe-biden" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">joe biden</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/paul-ryan" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Paul Ryan</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/martha-raddatz" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">martha raddatz</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/social-security" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Social Security</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicare" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicare</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/democrats" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Democrats</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republicans" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republicans</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/2012-elections" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">2012 elections</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/voters" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">voters</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Paul Kleyman</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">New America Media</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:35:52 +0000 tara 1732 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1679-vp-debate-moderator-flubs-social-security-medicare-questions#comments What Could a Paul Ryan Vice Presidency Mean to the Nation’s Poor? https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1467-what-could-paul-ryan-vice-presidency-mean-nation-s-poor <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 17:49</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/2mediumpaulryan%28GageSkidmore%29.jpg?itok=20AAQi-n"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/2mediumpaulryan%28GageSkidmore%29.jpg?itok=20AAQi-n" width="480" height="321" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> In an apparent off-the-cuff remark, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan gushed that he thought it was a “cool thing” that an African-American was president. But Ryan’s rapture with President Obama didn’t last past the first sentence. In the next breath he quickly added that he didn’t like much else about Obama. The much else was how much Obama has spent on health, education and job development programs that would help the poor and minorities. That spending has been fiscal heresy for Ryan.</p> <p>  </p> <p> His savage cost-cutting plan is well-known. He’d cut tens of billions from Medicaid and Medicare, and more than a trillion from everything from food stamps to welfare over the next decade. The Ryan slash-and-burn plan mercifully hasn’t happened during his tenure as House Budget Committee Chair. But as Vice President Ryan, he would be in a commanding position to make his cost-cutting plan a nightmare come true for the poor and minorities.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The key to that is winning the vice presidency. In distant times past, the vice presidency was little more than a ceremonial, title-leaden position that carried little authority, and almost no power to make, shape or change public policy. Presidential candidates picked vice presidents mostly to shore up their perceived political or ideological weakness, be it sectionalism, inexperience, image, or on domestic or foreign policy expertise. The VP was there to balance a ticket, and help a presidential contender win, and nothing more. But that was in the distant past.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The vice presidential pick has morphed into a high-stakes game in the evolution of presidential politics. The VP is now much more than just a standard dressing-up of the presidential ticket. He or she must be able to actually help a presidential candidate win first and foremost, or at worse not help him lose. There were times in past elections when VPs have made a difference. Lyndon Johnson in 1960 is the textbook example of that. He brought legislative savvy, he was a Southerner then still in good stead, and he could deliver two or three Deep South states. He did his job. Bush Sr. also helped Reagan in 1980. He brought experience, insider connections, and as a transplanted Southerner, the regional balance that Reagan needed. And he was moderate enough to give Reagan a little edge with moderate Republicans. But the vice president has become much more than that.</p> <p>  </p> <p> A vice president is now directly involved in discussing, implementing and even helping to formulate domestic and foreign policy. Vice Presidents chair presidential committees and commissions. They are consulted and make recommendations on major policy decisions and changes. They are often the hit men on controversial policy issues and during elections they are on the campaign trail to say what the president often can’t say. Clinton’s VP Al Gore and Bush’s VP Dick Cheney played the role of adviser and point man on important issues. Obama VP Joe Biden plays the same role. In any case, the VP is now often right in the center of presidential politics and the national political debate.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Ryan would be even more at the center of that debate and decision-making. He was picked in large part not to balance the Romney ticket, but because of his budget hammering big stick. A Romney White House will not only listen to him, but rely heavily on him on policy decisions involving spending slashes, almost all of it involving crucial domestic programs.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/MediumObamaPhoto_3.jpg" style="width: 500px; height: 334px; " /></p> <p>  </p> <p> This would come at the worst possible time for the poor and minorities. The poor are not only getting poorer, they are also more numerous than any time in the last half-century and have slipped even further behind in wealth and income disparities. Other reports repeatedly confirm that a disproportionate number of the poor are blacks and Hispanics. The single biggest reason for their plunge downward is the relentless pecking away at federal spending on enhancement programs in health care, education, job and skills training, and the massive cutbacks and downsizing in the public employment sector.</p> <p>  </p> <p> This has been coupled with a colossal leap in the fortunes of the rich and major corporations. Their wealth bounty has soared through a benign and porous tax and regulatory system that has given the taxpayer company store away to them. The Ryan plan would be a dream come true for them. It would shove out even more of the tax cut bounty to the wealthiest, and do absolutely nothing to insure that any of the tax cut giveaway go towards investment in new job creation. The cuts would leave the tattered safety net for the poor in even greater tatters. It doesn’t take a soothsayer to predict that the number of poor will skyrocket even more under the Ryan plan.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Ryan knows he’s in a commanding position. He told an interviewer during the Republican presidential candidate’s debates that all the Republican candidates believed his plan was the best plan for the country. Tea Party Express leader Amy Kremer was in delirium in stating that selecting Ryan “proved” Romney was committed to their draconian economic hatchet plan. Unfortunately for the poor, in a Romney White House, VP Ryan could make the nightmare happen.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a frequent political commentator on MSNBC and a weekly co-host of the</em> Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. <em>He is the author of</em> How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. <em>He is an associate editor of</em> New America Media. <em>He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on </em>KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/08/vp-ryan----a-nightmare-for-the-poor-and-minorities.php">New America Media</a></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/paul-ryan" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Paul Ryan</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/vice-presidency" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Vice presidency</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/mitt-rommey" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Mitt Rommey</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republicans" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republicans</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/gop" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">GOP</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/democrats-president-obama" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Democrats President Obama</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/running-mate" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">running mate</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/tea-party" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Tea Party</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicaid" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicaid</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/social-security" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Social Security</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicare" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicare</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/health-care" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">health care</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/budget-cuts" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">budget cuts</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/poor" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">poor</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/poor-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">the poor</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/unemployment" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">unemployment</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/minorities" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">minorities</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Earl Ofari Hutchinson</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Gage Skidmore, Flickr</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:49:00 +0000 tara 1395 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1467-what-could-paul-ryan-vice-presidency-mean-nation-s-poor#comments The Long and Necessary March to American Health Care Reform https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1245-long-and-necessary-march-american-health-care-reform <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 20:29</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumhealthcarereform_1.jpg?itok=j1Z9BGy9"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumhealthcarereform_1.jpg?itok=j1Z9BGy9" width="480" height="268" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> Talk of the end of American exceptionalism seems to be everywhere lately, but in at least one area, the United States inarguably reigns supreme.  Currently, per capita health care expenditures in the U.S. are approaching $8,000 a year, far more than anywhere else in the world.  The nation with the second-highest per capita cost, <a href="http://247wallst.com/2012/03/29/countries-that-spend-the-most-on-health-care/3/">Norway</a>, spends $2,500 less per person per year.  What do Americans get for their money?  A life expectancy of <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html">78.2</a> years, slightly ahead of Panama and Libya.  By almost any measure, the planet’s richest country also has the least cost-effective health care system, delivering average treatment to most citizens at ridiculously high costs.  </p> <p>  </p> <p> For millions of Americans, life-threatening illnesses mean not only painful treatment and medical uncertainty, but also the prospect of financial ruin.  Without a guaranteed medical safety net for all citizens, serious medical diagnoses can mean bankruptcy, divorce, and foreclosure.  Americans are certainly healthier than they were 100 years ago, but the improvements have come with a substantial cost.  The longer life spans, better disease detection, and wider array of sophisticated treatment options that have improved life have all also substantially driven up costs and jeopardized the availability of treatment for <a href="http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modules/us-health-care-costs/background-brief.aspx#footnote8">millions</a>. </p> <p> So how could the nation that gave its citizens the G.I. Bill and Social Security, leave millions uninsured, at risk, and dangerously unhealthy? </p> <p>                  </p> <p> Minnesota Congresswoman and Tea Party darling <a href="http://wonkette.com/468681/bachmann-people-without-health-insurance-should-be-free-to-roll-the-dice-of-life">Michelle Bachman</a> once claimed, “There are people who just decide they want to roll the dice and take their chances that they won’t need insurance.<strong>”</strong>  Her statement was widely derided but, oddly enough, spoke to a fundamental problem with our current health care system.  Younger Americans simply don’t suffer the heart attacks, strokes, and osteoporosis that drive older Americans to the doctor.  Workers just entering the labor market, who often don’t receive health coverage through work, could make the rational decision to spend their scarce dollars on other basics like food and rent, rather than insuring themselves against risks that probably won’t materialize anytime soon.  Indeed, the <a href="http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-07.pdf">Kaiser Family Foundation</a> found 28 percent of Americans between 26 and 34 were uninsured in 2010. </p> <p>  </p> <p> Additionally, workers who can’t afford health coverage on their own and who don’t have the kind of stable jobs that provide it, may have little choice but to live without insurance.  These workers often have no choice but to put off treatment when signs of medical trouble surface, hoping to save a few bucks on doctor visits when the problem goes away.  Indeed, despite Bachmann and other conservatives’ rosy vision of carefree youths gallivanting about without insurance, a 2007 Kaiser Family Foundation report found that working families make up 80 percent of those without health insurance. </p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumObamaStateofUnion.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 400px" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> When the uninsured are unable to pay out of pocket for preventive care and later need treatment, they become emergency room patients.  This is more than just a human tragedy, since the country as a whole subsidizes those who have to turn to emergency care when they can’t afford anything else.  These costs become absorbed by society as a whole, including the insured, thanks to a Reagan-era law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).</p> <p>  </p> <p> Since the passage of the EMTALA in 1986, emergency rooms accepting federal funds have been required to stabilize patients, regardless of their ability to pay.  Originally intended as the “Patient Anti-Dumping Act,” this presumably well-intentioned law has created a bizarre, expensive, and rigid requirement that emergency rooms provide treatment to those who can’t pay for it.  Therefore, today, the poorest Americans are given a very basic level of health care, but rather than have access to the kind of prevention that might keep them healthy and out of emergency rooms, they  end up  requiring urgent care, run up huge bills, and when they are unable to pay, the rest of the country is stuck with the check. </p> <p>  </p> <p>  The number of uninsured Americans at risk of falling through the cracks in this way has only swollen in recent years.  A <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/152162/americans-uninsured-2011.aspx">Gallup poll</a> found that from January 2008 to December 2011, the ranks of the uninsured swelled from just under 15 percent to close to 18 percent.  One proven solution to this problem is to have everyone pitch in and provide a basic health care safety net for all.  When a citizen needs help, they can turn to a system that receives support from everyone, and when healthy,  said citizen can  contribute until they require help once again.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumtruman_0.jpg" style="width: 368px; height: 468px" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> Countries such as Germany began experimenting with this type of compulsory insurance system, a precursor to universal coverage, as early as 1883.  Other European governments, such as those of Sweden and France, opted to subsidize worker-formed “mutual benefit societies,” which operated under the principle of mutual defense against the illness of the sick.  While the U.S. relied on states to set health care policy during this period, the burgeoning American progressive movement began calling for a national health care policy. </p> <p>  </p> <p> Fans of AMC’s <em>Mad Men</em> should appreciate the AMA’s contribution to the health care debate lexicon, which came around Teddy Roosevelt’s  time.  According to historians, the group conjured the loaded term “socialized medicine” in the early 1900s.  The phrase would often be deployed against efforts for universal health care in the coming years, along with other clever forms of fear-mongering.</p> <p>  </p> <p> When anti-German fears of the “Prussianization of America” rose up in the wake of World War One, the opportunity to assure universal health care early in the 20<sup>th</sup> century was lost, according to Jill Lepore in an article in the <em>New Yorker</em>.  Opponents used anti-German fear to block reform at both the national and state level, defeating a constitutional amendment designed to guarantee universal coverage in California by telling voters that universal health care was “Born in Germany” and asking “Do you want it in California?”  The pamphlet asked this question right next to a picture of the Kaiser.</p> <p>  </p> <p> In the decades during and after World War Two, national health reform efforts lost steam.  As the county geared up for and fed the war effort, demand for labor exploded just as young, male workers were sent overseas.  Government controls prevented companies from offering higher salaries, and  to attract valuable workers remaining stateside, employers offered full medical coverage at rock-bottom prices.   During World War Two, workers received care from company clinics at Henry J. Kaiser’s California shipyards for a mere 50 cents from every <a href="ttp://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/27/health/la-he-health-insurance-history-20120227">paycheck</a>.   No doubt the doctors’ offices of years ago were very different from those of today.  Without digital scans, ultrasound, and a menu of other fancy testing and treatment options, medical coverage remained a relatively inexpensive way for employers to keep their workers content and on the job. </p> <p>  </p> <p> Once again, using the ominous-sounding “socialized medicine,” opponents of reform scared off Franklin D. Roosevelt when he considered adding a health benefit to Social Security around this time.   Fear remained an effective tool for blocking efforts to expand coverage on a national level in the decades during and after World War Two.  When Harry Truman championed a comprehensive health care system in 1945, opponents went back to the “fear of socialism” well to kill the plan.  Engaging in the kind of hyperbole that has become a hallmark of the health care debate, Republican Robert Taft declared Truman’s proposal “the most socialistic measure this Congress has ever had before it.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> The Republican Party would once again employ fear of the Soviet lifestyle against reform when liberals looked to guarantee health care for the elderly.  In 1961, Ronald Reagan warned “it’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project; most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it."  The American Medical Association (AMA) spread Reagan’s words by distributing vinyl records with the Gipper’s dire predictions.  Despite  Reagan’s dark forecast that "pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school, where he will go, or what he will do for a living," Congress soon extended Social Security to cover health insurance for the elderly, later known as Medicare.  </p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumhillaryclinton.jpg" style="width: 400px; height: 500px" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> When an accomplished, Yale-educated first lady entered the White House in 1993, right-wing paranoia found a target almost as inviting as the Soviet Union.  It was a less than warm welcome for the debut of the Clinton health care package that year.  The plan, which would have provided options for every citizen to choose among private plans, sparked outrage.  "It was too big, too complex, too government," according to Newt Gingrich, looking back on the plan after he had left the House.  In fact, many of the elements have been praised by experts, and its failure was largely due to a well-orchestrated effort from Republicans and the <a href="ttp://www.tnr.com/article/hillary-was-right">health insurance</a> industry.  Once again the AMA was there on Hillary Care, contributing $3 million to help derail the <a href="http://sickothemovie.com/checkup/">plan</a>.</p> <p>  </p> <p> When President Barack Obama  entered the White House in 2009, one of the first tasks he took on was the  U.S. health care system.  The plan the administration devised addressed the most basic problem with U.S. health care, ensuring that the vast majority had care, that nearly everyone pitched in by buying insurance (with subsidies for the very poor), and that in exchange for massive new business insurance, companies could no longer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/krugman-hurray-for-health-reform.html?_r=1">discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions</a>.  Because the government was prevented from competing with private companies, the United States will still be short of the care provided by other countries, but it is a solid step towards matching the rest of the developed world. </p> <p>  </p> <p> With the Supreme Court poised rule on the constitutionality of Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act --  including the critical health insurance mandate, a basic mechanism to ensure the whole country contributes to a more predicable and fair program than our current haphazard system --the future for American <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/29/local/la-me-healthcare-arguments-20120329">health care reform</a> remains uncertain.   </p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Matthew Rudow is a contributing writer at</em> Highbrow Magazine.</p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/health-care-reform" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">health care reform</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/obama" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Obama</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/democrats" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Democrats</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/social-security" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Social Security</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicare" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicare</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/ronald-reagan" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Ronald Reagan</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/life-expectancy" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">life expectancy</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medical-care" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medical care</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/health-insurance" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">health insurance</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/michelle-bachman" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Michelle Bachman</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/socialized-medicine" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">socialized medicine</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/emergency-medical-treatment-and-labor-act" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republicans" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republicans</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/hillary-clinton" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Hillary Clinton</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/obamacare" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Obamacare</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Matthew Rudow</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Creative Commons, Flickr</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:29:15 +0000 tara 1156 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1245-long-and-necessary-march-american-health-care-reform#comments In Politics: The Advent of Radical Pragmatists https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1061-politics-advent-radical-pragmatists <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Wed, 03/21/2012 - 13:41</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumcongress.jpg?itok=fV4_Jmse"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumcongress.jpg?itok=fV4_Jmse" width="480" height="306" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> Take heart, ye voters of America!</p> <p>  </p> <p> The merry month of March might well have marked the beginning of the end of political lunacy in the United States, replaced by a refreshing maturity among the electorate——never mind the various fevered fanatics currently holding public office, or hoping to.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Signs are numerous that zealotry has had its day in the sun, and that radical pragmatism, if you will, shall be the Zeitgeist come November. Consider some of the parade of eventful markers of March:</p> <p>  </p> <p> Three weeks prior to his death on the first of the month——of either stroke or heart attack, likely both, according to pre-autopsy reports from the Los Angeles County coroner’s office——43-year-old right-wing crank Andrew Breitbart was captured on film as he ranted at Occupy demonstrators in Washington, D.C., “You freaks, you filthy freaks, you filthy, filthy, filthy, raping, murdering freaks!” In his memoriam for <em>Rolling Stone</em> magazine, Matt Taibi gleefully spoke ill of the dead.  </p> <p>            </p> <p> Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia, noted graduate of right-wing televangelist Pat Robertson’s Regent University, was forced to retreat from his full-throated support of state legislation mandating transvaginal ultrasound tests for women considering abortion. When a feminine uproar hit the fan, McDonnell’s name was quickly scratched from a list of prospective Republican running mates for whoever survives a historically incendiary primary season as the Grand Old Party’s presidential standard bearer.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Syndicated radio haranguer Rush Limbaugh famously maligned Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and very soon forfeited hundreds of program sponsors, a la the newly obscure Glenn Beck. A lawsuit seeking damages for slander is under consideration, with a number of powerful attorneys offering to represent Ms. Fluke pro bono.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Also in March, Maine’s Olympia Snowe, a longtime sane Republican and member of the U.S. Senate, announced that she would not seek another term because she was fed up with the corrosive mood of Washington, which she damned as an “atmosphere of polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Snowe might well come to regret her decision should <em>New York Times</em> columnist Thomas Friedman’s prediction for the outcome of this year’s national elections prove true, should Washington grow more welcoming of reasonable pols such as herself.</p> <p>  </p> <p> In his op-ed essay of January 22, Friedman wrote:</p> <p>  </p> <p> "[T]he first candidate who steps out of the cartoonish politics of destruction——‘Romney is just a capitalist vulture, Obama is a Kenyan socialist’——and shocks the public by going radically responsible, radically honest, radically demanding and radically aspirational…will be our next president.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> In short, pragmatism——the primacy of practicality over purity, as stated by German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)——looks to be the next new thing on the American political scene, according to the doctrine of journalist Friedman.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumroosevelt.jpg" style="width: 641px; height: 484px; " /></p> <p> And why not? It should diminish neither Democrats nor Republicans to acknowledge that parties of opposing core values can and do lead the rest of us toward mutually agreeable public policy, commonsense policy that works over the long term.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Social Security and Medicare, for instance, were accomplishments advanced by Democratic presidents and allied members of Congress. Likewise, transcontinental railroads and interstate highways came about through Republican efforts. With sore-head exceptions on both sides of the aisle, <em>de jure</em> racial and sexual discrimination was outlawed in bipartisan fashion. The list of big and proven successes goes on——and on and on——with nearly equal instances of primary credit earned by each of the nation’s great parties.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Contemporary opinion polls abound with a decisive majority wish overriding any single legislative initiative. It is this: Politicians should knock it off with the florid attacks and hobbling legislative tactics already, and understand that their constituents have no time for such baloney. Workaday Americans, and surely those still idled by the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, are more interested in building a road back to prosperity than in the reductionist debate of hyper-partisan warfare.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Rumors among the Broadway showbiz community suggest that the time is ripe for a revival of Tom Stoppard’s 1968 absurdist stage play, “Rosencrantz &amp; Guildenstern Are Dead,” in which few truer words were ever dramatized than these, now so sorely fitting our political need:</p> <p>  </p> <p> "Out we come, bloodied and squawling, with the knowledge that for all the points of the compass, there is only one direction. And time is the only measure."</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumwilliamfbuckley.jpg" style="width: 300px; height: 446px; " /></p> <p> David Stockman, the White House budget director under President Ronald Reagan, is like all other members of his button-down fraternity of accountants——not given to exaggerated talk. In his new book, therefore, <em>The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed</em>, Stockman’s warning of corporate lobbying power merits serious attention by pragmatists of the coming new era:</p> <p>  </p> <p> During a few weeks in September and October 2008, American political democracy was fatally corrupted by a resounding display of expediency and raw power. Henceforth, the door would be wide open for the entire legion of Washington's K Street lobbies, reinforced by the campaign libations prodigiously dispensed by their affiliated political action committees, to relentlessly plunder the public purse.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Democratic pollster Peter Hart, speaking of a stasis in Congress that makes possible Stockman’s fears of a potential corporatist state, told <em>The New Yorker</em> magazine’s Jane Mayer, “It’s become a situation where the contest is how much you can destroy the system, rather than how much you can make it work. It makes no difference if you have a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ after your name. There’s no sense that this is about democracy.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> What Stockman and Hart fail to mention in any organized, codified, or merely familiar sense is a path to economic fairness that naturally yields to democracy. Surely, the fairest path forward is political pragmatism.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Accordingly, we must ask, What do we know of the two dominant American political philosophies where all might agree there is noble sentiment?</p> <p>  </p> <p> “Liberalism,” wrote former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey (1911-1978), “above all means emancipation from one’s fears, his inadequacies, from prejudice, from discrimination, from poverty.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> “Conservatism,” wrote William F. Buckley (1925-2008), “aims to maintain in working order the loyalties of the community to perceived truths, and also to those truths which in their judgment have earned universal recognition.”</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumtruman.jpg" style="width: 368px; height: 468px; " /></p> <p> During the years Harry S Truman was president (1946-53), liberals and conservatives of the Congress worked together in effecting a patchwork of federal programs that were part of the Democratic president’s “Fair Deal” proposal, put forth in his 1949 State of the Union address. There was ongoing ruckus between Republicans and Democrats, to be sure, but there was also important achievement in the cause of social justice.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Gains in public housing and education support under Truman were unparalleled in national history, according to Census Bureau annual estimates of the period. Job growth soared to the point where the unemployment rate was near zero. Wages and salaries, along with business revenues, were at all-time highs; with income rising significantly faster than prices, people were living at considerably higher standards by 1952 than in 1945, when World War II ended. Social Security benefits doubled, and the percentage of Americans living at poverty level fell from 33 percent in 1949 to 28 percent in 1952. The U.S. military and federal workforce were desegregated, giving rise to the civil rights movement of the ‘50s and ‘60s.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Through his entire presidency, Truman carried the torch for his predecessor in the White House, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Until his dying day, Truman insisted on the common sense of FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights,” as espoused in 1944.</p> <p>  </p> <p> “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence,” said FDR. “Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Roosevelt went on to list what he called a Second Bill of Rights, among these:</p> <p>  </p> <p> The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care; the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; the right to a good education.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Roosevelt and Truman saw these things as commonsense rights of a democratic citizenry. In our time, these things could be seen as the unfinished business of radical pragmatists.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Thomas Adcock, a contributing writer at </em>Highbrow Magazine<em>, is an independent journalist, novelist, and editorial consultant based in New York City. His articles have appeared in U.S., Canadian, Mexican and European newspapers, magazines and websites, as well as American University publications. His critically acclaimed crime novels and short stories have been published worldwide.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong><em>​Photo of FDR: University of California Library</em></strong></p> <p> <strong><em>​Photo of Harry S Truman: Wikipedia</em></strong></p> <p> <strong><em>​Photo of William F. Buckley book cover: Barnes and Noble</em></strong></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/pragmatism" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">pragmatism</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/pragmatists" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">pragmatists</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/us-politics" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">u.s. politics</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/democrats" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Democrats</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republicans" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republicans</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/franklin-delano-roosevelt" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Franklin Delano Roosevelt</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/harry-s-truman" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Harry S Truman</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/social-security" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Social Security</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicare" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicare</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/bob-mcdonnell" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Bob McDonnell</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/andrew-breitbart" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Andrew Breitbart</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Thomas Adcock</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:41:03 +0000 tara 675 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1061-politics-advent-radical-pragmatists#comments