Since Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) led Republicans in shouts of “Liar!” when President Biden said in his State of the Union address that “some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset every five years,” Republicans have been swamping social and news media with accusations that Biden was lying.
Suskind responded by talking about the principles of the Enlightenment—the principles on which the Founders based the Declaration of Independence—that put careful observation of reality at the center of human progress.
And where would be be if they hadn't? Reality always wins, period, but we can often surf reality when we know and respect her ways.
The problem is in the time scale. Reality wins in all probability but often only eventually after a sustained fight and at significant cost. Reality is the enemy to any budding dictator and the ability to discover and understand reality their first target: goodbye education, journalism and free speech.
Reality can play out many different ways, and often at the cost of of many innocent bystanders, sometimes millions. Some of that's "natural disaster" but I think most of it is set up or facilitated by humans. We are certainly fouling our own nest, and trashing societies for the sake scaled up road rage and vainglory. We are also doing some very cool and even beautiful things. We seem to be running out of time cut the craziness. So I hope that maybe we will?
And yes, where would tyranny be without people who are eager to believe a lie?
As far as natural disaster, Dr H pointed out in her 2-10-23 Letter that Erdogan's allowing shoddy construction of buildings contributed to the impact of the quake. Also Assad has prevented relief to contested areas of the country.
We can see this happening in Florida. The governor is beholden to developers and energy companies. They have almost no regulations. They hardly prepare for the next hurricane and thousands of those whose homes were destroyed in Ian are still homeless.
And now Erdogan is going after (or says he is) those contractors who built the shoddy buildings. Either Dr. H or somewhere else pointed out that many of the buildings that collapsed were relatively new, built after the 1999 earthquake and purportedly incorporating earthquake-safe construction.
I'm not sure it's hateful as much as psychologically less sophisticated. Many people turn their fear to hatred and attribute those things they're afraid of to others. When leaders encourage them to see people as the "other" it offers an explanation for their distress and fear. And, humans, being primates, are really wired to be both hierarchical and suspicious of unfamiliar members of their species. It takes a certain amount of development to overcome this impulse to see those who are different as threats. A lot of people never develop this capacity for self-reflection, not to mention the capacity for analysis and critical thinking.
As for people being wired to be hierarchical, I am not sure. But some people certainly believe in hierarchies much more than others. Authoritarian personality types, for example.
I read a study of a remote tribe of hunter-gatherers which described group meetings where everyone contributed to decisions, even teenagers. Everyone’s work was hunting and gathering, more or less equally important, and it was often done in groups rather than as individuals. There was no desire for a “strongman” to decide for them in that society.
Lots of people are really that hateful. That was my first thought the day after Election Day 2016. We really are a racist nation to have elected that hateful fool.
Maybe some people are just born hateful? I don't know, but I do know a lot of people who are hateful grew up experiencing pain and hate. And the hate "virus" seems to me to move around, infecting some societies more severely at some times and ebbing to a cooler state at others, also affecting different segments of society differently, and often continually persecuting an underclass in the background. It's the monster we somehow as a species can't seem to let go of.
Indeed! As we struggle to evolve beyond the base behavior of our Preditor- Prey animal Roots, we seem to be approching an important Epoc where we either evolve or . . .devolve. Preditors which prey on their own species will ultimately be the extinction of their entire species. A dog chasing it's own tail. A vision one does not want to consider. We are our own and the planets stewerds. We own the consequences of our behaviors.
I have so many questions. The culture of blaming others for being stuck in feeling miserable. Who teaches children to take responsibility for their own misery versus blaming it on others? There is currently an entire large demographic doing the latter. Is there a genetic component to culture? How do we apply what we have learned of epigenetics to culture wars? Why are Ukrainians so amazingly capable (Resilient)? How do we as a nation build our own resiliency?
“Well, I’ll end with this, then: Is there something unique about America that makes it especially prone to culture war, or is this kind of par for the course?
Part of what has made it especially acute in the United States is the proliferation of nonprofit special-interest groups. You don’t find that in Europe; you don’t find it in England or Germany. Those are more statist regimes, and have much greater control over the nonprofit space. [Whereas, in the U.S.] you have the proliferation of special-interest groups that take sides. And a lot of our charitable money—which is a massive amount compared to other countries—gets channeled through these charitable organizations that exist with a take-no-prisoners policy; that define the enemy, that define a devil, that define transgressions in certain ways.”
'Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities.'
'Journalism can be distinguished from other activities and products by certain identifiable characteristics and practices. These elements not only separate journalism from other forms of communication, they are what make it indispensable to democratic societies. History reveals that the more democratic a society, the more news and information it tends to have.'
“The purpose of journalism,” write Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in The Elements of Journalism, “is not defined by technology, nor by journalists or the techniques they employ.” Rather, “the principles and purpose of journalism are defined by something more basic: the function news plays in the lives of people.”
'News is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside. Though it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed.'
'The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments.' (AmericanPressInstitute) See link below.
Then, Fern, we are obliged in many countries to write the obituary of Journalism as those that now call themselves journalists are often driven by ideology and bend the news to what they consider more important....their personal opinion or a prevailing "newspeak" mantra. It used to be very clear in a newspaper that the editorials were clearly identified and could be found on a specific page.....the facts were to found on the other pages. The role of many of those who purport to be following such a trade are frequently either pen-pushing ideological hacks or animators of tv entertainment and chat shows. Not quite the same thing.
In France the issue of professional status cards are the prerogative of the central government and are provided....or withdrawn... by a government authority and following government determined criteria, favouritism or whims. The same government provides €700 million in subsidies to the print media and a very heathy tax-free leg-up to those who they employ.....media the countervailing power, no longer I fear!
Twice in the last week the Minister of Culture in Macron's squadra has threatened to remove the licence of 2 TV channels (one being 24hrs news) for daring to allow the expression of opinions that are different from that "required" by the authorities and deeming this biased rather than balanced as it would look to any reasonable viewer (they have, left, right and centrist commentators and guests). The Minister made the statement on a station that belongs to the State (paid by my taxes) and profers only extreme "progressive" (ultra left-wing) views and openly disdains anyone to the "right" of them and regarding those that allow such "enemies of the people" to express themselves as traitors. No wonder newspapers are going bust and nobody buys them.
The US is not alone in having problems with its journalists and media. To each their Fox!
I would not lump 'democratic' countries together with same degree of loss concerning 'freedom of the press'. You have not done that, Stuart, but, perhaps, to some readers you came close to doing so. Standards of journalism have ebbed and flowed over time, and I would not romanticize the past on that score. The failure of the newspaper business is primarily based on the costs of running such an enterprise. The loss of local journalism in America has had enormous consequences as have the disappearance of communities, unions and associations. The fabric of social relations among the people has been torn apart; we are much more isolated. The loss of widespread access to the news founded on journalism and the dominance of 'social media' indicates the seriousness of the challenges to Democracy. An excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville's description of the country in his book, 'Democracy in America' (1835) provides a broad sense of change in the USA.
'It is clear that if each citizen, as he becomes individually weaker and consequently more incapable in isolation of preserving his freedom, does not learn the art of uniting with those like him to defend it, tyranny will necessarily grow with equality.'
'Here it is a question only of the associations that are formed in civil life and which have an object that is in no way political.'
'The political associations that exist in the United States form only a detail in the midst of the immense picture that the sum of associations presents there.'
'Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.'
'In America I encountered sorts of associations of which, I confess, I had no idea, and I often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance to it freely.'
'I have since traveled through England, from which the Americans took some of their laws and many of their usages, and it appeared to me that there they were very far from making as constant and as skilled a use of association.'
'It often happens that the English execute very great things in isolation, whereas there is scarcely an undertaking so small that Americans do not unite for it. It is evident that the former consider association as a powerful means of action; but the latter seem to see in it the sole means they have of acting.'
Yes, thank you, Fern!! I have that book and have not yet read the entire thing. It's full of wisdom and insight into us, as Americans, from the perspective of an interested and keenly observant European. He nailed it in 1835! And totally relevant now as then as far as i can tell. You do add much value and color to this group. Deep appreciation for all of your posts. They're often long and well worth the read because they're so thoughtful and supportive of what we're all sorting out. <3
No longer 'pen pushing' Stuart more like cursor moving, cut & pasters ... er I mean ... cut & posters or driven by algorithms that "like" input to digitally design bots after market share testing results. Not pen pushers more like Le Pen. Stuart can you give us some petit actual French words wnere appropriate especially on one-word charcterizations of complex French. political activity. Merci!
Bryan, i will try to oblige and agree with your description. Le Pen is not the problem as such but is benefiting from the causes. She indeed is saying in public what a large part of the people according to all surveys are saying in private. Unfortunately the difficulty comes from the centre who don't want to rock the boat and the left who still think that they can "deconstruct" man (visions of Sartre) and thereby impose on the French a "utopian" vision of interrelations and a different concept of society, nation and identity. It will explode shortly here in France.
And a very good morning to you, Lynell. I'm still here but more than preoccupied with our particular european problems. I'm also getting into my new role as a Mediator after completing my professionalizing diploma at France's top law school. New departure at 73§ why not?
Great to see you again Stuart! Kudos to you finding a new role. It's never too late. I try to keep abreast of 'affaires européennes' over here, but it isn't easy to sift through all our domestic news to get to international items. I use various European media outlets like the BBC, Deutsche Welle, several Dutch entities, etc., but it's always nice hearing from folks "on the ground", as it were, over there. I hadn't realised until I saw your post that we hadn't heard from you in a while. Do chime in every now and then and don't be a stranger! Cheers/Salut...
I try to keep abreast of what's going on in your "neck of the woods," but don't feel qualified to comment. Congratulations on your new Mediator role. Very impressive!
Congratulations, saying this even though I don't what a professionalizing diploma in mediation involves in France. Is this a certification beyond a law degree? A specialization the determines that you can mediate between nations or private parties? Or, serve as an Adjudicator? Curious as I've learned quite a bit from your posting.
Yes! Congratulations, Stuart!! Way cool and very impressive. Not to mention, much needed. Thanks for stepping up to bring your wisdom and humanity to the mediation table.
Only after all other opinions have been beaten into pulp through coarse discourse may reality win. Ignorance must first run it's course. Said this grumpy old man on a bright and sunny day.
Just saw poll on MSNBC that 58% of Democrats want someone other than Biden. NATO! Social Security! Medicare! Ignorance beyond comprehension. HL Mencken is still right about the intelligence of the American voter.
I think some of that 58% are genuinely concerned about his age. Right now, he seems fine, and is clearly mentally sharp. He proved that in SOTU! 🥰 But if his health declines, we will need to be prepared.
I am 75, reasonably lucid and in good heath so far as I know, but I know as I age that the odds are turning against me and friends younger than I who death I never expected are gone from disease. Age treats some far more kindly than others, but it is a issue, and one to make backup plans for.
Choose wisely the VP. Plan for the least desireable and for the continuity of policies through someone actually being tutored in the role and gets the leadershp competicies of the President. I'm not suggesting a monarchy, but there is something to say for being strategic about getting the job done, especially when the job will span the next three presidential terms. My take is that Ms Harris may not be being prepared to take over beyond an interim period if Mr Biden were to fall ill between now and 2024.
Other than creepy and corrupt Spiro Agnew and Dick Chaney, I cannot recall a VP playing much of a visible role until the president was assassinated or resigned, at least in my lifetime. I am sure that more goes on behind the scenes, but while the boss is always the boss, I am surprised that VPs, who may become president at any time, are not called upon to play more of a role in the team, if only for the sake of democratic transparency. Presidents are a little too close to a temporary monarch for my taste, and while there are in some cases very practical reasons for that, in some there are not, such as the autocratic, unaccountable, and all but unlimited power of pardon (I think the Nixon "pardon" was far more erosive of rule of law than is acknowledged, and set a terrible precedent). The former last president seemed to imagine himself a king, if not a god; "Let the documents I stole be declassified, without even recording it".
Anyway, the practice of tacking on an unsuitable VP just to please an uncooperative constituency (even McCain was embarrassed by the choice of Palin) is just plain negligent. VP's need to be every bit as suitable as the president, and Ms Harris may be so, but if so, she deserves are more visible and functional role than breaking ties and waiting in the wings.
I tend to agree with the concern, as the strategic option I suggest could certainly be subverted. One could never think a Trump would have someone in the wings to replace him. The possibility is of course ludicrous. You last sentence stresses my point. Most VPs have been chosen to balance the ticket, attract a particular demographic, or to offer someone sweet for the opposition to make nice with. I'll Leave others to fill in the names of VPs that fit. If we are unwilling to wrestle in the muck of hate and acrimony, we need to be strategic. The team going forward in 2024 has to be competent and worth the salaries both are being paid, beyond the ceremonial functions, I think you would agree. Time for politicians to aspire to the possibility of leadership and progressive goals, even if the sumultimate title is in the office next door. These are the people we should be supporting and getting on the ticket.
And so the Republicans are now scaring people that because of Biden’s age we might end up with Kamala Harris-this idea they’re pushing will definitely have traction-race baiting always wins-the fact that she’s a poc AND a woman will turn off many voters
Repubs will try to scare people no matter what. It's what they do. We could back Joe and still keep an eye out for another possibility. Could be Kamala. Could be someone else.
Was it this one? "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." There's so many quotes to pick from!
Was that HL Mencken? I remember more the spirit than the actual quote. It’s more pointed than I had realized (maybe in undergraduate school when I read it, or in TRB in the ‘60’s). Thanks so much.
Woe is me. Perhaps WE here on this substck can make a difference with our exposure of Truths and the Objective Verifiable evidence in support of such. we must keep on keeping on spreading the reality view.
Exposure to truths as best we can uncover and frame them, and also promotion of that world view. Social movements that have made a historical difference hake managed to keep truth that many people would rather ignore in the public's eye, just as MAGA tells the same big lies incessantly.
I also think we have really dropped the ball around the virtue of telling the truth, especially those told by "whistle blowers" such as Alexander Vindman, who tell the truth at their peril, and way too often suffer for it with little redress. In the end, society sufferers for this even more profoundly. There is a long, long tradition of the powerful and popular getting away with "murder" of equal justice under law, and escaping the full wrath of the court of public opinion, because we apply our own standards of judgement selectively. Provable, serious liars have no place being entrusted with grave public responsibilities.
I'm beginning to think that many polls are just nonsense. I want to know who did the polling and how. How the questions are framed and were they placed in context and what is the sample size. So many variables can be manipulated to offer up the answer that the polling purchaser wants...
But to elect politicians who participate in the reality-based community, we first need voters who do, too. Insuring that we maintain a high enough percentage of such voters ought to be Job 1 of the press, other media, and educators.
We also need the media to support fact based information! No more both sides are equal especially when one side is lying. Hold their feet to the fire. Email editorial boards, writers are on Twitter, let them now your feelings. Cancel subs and apps and let them know why. We might also have gotten the house in 2022 if it were not for all the negative poll reporting on the dems and the huge red wave co.ing to crush us. I haven't heard a peep out of them on how they could have gotten this so wrong!!!
Not certain I follow you. Each Congressional district consists of approximately 710,000 residents. The true inequality comes because each state gets two senators. Thus Wyoming's 580K residents have the same number of senators as California's 39M residents. Doesn't seem very democratic.
And DC, with its 700,000+ residents has the kickass Eleanor Holmes Norton sitting at the table, but she can't vote. DC residents literally have no representatives. No Senators. No ability to operate or call out a national guard even though many of our residents serve. We truly have no representation, but we pay taxes.
Sad... we have not progressed. *Note - Progressed is not in any way intended here to be mistaken as even near in anyway synonymous with the bastardized term Progressive wing politicians taken whole as a group.
Further, add a Supreme Court now bought and paid for, and acting on behalf of Koch money, and we are where we are with Citizens United, Voting Rights gutted, Roe overturned. Stay tuned. This group is just getting warmed up. We need to expand the court asap. Impeach Thomas, Cavanaugh and Barrett.
We can't get them kicked off the Supreme Court bench unless there is a super majority (and then some) of Dems in the Senate. It would be far easier to expand the court to match the number of Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.
You are sadly, tragically spot on in those observations. Absent mass, continuous protests as a last ditch resort, more of us are sunk than even recognize or remotely aware of, as a reality - er, lets call that worst scenario nightmare.
Why not? Would you consider term limits for SCOTUS justices? If not, how do you suggest we get out of the mess we're in, where the revisionist version of the 2nd Amendment rules and the power of Big Money in politics is unchecked?
Seems to me a while back it was actually Heather who had responded to someone's question about expanding/packing the Court. Since she doesn't normally respond in writing to us here, it must've been one of her YT video chats?
Anyway, she said that packing SCOTUS, while it sounds tempting, would likely have an undesirable (maybe destabilizing?) effect. Don't remember the details (obviously). Whatever it was she said made sense to me. I hadn't thought of it that way before. When she didn't recommend it for the reasons she mentioned, I took that in and it changed my thoughts on it.
To me, the points you mention about the MESS we're in... is a lot bigger than just SCOTUS. And at least for now, SCOTUS (except for those three fabulous women sitting on the bench) is irrelevant. Proven itself to be so, at least to me.
We need a legislative branch that functions. Right now, SCOTUS seems to be where things go to be 'legislated' by the judicial branch because that (serious malfunction!) lets Congress off the hook. Citizens United, among other things, needs to be reversed. Yadda, yadda...
MisTBlu, That is the exact problem. We are not represented fairly by our Senate system. I won’t deep dive, but this issue has bugged me all my 73 years...or so. Thanks for bringing it up. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT Democratic. I am sure Heather could clearly explain why we have this stupid, unfair system.
Then you can add the Electoral Collage which gives the rural much less populated states as much power as those with the majority of the population in the country.
The founding fathers from the high population states Caved to their rural state colleagues demands. Both the composition of the Senate and the electoral college forever make a lie out of the concept of one person one vote! Add to the mess gerrymandering and the result is a collection of mongrels who aren’t fit to clean up the ‘road chips’ made by horses in a parade!
I would suggest Jill Lapore's These Truths, a fairly recent and excellent history of the US. She explains very well the elephant in the room, slavery, and the mind set of the people who wrote the Constitution. They needed to have it ratified. Otherwise, they believed the county would not survive. Personally, I would like to get rid of the electoral college and choose the president by direct vote.
These Truth's is an excellent history of 400 years of American history. It's a thick tome, but impeccably footnoted and researched. (The last one quarter of the book are footnotes.) My most memorable lines in the book have to do with the advent of campaign managers, well after the electoral collage and arguably more important than the electoral collage since it is possible to work around whatever voting structure is in place. In the history book These Truths, by Jill Lepore, are the following paragraphs about the first, highly successful political campaign managers, Campaigns, Inc., aka The Lie Factory, founded in 1933. They never lost a campaign. Republicans have mastered their campaign strategy rules:
'Every campaign needs a theme. Keep it simple. Rhyming is good. Never explain anything. "The more you have to explain, the more difficult it is to win support." Say the same thing over and over again. "We assume we have to get a voter's attention 7 times to make a sale". Subtlety is your enemy. "Words that lean on your mind are no good. They must dent it." Simplify, simplify, simplify. "A wall goes up when you try to make Mr. And Mrs. Average American Citizen work or think." Make it personal. Candidates are easier to sell than issues. If your position doesn't have an opponent, invent one. Pretend that you are the voice of the people. You can't wage a defensive campaign and win. Never shy from controversy; instead win the controversy. "The average American doesn't want to be educated, he doesn't want to improve his mind; he doesn't want to work, consciously, at being a good citizen. But there are 2 ways you can interest him in a campaign, and only 2 that we have ever found successful." You can put on a fight ("He likes a good battle with no punches pulled"), or you can put on a show ("He likes the movies, he likes mysteries; he likes fireworks and parades).'
'So, if you can't fight, PUT ON A SHOW! If you put on a good show, Mr. And Mrs. America will turn out to see it.'
Democrats talk more about actual issues of governance by cooperation and compromise, and that simply doesn't make for a thrilling fight or show.
Like Heather points out into days letter: when one party, campaign, or portion of the electorate just refuses to participate in reality-based behavior, any system in place will crumble.
Good grief, this "philosophy" infantilizes the 'average American' citizen to an extraordinary degree. Definitely pitching to the lowest common denominator...no wonder the R's "love" the uneducated; this makes their campaign strategies easy.
Thanks. This sounds like a great book. I read somewhere that at the time of our revolution, the Colonists were better read than their British compatriots. Best to fact check this one.
My opinion, we're not fairly represented in the house of representatives by numbers. It's too far outdated - from the '20's as I recall, wherein the number was capped under suspicious circumstances.
It's not only the Senate. The House used to be truly proportionate to population. In the 1920s, with white supremacists afraid of immigrant population growth in the cities, Congress capped the size of the House. That tilts the House toward rural areas. It's less egregious than the Senate, but it's also more easily fixed - change the law.
A Senate improvement that requires only a law, would be admission of Washington DC as a state.
The "empire creates it's own reality" attitude led to the invasion of Iraq. They thought they could reconfigure Iraq to be any form of government which they desired. They achieved misery and death more than anything except for perhaps grift.
Absolutely. As a native Californian I have played with a system of Senate representation that would aggregate adjacent and similarly underpopulated states into Senate regions: MT, WY, ND, and SD, with 3.3 million, would be entitled to 2 Senators, while CA, with 39.5 million, would be represented by 12 Senators. US territories, including Puerto Rico (!) could be easily brought into such a system.
Interesting conceptually Dave. Though, it does run counter to some of the original language of the Constitution, meaning it would take forever to amend - if even possible at all given the underlying financial strength of the 'movement conservative' - as it's also mislabeled.
Senators are not elected by population as everyone knows. The Senate has never been intended to be democratic and that isn't going to change. If I remember correctly in the beginning, senators were not elected, but chosen. I do wish people would put their energy into things we can change.
With all due respect Ally, I have to disagree. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution states that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years." I'm not sure that wasn't better than the current popularity contest, although the partisan control argument still applies.
We are not going to change, at this point, the set up for Congress. I would like to get rid of the Electoral College, but I am not sure how we do it since it's in the Constitution. What we can work on is voter registration, getting the vote out, trying to do something about gerrymandering, doing something about Citizen's United. The best we can do is to pay attention to every election even for school boards, city councils, county commissions, state legislatures and officials, and try to swing things to Ds.
And if you count state legislatures, the ratio of elected government officials to citizens goes way down -- and IMO that's the way it should be. In my state (MA), a state rep represents an average of 41K people and a state senator an average of 163.6K. The smaller the district, the better the chance a legislator has to really know their district and to respond to constituent concerns. (They aren't all that conscientous, needless to say, but many are, including mine.)
That is your fortunate position in MA currently. It ignores the plight of those in states that were and still are, horrendously gerrymandered. I have zero representation in Ohio - zero. I envy your fortune Susanna.
The good thing about this good fortune is that it frees us up to focus on other problems, like the fact that our state legislature is at the bottom of the pack when it comes to transparency, accountability, etc. I'm remembering the old meme (from before there were memes <g> ): "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp."
The Districts are artificially reduced, and don’t follow the original formula in the Constitution. The formula was changed to insure the number of House Representatives will physically fit into the Chamber inside the Capitol Building.
That’s why there are State gains and losses of District seats after each decade’s census.
It's more accurate to suggest that the number of Representatives hasn't changed because those that are in office don't want to risk diluting their power.
While it is true that a stable number of representatives simplifies managing office space, that was not the reason for the cap, and it is hardly justification for reducing populous states' fair proportionate representation as clearly intended by the Constitution.
There you have it Citizen ! Nice tool to use against the so called 'originalists' - their own false insistences. Now that's a useful constructive idea. Kudo's Citizen !
Depends on what a representative is expected to do -- and don't forget that they do have staff. My rep (Keating, MA-09) has an office in D.C. and three offices in the district. At least congressional districts are (relatively) consistent across the country. As others have pointed out, the discrepancy in senatorial representation is glaring.
The Senate wasn't intended to be broadly representative but was rather meant to be a brake on the potentially populist actions of the House. Before we set about changing it radically, we should consider who might be lost that is currently serving.
The primary focus of the House in terms of both legislation and committee activity has little or nothing to do with the concerns or desires of the majority of the people. That the reasons are based on an internally enforced partisan division is at the root of the inability of the House to even pass a budget which is their primary Constitutional responsibility.
"Family around the kitchen table' analogies are inappropriate to government. They are fallacious political rhetoric which obscure rather than enlighten reality - by making false equivalencies.
Our Constitutional democratic republic operates through an agreed framework of law. Which is legislated, adjudicated, and administered according to protocols and institutions. It renews itself through formal procedures of amendment and transfer of power.
Ahh . . . families. They work differently. And when they don't, the damage is limited to a relatively small group.
When government breaks down - particularly as through the Republican party's intentional gradual hollowing out of institutions and through violent insurrection - the roof caves in with wide spread to world wide damage. From the GOP Dobbs Decision to the GOP Debt Ceiling debacles.
Exactly. That comparison bugs me as well as the “Government should act like a business.” statement. No. No it shouldn’t, for a variety of reasons. But primarily businesses are intended to make a profit and are designed as such. If they don’t make a profit, they go out of business. Government should not be focused on making profits. It is certainly legitimate to expect Government to be good stewards of tax payers’ money. Corruption and wasteful spending must not be allowed. However government can and often does medical research in areas that are not expected to make a profit. If there is a rare disease that only affects 500 people world wide virtually no business would put money into finding a cure for it because even if they find a cure, they couldn’t get a return on their investment or make a profit by selling the cure to those 500 people. But the government can do that sort of research if they aren’t forced into a profit-making business model.
Carey I'm with you on that ridiculous notion that government should be run like a business. Furthermore the very people that spout that nonsense have no idea how a well-run business is run. In their ignorance they implement across-the-board cuts to government agencies and programs' budgets (sequestration. ) No competent business person would do that. They refuse to invest in upgraded computers and software, one huge problem at Social Security and Medicare. I've always had good interactions with employees at SS and MC and come away amazed that they work so hard to do a good job despite antiquated systems.
An add on to running government as a business, many business decisions are made behind closed doors. When government ran that way, laws were advanced to have open meetings and lots of transparency.
Here in Bar Harbor, the Town Council reviled criticism and rejected evidence about miscreant Town Manager Kevin Sutherland (even the evidence of Sutherland having signed a $92,000 settlement - for proven human rights violations arising from Sutherland's discriminatory firing of a Saco town employee. ) When the complaints in Bar Harbor mounted to a need to Do Something, the council went into 'private executive session to "talk with Kevin" about a personnel matter' - where they could be heard boisterously laughing it up -and since no action was taken, the content of the session was kept secret. Joke's on them. Several month's later in a back room deal they let Sutherland 'resign' overnight with a Release Agreement giving him an astounding severance package of 6 months full pay, health and retirement benefits, payment for accrued leave etc - amounting to around $90,000 after 13 months employment.
So what danger did their BFF Sutherland suddenly present and what leverage did he have? Well there's some evidence suggesting he violated laws with their knowledge or connivence. Possibly involving erroneous representations of laws to achieve shared goals. And ironically, publicly sharing privileged client-attorney information with litigants suing the town for an injunction and to overturn a Citizens Initiative cruise ship ordinance - which the council opposed and does not want to enact. To paraphrase the Washington Post 'Democracy rots in the darkness.'
There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity. You can smell it. It smells like death. —Big Daddy”. ― Tennessee Williams, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Yes. There are many, many, reasons why government should not be run like a business. I provided just one example, you’ve provided another - transparency. Although I might argue that many businesses could actually benefit and perhaps even profit from much more transparency that they allow now.
Runfastandwin. A corollary to the "run government like a business" notion: that for-profit businesses are efficiently run and have no problems with fraud and corruption. Nonsense. And when businesses fail they don't just impact their customers, employees, and stockholders, it also affects taxpayers.
Wow, what an inciteful post. Well thought and so painfully obvious. Thanks Lin and Carey for your observations. So obvious. We often seem to overlook this simple truth.
One of the best explanations. A similar one might be made for adage of running government like a business. Business has only owners or shareholders to report to and if goes bankrupt or swindles, the business is only entity on hook for failure, whereas a government that goes belly up sticks everyone with the costs and losses.
"Business has only owners or shareholders to report to and if goes bankrupt or swindles, the business is only entity on hook for failure..."
Actually, due to bankruptcy and other laws privileging monied interests - creditors and other small players pay the price of getting swindled. Often those unable to afford the additional costs of going to court to seek legal restitution. Or in danger of frivolous counter suits if they try.
Agreed. The laws that permit business to pass along losses are another example of why business model don't fit governance needs. Suspected you would raise this in light of my parallelism with family comparisons.
Maybe so many have politically checked out because we are addressing the problems incorrectly, and narrowly (black/white, red/blue). Editor-in-chief of Tablet magazine, Alana Newhouse spoke with Sean Illini on his The Gray Matter podcast about a new frame: “Everything is Broken.” And the questions we could be asking by identifying our worldviews to address this situations as either “Broke-ists “ or “Status-Quo-ists” ( or combo of the two depending on the institution/system we are talking about) opens up a more foreword thinking, constructive engagement. Many, like Rick Scott” plan for “burn-it-all-down”! Yet he is loath to outline the replacement system we surf as the rug is pulled out from under us. New questions like: Can we fix what we have already (like we are trying to do with the IRS)? Or do we eliminate an entire system, and replace it with (give example)? What problems do we incur with each approach? Etc. This conversation, Alana has found, inspires thoughtful, constructive engagement. And seems to be a way to get us to a space to constructively discuss the difficult issues we face.
The vast majority of citizens do not want to pay so much attention. Most Americans have other, more immediate concerns. In the history book These Truths, by Jill Lepore, the following paragraphs explain the rules constructed by the first, highly successful, political campaign managers, Campaigns, Inc., aka The Lie Factory, founded in 1933. They never lost a campaign. Republicans have mastered their campaign strategy rules:
'Every campaign needs a theme. Keep it simple. Rhyming is good. Never explain anything. "The more you have to explain, the more difficult it is to win support." Say the same thing over and over again. "We assume we have to get a voter's attention 7 times to make a sale". Subtlety is your enemy: "Words that lean on your mind are no good. They must dent it." Simplify, simplify, simplify: "A wall goes up when you try to make Mr. And Mrs. Average American Citizen work or think." Make it personal. Candidates are easier to sell than issues. If your position doesn't have an opponent, invent one. Pretend that you are the voice of the people. You can't wage a defensive campaign and win. Never shy from controversy; instead win the controversy. "The average American doesn't want to be educated; he doesn't want to improve his mind; he doesn't want to work, consciously, at being a good citizen. But there are 2 ways you can interest him in a campaign, and only 2 that we have ever found successful." You can put on a fight ("He likes a good battle with no punches pulled"), or you can put on a show ("He likes the movies, he likes mysteries; he likes fireworks and parades). "So, if you can't fight, PUT ON A SHOW! If you put on a good show, Mr. And Mrs. America will turn out to see it.'
Democrats talk more about actual issues of governance by cooperation and compromise, and that simply doesn't make for a thrilling fight or show. And Americans don't realize what's happening until after it has happened....like a coup.
Razzle dazzle bullshit. Faux news or fox entertainment, one or the other but certainly not fox news. This is nauseating, but thank you for the education. Republicans are just con men (and hysterical, entertaining women).
Equality almost plays out in the House except more populous states have fewer Representatives. Using 2016 population numbers, Wyoming as the measure for one representative, and reapportioning the House, the result would be the House having 551 Representatives.
Back then when I did the numbers 66% of the population lived in 15 states. The projection was 40% of the population in 15 states by 2040. I thought the 2040 was underestimated until recently.
In 2006 Joel Garreau wrote "300 Million and Counting" in which he discuses population growth. Back then we were replacing ourselves at 2.01 per couple or enough to maintain the present population. Most recently. the numeric is ~1.6. Immigration was less than 1 million and far less than previous numbers. Our population is also aging. It is possible to see a smaller population going forward. The foundation for such is there for such t occur if the US stifled all immigration.
The Senate is the Senate. The numbers of Senators was set by the Constitution, Article V: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
If we were to equalize the House using Wyoming's population, California would have 14 extra Representatives. Many other states would gain extra also. The Electoral College is set by the number of Senators and Representatives. The Electoral College is not the issue. The House is an issue and las been since 1910.
You can not gerrymander a state for Senatorial elections. You can for the House. Fix the issue of gerrymandering. I do not see a change to the Constitution to change the Senate. It is not going to happen.
I remain confused as to why Medicare and Social Security are referred to as 'entitlements'. They are 'a return on investment', something I hope the so-called conservatives can understand. Entitlements makes it sound like they are handouts like Medicaid, Food Stamps and Welfare and using that term when referring to Medicare and Social Security seems to confuse the so-called conservatives as to what they really are. Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson saw the American people as a whole weren't doing very well preparing themselves for retirement, both medically and financially and the two programs were enacted. It was not a grab at individual freedom that led to their enactment. It was a need well demonstrated by the American people who had shown they weren't doing it voluntarily..
Hear, hear!!! I’m 70, using both. I’ve paid into them all my working life, every job I’ve had since age eighteen, as have my employers. That is money set aside for me, and I need it to live on in retirement. I’m glad President Biden is keeping a spotlight on it. And I do not understand why my senator, Scott, keeps thinking he’ll get re-elected by threatening it. Even dt and McConnell are calling on him to desist. Don’t these people know anyone like me, living on Social Security, a small teacher’s pension, and limited savings??? Stop scaring seniors!!!
Truth. I envy your escape - living in the land of King Ron is very wearying. The Florida Democratic Party was disorganized in 2022 and seemingly received little support from the national party; I think they’ve given up on us.
Speaking of that - the AG is paying 3.3 million to his former employees for blowing the whistle on his corrupt activities...... But he is still in office, he was still re elected and taxpayers will probably pay the 3.3. million
A situation that absolutely boggles my mind. Your "attorney" general, usually the chief law enforcement official of the state, under indictment and yet he's still there.
Corruption, at least widespread corruption can be defeated with public effort, commitment, and solidarity, and we've pushed back on it before with at least partial success. Beloved Reagan conned us into inviting it roaring back.
We have that same problem here in Ohio. The national Democratic party puts very little $$ into our state leaving the Rs controlling both branches of our state legislature and the Governor's job to boot.. We had a very good candidate for the Senate, Tim Ryan, but the DNC virtually abandoned him leaving us with the very red, very radical JD Vance.
Tim Ryan was great and would have been a wonderful Senator! I don’t even live in Ohio but I still donated to his campaign. I was so disappointed when he didn’t win. JD Vance is awful.
I'm from Ohio and moved to that northern state M. Been here most of my life now and I am a reformed republican (thank God) Better late then never. I liked Tim Ryan also and found it hard that the people of the great state of Ohio would let the Republican's win anything. Hopefully, in 2024 we can get things right. Too much corruption in so much of our government with senators and representatives representing themselves instead of representing all the people in there respective area.
Our state Supreme Court ruled twice against our unfair maps but our legislators ignored the ruling and proceeded with our November election using the same old illegal maps.Our state government is very corrupt.
Believe me we are trying!!! ....70+%. Ohioans voted in 2015 and 2018 for "Fair Districts". but the formula didn't include an independent committee to reform the gerrymandered districts - so even though the plans put together by the majority Republican Committee (5 Repubs - 2Dems)
was declared "unconstitutional". 5 times by the OH Supreme Court - they got away with it....and here we are.
The fact that the DNC abandons states where Democratic candidates & people who will vote democratic makes me very unhappy with "The Party". There are so many of us struggling in minimally support states so that people like Zinke get elected in part bc of $$$$$$$$$.
There are some really interesting grass roots groups operating inOhio that I’m learning about through Senior Taking Action. You might want to check them out. It will give you hope and make you proud 😊
I live in Florida, too, Suzanne. I agree. We had a nonexistent dem organization and no messaging. We need something to change
dramatically to get rid of Desantis, Rubio, Scott, Gaetz, and the overwhelming GOP control of our state legislature. Fla is not a true part of the USA. King Ron is a perfect description-we are a part of his fiefdom.
We need to message about the salary cap for Social Security ! $160,200 for 2023. So many who pay in throughout the year have no idea a cap exists.
So Rick Scott, and other millionaires/ billionaires, pay the Social Security tax for only a couple weeks ( or days ) while you pay throughout the year. Do you think that ‘s fair ??
I know why there’s a salary cap...to give the illusion that the wealthy aren’t directly supporting the poor, etc., etc., etc. I wonder what would happen if no SSA funds were withheld on, say, the first $10k people earn in a year but then remove the cap totally. The howls we would hear would be deafening.
Hmmmm....that kinda makes sense. Thinking about students working after school and weekends; folks entering the job market for the first time. Those first few paychecks have to go a long way.
Why this push from business and the GOP? Your second line has the key "as have my employers". They want to pay you as little as possible. A number of years back I had a John Deere high level executive tell me "remember 80% of expenses wear shoes". From that view point they are not people and here lies the problem.
Reality to many sitting in the “sun” is that they resist madly paying their fair share. Blather about Patriotism.... bull -hockey. No policies, no thinking, just terrible fear that they might be asked to pay their fair share.
If they use “entitlement “ one more time I would think the Dems would put out the truth on big billboards.
Then show the real entitlements.... loop-holes-,yachts, airplanes, free ride on the back of the working class.
Ah, you have unlocked the cause! "As have my employers." Those business-capitalists types do not want to pay into their employees future! Not even a little bit.
Once upon a time a business of a certain size also offered pensions. Then, pensions were tweaked to 401Ks and other creative private enterprises, to support the stock market and corporations. If the stock market slides or crashes, well I guess we are out of luck.
I retired in 2009, just after the market slid badly in 2008. My retirement nest egg was reduced by 42% and by now it is gone all together.
Hope, me too! I retired in 2010. I am living on the scraps now in India. My $2,200 per month allows me some ease, but I can’t live in my own country on that amount. I got divorced in 2017 and the hub took half. So there you have it! Let’s fight to keep our rightful retirement funds!
I worry for my 40-ish children and their children. They are being conditioned to expect no Social Security or Medicare in their future, though they have paid into it for 20 years already. The Republicans wanting to cut or privatize are careful to say, Don’t worry, you current seniors, we won’t touch yours. We are talking about people younger than you.
A dog eat dog system pitting generation against generation. This is how obscene wealth and its power will be protected if Republicans have their way. According to the Two Santa Claus theory, Democrat Santa provides your benefits (and those of people you despise) but Republican Santa cuts your taxes instead. (Which is a Better Deal if you have no idea what services your taxes provide, but you know you hate paying them.)
I agree, Larry, and every one of us who ever worked for a living paid into these programs (SociaL Security and Medicare) Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF may be seen as handouts, but all three combined are less than we pay out to corporations and millionaire/billionaires in subsidies, depletion allowances, tax loopholes and lower tax rates. We who pay our taxes justifiably want those earning more in a year than we earn in a lifetime to pay at least 15 to 20 % tax rate too.
"Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF may be seen as handouts"
Here is what a true entitlement is:
A white man, or a million of them, with the power to steal the entire life of (or millions of lives) of a (million) black slaves.
Then? "Free them" without providing any land, any jobs, or any resources at all.
Then? When those black folks are starving, give them house cleaning jobs, janitor jobs, and put them back in the fields for 100 years as "share croppers" where their pay is? Well, they get to keep barely any of the food they grow!!
Now THAT is an entitlement let me tell you. Being able to steal someone else's entire life!
Then? If someone like Lyndon Johnson, who grew up in Texas and saw what black people were struggling through, decides to, for the first time in American history, to offer some food to literally a starving population of Americans with a stolen history, with SNAP "benefits"??
that becomes evil socialism? A handout???
HMMMM??? IT is OK to run a slave colony for 300 years by white men, stealing black lives.
BUT? It is NOT OK to then, after black lives are forced to be free by the federal government, to enable them to work and find food or buy property??
It is not OK to help them eat????
Amurca. Gotta love it? Gift link below. I recognize that we now have TWO black quarterbacks trying to beat each other out on the football field. Now, when the OWNERS of the football franchises become black, we will be making some real progress.
Saw a headline from eons ago, that reparations were offered to slave owners for the loss of their ‘property.” $300 for each freed slave. What was offered to the “property?” A noose. And one wonders why they arrive at the starting gate of life, hobbled by their history…. And blamed for their deficits.
And yesterday, on Firing Line, Glenn Loury, blathered white supremacists crap on PBS. A pox on you….
In the 1619 Book Project, in one of the Chapters that discusses the "Jim Crow" period after slavery, there is a paragraph detailing how common it was, in that 90 year time period, to ride/drive though the south and literally see black people hanging from random trees along the side of the road.
We should remember the freed slaves were promised 40 acres of land and a mule, so they could earn a living. That promise was never kept. So many of the formerly enslaved people had to struggle through poverty, lack of proper housing and clothing. They were then rewarded with Jim Crow laws and lynchings. Meanwhile , white Europeans were being given 40 acres of land by the same government that said keeping their promise to African Americans was too costly.
I don't really have a historical take honestly. I spent my early life on an East Texas farm fixing broken stuff and barely making any money with my family BUT we owned our own land because it was dirt cheap until the 1990's. We ate every day.
I did attend an integrated school after 1966 (unlike Boston which did not integrate until 1978 or Rochester, NY, which, has STILL not integrated).
My writing simply reflects my good luck at having always enjoyed reading (Public Library in Palestine, TX and small public school libraries).......
so, I have read Dr. Richardson's works (some of them) and I have read the 1619 Book Project and between those and some other reading,
"mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord". So, to speak.
Yes, indeed, but, I did see it that American glory once, way out in East Texas one day when I, as part of a job of reading water meters, happened on to the area where black folks lived. For the first time.
A half circle of shacks with no running water (1976). Out houses in back of the shacks.
ONE spigot sticking up out of the ground providing water for the entire community.
1976. All the white people (like me sort of) were celebrating the "Bi-Centennial" of our awesome American history on the day I stood looking at the shacks which housed the black folks.
As an old man now (63). I am both heartbroken, angry and lost as to what I can do besides volunteer my time where it is needed tutoring, making food at shelters, etc.
Now? I am haunted by my own good luck (which was born out of constant working but I could get a job, unlike black folks)
.....at "escaping" my East Texas poverty (which, looked like RICHES compared to what black folks had).
Every once in a while a group of us Dems here in Massachusetts get together for what we call 'drinking liberally'. COVID has made it harder to do; we're looking forward to more time discussing the issues as pandemic worriies ease.
The 'conservatives' think of any government program funded by taxpayers as intrusive and socialistic. And that rankles them: the idea that government could do something to help those in need, using 'their' money. Selfish and short-sighted and mean-spirited they are.
Which doesn't even take into account how much the wealthy corporations benefit from our tax supported programs like the new infrastructure bill - whose big semi's cross those bridges and deliver those products?!
But isn't it a government handout to give the rich and the big corporations so many loopholes, leting them dance along practically scott free? Yes, it is!
I think you summed that up nicely. Thanks. And if you patched all those tax loopholes I bet there would be more than enough money to pay for these programs. Kind of pathetic.
There surely would be enough. I remember the tax rates of the 1950s, when CEOs made reasonable salaries and unions were on the rise. If we revised the unfathomable tax code to make it more equitable, the rich would pay their fare share.
Good Morning Larry, who wrote "Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson saw the American people as a whole weren't doing very well preparing themselves for retirement, both medically and financially and the two programs were enacted. It was not a grab at individual freedom that led to their enactment. It was a need well demonstrated by the American people who had shown they weren't doing it voluntarily.."
During a convo with my attorney I mentioned that while volunteering at our community hospital, I realized that so many folks are unprepared for furure crises like health scares, and can't afford them. He responded "How can a family prepare on $8 an hour?" That wasn't so long ago. Judging by the evidence provided by commercial parking lots, especially on weekends, most folks keep score by shopping. OK, I shop also, but for quality not quantity. I know families wear items out, but buying as entertainment is or seems to be the number one sport in our capitalist country. What were the stim checks for besides propping up the economy? My personal form of entertainment, restaurants, was shattered in early 2020 and I never recovered, i.e., I haven't returned to the habit of routinely patronizing them. Not money well-spent, money well-saved.
But I really wanted to digress to another form of "entitlement" which so far has not been mentioned, that of pensions. As a sixty-something college student, I took a class on the Civil War, or whatever other label you use, and I was entertaining myself by volunteering at our county historical society, where I was archiving 24 boxes of various correspondence of a former governor and congressman, among them a box of letters from Civil War vets who were writing for help getting their pensions, in the 1890s. Disability was the reason these veterans were eligible. I wrote a paper on pensions, and traced the history through Teddy Roosevelt's including age itself as a form of disability eligible for retirement benefits. Of course these were federally funded. The last Revolutionary War pension payment was made in 1906. I'll just wrap this up by mentioning the dirty word which the red-leaning part of the state where I live uses as a throwaway reason for flying Confederate flags and other complaint-voicing. They complain about a small SS check and lack of Medicare insurance coverage while simultaneously yelling "Socialism is ruining the country." Have a nice day.
"They complain about a small SS check and lack of Medicare insurance coverage while simultaneously yelling "Socialism is ruining the country." Have a nice day."
And? Here we see the true power of the combination of powerful propaganda and poor education.
They are referred to as "entitlements" because every citizen of a democratic country is (or should be) entitled to a basic social safety net. Government benefits like Medicaid and food stamps are not "handouts" - they are part and parcel of being a participating member of a democratic society. Kind of like voting or serving in the armed forces.
Here's another widely held misconception: that employers pay half of a worker's payroll taxes. While technically true from an accounting standpoint, this employee overhead is just another cost of doing business and is not a "benefit" granted employees. In reality that money would be included in the employee's paycheck if the requirement for the employer to pay taxes supporting "entitlements" were to magically vanish, everything else being equal. But employers would like you to believe that this is a burden they bear. Or put another way, a teacher works just a little harder to compensate for the teacher that's not hired to assist her because this overhead is factored in when budgeting for headcount. And yes, it's a "return on investment" paid for over a lifetime of work, and would be quite a healthy fund if the damned politicians didn't keep sticking their grubby fingers in the pot every time they want to fight an unfunded war. It's infuriating. People need to wise up and stop buying this Reagan era BS!
LeMoine- Exactly! I used to insist that when our company negotiated to cut our "benefits" I always said those benefits were really deferred comp. A relative named Denison Smith wrote a book titled "Stop the Raid" on the SS Fund about how the gov't does just that.
Lemoyne, I'd even go further back and adhere that we are a nation built upon a social contract between government and the people and that all relationships covered by laws are a version of such a concept. This was as put forth by Hobbes centuries ago and central to how the founding fathers drew up the US Constitution. A couple of citations below to check out, but in the mid-20th Century the idea quite prevalent was that there was a social contract between the businesses and the employees whom businesses sought, not for a few months, but for a lifetime of productive work. The relationship was considered a key to American exceptionalism, the hardest working and most ingenious workforce in the world. American workers took pride in the businesses they worked for because they could rely on continous employment and a pension (fought for through unions and the public sector). Some of us remember the expectation to work hard in our strongest time and be respected when our energies declined, not to be dismissed. I remember the normal was to have a career and a few different employers and employers taking pride in the longevity of their workforce, the value of their senior workers, the investment in the security of workers (and their families) because it was good business to do this in the communities in which both employer and workers lived together. There was a social contract and we the middle-class lived as though this was the way things would remain. And, I can remember the idea of Social Security was conceived to protect folks into their old age because our social contract (we the government) with them was that they should not fear being old for reasons out of their control and regardless of the stability of something promised by their employer or the swings in prosperity that happen in industries and investments. And, I can remember that it was businesses that saw this as the right thing to do, the progressive thing to do as a modern business, while relieving them of some of the obligations that underfunded/speculative private pensions they may have found they were on the hook for (No it wasn't only the US Postal Serivce pension fund that is not fully funded). So, when I hear the claims that Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation , etc., are entitlements and the arguments that 401ks and privatizing pension/Social Security and Medicare should be made options, I have to shout NAY SIRS. They are not entitlements or gifts or taking something away from the business or other workers who do not have pensions or are not eligible for certain insurance-based schemes as ways to reduce debt or save these programs, I shout NAY SIRS. These are obligations of businesses, industry, the private and non-profit sector, and our government to their people, as employees and as citizens. They are debts agreed to under the social contract entered into by those elected to office to promote the common good, to ensure the health and safety of our people and all are bound under employment and commercial laws between though who employ Americans in the creation of, production of, delivery of, quality of, and expansion of the gross domestic product that is the measure of American enterprise. The manner of meeting such obligations may be open to our capacity for ingenuity and problem solving, but the obligations for such is not to be discharged through negligence or failures to act and deliver upon promises. The bottom line must start when the obligations are fulfilled, not where the money to pay is stashed or was failed to be set aside to fully-fund obligations entered into on day one of the social or business contract agreed to.
The social contract of business theory argues that businesses exist with the permission of society, so long as the business acts in ways that benefit society. Social contract theorists believe that a business should make decisions and structure their operations in ways that offer the maximum benefit to society.Nov 9, 2021
I agree. Their use of the label entitlement for Social Security and Medicare bugs me mightily. And when they use it, it’s usually with a tone of voice that implies anyone who participates in these programs is leeching off the government. I’ve been paying into SS since I was 13 years old. Now, at 60, after almost 50 years of paying into it, when I’m getting close to being able to draw from it, they want to take it away from me. It’s no different than if they were bank hackers that wiped out my savings account. It’s my money, damn it! They are trying to steal it by twisting the narrative. I find it insulting they think I’m so stupid! At least bank hackers respect me enough to disguise their theft. The GOP is announcing their thievery, putting it on the front page, and coming boldly in the front door to steal it. They’ve managed to convince upwards of 40% of the voters that it’s the right thing to do. These folks are so good at convincing their base with lies, I think they could pick up steaming piles of cow manure, put it in muffin tins, and people would eagerly line up for their “breakfast special”! It’s maddening.
It is important to remember that your FICA payments went directly to your parents and grandparents. And the benefits you will recieve come out of the paychecks of the generations behind you. There is no account with your name on it! So no one is "stealing" from you.....it can be argued that old people steal from younger people.
Becky, I don't know how old you are but I'm nearly 80. You might argue that "old people steal from younger people" but it's the "old people" that invested a lifetime of blood, sweat and tears building the infrastructure that younger people currently enjoy, from highways to medical technology to the cell phones they seem so attached to. Most don't yet have a clue as to what they owe older people. I can tell them in intricate detail what makes a computer tick but relatively few would care or comprehend, they just want to use stuff and bitch about how old people screwed them over. And the point you make to Carey about nobody having their name on a SS account is specious and irrelevant, even if it WAS true, which it is not. There's a reason why people have different SS numbers and receive different amounts when they finally collect it, assuming they live long enough to collect it. Have older generations made mistakes? damned straight. Future ones will too. But I deeply resent the sentiment that "old people steal from younger people".
LeMoine - thank you, you’ve said it better than I could. I also found the statement from a previous comment “Medicare has allowed people to live longer than expected.”, particularly offensive. “Well, geez, I’m so sorry I didn’t just lay down and die at 55 so we wouldn’t have to raise taxes on billionaires!”
You’ve misunderstood my comment. I am not stating nor implying that anyone receiving payouts from SS is stealing from me. I’m saying that the GOP trying to do away with SS will be stealing from me if they succeed in doing away with SS.
"Handouts like Medicaid, Food Stamps and Welfare" - really? Those "handouts" are minimal gestures at redistributing generational wealth stolen from the folks receiving them. We refused to give reparations and full civil rights to newly freed slaves; and failing to do so, while simultaneously failing to prosecute Confederate traitors and persecuting slaves' descendants, has put us in the position we find ourselves in today.
Trust fund babies like Tucker Carlson rant about the socialism of handouts to those without GW, yet from his first breath, he was and is a form of socialism in its purest form
All true, but the fact is we who contributed to SS & Medicaid ARE "entitled" to receive the benefits from the programs we paid in to all those years. That also seems to float somewhere in the ether above Repubs heads!
Another way to look at "entitlements" is to see them as something everyone is ENTITLED to. The term has been coopted, like many others, to give it a bad rap.
In fact, aren't all people entitled to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, the opportunity to get a decent education? Perhaps conservatives don't think so,, but in a democracy, it is important that everyone have a decent standard of living. If we achieve that, we will also have a more stable government because, who will want to overturn it? And with a good education, especially with the encouragement of critical thinking, people will be less likely to be fooled by charlatans.
I would add that people are also entitled to justice. When justice is real, people see it and are more likely to respect the rule of law.
Cheryl, I agree completely. And with democracy comes freedom , but the flip side of the freedom coin is the responsibility of behaving in a way that does not sabotage the common (or community's ) interests, if anyone can agree what "common interest" is. Humans push back when there's an "other," but in this society it shouldn't mean "each other." I like your last two statements!
I suspect your confusion is based on the Libertarian sociopathy that pervades the US culture, which has entirely absorbed the Republican party, and dominates most common American understandings of government, nationhood, and economics.
You've mischaracterized Roosevelt's and Johnson's impetus in your mind. It wasn't that they saw people as "not preparing themselves voluntarily for sickness or old age." It was that they saw it was IMPOSSIBLE for most people to prepare themselves -- they were barely surviving day-to-day on wages offered by Capitalists. Indeed, it was proving impossible for people to even survive to old age in reasonably good health in the first place: many died young.
Recall that Northern "jobs" in the 1800's were just slavery under a different name. If anything, jobs have the potential to be far more brutal than slavery: if the slaveowner works a slave to death, he must purchase a new slave. If a capitalist works an employee to death, he can just post an opening, and workers will come running.
Social Security was, from the beginning, a government mandated, forced contribution by wage-earners to a common (national) pool of wealth that would be distributed to all workers. It was largely based on the fraternal organizations of the 1800's (e.g. the Odd Fellows) which in turn had roots in the crafting guilds of earlier times. The basic idea was that workers would pool a portion of their income to pay subsistence for widows and children of workers who died young. The widows were 'entitled' to their pension, by virtue of their marriage, just like a Lord was 'entitled' to land by virtue of his rank.
That is why SS is called an 'entitlement', at least so far as I understand this.
The same is true of medicine. There are not enough people who need surgery for colon cancer who can also PAY for colon cancer, to support the surgeons, much less the entire support infrastructure the surgeons require, beginning with years of study. So you either distribute the costs of surgery 'from each according to means, to each according to need,' or you implicitly fold up the entire enterprise and use surgery -- as in the 1800's -- to perform amputations and nothing more, from which patients will either live (handicapped) or die.
It really comes down to the question of what it means to be an American. Are there really ANY benefits at all to being an American? Or do we just go on, generation to generation, mouthing platitudes and dying in poverty to make the wealthy few wealthier?
Social Security is a benefit. Roads are a benefit. A common currency is a benefit. Laws against public violence are a benefit. Strong national defense is a benefit. Everyone pays to maintain this.
Libertarians (Republicans) would privatize all of this, without exception, and remove all 'entitlements' in favor of a transactional model. The result is -- demonstrably -- an increase in positive propaganda, and a gutting-out of public benefits to line pockets.
I agree - it is maddening to keep hearing the misunderstood term, Entitlement (even though we are certainly entitled to that which we have paid into our entire working lives)--it should be referred to as 'Earned Benefits,' to remove any confusion.
And, I am continually mystified at the resistance to raising the income cap for paying into social security, which would be an equitable way to achieve solvency in a seemingly short time and with no rational arguments against it.
It just appears that doing anything that would improve ordinary, everyday, people's lives is just beyond their comprehension. But cutting taxes for the richest among us? Hey no-brainer. Literally!
An "earned benefit" would stop when you have taken out all your earnings (maybe with some interest, etc.) SS is an entitlement....not a savings account, not an annuity.....there is no account with your name on it. SS is an entitlement because many, many people take out far more than they ever paid in .....that is the crux of the problem!
The way I understand it was originally to work was that the money from our earnings would be put in an investment vehicle which would provide for our retirements. But that money has been 'borrowed' to the hilt by Congress over all these years - a lot of sticky fingers have found it ripe for the picking. If it had been left alone to grow and if the cap had been removed so that all earnings would be subject to a fair percentage of SS tax, we would not even be talking about this now.
For a democracy to function effectively, you need to have healthy, educated and civically engaged citizens. I suspect it’s less costly and more satisfying in the long term and definitely worth working for.
They are entitlements because you get the benefits regardless of need, and regardless of the actual amount you paid into the system. The fundamental problem is that Medicare has allowed seniors to live much longer than Social Security was designed for!! Many recipients are now receiving more in benefits than they ever contributed to the system. Initially the SS Trust fund had huge surplusses which proved to be irresistable to politicans of both parties.....thus the "raids" on the trust fund. But the ageing Boomers are a huge looming problem that needs a real fix.....not hysterics.
I don't know where you get your figures, Becky. In 1982 I believe it was (under Ronnie Reagan no less) a commission was formed to study the problem the baby boomers presented. Using projected actuarial tables and sound modeling they actually fixed what was projected to be a Social Security shortfall. Some subset of current recipients may well be receiving more than they paid in, even adjusted for inflation. Others didn't make the cut. It was all factored in. And where did you get the idea that "Initially the SS Trust fund had huge surplusses..." ? There was a time when a significant surplus had built up in anticipation of the Baby Boomer bulge, but GWB took care of that with his war against Saddam in EYE Rak. You know, the guy with all them weapons of mass destruction.
LeMoine- two things, there were surpluses, and the gov't did use them for non-SS reasons. Currently, the gov't owes the SSA $2.7B, which they are trying to reduce by cutting benes, raising SS taxes, and raising the income limit.
Second, if people live long enough, they will receive more than they paid in. My father was probably one of them, as he lived to age 99. Is your point that people should not receive more than they paid in?
Ed, did you mean $2.8 T (trillion)? That sounds a lot more like it. No, I was responding to someone else's comment that some people collect more than they pay in. My basic point was that when lifespans are taken into account, it's understood that a person living an "average" number of years will break even, or just a little bit less to adjust for administration of the program. Social security is supposed to be a "zero sum" game as I understand it, not a Ponzi scheme in which the government rips people off, or a fool's errand in which the government goes broke. And the question of what the cost to society would be if the 60 million SS recipients were deprived of this modest income never seems to get asked. As another poster observed, the vast majority of the money going out for SS is channeled right back into the economy. I know that there isn't a hell of a lot left of my SS check after I pay for groceries and gas, plus my ever increasing property taxes to spirit off to my secret account in the Caymen Islands.
LeMoine, yes I meant $2.8Trillions; but realistically SS was not intended to be a sole means of support in retirement, which is where lots of folks get it wrong. A farmer and another type of worker complain about their check amount, I ask if they reported their incomes. Of course not they say, "that's MY money, I ain't payin' tax on it!" All righty then.
Becky, I don't know of anyone who receives SS who didn't have the work credits to qualify, unless you are including disability and survivor benefits. Yes, certain sports figures for instance may not "need" SS, but if the gov't says they qualify, who am I to argue?
And in this political climate, who gets to design the fix?
Yes, of course recipients have work credits. But you can never exhaust your benefits no matter how long you live, so may people will take out more than they paid in. (Yes, some people who die younger will pay more than they receive.) And while survivor and disability programs are good things, they also drain the system and pay benefits to people who do not have those "credits." While there are many poor seniors scraping by on SS benefits, the fact is that seniors are the wealthiest group of citizens. And younger working people who have little prospect of accumulating the wealth that boomers have are subsidizing golf-course retirements that last 30+ years......
For example, the institute’s 2022 study has these estimates for workers who turned 65 in 2020.
A single man who earned an average income and reaches average life expectancy will pay $405,000 into Social Security and Medicare and receive $573,000 in benefits.
A single woman in that situation will pay $405,000 into the programs and receive $646,000 in benefits, because women live longer.
A married couple consisting of an average earner and a low earner will pay a combined $586,000 and receive $1.1 million in benefits.
And the company they worked for will have paid in the same amount that the employee paid in as part of the company's TAX DEDUCTABLE business expense so the single man by virtue of HIS labor will had contributions from his company and himself of 2X $405,000 = $810,000 into Social Security and Medicare and receive $573,000 in benefits. Seems to me that the average guy is not receiving the full benefit of his labor.
Regarding the funding of Social Security: Nowhere in this discussion -- nor, actually, in any print discussion I've seen in well over a year -- have I seen any mention of substantially raising the salary limit on which Social Security taxes must be paid. The current limit is $160,200. If it were raised to $200,000 for next year, and raised at least 10-12 percent every year after that, Social Security could be solvent for some considerable period. Heck, why not make the limit $400,000? There is no reason for the fat cats to get off. Those whose maximum taxable earnings are well below the taxable threshold already pay higher tax rates than many of the wealthy, and it shouldn't be that way. I'd be happy to have all taxable earnings/compensation subject to Social Security taxes (and I'm reasonably well off). Then we might be able to have a reasonable national health system that wouldn't leave anyone out but the middle men and the insurance industry... Now there's an idea.
We agree: raise the cap. FICA is an insurance program. Raising the cap, to be fair, would raise the payout for higher earners. But not everyone will live to collect what they paid into the program, like other insurance programs. Some of the excess funds would help to pay full benefits for us boomers, and all who follow us into the future.
Also, Congress could vote to raise the payout to each person by contributing more money from the General Fund, in addition to contributions made by workers, according to various experts.
And another point that needs to be made over and over: the part of the total budget dedicated to Social Security and Medicare is non-discretionary. The SS and Medicare trust funds consist of Treasury Bonds. Money that flows into FICA in excess of obligations is not sequestered in a dedicated savings account. It is transferred to the General Fund and spent by Congress. In other words, Congress borrows money from SS and Medicare. When weekly flow of money from workers is less than obligations to pay out, money is transferred from the trust funds to cover the obligations. Those trust funds, again, are Treasury instruments, so the money that Congress borrowed is paid back by redeeming the Treasury bonds. When anyone complains about SS and Medicare impacting the budget, they only tell half of the story: the part about redeeming the Treasuries. They neglect to mention that Congress borrowed those funds in the first place. The "conservatives" try to make it look like SS and Medicare are not fully funded. They either don't understand how the system works, or they are being deceptive or deceitful.
David Another interesting point is how ‘surplus’ Social Security payments are invested. They have been dumped into a ‘trust fund’ on which the interest is not an actuarial calculation. Congress has been using this money. When, in a few years, the SS outflow is greater than the inflow, the government will have to repay the money it ‘borrowed.’
An insurance company functioning this way would go broke, or call itself Ponzi Inc.
I did a lot of research on this some time back, thinking exactly what you've stated above. Most of what you've said is "popular knowledge," and is completely wrong.
First, the Social Security design is revenue-neutral. It pays out what it brings in, every single year. They have a 75-year actuarial forecast, and while they cannot predict WHO will live to 106, they can predict with great accuracy HOW MANY will live to 106.
As a revenue-neutral program, your contributions to SS do not belong to you. What YOU put in is paid out to existing retirees immediately, every year. Your contributions contribute to your ENTITLEMENT to the money that other people, years from now, will be putting in. That is why it is called an entitlement.
The original design requires a 1-year Trust Fund that will allow SS to function for a year with NO INCOME. If there is a catastrophe, or a war, and no one is contributing anything at all to Social Security, Congress (and the retirees) have a year to prepare.
It's a rather elegant and very stable system, since it is based on the population statistics of the whole country.
The fundamental weakness of Social Security is big changes in the working population.
In the 1940's, they had one of those. It was called The Baby Boom. The actuaries looked at that, and said, "You know, these kids are going to start retiring in the 2020's, and they aren't making new babies at the rate their parents did. We're going to flat out run out of money in the mid 2000's. We need to do something now.
I forget the year they legislated to let the Trust Fund expand for the Boomers, but I think it was in the 1960's. Everything was set up to let the Trust Fund grow to cover the Boomers, with the intent that they would draw it down as the first Boomers retired, and be back at the mandated 1-year surplus when the last of the Boomers died out.
The problem no one anticipated was the massive inflation, which -- as I understand it -- was caused by Nixon Shock, combined with the Vietnam War. The original FDR arrangement used a gold standard for indexing the US Dollar. The US went partly off that standard to pay for the Vietnam War, and when de Gaulle in France figured they would not be paid back at all for their contributions, he threatened to take payment, right now, in gold. The US did not have that kind of gold reserve. So Nixon took the US off the gold standard entirely, turning the US dollar into what is called a "fiat currency," meaning it has value only because we say it has value. Combined with a number of other things, inflation spun out of control, a mess that Carter inherited and could not bring down. Reagan, of course, stopped it by throwing the US into 12-year recession.
The income cap for SS has been there from the beginning, because the rich have always refused to subsidize the poor. What should have happened is that the income cap should have been raised with inflation. It wasn't raised, thanks to R's, and has never been properly raised since. Under Clinton, they changed the way inflation was computed to grotesquely underestimate it. As a result, the Trust Fund hasn't grown properly since the mid-1970's, and is far short of its target to cover the Boomers.
THAT is the basis of the 2034 "trust fund cliff" where the Trust Fund will be depleted BEFORE all of the old Boomers die off, and will abruptly be cut back to 77% of its current levels of support. Which is criminally irresponsible, but then, you know.... ::shrug:: You couldn't get the basics of this through MTG's thick skull with a hammer.
Congress has not spent down the Trust Fund. That was never true. It's still out there, and it's still growing, though not as fast as it needs to. The 2034 cliff is an engineered retirement catastrophe. I will be in my late 70's, and will still be cursing the Republicans to Hell, as I have for decades now.
Joseph Nemeth, thank you for your explanation and clarification.
It appears that few people have a thorough understanding of how the system works. It is somewhat disturbing to learn that some of us, ordinary citizens, understand the system better than some Members of Congress!
For anyone who is interested to learn more, the official Social Security website offers explanations. Ask The Google "how does the Social Security trust fund work?" The first result is from ssa.gov.
Joseph Thanks for the excellent overview. My impression with the ‘Trust Fund’ is that Social Security has put funds into a government IOU—-part of the national debt which eventually will have to be paid out.
FDR faced Sergio us legal/Supreme Court concerns in launching SS. There is a story about how Justice Brandeis, through his son in law, provided a legal precedent for SS. Initially FDR insisted that workers pay into the system so that it could never be abolished. Initially, a number of workers were excluded—firms with less than 10 employees and others. I seem to remember that the first SS payment, in 1941, was for $41.
Obviously we and other countries (see China) has a demographic problem with retirees living longer and fewer younger workers paying in. In part, the $160,000 limit should be raised significantly. At 89 I am less worried than are you. In fact, after my SS is docketed for Medicare (considerable above the basic fee), I am not chartering private jets. [I did pay $75 for extra leg room flying economy, but maybe not again—I just don’t want my walker put into baggage.
Here is verbatim info from the Social Security website:
"What are the Trust Funds?
The Social Security trust funds are financial accounts in the U.S. Treasury. There are two separate Social Security trust funds, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund pays retirement and survivors benefits, and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund pays disability benefits.
Social Security taxes and other income are deposited in these accounts, and Social Security benefits are paid from them. The only purposes for which these trust funds can be used are to pay benefits and program administrative costs.
The Social Security trust funds hold money not needed in the current year to pay benefits and administrative costs and, by law, invest it in special Treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government. A market rate of interest is paid to the trust funds on the bonds they hold, and when those bonds reach maturity or are needed to pay benefits, the Treasury redeems them."
To add, from my own research, it is important to note that the Social Security Trust Funds are not publicly traded, so their value is rock-solid stable. This special arrangement between the US Treasury and the US Social Security Administration (SSA) was designed to ensure that the funding mechanism for Social Security would retain its value over time. In return for "borrowing" the funds from SSA, Treasury pays interest, which helps to defray administrative costs for the system.
I, for one, would not want to be forced by the so-called "freedumb caucus" in the House to invest my retirement savings in private sector financial markets. I, like many Americans, believe in "the full faith and credit of the United States". When the freedumb caucus talks about undermining the full faith and credit of the United States, they make it abundantly clear that they don't know what they are playing with. Imagine what would ensue if we said "OK, China, we're not going to repay the Trillion Dollars, more-or-less, that we are holding in our Federal Reserve Bank for you." That would undermine the full faith and credit of the United States. Our entire monetary system depends on that faith. Without that faith, we would instantly have no money, because a handful of people in Congress rendered it valueless.
Likewise, we need to have faith that our Social Security Administration is going to continue to function as it has for decades. If any changes need to be made to the existing system, it should be strengthened. Congress can add funding.
I have no trust in private-sector markets, from personal experience.
To do well in financial markets, you need time and consistency.
Between when I started work in 1980, and the present, we have seen:
1) Double-digit inflation in the 1970's.
2) A 12-year recession from 1980 to 1992 (It's the economy, stupid).
3) A housing market scandal that destroyed homeowner wealth in the late 1980's.
4) A major market collapse in 2001 (the tech-stock collapse).
5) A complete economic meltdown in 2008.
6) A pandemic and recession in 2020.
My first investments were wiped out in the 2001 collapse, under professional management (Putnam), which caught THEM so much by surprise that they went under.
The markets are a giant gambling enterprise. Just as they were in the 1920's.
Not exactly. The Trust Fund is "invested" in Treasury bonds. It's sensible because T-bonds are stable (unless the R's have their way), and the Trust Fund does not need the money back until a very predictable time. So they don't actually keep a big pot of cash, they have T-bonds that they redeem at the appropriate time to pay out benefits.
Of course, if these Republican cretins ever make good on their threat to not pay the bills, it means that all of the mature T-Bonds to be paid, not just to Social Security, but to foreign governments, oligarchs, capital investment groups, and the like, will go into default. The US dollar will become worthless overnight. The US economy will collapse, and if you think supply chains got messed up under COVID, you ain't seen nuttin'. It will be like Russia after the USSR collapsed.
These chowderheads are apparently too fucking stupid to understand what they are threatening. Or maybe not -- maybe they are actually that treasonous.
Totally agree that FICA needs to be paid on much higher salary levels. That is absolutely part of the "fix." And it IS indeed talked about in every serious reform proposal.....but both parties demogogue on this point and call this suggestion a "cut".....or worse. Yes, it was great fun to watch Biden play rope-a-dope with the GOP. But now the Dems are also stuck because necessary steps like this become so much harder......
Such a simple fix. I feel like I've been screaming it into the void for years! Raise the salary limit on which SS taxes must be paid! I would raise it to a million. That would keep SS solvent for a long time (provided Congress stops raiding it!), and no one would fall into poverty from that change.
Kathy My understanding is that SS funds won’t ‘run out’ but, rather, that we will be paying out more than we are getting in. Of course raising the fee limit way above $160,000 for ‘income’ would make a significant difference.
There’s nothing new about Republican ‘voodoo economics.’ It was writ large during Reagan’s first term:
1) sharply cut taxes for the rich;
2) big boost in defense spending; and then
3) ‘starve the beast of social expenditures.’
David Stockman, Reagan’s first Budget Director, initially was outspoken on this trilogy. [He had spent two post-grad years studying theology at Harvard.] Subsequently (while still budget director) he gave an interview in which he acknowledged that he (and Reagan) hadn’t a clue as to what they were doing.
From Stockman to New Gingrich to Paul Ryan…to Kevin McCarthy’s Yahoo economics gang are variations on the theme of voodoo economics.
Liar liar, pants on fire refer to Gangrene Greene, Muddle-Minded-McCarthy, Bullshit Boebert, and the rest of the Republican Trickle Down Gang.
The Democrats initiated the New Deal, the Great Society, the Fair Deal, and, most recently, President Biden’s ‘here’s the deal.’ By contrast we have the REPUBLICAN RAW DEAL: lower taxes for the rich and sharply cut ‘social programs,’ without specifically naming them.
I taught economics for two decades. My summary of Democratic and Republican ‘policies:’
DEMOCRATS FOR THE PEOPLE, REPUBLICANS SCREW THE PEOPLE.
One more time. From Will Rogers Nov 26, 1932. “The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.” Why didn’t we listen, not too late…
Mike I remember in the 1980 Republican presidential primaries in which George H. W, Bush was castigated for accusing candidate Reagan of ‘voodoo economics.’
The Republican economics song should be VOODOO YOU DO, which actually was recorded some years ago. [check it out]
Marlene I think that your degree in psychology provides you a leg up in assessing political nihilists. Still, I think you could do even better with a PhD in phrenology.
HCR contributes to the problem if she describes Social Security financing as "unstable." She needs to understand it better. All pension systems undergo demographic upheaval and interest rate upheaval and need adjustment if they are to continue serving the public. That doesn't make them unstable. But Social Security isn't a pension system. It's social insurance from a mutual insurer that's owned by its policyholders... the citizens of the United States. As we know, insurance premiums can go up. If you need the coverage--i.e., a guaranteed income after a lifetime of work--you pay the premiums. And here is the main point: no private or public/private entity can shoulder the burden of the market risk and longevity risk associated with financing a nation's retirement at a low and efficient price... only a sovereign government has the depth, length and authority to do that. I have studied retirement systems in five countries. Privatization, or a market-based solution, creates a new set of problems without solving the challenge of financing a large elderly population. It is not the magic solution that the International Monetary Fund recommended during the 1990s, when deregulation was all the rage. All of the arguments against Social Security--like 'generational warfare' nonsense or 'I could get a better return in the stock market'--are based on untruth and sleight-of-hand. SS is not a bad deal vis-a-vis the stock market. It's a great deal from a risk POV. It is not an expense bleeding the country dry. It adds a trillion dollars a year to consumption, and that trillion trickles up, not down. If we would rather go back to mass elderly poverty, let's say so.
To be fair, I think she is referring to political instability that is not allowing a reality based solution to both an aging population and one that, at least until recently, has been living longer than past generations. I totally agree that a private sector solution is no solution at all given the objective of private capitalism is profit so there is a fundamental conflict of interest from day one to the detriment of the recipients.
“The statement that Biden won the 2020 presidential election also comes from the reality-based community.” Thank you, Professor. The repub spin continues attempts to block possibilities for funding critical programs like Social Security and Medicare. Our taxes can protect the needs of citizens by taxing the wealthy and corporate America. And recognizing that medical care and safety nets are rights not bargaining chips that are on the chopping block every year. Social Insecurity is the repub budget strategy that needs to be off the table.
As Biden said in his State of the Union address, we who receive Social Security are receiving what we earned in our work years: every single dollar. My monthly Social Security payment from the US government is all I have to live on - less than $2,000 a month. No family. No offshore funds or whatever. These politicians are practically to a person, wealthy, if not really rich.
Not only all that you mentioned, but Anna Paulina Mayerhofer identified herself as "Jewish" while she was in the Air Force, where she was known as an Obama supporter and self-declared "liberal;" as late as 2018, weeks before Charlie Kirk hired her as a Tik Tok "Influencer" for his group Turning Point, she told friends she didn't know what "conservative" was. According to long-time acquaintances going back to her Air Force days, she has a history of "saying and doing whatever it takes" to please whoever it is she is involved with. Plus she has "airheaded bimbo" tattooed on her forehead in flashing neon.
Yes. Another Florida duplicitous creation. She is a slavering servant to the patriarchal bargain with the physical qualities that all the “daddies” love.
What a travesty. And to think she took Charlie Crist’s seat who lost bid as Governor. Double stink by the FL MAGAts.
Her campaign in the fall of ‘22 was enough of an eye roller to be laughable. Except it wasn’t. Warning fell on “hear no evil” ears.
(It also promised to “sell off all non-essential government assets, buildings, and land, and use the proceeds to pay down our national debt,” without defining “non-essential.”)
Beyond getting screwed by anti-competitive near-monopoly pricing for an increasing array of goods and services, Republicans are adamant about taking up a non-voluntary collection from the general public to fulfill the dreams of billionaires, is this case cashing public property to deliver to their patrons in the form of tax cuts and subsidies.
"Biden wants to raise taxes; Republicans want to cut benefits,"
Whoops, there it is again. Throw paid into assistance to seniors off the train to save seats for the ultra-wealthy. I see a pattern forming here. Oh, and child labor law violations are spiking, so in response, Iowa Republicans want to scale back child labor laws, and hold employers harmless if the kids are injured or killed on the job. Equal opportunity sociopaths. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/11/us-child-labor-laws-violations
France got the short end of the stick though. We only have a "normal-sized" version on a bridge over the Seine.....and in many ways is forgetting the meaning of the gesture under the current regime and its recent predecessor.
Pour ce que ça vaut de nos jours. There are many aspects of the french revolution that still don't bear scrutiny from any point of view and indeed which those "bien pensants" wish to stop all discussion as it goes very hard against the grain of the myth that they have propagated.
Circa 1982, I watched the story of the revolution from a balcony on an apartment above the Champ de Mars projected on a palace wall across the Seine. Spectacular music with coordinated firework ending with a shower of gold & silver fireworks streaming in all directions from the Eiffel Tower. Fantastique.
I don't suppose there was room for them to tell you about the revolutionary government's decrees ordering the extermination of the people of the province of Vendée for daring to resist the imposition of a state religion and the beheading of the King. More than 200000 people were massacred in pitched battles with canon against peasants with hay forks and France's version of Sherman's march to the sea.
This is so troubling to me and I can’t see a way to combat it. Republican voters seem to believe their representatives or they simply feel the lies don’t matter. I am shocked that this is happening in my country.
I’m guessing lies don’t matter. The provocateurs on right wing media are assisting elected politicians in damage control. I guess most people prefer a sensational sound bite, then bothering to research.
These people are mesmerized sheep. They are thrilled about how their reps are protecting their “rights to bear arms”, whether it be an AR or an AK. Oh, and now they have the liberty to spout anything their lil’ hearts desire. Permission, that’s what Fake 45 gave his followers. Hitler did the same thing until he took a cyanide pill. We should be so lucky.
“All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.”
Americans need to be reminded that Congress, particularly Republicans, have not and cannot pass bills today with any reliability. Republicans have not passed many effective bills other than tax cuts in 23 years. Haven't passed a major infrastructure bill since the Eisenhower interstate highway system. Haven't passed a useful healthcare bill since the Hill Burton Act that built modern hospitals all over the US, including most of the rural hospitals that are now closing for lack of funding.
Republicans, particularly with sunsets on every bill passed will have us looking like Turkey after the earthquakes in no time. Just photograph those earthquakes and headline them "US Under Republican Control by 2030". Collage those photographs across a map of the US and headline it "US, nothing standing by 2050 under Republicans".
I find the talk about "reality-based community" confusing. When applied to Republicans, it really means "reality-creating partisan cohort," a reality not discerned, but constructed by action. The rest of us, I hope, live in a "reality-based democratic polity" in which fact and logic, evidence and argument, prevail, with respect, civility, and decency to boot.
“Voters need fact-based information to elect people who will enact the policies a majority of us want.
We need politicians to participate in the reality-based community.”
Truer words have yet to be uttered!!!
Suskind responded by talking about the principles of the Enlightenment—the principles on which the Founders based the Declaration of Independence—that put careful observation of reality at the center of human progress.
And where would be be if they hadn't? Reality always wins, period, but we can often surf reality when we know and respect her ways.
The problem is in the time scale. Reality wins in all probability but often only eventually after a sustained fight and at significant cost. Reality is the enemy to any budding dictator and the ability to discover and understand reality their first target: goodbye education, journalism and free speech.
Reality can play out many different ways, and often at the cost of of many innocent bystanders, sometimes millions. Some of that's "natural disaster" but I think most of it is set up or facilitated by humans. We are certainly fouling our own nest, and trashing societies for the sake scaled up road rage and vainglory. We are also doing some very cool and even beautiful things. We seem to be running out of time cut the craziness. So I hope that maybe we will?
And yes, where would tyranny be without people who are eager to believe a lie?
As far as natural disaster, Dr H pointed out in her 2-10-23 Letter that Erdogan's allowing shoddy construction of buildings contributed to the impact of the quake. Also Assad has prevented relief to contested areas of the country.
We can see this happening in Florida. The governor is beholden to developers and energy companies. They have almost no regulations. They hardly prepare for the next hurricane and thousands of those whose homes were destroyed in Ian are still homeless.
And now Erdogan is going after (or says he is) those contractors who built the shoddy buildings. Either Dr. H or somewhere else pointed out that many of the buildings that collapsed were relatively new, built after the 1999 earthquake and purportedly incorporating earthquake-safe construction.
THIS is what we are seeing with our own eyes. The question is, why? Does fox news brainwashing explain it all? Or are people really that hateful?
I'm not sure it's hateful as much as psychologically less sophisticated. Many people turn their fear to hatred and attribute those things they're afraid of to others. When leaders encourage them to see people as the "other" it offers an explanation for their distress and fear. And, humans, being primates, are really wired to be both hierarchical and suspicious of unfamiliar members of their species. It takes a certain amount of development to overcome this impulse to see those who are different as threats. A lot of people never develop this capacity for self-reflection, not to mention the capacity for analysis and critical thinking.
Like stuart said, goodbye education, journalism and free speech, hello dictatorship.
As for people being wired to be hierarchical, I am not sure. But some people certainly believe in hierarchies much more than others. Authoritarian personality types, for example.
I read a study of a remote tribe of hunter-gatherers which described group meetings where everyone contributed to decisions, even teenagers. Everyone’s work was hunting and gathering, more or less equally important, and it was often done in groups rather than as individuals. There was no desire for a “strongman” to decide for them in that society.
Yes, sadly.
Lots of people are really that hateful. That was my first thought the day after Election Day 2016. We really are a racist nation to have elected that hateful fool.
Which is why we really NEED to be WOKE! And why so many Republicans trash the idea.
Maybe some people are just born hateful? I don't know, but I do know a lot of people who are hateful grew up experiencing pain and hate. And the hate "virus" seems to me to move around, infecting some societies more severely at some times and ebbing to a cooler state at others, also affecting different segments of society differently, and often continually persecuting an underclass in the background. It's the monster we somehow as a species can't seem to let go of.
There has to be an “OTHER” to make some people feel better about themselves. Hate is the answer.
Hate is taught. Young children hate no one until they are taught to do so by adults.
Indeed! As we struggle to evolve beyond the base behavior of our Preditor- Prey animal Roots, we seem to be approching an important Epoc where we either evolve or . . .devolve. Preditors which prey on their own species will ultimately be the extinction of their entire species. A dog chasing it's own tail. A vision one does not want to consider. We are our own and the planets stewerds. We own the consequences of our behaviors.
I have so many questions. The culture of blaming others for being stuck in feeling miserable. Who teaches children to take responsibility for their own misery versus blaming it on others? There is currently an entire large demographic doing the latter. Is there a genetic component to culture? How do we apply what we have learned of epigenetics to culture wars? Why are Ukrainians so amazingly capable (Resilient)? How do we as a nation build our own resiliency?
On resiliency: https://www.apa.org/topics/resilience
On culture wars:
“Well, I’ll end with this, then: Is there something unique about America that makes it especially prone to culture war, or is this kind of par for the course?
Part of what has made it especially acute in the United States is the proliferation of nonprofit special-interest groups. You don’t find that in Europe; you don’t find it in England or Germany. Those are more statist regimes, and have much greater control over the nonprofit space. [Whereas, in the U.S.] you have the proliferation of special-interest groups that take sides. And a lot of our charitable money—which is a massive amount compared to other countries—gets channeled through these charitable organizations that exist with a take-no-prisoners policy; that define the enemy, that define a devil, that define transgressions in certain ways.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/20/culture-war-politics-2021-democracy-analysis-489900
Citizen’s United & vulnerable minds= fertile ground for autocracy.
“Sustained fight and at considerable cost.” How many time….and at what cost. Nature may win by default…
Yes, by ridding itself of its human "parasites" perhaps but untill then.........
'Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities.'
'Journalism can be distinguished from other activities and products by certain identifiable characteristics and practices. These elements not only separate journalism from other forms of communication, they are what make it indispensable to democratic societies. History reveals that the more democratic a society, the more news and information it tends to have.'
“The purpose of journalism,” write Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in The Elements of Journalism, “is not defined by technology, nor by journalists or the techniques they employ.” Rather, “the principles and purpose of journalism are defined by something more basic: the function news plays in the lives of people.”
'News is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside. Though it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed.'
'The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments.' (AmericanPressInstitute) See link below.
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/
Then, Fern, we are obliged in many countries to write the obituary of Journalism as those that now call themselves journalists are often driven by ideology and bend the news to what they consider more important....their personal opinion or a prevailing "newspeak" mantra. It used to be very clear in a newspaper that the editorials were clearly identified and could be found on a specific page.....the facts were to found on the other pages. The role of many of those who purport to be following such a trade are frequently either pen-pushing ideological hacks or animators of tv entertainment and chat shows. Not quite the same thing.
In France the issue of professional status cards are the prerogative of the central government and are provided....or withdrawn... by a government authority and following government determined criteria, favouritism or whims. The same government provides €700 million in subsidies to the print media and a very heathy tax-free leg-up to those who they employ.....media the countervailing power, no longer I fear!
Twice in the last week the Minister of Culture in Macron's squadra has threatened to remove the licence of 2 TV channels (one being 24hrs news) for daring to allow the expression of opinions that are different from that "required" by the authorities and deeming this biased rather than balanced as it would look to any reasonable viewer (they have, left, right and centrist commentators and guests). The Minister made the statement on a station that belongs to the State (paid by my taxes) and profers only extreme "progressive" (ultra left-wing) views and openly disdains anyone to the "right" of them and regarding those that allow such "enemies of the people" to express themselves as traitors. No wonder newspapers are going bust and nobody buys them.
The US is not alone in having problems with its journalists and media. To each their Fox!
I would not lump 'democratic' countries together with same degree of loss concerning 'freedom of the press'. You have not done that, Stuart, but, perhaps, to some readers you came close to doing so. Standards of journalism have ebbed and flowed over time, and I would not romanticize the past on that score. The failure of the newspaper business is primarily based on the costs of running such an enterprise. The loss of local journalism in America has had enormous consequences as have the disappearance of communities, unions and associations. The fabric of social relations among the people has been torn apart; we are much more isolated. The loss of widespread access to the news founded on journalism and the dominance of 'social media' indicates the seriousness of the challenges to Democracy. An excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville's description of the country in his book, 'Democracy in America' (1835) provides a broad sense of change in the USA.
'It is clear that if each citizen, as he becomes individually weaker and consequently more incapable in isolation of preserving his freedom, does not learn the art of uniting with those like him to defend it, tyranny will necessarily grow with equality.'
'Here it is a question only of the associations that are formed in civil life and which have an object that is in no way political.'
'The political associations that exist in the United States form only a detail in the midst of the immense picture that the sum of associations presents there.'
'Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.'
'In America I encountered sorts of associations of which, I confess, I had no idea, and I often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance to it freely.'
'I have since traveled through England, from which the Americans took some of their laws and many of their usages, and it appeared to me that there they were very far from making as constant and as skilled a use of association.'
'It often happens that the English execute very great things in isolation, whereas there is scarcely an undertaking so small that Americans do not unite for it. It is evident that the former consider association as a powerful means of action; but the latter seem to see in it the sole means they have of acting.'
Fern, I do enjoy you participation here on heather's substack. Do you offer tutering by any chance? Even for an old gal with alseimers??
Yes, thank you, Fern!! I have that book and have not yet read the entire thing. It's full of wisdom and insight into us, as Americans, from the perspective of an interested and keenly observant European. He nailed it in 1835! And totally relevant now as then as far as i can tell. You do add much value and color to this group. Deep appreciation for all of your posts. They're often long and well worth the read because they're so thoughtful and supportive of what we're all sorting out. <3
No longer 'pen pushing' Stuart more like cursor moving, cut & pasters ... er I mean ... cut & posters or driven by algorithms that "like" input to digitally design bots after market share testing results. Not pen pushers more like Le Pen. Stuart can you give us some petit actual French words wnere appropriate especially on one-word charcterizations of complex French. political activity. Merci!
Bryan, i will try to oblige and agree with your description. Le Pen is not the problem as such but is benefiting from the causes. She indeed is saying in public what a large part of the people according to all surveys are saying in private. Unfortunately the difficulty comes from the centre who don't want to rock the boat and the left who still think that they can "deconstruct" man (visions of Sartre) and thereby impose on the French a "utopian" vision of interrelations and a different concept of society, nation and identity. It will explode shortly here in France.
un bon idee!!
Wow
Good to see you again, Stuart...Afternoon!
And a very good morning to you, Lynell. I'm still here but more than preoccupied with our particular european problems. I'm also getting into my new role as a Mediator after completing my professionalizing diploma at France's top law school. New departure at 73§ why not?
Great to see you again Stuart! Kudos to you finding a new role. It's never too late. I try to keep abreast of 'affaires européennes' over here, but it isn't easy to sift through all our domestic news to get to international items. I use various European media outlets like the BBC, Deutsche Welle, several Dutch entities, etc., but it's always nice hearing from folks "on the ground", as it were, over there. I hadn't realised until I saw your post that we hadn't heard from you in a while. Do chime in every now and then and don't be a stranger! Cheers/Salut...
I try to keep abreast of what's going on in your "neck of the woods," but don't feel qualified to comment. Congratulations on your new Mediator role. Very impressive!
Congratulations, saying this even though I don't what a professionalizing diploma in mediation involves in France. Is this a certification beyond a law degree? A specialization the determines that you can mediate between nations or private parties? Or, serve as an Adjudicator? Curious as I've learned quite a bit from your posting.
it allows all that as well as in the place of judges. Up to me to create the reputation that will give confidence in clients to ask me to intervene.
Yes! Congratulations, Stuart!! Way cool and very impressive. Not to mention, much needed. Thanks for stepping up to bring your wisdom and humanity to the mediation table.
Congrats, Stuart!
Only after all other opinions have been beaten into pulp through coarse discourse may reality win. Ignorance must first run it's course. Said this grumpy old man on a bright and sunny day.
Love it, Fred!! It does get old sometimes, right? The gift/curse of a long life. Cheers to you!
It has been a beautiful day. Warm enough to go for a walk.
And cheers to that!!!
'We need politicians to participate in the reality-based community.' Indeed!
Amen to that Rowshan. We could do with a great deal more of that over here too.
Just saw poll on MSNBC that 58% of Democrats want someone other than Biden. NATO! Social Security! Medicare! Ignorance beyond comprehension. HL Mencken is still right about the intelligence of the American voter.
I think some of that 58% are genuinely concerned about his age. Right now, he seems fine, and is clearly mentally sharp. He proved that in SOTU! 🥰 But if his health declines, we will need to be prepared.
I am 75, reasonably lucid and in good heath so far as I know, but I know as I age that the odds are turning against me and friends younger than I who death I never expected are gone from disease. Age treats some far more kindly than others, but it is a issue, and one to make backup plans for.
Choose wisely the VP. Plan for the least desireable and for the continuity of policies through someone actually being tutored in the role and gets the leadershp competicies of the President. I'm not suggesting a monarchy, but there is something to say for being strategic about getting the job done, especially when the job will span the next three presidential terms. My take is that Ms Harris may not be being prepared to take over beyond an interim period if Mr Biden were to fall ill between now and 2024.
Other than creepy and corrupt Spiro Agnew and Dick Chaney, I cannot recall a VP playing much of a visible role until the president was assassinated or resigned, at least in my lifetime. I am sure that more goes on behind the scenes, but while the boss is always the boss, I am surprised that VPs, who may become president at any time, are not called upon to play more of a role in the team, if only for the sake of democratic transparency. Presidents are a little too close to a temporary monarch for my taste, and while there are in some cases very practical reasons for that, in some there are not, such as the autocratic, unaccountable, and all but unlimited power of pardon (I think the Nixon "pardon" was far more erosive of rule of law than is acknowledged, and set a terrible precedent). The former last president seemed to imagine himself a king, if not a god; "Let the documents I stole be declassified, without even recording it".
Anyway, the practice of tacking on an unsuitable VP just to please an uncooperative constituency (even McCain was embarrassed by the choice of Palin) is just plain negligent. VP's need to be every bit as suitable as the president, and Ms Harris may be so, but if so, she deserves are more visible and functional role than breaking ties and waiting in the wings.
I tend to agree with the concern, as the strategic option I suggest could certainly be subverted. One could never think a Trump would have someone in the wings to replace him. The possibility is of course ludicrous. You last sentence stresses my point. Most VPs have been chosen to balance the ticket, attract a particular demographic, or to offer someone sweet for the opposition to make nice with. I'll Leave others to fill in the names of VPs that fit. If we are unwilling to wrestle in the muck of hate and acrimony, we need to be strategic. The team going forward in 2024 has to be competent and worth the salaries both are being paid, beyond the ceremonial functions, I think you would agree. Time for politicians to aspire to the possibility of leadership and progressive goals, even if the sumultimate title is in the office next door. These are the people we should be supporting and getting on the ticket.
And so the Republicans are now scaring people that because of Biden’s age we might end up with Kamala Harris-this idea they’re pushing will definitely have traction-race baiting always wins-the fact that she’s a poc AND a woman will turn off many voters
Repubs will try to scare people no matter what. It's what they do. We could back Joe and still keep an eye out for another possibility. Could be Kamala. Could be someone else.
Was it this one? "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." There's so many quotes to pick from!
Was that HL Mencken? I remember more the spirit than the actual quote. It’s more pointed than I had realized (maybe in undergraduate school when I read it, or in TRB in the ‘60’s). Thanks so much.
Woe is me. Perhaps WE here on this substck can make a difference with our exposure of Truths and the Objective Verifiable evidence in support of such. we must keep on keeping on spreading the reality view.
Exposure to truths as best we can uncover and frame them, and also promotion of that world view. Social movements that have made a historical difference hake managed to keep truth that many people would rather ignore in the public's eye, just as MAGA tells the same big lies incessantly.
I also think we have really dropped the ball around the virtue of telling the truth, especially those told by "whistle blowers" such as Alexander Vindman, who tell the truth at their peril, and way too often suffer for it with little redress. In the end, society sufferers for this even more profoundly. There is a long, long tradition of the powerful and popular getting away with "murder" of equal justice under law, and escaping the full wrath of the court of public opinion, because we apply our own standards of judgement selectively. Provable, serious liars have no place being entrusted with grave public responsibilities.
I'm beginning to think that many polls are just nonsense. I want to know who did the polling and how. How the questions are framed and were they placed in context and what is the sample size. So many variables can be manipulated to offer up the answer that the polling purchaser wants...
But to elect politicians who participate in the reality-based community, we first need voters who do, too. Insuring that we maintain a high enough percentage of such voters ought to be Job 1 of the press, other media, and educators.
We also need the media to support fact based information! No more both sides are equal especially when one side is lying. Hold their feet to the fire. Email editorial boards, writers are on Twitter, let them now your feelings. Cancel subs and apps and let them know why. We might also have gotten the house in 2022 if it were not for all the negative poll reporting on the dems and the huge red wave co.ing to crush us. I haven't heard a peep out of them on how they could have gotten this so wrong!!!
I also really love this. It needs to happen. We need to make it happen.
Not certain I follow you. Each Congressional district consists of approximately 710,000 residents. The true inequality comes because each state gets two senators. Thus Wyoming's 580K residents have the same number of senators as California's 39M residents. Doesn't seem very democratic.
And DC, with its 700,000+ residents has the kickass Eleanor Holmes Norton sitting at the table, but she can't vote. DC residents literally have no representatives. No Senators. No ability to operate or call out a national guard even though many of our residents serve. We truly have no representation, but we pay taxes.
We all pay taxes and we need to be represented fairly and intelligently. I bet you pay a lot more taxes than many states with more representation.
Sad... we have not progressed. *Note - Progressed is not in any way intended here to be mistaken as even near in anyway synonymous with the bastardized term Progressive wing politicians taken whole as a group.
Further, add a Supreme Court now bought and paid for, and acting on behalf of Koch money, and we are where we are with Citizens United, Voting Rights gutted, Roe overturned. Stay tuned. This group is just getting warmed up. We need to expand the court asap. Impeach Thomas, Cavanaugh and Barrett.
Expanding SCOTUS is absolutely necessary, but are there enough informed citizens (think how many never had a civics course) to help effect it?
Good question.
We can't get them kicked off the Supreme Court bench unless there is a super majority (and then some) of Dems in the Senate. It would be far easier to expand the court to match the number of Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.
https://alfranken.com/listen/senator-sheldon-whitehouse-on-the-rights-50-year-scheme-to-capture-scotus
I have no doubt that's a truth.
Expand the District Courts which are busy, and the number of seats on the SCOTUS increases. Biden is ignoring that recommendation
You are sadly, tragically spot on in those observations. Absent mass, continuous protests as a last ditch resort, more of us are sunk than even recognize or remotely aware of, as a reality - er, lets call that worst scenario nightmare.
Absolutely agree with everything except expanding SCOTUS.
Why not? Would you consider term limits for SCOTUS justices? If not, how do you suggest we get out of the mess we're in, where the revisionist version of the 2nd Amendment rules and the power of Big Money in politics is unchecked?
HI Susanna,
Seems to me a while back it was actually Heather who had responded to someone's question about expanding/packing the Court. Since she doesn't normally respond in writing to us here, it must've been one of her YT video chats?
Anyway, she said that packing SCOTUS, while it sounds tempting, would likely have an undesirable (maybe destabilizing?) effect. Don't remember the details (obviously). Whatever it was she said made sense to me. I hadn't thought of it that way before. When she didn't recommend it for the reasons she mentioned, I took that in and it changed my thoughts on it.
To me, the points you mention about the MESS we're in... is a lot bigger than just SCOTUS. And at least for now, SCOTUS (except for those three fabulous women sitting on the bench) is irrelevant. Proven itself to be so, at least to me.
We need a legislative branch that functions. Right now, SCOTUS seems to be where things go to be 'legislated' by the judicial branch because that (serious malfunction!) lets Congress off the hook. Citizens United, among other things, needs to be reversed. Yadda, yadda...
MisTBlu, That is the exact problem. We are not represented fairly by our Senate system. I won’t deep dive, but this issue has bugged me all my 73 years...or so. Thanks for bringing it up. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT Democratic. I am sure Heather could clearly explain why we have this stupid, unfair system.
Then you can add the Electoral Collage which gives the rural much less populated states as much power as those with the majority of the population in the country.
The founding fathers from the high population states Caved to their rural state colleagues demands. Both the composition of the Senate and the electoral college forever make a lie out of the concept of one person one vote! Add to the mess gerrymandering and the result is a collection of mongrels who aren’t fit to clean up the ‘road chips’ made by horses in a parade!
In this case, 'rural' = slave states
You got that right and they do not represent anything that I believe in. It’s beyond frustrating.
Not the first time, nor the last time legislators 'and' the founders caved to a very well funded minority.
I would suggest Jill Lapore's These Truths, a fairly recent and excellent history of the US. She explains very well the elephant in the room, slavery, and the mind set of the people who wrote the Constitution. They needed to have it ratified. Otherwise, they believed the county would not survive. Personally, I would like to get rid of the electoral college and choose the president by direct vote.
These Truth's is an excellent history of 400 years of American history. It's a thick tome, but impeccably footnoted and researched. (The last one quarter of the book are footnotes.) My most memorable lines in the book have to do with the advent of campaign managers, well after the electoral collage and arguably more important than the electoral collage since it is possible to work around whatever voting structure is in place. In the history book These Truths, by Jill Lepore, are the following paragraphs about the first, highly successful political campaign managers, Campaigns, Inc., aka The Lie Factory, founded in 1933. They never lost a campaign. Republicans have mastered their campaign strategy rules:
'Every campaign needs a theme. Keep it simple. Rhyming is good. Never explain anything. "The more you have to explain, the more difficult it is to win support." Say the same thing over and over again. "We assume we have to get a voter's attention 7 times to make a sale". Subtlety is your enemy. "Words that lean on your mind are no good. They must dent it." Simplify, simplify, simplify. "A wall goes up when you try to make Mr. And Mrs. Average American Citizen work or think." Make it personal. Candidates are easier to sell than issues. If your position doesn't have an opponent, invent one. Pretend that you are the voice of the people. You can't wage a defensive campaign and win. Never shy from controversy; instead win the controversy. "The average American doesn't want to be educated, he doesn't want to improve his mind; he doesn't want to work, consciously, at being a good citizen. But there are 2 ways you can interest him in a campaign, and only 2 that we have ever found successful." You can put on a fight ("He likes a good battle with no punches pulled"), or you can put on a show ("He likes the movies, he likes mysteries; he likes fireworks and parades).'
'So, if you can't fight, PUT ON A SHOW! If you put on a good show, Mr. And Mrs. America will turn out to see it.'
Democrats talk more about actual issues of governance by cooperation and compromise, and that simply doesn't make for a thrilling fight or show.
Like Heather points out into days letter: when one party, campaign, or portion of the electorate just refuses to participate in reality-based behavior, any system in place will crumble.
Good grief, this "philosophy" infantilizes the 'average American' citizen to an extraordinary degree. Definitely pitching to the lowest common denominator...no wonder the R's "love" the uneducated; this makes their campaign strategies easy.
👆👆👆 all of this!👆👆👆
Thanks. This sounds like a great book. I read somewhere that at the time of our revolution, the Colonists were better read than their British compatriots. Best to fact check this one.
Amen to that, Michele!
My opinion, we're not fairly represented in the house of representatives by numbers. It's too far outdated - from the '20's as I recall, wherein the number was capped under suspicious circumstances.
It's not only the Senate. The House used to be truly proportionate to population. In the 1920s, with white supremacists afraid of immigrant population growth in the cities, Congress capped the size of the House. That tilts the House toward rural areas. It's less egregious than the Senate, but it's also more easily fixed - change the law.
A Senate improvement that requires only a law, would be admission of Washington DC as a state.
Oh, I really love that thought Joan. I don't even think the gop influencers could overcome the certain majority in today's D.C. Kudo's sistuh !
And that is why the majority do not get what they want here in the world's oldest democracy.
The "empire creates it's own reality" attitude led to the invasion of Iraq. They thought they could reconfigure Iraq to be any form of government which they desired. They achieved misery and death more than anything except for perhaps grift.
The same applies to Iran.
Absolutely. As a native Californian I have played with a system of Senate representation that would aggregate adjacent and similarly underpopulated states into Senate regions: MT, WY, ND, and SD, with 3.3 million, would be entitled to 2 Senators, while CA, with 39.5 million, would be represented by 12 Senators. US territories, including Puerto Rico (!) could be easily brought into such a system.
I love your outlook Dave.
Interesting conceptually Dave. Though, it does run counter to some of the original language of the Constitution, meaning it would take forever to amend - if even possible at all given the underlying financial strength of the 'movement conservative' - as it's also mislabeled.
Quite right, Dan. When thinking about possibilities for a better world, I guess I like to go to the ideal extreme and work back. Thanks.
Senators are not elected by population as everyone knows. The Senate has never been intended to be democratic and that isn't going to change. If I remember correctly in the beginning, senators were not elected, but chosen. I do wish people would put their energy into things we can change.
You do remember; initially the governors of the state appointed the Senators. It was changed by the 17th amendment.
With all due respect Ally, I have to disagree. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution states that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years." I'm not sure that wasn't better than the current popularity contest, although the partisan control argument still applies.
You are correct, Dave. I should have also looked at Article 1, Section 3 before posting.
I thought it was the legislature, but couldn't remember.
Correct.
Thanks Ally. I couldn't remember who did the choosing.
what do you think is on the list of: "things we can change".
We are not going to change, at this point, the set up for Congress. I would like to get rid of the Electoral College, but I am not sure how we do it since it's in the Constitution. What we can work on is voter registration, getting the vote out, trying to do something about gerrymandering, doing something about Citizen's United. The best we can do is to pay attention to every election even for school boards, city councils, county commissions, state legislatures and officials, and try to swing things to Ds.
Even that ratio is too many for Representatives to make effective contact. We should have one for every 250,000 or so.
And if you count state legislatures, the ratio of elected government officials to citizens goes way down -- and IMO that's the way it should be. In my state (MA), a state rep represents an average of 41K people and a state senator an average of 163.6K. The smaller the district, the better the chance a legislator has to really know their district and to respond to constituent concerns. (They aren't all that conscientous, needless to say, but many are, including mine.)
You're extremely fortunate to have a good one.
That is your fortunate position in MA currently. It ignores the plight of those in states that were and still are, horrendously gerrymandered. I have zero representation in Ohio - zero. I envy your fortune Susanna.
The good thing about this good fortune is that it frees us up to focus on other problems, like the fact that our state legislature is at the bottom of the pack when it comes to transparency, accountability, etc. I'm remembering the old meme (from before there were memes <g> ): "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp."
The Districts are artificially reduced, and don’t follow the original formula in the Constitution. The formula was changed to insure the number of House Representatives will physically fit into the Chamber inside the Capitol Building.
That’s why there are State gains and losses of District seats after each decade’s census.
It's more accurate to suggest that the number of Representatives hasn't changed because those that are in office don't want to risk diluting their power.
Great thought, and likely accurate suspicion. I'd buy that and use it against any and all reps opposed - of any party.
Plausible, but have you got any sources indicating that this is actually the case?
https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/55/why-435/
it's still a useful 'tool', supporting sources or not Susanna.
While it is true that a stable number of representatives simplifies managing office space, that was not the reason for the cap, and it is hardly justification for reducing populous states' fair proportionate representation as clearly intended by the Constitution.
It was the pretext
There you have it Citizen ! Nice tool to use against the so called 'originalists' - their own false insistences. Now that's a useful constructive idea. Kudo's Citizen !
I think the point is one person cannot possibly represent 710,00 people in the House.
Depends on what a representative is expected to do -- and don't forget that they do have staff. My rep (Keating, MA-09) has an office in D.C. and three offices in the district. At least congressional districts are (relatively) consistent across the country. As others have pointed out, the discrepancy in senatorial representation is glaring.
The Senate wasn't intended to be broadly representative but was rather meant to be a brake on the potentially populist actions of the House. Before we set about changing it radically, we should consider who might be lost that is currently serving.
Correct, and we're seeing the results of that almost daily.
Could you elaborate on that? I'm not sure what you mean.
The primary focus of the House in terms of both legislation and committee activity has little or nothing to do with the concerns or desires of the majority of the people. That the reasons are based on an internally enforced partisan division is at the root of the inability of the House to even pass a budget which is their primary Constitutional responsibility.
"Family around the kitchen table' analogies are inappropriate to government. They are fallacious political rhetoric which obscure rather than enlighten reality - by making false equivalencies.
Our Constitutional democratic republic operates through an agreed framework of law. Which is legislated, adjudicated, and administered according to protocols and institutions. It renews itself through formal procedures of amendment and transfer of power.
Ahh . . . families. They work differently. And when they don't, the damage is limited to a relatively small group.
When government breaks down - particularly as through the Republican party's intentional gradual hollowing out of institutions and through violent insurrection - the roof caves in with wide spread to world wide damage. From the GOP Dobbs Decision to the GOP Debt Ceiling debacles.
Exactly. That comparison bugs me as well as the “Government should act like a business.” statement. No. No it shouldn’t, for a variety of reasons. But primarily businesses are intended to make a profit and are designed as such. If they don’t make a profit, they go out of business. Government should not be focused on making profits. It is certainly legitimate to expect Government to be good stewards of tax payers’ money. Corruption and wasteful spending must not be allowed. However government can and often does medical research in areas that are not expected to make a profit. If there is a rare disease that only affects 500 people world wide virtually no business would put money into finding a cure for it because even if they find a cure, they couldn’t get a return on their investment or make a profit by selling the cure to those 500 people. But the government can do that sort of research if they aren’t forced into a profit-making business model.
Carey I'm with you on that ridiculous notion that government should be run like a business. Furthermore the very people that spout that nonsense have no idea how a well-run business is run. In their ignorance they implement across-the-board cuts to government agencies and programs' budgets (sequestration. ) No competent business person would do that. They refuse to invest in upgraded computers and software, one huge problem at Social Security and Medicare. I've always had good interactions with employees at SS and MC and come away amazed that they work so hard to do a good job despite antiquated systems.
An add on to running government as a business, many business decisions are made behind closed doors. When government ran that way, laws were advanced to have open meetings and lots of transparency.
Here in Bar Harbor, the Town Council reviled criticism and rejected evidence about miscreant Town Manager Kevin Sutherland (even the evidence of Sutherland having signed a $92,000 settlement - for proven human rights violations arising from Sutherland's discriminatory firing of a Saco town employee. ) When the complaints in Bar Harbor mounted to a need to Do Something, the council went into 'private executive session to "talk with Kevin" about a personnel matter' - where they could be heard boisterously laughing it up -and since no action was taken, the content of the session was kept secret. Joke's on them. Several month's later in a back room deal they let Sutherland 'resign' overnight with a Release Agreement giving him an astounding severance package of 6 months full pay, health and retirement benefits, payment for accrued leave etc - amounting to around $90,000 after 13 months employment.
So what danger did their BFF Sutherland suddenly present and what leverage did he have? Well there's some evidence suggesting he violated laws with their knowledge or connivence. Possibly involving erroneous representations of laws to achieve shared goals. And ironically, publicly sharing privileged client-attorney information with litigants suing the town for an injunction and to overturn a Citizens Initiative cruise ship ordinance - which the council opposed and does not want to enact. To paraphrase the Washington Post 'Democracy rots in the darkness.'
There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity. You can smell it. It smells like death. —Big Daddy”. ― Tennessee Williams, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Yes. There are many, many, reasons why government should not be run like a business. I provided just one example, you’ve provided another - transparency. Although I might argue that many businesses could actually benefit and perhaps even profit from much more transparency that they allow now.
If our government could root out corruption and wasteful spending it would be the first time in history.
Runfastandwin. A corollary to the "run government like a business" notion: that for-profit businesses are efficiently run and have no problems with fraud and corruption. Nonsense. And when businesses fail they don't just impact their customers, employees, and stockholders, it also affects taxpayers.
Well that’s likely true. But at a minimum it would be nice if we’d stop encouraging it.
Wow, what an inciteful post. Well thought and so painfully obvious. Thanks Lin and Carey for your observations. So obvious. We often seem to overlook this simple truth.
Oh, but I do like 'inciteful.' Much better a comment incite others than be praised for insight ; )
Serendipitous neologism! ThankYou.
Insightful. Spell check strikes again. Inciteful comes from the verb to incite.
From the theater fo the acsurd . . you may have missed the point. Check with Lin for further insight into this little mind diddle.
One of the best explanations. A similar one might be made for adage of running government like a business. Business has only owners or shareholders to report to and if goes bankrupt or swindles, the business is only entity on hook for failure, whereas a government that goes belly up sticks everyone with the costs and losses.
"Business has only owners or shareholders to report to and if goes bankrupt or swindles, the business is only entity on hook for failure..."
Actually, due to bankruptcy and other laws privileging monied interests - creditors and other small players pay the price of getting swindled. Often those unable to afford the additional costs of going to court to seek legal restitution. Or in danger of frivolous counter suits if they try.
Agreed. The laws that permit business to pass along losses are another example of why business model don't fit governance needs. Suspected you would raise this in light of my parallelism with family comparisons.
But out of those 2 and a half million people, how many pay attention and give a damn? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 10,000? 100,000?
Maybe so many have politically checked out because we are addressing the problems incorrectly, and narrowly (black/white, red/blue). Editor-in-chief of Tablet magazine, Alana Newhouse spoke with Sean Illini on his The Gray Matter podcast about a new frame: “Everything is Broken.” And the questions we could be asking by identifying our worldviews to address this situations as either “Broke-ists “ or “Status-Quo-ists” ( or combo of the two depending on the institution/system we are talking about) opens up a more foreword thinking, constructive engagement. Many, like Rick Scott” plan for “burn-it-all-down”! Yet he is loath to outline the replacement system we surf as the rug is pulled out from under us. New questions like: Can we fix what we have already (like we are trying to do with the IRS)? Or do we eliminate an entire system, and replace it with (give example)? What problems do we incur with each approach? Etc. This conversation, Alana has found, inspires thoughtful, constructive engagement. And seems to be a way to get us to a space to constructively discuss the difficult issues we face.
Scott’s replacement program is “ give ME all the money”
This assumes that your interlocutor is interested in solving the difficult issues that we face.
The vast majority of citizens do not want to pay so much attention. Most Americans have other, more immediate concerns. In the history book These Truths, by Jill Lepore, the following paragraphs explain the rules constructed by the first, highly successful, political campaign managers, Campaigns, Inc., aka The Lie Factory, founded in 1933. They never lost a campaign. Republicans have mastered their campaign strategy rules:
'Every campaign needs a theme. Keep it simple. Rhyming is good. Never explain anything. "The more you have to explain, the more difficult it is to win support." Say the same thing over and over again. "We assume we have to get a voter's attention 7 times to make a sale". Subtlety is your enemy: "Words that lean on your mind are no good. They must dent it." Simplify, simplify, simplify: "A wall goes up when you try to make Mr. And Mrs. Average American Citizen work or think." Make it personal. Candidates are easier to sell than issues. If your position doesn't have an opponent, invent one. Pretend that you are the voice of the people. You can't wage a defensive campaign and win. Never shy from controversy; instead win the controversy. "The average American doesn't want to be educated; he doesn't want to improve his mind; he doesn't want to work, consciously, at being a good citizen. But there are 2 ways you can interest him in a campaign, and only 2 that we have ever found successful." You can put on a fight ("He likes a good battle with no punches pulled"), or you can put on a show ("He likes the movies, he likes mysteries; he likes fireworks and parades). "So, if you can't fight, PUT ON A SHOW! If you put on a good show, Mr. And Mrs. America will turn out to see it.'
Democrats talk more about actual issues of governance by cooperation and compromise, and that simply doesn't make for a thrilling fight or show. And Americans don't realize what's happening until after it has happened....like a coup.
Razzle dazzle bullshit. Faux news or fox entertainment, one or the other but certainly not fox news. This is nauseating, but thank you for the education. Republicans are just con men (and hysterical, entertaining women).
Indeed! I like it!
Lovely rant and so so very "inciteful". you do "make me study of that."
Excellent point Lynn.
Lee:
Equality almost plays out in the House except more populous states have fewer Representatives. Using 2016 population numbers, Wyoming as the measure for one representative, and reapportioning the House, the result would be the House having 551 Representatives.
Back then when I did the numbers 66% of the population lived in 15 states. The projection was 40% of the population in 15 states by 2040. I thought the 2040 was underestimated until recently.
In 2006 Joel Garreau wrote "300 Million and Counting" in which he discuses population growth. Back then we were replacing ourselves at 2.01 per couple or enough to maintain the present population. Most recently. the numeric is ~1.6. Immigration was less than 1 million and far less than previous numbers. Our population is also aging. It is possible to see a smaller population going forward. The foundation for such is there for such t occur if the US stifled all immigration.
The Senate is the Senate. The numbers of Senators was set by the Constitution, Article V: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
If we were to equalize the House using Wyoming's population, California would have 14 extra Representatives. Many other states would gain extra also. The Electoral College is set by the number of Senators and Representatives. The Electoral College is not the issue. The House is an issue and las been since 1910.
You can not gerrymander a state for Senatorial elections. You can for the House. Fix the issue of gerrymandering. I do not see a change to the Constitution to change the Senate. It is not going to happen.
We need to shift our efforts to recognize what is driving many people to vote for those who do not give a d*mn about them. If you wish to see the Excel Spreadsheet, it is here: https://angrybearblog.com/2017/07/will-the-reign-of-witches-pass
"our present situation is not a natural one"
I remain confused as to why Medicare and Social Security are referred to as 'entitlements'. They are 'a return on investment', something I hope the so-called conservatives can understand. Entitlements makes it sound like they are handouts like Medicaid, Food Stamps and Welfare and using that term when referring to Medicare and Social Security seems to confuse the so-called conservatives as to what they really are. Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson saw the American people as a whole weren't doing very well preparing themselves for retirement, both medically and financially and the two programs were enacted. It was not a grab at individual freedom that led to their enactment. It was a need well demonstrated by the American people who had shown they weren't doing it voluntarily..
Hear, hear!!! I’m 70, using both. I’ve paid into them all my working life, every job I’ve had since age eighteen, as have my employers. That is money set aside for me, and I need it to live on in retirement. I’m glad President Biden is keeping a spotlight on it. And I do not understand why my senator, Scott, keeps thinking he’ll get re-elected by threatening it. Even dt and McConnell are calling on him to desist. Don’t these people know anyone like me, living on Social Security, a small teacher’s pension, and limited savings??? Stop scaring seniors!!!
Your only hope is to campaign for Scott's opponent in the next election. Good luck. I'm an escapee of Florida; you have my sympathy.
Truth. I envy your escape - living in the land of King Ron is very wearying. The Florida Democratic Party was disorganized in 2022 and seemingly received little support from the national party; I think they’ve given up on us.
Abbot (and the evil trio) do the same In Tx. Cheating wins
Speaking of that - the AG is paying 3.3 million to his former employees for blowing the whistle on his corrupt activities...... But he is still in office, he was still re elected and taxpayers will probably pay the 3.3. million
A situation that absolutely boggles my mind. Your "attorney" general, usually the chief law enforcement official of the state, under indictment and yet he's still there.
More info on AG Ken Paxton, https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/11/texas-ag-ken-paxton-criminal-allegations/
He admitted no wrongdoing?
Corruption, at least widespread corruption can be defeated with public effort, commitment, and solidarity, and we've pushed back on it before with at least partial success. Beloved Reagan conned us into inviting it roaring back.
Lived in Ft.Worth from 82-01, what’s happening there now breaks my heart.
Senators Cruz and Cornyn?
No that would be Paxton. TX Attorney General
Cancun and Mitch's sidekick?
We have that same problem here in Ohio. The national Democratic party puts very little $$ into our state leaving the Rs controlling both branches of our state legislature and the Governor's job to boot.. We had a very good candidate for the Senate, Tim Ryan, but the DNC virtually abandoned him leaving us with the very red, very radical JD Vance.
Tim Ryan was great and would have been a wonderful Senator! I don’t even live in Ohio but I still donated to his campaign. I was so disappointed when he didn’t win. JD Vance is awful.
Awful yes, and despite the backing Ryan got from folks like you, Gerrymandering elected Vance
I'm from Ohio and moved to that northern state M. Been here most of my life now and I am a reformed republican (thank God) Better late then never. I liked Tim Ryan also and found it hard that the people of the great state of Ohio would let the Republican's win anything. Hopefully, in 2024 we can get things right. Too much corruption in so much of our government with senators and representatives representing themselves instead of representing all the people in there respective area.
Get your state UnGerrymandered
Michigan did it
Look what happens
Our state Supreme Court ruled twice against our unfair maps but our legislators ignored the ruling and proceeded with our November election using the same old illegal maps.Our state government is very corrupt.
Not every state has the options MI does. (Those gerrymander dudes are smart.) Cheers for MI and Congrats!!
Believe me we are trying!!! ....70+%. Ohioans voted in 2015 and 2018 for "Fair Districts". but the formula didn't include an independent committee to reform the gerrymandered districts - so even though the plans put together by the majority Republican Committee (5 Repubs - 2Dems)
was declared "unconstitutional". 5 times by the OH Supreme Court - they got away with it....and here we are.
YES WE DID!!!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Michigan_Proposal_2#:~:text=Michigan%20Proposal%2018%2D2%20was,legislature%20to%20an%20independent%20commission.
I’m really sorry about Ryan. I think he would have been really good for Ohio. Vance will not.
The fact that the DNC abandons states where Democratic candidates & people who will vote democratic makes me very unhappy with "The Party". There are so many of us struggling in minimally support states so that people like Zinke get elected in part bc of $$$$$$$$$.
Exactly. Why some of us will never ever support DNC. It doesn't support us. And says so, right up front.
There are some really interesting grass roots groups operating inOhio that I’m learning about through Senior Taking Action. You might want to check them out. It will give you hope and make you proud 😊
I live in Florida, too, Suzanne. I agree. We had a nonexistent dem organization and no messaging. We need something to change
dramatically to get rid of Desantis, Rubio, Scott, Gaetz, and the overwhelming GOP control of our state legislature. Fla is not a true part of the USA. King Ron is a perfect description-we are a part of his fiefdom.
Same in TX
That’s sad. And it’s a shame. Florida has a lot of good things going on amidst the rotten stuff.
Fellow Floridian …sigh.
We need to message about the salary cap for Social Security ! $160,200 for 2023. So many who pay in throughout the year have no idea a cap exists.
So Rick Scott, and other millionaires/ billionaires, pay the Social Security tax for only a couple weeks ( or days ) while you pay throughout the year. Do you think that ‘s fair ??
I know why there’s a salary cap...to give the illusion that the wealthy aren’t directly supporting the poor, etc., etc., etc. I wonder what would happen if no SSA funds were withheld on, say, the first $10k people earn in a year but then remove the cap totally. The howls we would hear would be deafening.
Hmmmm....that kinda makes sense. Thinking about students working after school and weekends; folks entering the job market for the first time. Those first few paychecks have to go a long way.
Makes tons of sense!
I think that's a fabulous idea!!!
Exactly...pay on every dollar you make...end of discussion!
Why this push from business and the GOP? Your second line has the key "as have my employers". They want to pay you as little as possible. A number of years back I had a John Deere high level executive tell me "remember 80% of expenses wear shoes". From that view point they are not people and here lies the problem.
It was after 1980 that workers were deemed a liability on the spread sheets, cutting into shareholder profits.
Hm. That suspiciously aligns with Reagan's ascent to tge Presidency.🤔
Thats why we are referred to as Human Capital. Not even Associates to the pampered overlords.
Eeeeuuuwww.
Enough seniors in Florida are MAGAphased to elect Scotts and DeSantis-ists
Reality to them is Conservative Owned Media (COM)
Reality to many sitting in the “sun” is that they resist madly paying their fair share. Blather about Patriotism.... bull -hockey. No policies, no thinking, just terrible fear that they might be asked to pay their fair share.
If they use “entitlement “ one more time I would think the Dems would put out the truth on big billboards.
Then show the real entitlements.... loop-holes-,yachts, airplanes, free ride on the back of the working class.
No more use of my runways, highways, schools.
Also impacting voters are the gerrymandering & voter repression.
Ah, you have unlocked the cause! "As have my employers." Those business-capitalists types do not want to pay into their employees future! Not even a little bit.
Once upon a time a business of a certain size also offered pensions. Then, pensions were tweaked to 401Ks and other creative private enterprises, to support the stock market and corporations. If the stock market slides or crashes, well I guess we are out of luck.
I retired in 2009, just after the market slid badly in 2008. My retirement nest egg was reduced by 42% and by now it is gone all together.
You're not alone there. Many in that boat.
Hope, me too! I retired in 2010. I am living on the scraps now in India. My $2,200 per month allows me some ease, but I can’t live in my own country on that amount. I got divorced in 2017 and the hub took half. So there you have it! Let’s fight to keep our rightful retirement funds!
Namaste, Elisabeth!
I worry for my 40-ish children and their children. They are being conditioned to expect no Social Security or Medicare in their future, though they have paid into it for 20 years already. The Republicans wanting to cut or privatize are careful to say, Don’t worry, you current seniors, we won’t touch yours. We are talking about people younger than you.
A dog eat dog system pitting generation against generation. This is how obscene wealth and its power will be protected if Republicans have their way. According to the Two Santa Claus theory, Democrat Santa provides your benefits (and those of people you despise) but Republican Santa cuts your taxes instead. (Which is a Better Deal if you have no idea what services your taxes provide, but you know you hate paying them.)
Yes and the media should be talking more about Scott’s involvement with serious Medicare fraud
Amen!
I agree, Larry, and every one of us who ever worked for a living paid into these programs (SociaL Security and Medicare) Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF may be seen as handouts, but all three combined are less than we pay out to corporations and millionaire/billionaires in subsidies, depletion allowances, tax loopholes and lower tax rates. We who pay our taxes justifiably want those earning more in a year than we earn in a lifetime to pay at least 15 to 20 % tax rate too.
"Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF may be seen as handouts"
Here is what a true entitlement is:
A white man, or a million of them, with the power to steal the entire life of (or millions of lives) of a (million) black slaves.
Then? "Free them" without providing any land, any jobs, or any resources at all.
Then? When those black folks are starving, give them house cleaning jobs, janitor jobs, and put them back in the fields for 100 years as "share croppers" where their pay is? Well, they get to keep barely any of the food they grow!!
Now THAT is an entitlement let me tell you. Being able to steal someone else's entire life!
Then? If someone like Lyndon Johnson, who grew up in Texas and saw what black people were struggling through, decides to, for the first time in American history, to offer some food to literally a starving population of Americans with a stolen history, with SNAP "benefits"??
that becomes evil socialism? A handout???
HMMMM??? IT is OK to run a slave colony for 300 years by white men, stealing black lives.
BUT? It is NOT OK to then, after black lives are forced to be free by the federal government, to enable them to work and find food or buy property??
It is not OK to help them eat????
Amurca. Gotta love it? Gift link below. I recognize that we now have TWO black quarterbacks trying to beat each other out on the football field. Now, when the OWNERS of the football franchises become black, we will be making some real progress.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/12/sports/football/nfl-black-quarterbacks.html?unlocked_article_code=u0NC_iN2gTT--5dc12-eIFMkwyfjftECAJu5JiNP9m8lUtL0e9LAO_RSCn31a2GwvqXZ752GJETEj9d-kAU4-J6018_64H7H3ygL1wx4U6aEpDHe5ZJfIKSyxA7Ho1cb6sOPdHPUU5TyJHDVD-RDzKIjB_noUDBoUG7B-Hk55m6ZpaSaujP_cfFr6QpeE-aoCXqCxYMMy8KQMJRqNuTb_2moVeip37teYG9XjIzg8lnDhpKF56sXjyGWulyPKIQTHsKpej2TXWs8bFj7b6Vn1YhnE9HfPQvxWWBm-Qv5Z5d1vQp3_T851EgP8rcvYg23HPggF8OKADubDzYBZhG66kuE1f14oTaT&smid=share-url
Saw a headline from eons ago, that reparations were offered to slave owners for the loss of their ‘property.” $300 for each freed slave. What was offered to the “property?” A noose. And one wonders why they arrive at the starting gate of life, hobbled by their history…. And blamed for their deficits.
And yesterday, on Firing Line, Glenn Loury, blathered white supremacists crap on PBS. A pox on you….
"What was offered to the “property?” A noose. "
Jeri, yes.....
In the 1619 Book Project, in one of the Chapters that discusses the "Jim Crow" period after slavery, there is a paragraph detailing how common it was, in that 90 year time period, to ride/drive though the south and literally see black people hanging from random trees along the side of the road.
"A handout" so to speak.
And students in Floriduh will never learn about this.
"And one wonders why they arrive at the starting gate of life, hobbled by their history…. And blamed for their deficits."
Pure poetry, Jeri.
You and Mike S. are amazing truthtellers.
Agreed, Lynell. And good morning!
Morning, Ally! Yes. Jeri would go a long way toward curing the Democratic Party's messaging problems!
Hard to like this comment Jeri, but i do like truth, it is stranger than fiction.
And stronger!!
We should remember the freed slaves were promised 40 acres of land and a mule, so they could earn a living. That promise was never kept. So many of the formerly enslaved people had to struggle through poverty, lack of proper housing and clothing. They were then rewarded with Jim Crow laws and lynchings. Meanwhile , white Europeans were being given 40 acres of land by the same government that said keeping their promise to African Americans was too costly.
Actually, I think the white Europeans were given 160 acres, which makes the broken promise even worse!
Juanita Smith - "Actually, I think the white Europeans were given 160 acres, which makes the broken promise even worse!"
𝘛𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩, 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1862, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 160 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘴.
Your historical take is currently banned in floriduh. Keep writing!
Lynn,
I don't really have a historical take honestly. I spent my early life on an East Texas farm fixing broken stuff and barely making any money with my family BUT we owned our own land because it was dirt cheap until the 1990's. We ate every day.
I did attend an integrated school after 1966 (unlike Boston which did not integrate until 1978 or Rochester, NY, which, has STILL not integrated).
My writing simply reflects my good luck at having always enjoyed reading (Public Library in Palestine, TX and small public school libraries).......
so, I have read Dr. Richardson's works (some of them) and I have read the 1619 Book Project and between those and some other reading,
"mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord". So, to speak.
Yes, indeed, but, I did see it that American glory once, way out in East Texas one day when I, as part of a job of reading water meters, happened on to the area where black folks lived. For the first time.
A half circle of shacks with no running water (1976). Out houses in back of the shacks.
ONE spigot sticking up out of the ground providing water for the entire community.
1976. All the white people (like me sort of) were celebrating the "Bi-Centennial" of our awesome American history on the day I stood looking at the shacks which housed the black folks.
As an old man now (63). I am both heartbroken, angry and lost as to what I can do besides volunteer my time where it is needed tutoring, making food at shelters, etc.
Now? I am haunted by my own good luck (which was born out of constant working but I could get a job, unlike black folks)
.....at "escaping" my East Texas poverty (which, looked like RICHES compared to what black folks had).
Your writing illuminates the truth, Mike. It is almost poetry. Do not ever stop. People like you point the way to awareness.
63 is not old. It is the time of powerful elderhood.
YES!!!
Thank you.
Yes
😊😊
Truth! Laid it out. Thanks. Spot on!
When whites claim slavery wasn’t so bad because slaves had food, shelter, employment, remember that white masters could sell your children.
Thank you, Mike S.!!!
Sad indeed
Or something a little stronger Cheers!
Every once in a while a group of us Dems here in Massachusetts get together for what we call 'drinking liberally'. COVID has made it harder to do; we're looking forward to more time discussing the issues as pandemic worriies ease.
that's GREAT!!! too funny!! drinking liberally!! :D
Indeed!!
or even a zoomie... to drink together liberally!! :D
The 'conservatives' think of any government program funded by taxpayers as intrusive and socialistic. And that rankles them: the idea that government could do something to help those in need, using 'their' money. Selfish and short-sighted and mean-spirited they are.
But they refuse to acknowledge the money paid by tax payers to help support the obscenely wealthy.
To help Support The Siphon.
Which doesn't even take into account how much the wealthy corporations benefit from our tax supported programs like the new infrastructure bill - whose big semi's cross those bridges and deliver those products?!
But isn't it a government handout to give the rich and the big corporations so many loopholes, leting them dance along practically scott free? Yes, it is!
Great use of “ Scott free “ ! I’ll be stealing that for my messaging.😂
It wasn't a mistake - glad you got the message!!
Why not adopt Alexei Navalny's label for Putin's pseudo-party "United Russia" ?
GOP, THE PARTY OF SWINDLERS AND THIEVES
applies to some Dems, too... they're just not quite so brazen about it...
(like Nancy Pelosi talking 'free market' for legislators to scam the system with their insider trading...)
Yes
I think you summed that up nicely. Thanks. And if you patched all those tax loopholes I bet there would be more than enough money to pay for these programs. Kind of pathetic.
There surely would be enough. I remember the tax rates of the 1950s, when CEOs made reasonable salaries and unions were on the rise. If we revised the unfathomable tax code to make it more equitable, the rich would pay their fare share.
Good Morning Larry, who wrote "Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson saw the American people as a whole weren't doing very well preparing themselves for retirement, both medically and financially and the two programs were enacted. It was not a grab at individual freedom that led to their enactment. It was a need well demonstrated by the American people who had shown they weren't doing it voluntarily.."
During a convo with my attorney I mentioned that while volunteering at our community hospital, I realized that so many folks are unprepared for furure crises like health scares, and can't afford them. He responded "How can a family prepare on $8 an hour?" That wasn't so long ago. Judging by the evidence provided by commercial parking lots, especially on weekends, most folks keep score by shopping. OK, I shop also, but for quality not quantity. I know families wear items out, but buying as entertainment is or seems to be the number one sport in our capitalist country. What were the stim checks for besides propping up the economy? My personal form of entertainment, restaurants, was shattered in early 2020 and I never recovered, i.e., I haven't returned to the habit of routinely patronizing them. Not money well-spent, money well-saved.
But I really wanted to digress to another form of "entitlement" which so far has not been mentioned, that of pensions. As a sixty-something college student, I took a class on the Civil War, or whatever other label you use, and I was entertaining myself by volunteering at our county historical society, where I was archiving 24 boxes of various correspondence of a former governor and congressman, among them a box of letters from Civil War vets who were writing for help getting their pensions, in the 1890s. Disability was the reason these veterans were eligible. I wrote a paper on pensions, and traced the history through Teddy Roosevelt's including age itself as a form of disability eligible for retirement benefits. Of course these were federally funded. The last Revolutionary War pension payment was made in 1906. I'll just wrap this up by mentioning the dirty word which the red-leaning part of the state where I live uses as a throwaway reason for flying Confederate flags and other complaint-voicing. They complain about a small SS check and lack of Medicare insurance coverage while simultaneously yelling "Socialism is ruining the country." Have a nice day.
"They complain about a small SS check and lack of Medicare insurance coverage while simultaneously yelling "Socialism is ruining the country." Have a nice day."
And? Here we see the true power of the combination of powerful propaganda and poor education.
Which, red states offer both in spades.
Absolutely!!
And commenters like you, Ed and Mike S, are why this place is so inspiring!! Thank you, again... :-)
Thank you!
They are referred to as "entitlements" because every citizen of a democratic country is (or should be) entitled to a basic social safety net. Government benefits like Medicaid and food stamps are not "handouts" - they are part and parcel of being a participating member of a democratic society. Kind of like voting or serving in the armed forces.
Thank you, Talia! My sentiments exactly!👍 I am so tired of people using "entitlements " as a dirty word!
Here's another widely held misconception: that employers pay half of a worker's payroll taxes. While technically true from an accounting standpoint, this employee overhead is just another cost of doing business and is not a "benefit" granted employees. In reality that money would be included in the employee's paycheck if the requirement for the employer to pay taxes supporting "entitlements" were to magically vanish, everything else being equal. But employers would like you to believe that this is a burden they bear. Or put another way, a teacher works just a little harder to compensate for the teacher that's not hired to assist her because this overhead is factored in when budgeting for headcount. And yes, it's a "return on investment" paid for over a lifetime of work, and would be quite a healthy fund if the damned politicians didn't keep sticking their grubby fingers in the pot every time they want to fight an unfunded war. It's infuriating. People need to wise up and stop buying this Reagan era BS!
LeMoine- Exactly! I used to insist that when our company negotiated to cut our "benefits" I always said those benefits were really deferred comp. A relative named Denison Smith wrote a book titled "Stop the Raid" on the SS Fund about how the gov't does just that.
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10-myths-explained.html
Lemoyne, I'd even go further back and adhere that we are a nation built upon a social contract between government and the people and that all relationships covered by laws are a version of such a concept. This was as put forth by Hobbes centuries ago and central to how the founding fathers drew up the US Constitution. A couple of citations below to check out, but in the mid-20th Century the idea quite prevalent was that there was a social contract between the businesses and the employees whom businesses sought, not for a few months, but for a lifetime of productive work. The relationship was considered a key to American exceptionalism, the hardest working and most ingenious workforce in the world. American workers took pride in the businesses they worked for because they could rely on continous employment and a pension (fought for through unions and the public sector). Some of us remember the expectation to work hard in our strongest time and be respected when our energies declined, not to be dismissed. I remember the normal was to have a career and a few different employers and employers taking pride in the longevity of their workforce, the value of their senior workers, the investment in the security of workers (and their families) because it was good business to do this in the communities in which both employer and workers lived together. There was a social contract and we the middle-class lived as though this was the way things would remain. And, I can remember the idea of Social Security was conceived to protect folks into their old age because our social contract (we the government) with them was that they should not fear being old for reasons out of their control and regardless of the stability of something promised by their employer or the swings in prosperity that happen in industries and investments. And, I can remember that it was businesses that saw this as the right thing to do, the progressive thing to do as a modern business, while relieving them of some of the obligations that underfunded/speculative private pensions they may have found they were on the hook for (No it wasn't only the US Postal Serivce pension fund that is not fully funded). So, when I hear the claims that Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation , etc., are entitlements and the arguments that 401ks and privatizing pension/Social Security and Medicare should be made options, I have to shout NAY SIRS. They are not entitlements or gifts or taking something away from the business or other workers who do not have pensions or are not eligible for certain insurance-based schemes as ways to reduce debt or save these programs, I shout NAY SIRS. These are obligations of businesses, industry, the private and non-profit sector, and our government to their people, as employees and as citizens. They are debts agreed to under the social contract entered into by those elected to office to promote the common good, to ensure the health and safety of our people and all are bound under employment and commercial laws between though who employ Americans in the creation of, production of, delivery of, quality of, and expansion of the gross domestic product that is the measure of American enterprise. The manner of meeting such obligations may be open to our capacity for ingenuity and problem solving, but the obligations for such is not to be discharged through negligence or failures to act and deliver upon promises. The bottom line must start when the obligations are fulfilled, not where the money to pay is stashed or was failed to be set aside to fully-fund obligations entered into on day one of the social or business contract agreed to.
The social contract of business theory argues that businesses exist with the permission of society, so long as the business acts in ways that benefit society. Social contract theorists believe that a business should make decisions and structure their operations in ways that offer the maximum benefit to society.Nov 9, 2021
https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/social-contract-theories-business-59955.html
I agree. Their use of the label entitlement for Social Security and Medicare bugs me mightily. And when they use it, it’s usually with a tone of voice that implies anyone who participates in these programs is leeching off the government. I’ve been paying into SS since I was 13 years old. Now, at 60, after almost 50 years of paying into it, when I’m getting close to being able to draw from it, they want to take it away from me. It’s no different than if they were bank hackers that wiped out my savings account. It’s my money, damn it! They are trying to steal it by twisting the narrative. I find it insulting they think I’m so stupid! At least bank hackers respect me enough to disguise their theft. The GOP is announcing their thievery, putting it on the front page, and coming boldly in the front door to steal it. They’ve managed to convince upwards of 40% of the voters that it’s the right thing to do. These folks are so good at convincing their base with lies, I think they could pick up steaming piles of cow manure, put it in muffin tins, and people would eagerly line up for their “breakfast special”! It’s maddening.
It is important to remember that your FICA payments went directly to your parents and grandparents. And the benefits you will recieve come out of the paychecks of the generations behind you. There is no account with your name on it! So no one is "stealing" from you.....it can be argued that old people steal from younger people.
Becky, I don't know how old you are but I'm nearly 80. You might argue that "old people steal from younger people" but it's the "old people" that invested a lifetime of blood, sweat and tears building the infrastructure that younger people currently enjoy, from highways to medical technology to the cell phones they seem so attached to. Most don't yet have a clue as to what they owe older people. I can tell them in intricate detail what makes a computer tick but relatively few would care or comprehend, they just want to use stuff and bitch about how old people screwed them over. And the point you make to Carey about nobody having their name on a SS account is specious and irrelevant, even if it WAS true, which it is not. There's a reason why people have different SS numbers and receive different amounts when they finally collect it, assuming they live long enough to collect it. Have older generations made mistakes? damned straight. Future ones will too. But I deeply resent the sentiment that "old people steal from younger people".
LeMoine - thank you, you’ve said it better than I could. I also found the statement from a previous comment “Medicare has allowed people to live longer than expected.”, particularly offensive. “Well, geez, I’m so sorry I didn’t just lay down and die at 55 so we wouldn’t have to raise taxes on billionaires!”
You’ve misunderstood my comment. I am not stating nor implying that anyone receiving payouts from SS is stealing from me. I’m saying that the GOP trying to do away with SS will be stealing from me if they succeed in doing away with SS.
Yep.
"Entitlement" became a negative term under Reagan. The notion of the "welfare queen" who felt entitled to welfare payments.
But, in fact, those of us who paid into the system are entitled to benefits.
"Handouts like Medicaid, Food Stamps and Welfare" - really? Those "handouts" are minimal gestures at redistributing generational wealth stolen from the folks receiving them. We refused to give reparations and full civil rights to newly freed slaves; and failing to do so, while simultaneously failing to prosecute Confederate traitors and persecuting slaves' descendants, has put us in the position we find ourselves in today.
“Generational Wealth”, what a concept
Trust fund babies like Tucker Carlson rant about the socialism of handouts to those without GW, yet from his first breath, he was and is a form of socialism in its purest form
Beautifully and clearly stated! Thank you.
Exactly, and “duh” to those who know better but continue their diatribes
All true, but the fact is we who contributed to SS & Medicaid ARE "entitled" to receive the benefits from the programs we paid in to all those years. That also seems to float somewhere in the ether above Repubs heads!
Another way to look at "entitlements" is to see them as something everyone is ENTITLED to. The term has been coopted, like many others, to give it a bad rap.
In fact, aren't all people entitled to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, the opportunity to get a decent education? Perhaps conservatives don't think so,, but in a democracy, it is important that everyone have a decent standard of living. If we achieve that, we will also have a more stable government because, who will want to overturn it? And with a good education, especially with the encouragement of critical thinking, people will be less likely to be fooled by charlatans.
I would add that people are also entitled to justice. When justice is real, people see it and are more likely to respect the rule of law.
No justice, no peace.
Know justice, know peace.❤️
Cheryl, I agree completely. And with democracy comes freedom , but the flip side of the freedom coin is the responsibility of behaving in a way that does not sabotage the common (or community's ) interests, if anyone can agree what "common interest" is. Humans push back when there's an "other," but in this society it shouldn't mean "each other." I like your last two statements!
I suspect your confusion is based on the Libertarian sociopathy that pervades the US culture, which has entirely absorbed the Republican party, and dominates most common American understandings of government, nationhood, and economics.
You've mischaracterized Roosevelt's and Johnson's impetus in your mind. It wasn't that they saw people as "not preparing themselves voluntarily for sickness or old age." It was that they saw it was IMPOSSIBLE for most people to prepare themselves -- they were barely surviving day-to-day on wages offered by Capitalists. Indeed, it was proving impossible for people to even survive to old age in reasonably good health in the first place: many died young.
Recall that Northern "jobs" in the 1800's were just slavery under a different name. If anything, jobs have the potential to be far more brutal than slavery: if the slaveowner works a slave to death, he must purchase a new slave. If a capitalist works an employee to death, he can just post an opening, and workers will come running.
Social Security was, from the beginning, a government mandated, forced contribution by wage-earners to a common (national) pool of wealth that would be distributed to all workers. It was largely based on the fraternal organizations of the 1800's (e.g. the Odd Fellows) which in turn had roots in the crafting guilds of earlier times. The basic idea was that workers would pool a portion of their income to pay subsistence for widows and children of workers who died young. The widows were 'entitled' to their pension, by virtue of their marriage, just like a Lord was 'entitled' to land by virtue of his rank.
That is why SS is called an 'entitlement', at least so far as I understand this.
The same is true of medicine. There are not enough people who need surgery for colon cancer who can also PAY for colon cancer, to support the surgeons, much less the entire support infrastructure the surgeons require, beginning with years of study. So you either distribute the costs of surgery 'from each according to means, to each according to need,' or you implicitly fold up the entire enterprise and use surgery -- as in the 1800's -- to perform amputations and nothing more, from which patients will either live (handicapped) or die.
It really comes down to the question of what it means to be an American. Are there really ANY benefits at all to being an American? Or do we just go on, generation to generation, mouthing platitudes and dying in poverty to make the wealthy few wealthier?
Social Security is a benefit. Roads are a benefit. A common currency is a benefit. Laws against public violence are a benefit. Strong national defense is a benefit. Everyone pays to maintain this.
Libertarians (Republicans) would privatize all of this, without exception, and remove all 'entitlements' in favor of a transactional model. The result is -- demonstrably -- an increase in positive propaganda, and a gutting-out of public benefits to line pockets.
Beautifully stated, Joseph!
I agree - it is maddening to keep hearing the misunderstood term, Entitlement (even though we are certainly entitled to that which we have paid into our entire working lives)--it should be referred to as 'Earned Benefits,' to remove any confusion.
And, I am continually mystified at the resistance to raising the income cap for paying into social security, which would be an equitable way to achieve solvency in a seemingly short time and with no rational arguments against it.
It just appears that doing anything that would improve ordinary, everyday, people's lives is just beyond their comprehension. But cutting taxes for the richest among us? Hey no-brainer. Literally!
CC Barton - Yes. That would be a simple fix - either raise or remove the income cap and I too am mystified at the resistance to doing it.
An "earned benefit" would stop when you have taken out all your earnings (maybe with some interest, etc.) SS is an entitlement....not a savings account, not an annuity.....there is no account with your name on it. SS is an entitlement because many, many people take out far more than they ever paid in .....that is the crux of the problem!
The way I understand it was originally to work was that the money from our earnings would be put in an investment vehicle which would provide for our retirements. But that money has been 'borrowed' to the hilt by Congress over all these years - a lot of sticky fingers have found it ripe for the picking. If it had been left alone to grow and if the cap had been removed so that all earnings would be subject to a fair percentage of SS tax, we would not even be talking about this now.
For a democracy to function effectively, you need to have healthy, educated and civically engaged citizens. I suspect it’s less costly and more satisfying in the long term and definitely worth working for.
I wonder whoever thought Civics classes were expendable? They need to start again in every state in grade school and up from there.
Let’s bring back Art, music and science as well. Kids like to learn but we don’t all learn in the same way.
They are entitlements because you get the benefits regardless of need, and regardless of the actual amount you paid into the system. The fundamental problem is that Medicare has allowed seniors to live much longer than Social Security was designed for!! Many recipients are now receiving more in benefits than they ever contributed to the system. Initially the SS Trust fund had huge surplusses which proved to be irresistable to politicans of both parties.....thus the "raids" on the trust fund. But the ageing Boomers are a huge looming problem that needs a real fix.....not hysterics.
I don't know where you get your figures, Becky. In 1982 I believe it was (under Ronnie Reagan no less) a commission was formed to study the problem the baby boomers presented. Using projected actuarial tables and sound modeling they actually fixed what was projected to be a Social Security shortfall. Some subset of current recipients may well be receiving more than they paid in, even adjusted for inflation. Others didn't make the cut. It was all factored in. And where did you get the idea that "Initially the SS Trust fund had huge surplusses..." ? There was a time when a significant surplus had built up in anticipation of the Baby Boomer bulge, but GWB took care of that with his war against Saddam in EYE Rak. You know, the guy with all them weapons of mass destruction.
LeMoine- two things, there were surpluses, and the gov't did use them for non-SS reasons. Currently, the gov't owes the SSA $2.7B, which they are trying to reduce by cutting benes, raising SS taxes, and raising the income limit.
Second, if people live long enough, they will receive more than they paid in. My father was probably one of them, as he lived to age 99. Is your point that people should not receive more than they paid in?
Ed, did you mean $2.8 T (trillion)? That sounds a lot more like it. No, I was responding to someone else's comment that some people collect more than they pay in. My basic point was that when lifespans are taken into account, it's understood that a person living an "average" number of years will break even, or just a little bit less to adjust for administration of the program. Social security is supposed to be a "zero sum" game as I understand it, not a Ponzi scheme in which the government rips people off, or a fool's errand in which the government goes broke. And the question of what the cost to society would be if the 60 million SS recipients were deprived of this modest income never seems to get asked. As another poster observed, the vast majority of the money going out for SS is channeled right back into the economy. I know that there isn't a hell of a lot left of my SS check after I pay for groceries and gas, plus my ever increasing property taxes to spirit off to my secret account in the Caymen Islands.
LeMoine, yes I meant $2.8Trillions; but realistically SS was not intended to be a sole means of support in retirement, which is where lots of folks get it wrong. A farmer and another type of worker complain about their check amount, I ask if they reported their incomes. Of course not they say, "that's MY money, I ain't payin' tax on it!" All righty then.
Becky, I don't know of anyone who receives SS who didn't have the work credits to qualify, unless you are including disability and survivor benefits. Yes, certain sports figures for instance may not "need" SS, but if the gov't says they qualify, who am I to argue?
And in this political climate, who gets to design the fix?
Yes, of course recipients have work credits. But you can never exhaust your benefits no matter how long you live, so may people will take out more than they paid in. (Yes, some people who die younger will pay more than they receive.) And while survivor and disability programs are good things, they also drain the system and pay benefits to people who do not have those "credits." While there are many poor seniors scraping by on SS benefits, the fact is that seniors are the wealthiest group of citizens. And younger working people who have little prospect of accumulating the wealth that boomers have are subsidizing golf-course retirements that last 30+ years......
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10-myths-explained.html
Excellent info:
For example, the institute’s 2022 study has these estimates for workers who turned 65 in 2020.
A single man who earned an average income and reaches average life expectancy will pay $405,000 into Social Security and Medicare and receive $573,000 in benefits.
A single woman in that situation will pay $405,000 into the programs and receive $646,000 in benefits, because women live longer.
A married couple consisting of an average earner and a low earner will pay a combined $586,000 and receive $1.1 million in benefits.
And the company they worked for will have paid in the same amount that the employee paid in as part of the company's TAX DEDUCTABLE business expense so the single man by virtue of HIS labor will had contributions from his company and himself of 2X $405,000 = $810,000 into Social Security and Medicare and receive $573,000 in benefits. Seems to me that the average guy is not receiving the full benefit of his labor.
Social Security is an insurance program.
Regarding the funding of Social Security: Nowhere in this discussion -- nor, actually, in any print discussion I've seen in well over a year -- have I seen any mention of substantially raising the salary limit on which Social Security taxes must be paid. The current limit is $160,200. If it were raised to $200,000 for next year, and raised at least 10-12 percent every year after that, Social Security could be solvent for some considerable period. Heck, why not make the limit $400,000? There is no reason for the fat cats to get off. Those whose maximum taxable earnings are well below the taxable threshold already pay higher tax rates than many of the wealthy, and it shouldn't be that way. I'd be happy to have all taxable earnings/compensation subject to Social Security taxes (and I'm reasonably well off). Then we might be able to have a reasonable national health system that wouldn't leave anyone out but the middle men and the insurance industry... Now there's an idea.
We agree: raise the cap. FICA is an insurance program. Raising the cap, to be fair, would raise the payout for higher earners. But not everyone will live to collect what they paid into the program, like other insurance programs. Some of the excess funds would help to pay full benefits for us boomers, and all who follow us into the future.
Also, Congress could vote to raise the payout to each person by contributing more money from the General Fund, in addition to contributions made by workers, according to various experts.
And another point that needs to be made over and over: the part of the total budget dedicated to Social Security and Medicare is non-discretionary. The SS and Medicare trust funds consist of Treasury Bonds. Money that flows into FICA in excess of obligations is not sequestered in a dedicated savings account. It is transferred to the General Fund and spent by Congress. In other words, Congress borrows money from SS and Medicare. When weekly flow of money from workers is less than obligations to pay out, money is transferred from the trust funds to cover the obligations. Those trust funds, again, are Treasury instruments, so the money that Congress borrowed is paid back by redeeming the Treasury bonds. When anyone complains about SS and Medicare impacting the budget, they only tell half of the story: the part about redeeming the Treasuries. They neglect to mention that Congress borrowed those funds in the first place. The "conservatives" try to make it look like SS and Medicare are not fully funded. They either don't understand how the system works, or they are being deceptive or deceitful.
Deceitful, deliberately so. Does not preclude ignorance, stupidity, and guile
It's my understanding that one does not collect that which they paid into SS. See the myths...
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10-myths-explained.html
David Another interesting point is how ‘surplus’ Social Security payments are invested. They have been dumped into a ‘trust fund’ on which the interest is not an actuarial calculation. Congress has been using this money. When, in a few years, the SS outflow is greater than the inflow, the government will have to repay the money it ‘borrowed.’
An insurance company functioning this way would go broke, or call itself Ponzi Inc.
Keith:
I did a lot of research on this some time back, thinking exactly what you've stated above. Most of what you've said is "popular knowledge," and is completely wrong.
First, the Social Security design is revenue-neutral. It pays out what it brings in, every single year. They have a 75-year actuarial forecast, and while they cannot predict WHO will live to 106, they can predict with great accuracy HOW MANY will live to 106.
As a revenue-neutral program, your contributions to SS do not belong to you. What YOU put in is paid out to existing retirees immediately, every year. Your contributions contribute to your ENTITLEMENT to the money that other people, years from now, will be putting in. That is why it is called an entitlement.
The original design requires a 1-year Trust Fund that will allow SS to function for a year with NO INCOME. If there is a catastrophe, or a war, and no one is contributing anything at all to Social Security, Congress (and the retirees) have a year to prepare.
It's a rather elegant and very stable system, since it is based on the population statistics of the whole country.
The fundamental weakness of Social Security is big changes in the working population.
In the 1940's, they had one of those. It was called The Baby Boom. The actuaries looked at that, and said, "You know, these kids are going to start retiring in the 2020's, and they aren't making new babies at the rate their parents did. We're going to flat out run out of money in the mid 2000's. We need to do something now.
I forget the year they legislated to let the Trust Fund expand for the Boomers, but I think it was in the 1960's. Everything was set up to let the Trust Fund grow to cover the Boomers, with the intent that they would draw it down as the first Boomers retired, and be back at the mandated 1-year surplus when the last of the Boomers died out.
The problem no one anticipated was the massive inflation, which -- as I understand it -- was caused by Nixon Shock, combined with the Vietnam War. The original FDR arrangement used a gold standard for indexing the US Dollar. The US went partly off that standard to pay for the Vietnam War, and when de Gaulle in France figured they would not be paid back at all for their contributions, he threatened to take payment, right now, in gold. The US did not have that kind of gold reserve. So Nixon took the US off the gold standard entirely, turning the US dollar into what is called a "fiat currency," meaning it has value only because we say it has value. Combined with a number of other things, inflation spun out of control, a mess that Carter inherited and could not bring down. Reagan, of course, stopped it by throwing the US into 12-year recession.
The income cap for SS has been there from the beginning, because the rich have always refused to subsidize the poor. What should have happened is that the income cap should have been raised with inflation. It wasn't raised, thanks to R's, and has never been properly raised since. Under Clinton, they changed the way inflation was computed to grotesquely underestimate it. As a result, the Trust Fund hasn't grown properly since the mid-1970's, and is far short of its target to cover the Boomers.
THAT is the basis of the 2034 "trust fund cliff" where the Trust Fund will be depleted BEFORE all of the old Boomers die off, and will abruptly be cut back to 77% of its current levels of support. Which is criminally irresponsible, but then, you know.... ::shrug:: You couldn't get the basics of this through MTG's thick skull with a hammer.
Congress has not spent down the Trust Fund. That was never true. It's still out there, and it's still growing, though not as fast as it needs to. The 2034 cliff is an engineered retirement catastrophe. I will be in my late 70's, and will still be cursing the Republicans to Hell, as I have for decades now.
Joseph Nemeth, thank you for your explanation and clarification.
It appears that few people have a thorough understanding of how the system works. It is somewhat disturbing to learn that some of us, ordinary citizens, understand the system better than some Members of Congress!
For anyone who is interested to learn more, the official Social Security website offers explanations. Ask The Google "how does the Social Security trust fund work?" The first result is from ssa.gov.
Joseph Thanks for the excellent overview. My impression with the ‘Trust Fund’ is that Social Security has put funds into a government IOU—-part of the national debt which eventually will have to be paid out.
FDR faced Sergio us legal/Supreme Court concerns in launching SS. There is a story about how Justice Brandeis, through his son in law, provided a legal precedent for SS. Initially FDR insisted that workers pay into the system so that it could never be abolished. Initially, a number of workers were excluded—firms with less than 10 employees and others. I seem to remember that the first SS payment, in 1941, was for $41.
Obviously we and other countries (see China) has a demographic problem with retirees living longer and fewer younger workers paying in. In part, the $160,000 limit should be raised significantly. At 89 I am less worried than are you. In fact, after my SS is docketed for Medicare (considerable above the basic fee), I am not chartering private jets. [I did pay $75 for extra leg room flying economy, but maybe not again—I just don’t want my walker put into baggage.
Keith, I want to add to what Joseph has written.
Here is verbatim info from the Social Security website:
"What are the Trust Funds?
The Social Security trust funds are financial accounts in the U.S. Treasury. There are two separate Social Security trust funds, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund pays retirement and survivors benefits, and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund pays disability benefits.
Social Security taxes and other income are deposited in these accounts, and Social Security benefits are paid from them. The only purposes for which these trust funds can be used are to pay benefits and program administrative costs.
The Social Security trust funds hold money not needed in the current year to pay benefits and administrative costs and, by law, invest it in special Treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government. A market rate of interest is paid to the trust funds on the bonds they hold, and when those bonds reach maturity or are needed to pay benefits, the Treasury redeems them."
To add, from my own research, it is important to note that the Social Security Trust Funds are not publicly traded, so their value is rock-solid stable. This special arrangement between the US Treasury and the US Social Security Administration (SSA) was designed to ensure that the funding mechanism for Social Security would retain its value over time. In return for "borrowing" the funds from SSA, Treasury pays interest, which helps to defray administrative costs for the system.
I, for one, would not want to be forced by the so-called "freedumb caucus" in the House to invest my retirement savings in private sector financial markets. I, like many Americans, believe in "the full faith and credit of the United States". When the freedumb caucus talks about undermining the full faith and credit of the United States, they make it abundantly clear that they don't know what they are playing with. Imagine what would ensue if we said "OK, China, we're not going to repay the Trillion Dollars, more-or-less, that we are holding in our Federal Reserve Bank for you." That would undermine the full faith and credit of the United States. Our entire monetary system depends on that faith. Without that faith, we would instantly have no money, because a handful of people in Congress rendered it valueless.
Likewise, we need to have faith that our Social Security Administration is going to continue to function as it has for decades. If any changes need to be made to the existing system, it should be strengthened. Congress can add funding.
I have no trust in private-sector markets, from personal experience.
To do well in financial markets, you need time and consistency.
Between when I started work in 1980, and the present, we have seen:
1) Double-digit inflation in the 1970's.
2) A 12-year recession from 1980 to 1992 (It's the economy, stupid).
3) A housing market scandal that destroyed homeowner wealth in the late 1980's.
4) A major market collapse in 2001 (the tech-stock collapse).
5) A complete economic meltdown in 2008.
6) A pandemic and recession in 2020.
My first investments were wiped out in the 2001 collapse, under professional management (Putnam), which caught THEM so much by surprise that they went under.
The markets are a giant gambling enterprise. Just as they were in the 1920's.
David !!!!!
Not exactly. The Trust Fund is "invested" in Treasury bonds. It's sensible because T-bonds are stable (unless the R's have their way), and the Trust Fund does not need the money back until a very predictable time. So they don't actually keep a big pot of cash, they have T-bonds that they redeem at the appropriate time to pay out benefits.
Of course, if these Republican cretins ever make good on their threat to not pay the bills, it means that all of the mature T-Bonds to be paid, not just to Social Security, but to foreign governments, oligarchs, capital investment groups, and the like, will go into default. The US dollar will become worthless overnight. The US economy will collapse, and if you think supply chains got messed up under COVID, you ain't seen nuttin'. It will be like Russia after the USSR collapsed.
These chowderheads are apparently too fucking stupid to understand what they are threatening. Or maybe not -- maybe they are actually that treasonous.
Yes.
"Nowhere.....have I seen any mention of substantially raising the salary limit on which Social Security taxes must be paid."
And the reason is?
Republicans are really just a bunch of guys crawling around on their lips at the feet of their wealthy campaign donors.
Their reality view is mostly just shoes, the floor, and the the taste in their mouth from licking what they see........wealthy, white folks, shoes.
Totally agree that FICA needs to be paid on much higher salary levels. That is absolutely part of the "fix." And it IS indeed talked about in every serious reform proposal.....but both parties demogogue on this point and call this suggestion a "cut".....or worse. Yes, it was great fun to watch Biden play rope-a-dope with the GOP. But now the Dems are also stuck because necessary steps like this become so much harder......
Such a simple fix. I feel like I've been screaming it into the void for years! Raise the salary limit on which SS taxes must be paid! I would raise it to a million. That would keep SS solvent for a long time (provided Congress stops raiding it!), and no one would fall into poverty from that change.
“ With 13 years until Social Security’s funds are projected to run out, Washington Democrats have some proposals to strengthen the program”
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/26/lawmakers-want-to-strengthen-social-security-how-benefits-may-change.html
Kathy My understanding is that SS funds won’t ‘run out’ but, rather, that we will be paying out more than we are getting in. Of course raising the fee limit way above $160,000 for ‘income’ would make a significant difference.
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10-myths-explained.html
👍👍🙏
There’s nothing new about Republican ‘voodoo economics.’ It was writ large during Reagan’s first term:
1) sharply cut taxes for the rich;
2) big boost in defense spending; and then
3) ‘starve the beast of social expenditures.’
David Stockman, Reagan’s first Budget Director, initially was outspoken on this trilogy. [He had spent two post-grad years studying theology at Harvard.] Subsequently (while still budget director) he gave an interview in which he acknowledged that he (and Reagan) hadn’t a clue as to what they were doing.
From Stockman to New Gingrich to Paul Ryan…to Kevin McCarthy’s Yahoo economics gang are variations on the theme of voodoo economics.
Liar liar, pants on fire refer to Gangrene Greene, Muddle-Minded-McCarthy, Bullshit Boebert, and the rest of the Republican Trickle Down Gang.
The Democrats initiated the New Deal, the Great Society, the Fair Deal, and, most recently, President Biden’s ‘here’s the deal.’ By contrast we have the REPUBLICAN RAW DEAL: lower taxes for the rich and sharply cut ‘social programs,’ without specifically naming them.
I taught economics for two decades. My summary of Democratic and Republican ‘policies:’
DEMOCRATS FOR THE PEOPLE, REPUBLICANS SCREW THE PEOPLE.
One more time. From Will Rogers Nov 26, 1932. “The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.” Why didn’t we listen, not too late…
Jeri Will Rogers has said many pithy things including:
“I DON’T BELONG TO A. POLITICAL PARTY. I’M A DEMOCRAT.”
"1) sharply cut taxes for the rich;
2) big boost in defense spending; and then
3) ‘starve the beast of social expenditures.’"
And? This is called "Fiscally Conservative Policy"
Otherwise known as VOODOO Economics.
Mike I remember in the 1980 Republican presidential primaries in which George H. W, Bush was castigated for accusing candidate Reagan of ‘voodoo economics.’
The Republican economics song should be VOODOO YOU DO, which actually was recorded some years ago. [check it out]
Republican RAW DEAL. Ye hear that Dems
Don’t forget the allowance of stock buybacks. https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/stock-buybacks-were-once-illegal-why-are-they-legal-now
OH!
Yup!
I love it, Keith! Your names for the off-the-wall gang are spot on!
Marlene I think that your degree in psychology provides you a leg up in assessing political nihilists. Still, I think you could do even better with a PhD in phrenology.
Hahaha! I can always count on you, Keith. 😁
HCR contributes to the problem if she describes Social Security financing as "unstable." She needs to understand it better. All pension systems undergo demographic upheaval and interest rate upheaval and need adjustment if they are to continue serving the public. That doesn't make them unstable. But Social Security isn't a pension system. It's social insurance from a mutual insurer that's owned by its policyholders... the citizens of the United States. As we know, insurance premiums can go up. If you need the coverage--i.e., a guaranteed income after a lifetime of work--you pay the premiums. And here is the main point: no private or public/private entity can shoulder the burden of the market risk and longevity risk associated with financing a nation's retirement at a low and efficient price... only a sovereign government has the depth, length and authority to do that. I have studied retirement systems in five countries. Privatization, or a market-based solution, creates a new set of problems without solving the challenge of financing a large elderly population. It is not the magic solution that the International Monetary Fund recommended during the 1990s, when deregulation was all the rage. All of the arguments against Social Security--like 'generational warfare' nonsense or 'I could get a better return in the stock market'--are based on untruth and sleight-of-hand. SS is not a bad deal vis-a-vis the stock market. It's a great deal from a risk POV. It is not an expense bleeding the country dry. It adds a trillion dollars a year to consumption, and that trillion trickles up, not down. If we would rather go back to mass elderly poverty, let's say so.
To be fair, I think she is referring to political instability that is not allowing a reality based solution to both an aging population and one that, at least until recently, has been living longer than past generations. I totally agree that a private sector solution is no solution at all given the objective of private capitalism is profit so there is a fundamental conflict of interest from day one to the detriment of the recipients.
Government is not a business. It’s a wrestling match in which one competitor needs 40 votes to achieve a win and the other competitor needs 60.
Your comment should be required reading for anyone commenting on SS. Thanks!
Kerry H Pechter...excellently well stated. Thank you.
You left out a very important option for stabilizing Social Security funding. **Raise the minimum wage**!
Social Security is funded by a percentage of wages, so this will increase funding without affecting costs or benefits.
“The statement that Biden won the 2020 presidential election also comes from the reality-based community.” Thank you, Professor. The repub spin continues attempts to block possibilities for funding critical programs like Social Security and Medicare. Our taxes can protect the needs of citizens by taxing the wealthy and corporate America. And recognizing that medical care and safety nets are rights not bargaining chips that are on the chopping block every year. Social Insecurity is the repub budget strategy that needs to be off the table.
As Biden said in his State of the Union address, we who receive Social Security are receiving what we earned in our work years: every single dollar. My monthly Social Security payment from the US government is all I have to live on - less than $2,000 a month. No family. No offshore funds or whatever. These politicians are practically to a person, wealthy, if not really rich.
me, too!!!
Not only all that you mentioned, but Anna Paulina Mayerhofer identified herself as "Jewish" while she was in the Air Force, where she was known as an Obama supporter and self-declared "liberal;" as late as 2018, weeks before Charlie Kirk hired her as a Tik Tok "Influencer" for his group Turning Point, she told friends she didn't know what "conservative" was. According to long-time acquaintances going back to her Air Force days, she has a history of "saying and doing whatever it takes" to please whoever it is she is involved with. Plus she has "airheaded bimbo" tattooed on her forehead in flashing neon.
Yes. Another Florida duplicitous creation. She is a slavering servant to the patriarchal bargain with the physical qualities that all the “daddies” love.
What a travesty. And to think she took Charlie Crist’s seat who lost bid as Governor. Double stink by the FL MAGAts.
Her campaign in the fall of ‘22 was enough of an eye roller to be laughable. Except it wasn’t. Warning fell on “hear no evil” ears.
Salud, TC.
🗽
Christine “Slavering servant to the patriarchal bargain!” You have a way with MAGAficent words.
😜
Tom Is ‘Luna’ short for “Lunatic?’ Luna & Santos—perfect together!
(It also promised to “sell off all non-essential government assets, buildings, and land, and use the proceeds to pay down our national debt,” without defining “non-essential.”)
Beyond getting screwed by anti-competitive near-monopoly pricing for an increasing array of goods and services, Republicans are adamant about taking up a non-voluntary collection from the general public to fulfill the dreams of billionaires, is this case cashing public property to deliver to their patrons in the form of tax cuts and subsidies.
"Biden wants to raise taxes; Republicans want to cut benefits,"
Whoops, there it is again. Throw paid into assistance to seniors off the train to save seats for the ultra-wealthy. I see a pattern forming here. Oh, and child labor law violations are spiking, so in response, Iowa Republicans want to scale back child labor laws, and hold employers harmless if the kids are injured or killed on the job. Equal opportunity sociopaths. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/11/us-child-labor-laws-violations
And why do people vote for them?
"Whoops, there it is again. Throw paid into assistance to seniors off the train to save seats for the ultra-wealthy. "
Sums it up does it not? Crawl around at the feet of Billionaires who are giving you campaign money instead of representing your district.
Make it $1,000,000.00 or $10,000,000,00.
Unfortunately, I believe Senator Scott's idea of selling "non-essential" 🤨 US assets includes the Statue of Liberty.🗽
Sad to think that Liberty is for sale in these days. More so than it has been in decades.
It was anyway just the French celebrating that Britain lost a colony, or?
France got the short end of the stick though. We only have a "normal-sized" version on a bridge over the Seine.....and in many ways is forgetting the meaning of the gesture under the current regime and its recent predecessor.
Ah! ... peut-etre mais tu as le 14 julliet ... yes?
Pour ce que ça vaut de nos jours. There are many aspects of the french revolution that still don't bear scrutiny from any point of view and indeed which those "bien pensants" wish to stop all discussion as it goes very hard against the grain of the myth that they have propagated.
Circa 1982, I watched the story of the revolution from a balcony on an apartment above the Champ de Mars projected on a palace wall across the Seine. Spectacular music with coordinated firework ending with a shower of gold & silver fireworks streaming in all directions from the Eiffel Tower. Fantastique.
I don't suppose there was room for them to tell you about the revolutionary government's decrees ordering the extermination of the people of the province of Vendée for daring to resist the imposition of a state religion and the beheading of the King. More than 200000 people were massacred in pitched battles with canon against peasants with hay forks and France's version of Sherman's march to the sea.
This is so troubling to me and I can’t see a way to combat it. Republican voters seem to believe their representatives or they simply feel the lies don’t matter. I am shocked that this is happening in my country.
I’m guessing lies don’t matter. The provocateurs on right wing media are assisting elected politicians in damage control. I guess most people prefer a sensational sound bite, then bothering to research.
Propaganda is a heavy burden on us all
These people are mesmerized sheep. They are thrilled about how their reps are protecting their “rights to bear arms”, whether it be an AR or an AK. Oh, and now they have the liberty to spout anything their lil’ hearts desire. Permission, that’s what Fake 45 gave his followers. Hitler did the same thing until he took a cyanide pill. We should be so lucky.
The Republicans have bought into DOUBLETHINK completely. Reread 1984.
Add Doublespeak to that.
"How many fingers am I holding up?"
🤔
“All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.”
Americans need to be reminded that Congress, particularly Republicans, have not and cannot pass bills today with any reliability. Republicans have not passed many effective bills other than tax cuts in 23 years. Haven't passed a major infrastructure bill since the Eisenhower interstate highway system. Haven't passed a useful healthcare bill since the Hill Burton Act that built modern hospitals all over the US, including most of the rural hospitals that are now closing for lack of funding.
Republicans, particularly with sunsets on every bill passed will have us looking like Turkey after the earthquakes in no time. Just photograph those earthquakes and headline them "US Under Republican Control by 2030". Collage those photographs across a map of the US and headline it "US, nothing standing by 2050 under Republicans".
The reality is we can pay for social security and Medicare for all if we stop funding never ending war.
I find the talk about "reality-based community" confusing. When applied to Republicans, it really means "reality-creating partisan cohort," a reality not discerned, but constructed by action. The rest of us, I hope, live in a "reality-based democratic polity" in which fact and logic, evidence and argument, prevail, with respect, civility, and decency to boot.
Michael, I had to laugh reading this:
""reality-creating partisan cohort,"
Very true, but, almost no Republicans, upon reading this phrase, will know the definition of the words themselves. Too funny!