The Atlantic may not be an important shaper of opinion among Democrats but this piece is the most convincing of several I've read saying that a major problem for Democrats in 2016 was a perceived lack of conviction caused by listening too much to the Third Way, a group heavily supported by Wall Street interests and country club Democrats, which has counseled Democrats to support a "centrist" way, even asking Democrats to be open to cutting Social Security. While Hillary Clinton does have convictions, she didn't campaign that way. Neither did most other Democratic candidates apart from Bernie Sanders. For his part, Trump projected conviction even though he seems to have no true convictions unless you count greed and arrogance. There are strong signs that Democratic candidates are eager to avoid repeating the mistake of standing for little.
I write about this because aggressively supporting increases in Social Security benefits would be an excellent way for Democrats to show conviction in 2018. Whether they make it a centerpiece of their 2018 campaign or not, it's clear that if Democrats win in 2018, there's going to be a dramatically different atmosphere in Washington and that will affect Social Security. If nothing else, Democratic leaders won't be suggesting any openness to Social Security "reform" in the foreseeable future. If you support that, you're not a Democrat. The Third Way may have money but it doesn't have votes and, in the end, votes are what matter.
8 comments:
Charles, in what way do you want to "increase benefits"? Just randomly increasing everyone's benefit by 5%, 10% or more? That isn't the answer. Pay those that meet SSA's definition of a disability (and I agree this must be done far sooner than it takes today) and pay those that are eligible for retirement. Any across the board increase would only drain and quickly dwindling trust fund.
I assume he means that it would accompany funding reforms as well such as lifting the cap on income eligible for OASDI tax to finance marginal increases in benefits.
We Democrats lost because we abandoned the working class in favor of east and west coast limo liberals and identity politics.
You don't win peoples votes by supporting economic policies that undercut their livelihoods, and then call them racist when they complain.
If the democrats ever want to regain power in this country they need to address the needs of working class Americans.
How exactly are you proposing that we pay for an increase in Social Security benefits? As a Democrat who will turn 70 the year that Social Security is projected to be able to pay only 77% of the benefits promised, I am not excited about raising benefits unless there is a way to pay for it upfront.
@1:07
Increasing the OASDI cap is a pretty obvious fix.
In regard to the projected shortfall in 17 years, I would not place so much trust in government analysts who are attempting to account for: GDP growth, public health, global economy, currency strength, inflation, deflation, unemployment, average wages, legislation, tax rates (both individual and corporate), and any number of other factors. 17 years is 4 presidential terms and AARP is the largest voting block in american history. The problem will be addressed prior to the shortfall in 2034.
Money matters a lot. People with lots of money run the economy, which gives them enormous power. Also, politicians need lots of money to get elected, and the wealthy have the money and are willing to give some to politicians that support policies to make them even wealthier (they can also spend tons of money on lobbying). That's why both parties support these policies. So votes matter, to the extent of being able to pick from two parties that both favor the wealthy (and corporations, which they own and profit from) - if people are mad at the Democrats for doing so, then they can vote for the Republicans, who are even more devoted to the interests of the wealthy.
Social Security is the one issue that should unite Democrats. We can't draw a line in the sand about some things but that one we can. Removing the cap can pay for increases or prevent decreases. For that we should fight.
Actually, removing the cap is not even enough to close the projected shortfall. Removal of the cap is only going to eliminate 70 to 80% of the projected deficit.
Accordingly, it alone could not cover the increase in benefits.
Post a Comment