Thursday, November 18, 2010

Urban Institute: Future of Social Security

This is an interesting brief report on how to fix Social Security's projected revenue shortfall.  The first major point we should remember is how successful Social Security has been at reducing poverty among older Americans:  "Between 1959 and 2009, the poverty rate for Americans age 65 and older dropped from 35.2 to 8.9 percent." 
 
Next, we must acknowledge that part of the "problem" with Social Security is that it is serving as an old-age pension for many recipients, instead of a buffer against poverty as originally intended.  States the report:  "Although the program was not designed to be the sole financial resource for retirees, in 2008 nearly a quarter relied on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income."  Obviously, this is not the system's fault.
 
Today SS is what it is, and American rely on it and want to keep it.  Americans don't want it privatized.  Nevertheless, after 2015 the system is projected to collect less than it pays out for the foreseeable future, so it must be fixed.  There are 3 main fixes: 1) raise the cap on income subject to the payroll tax; 2) raise the retirement age; and/or 3) cut future benefits.  The last one, in my opinion, is a non-starter because benefits already are not so big.  (However, current retirees -- including mean, hypocritical welfare-receiving conservatives -- might support cutting the younger generation's benefits since it won't affect them.)
 
Regarding the payroll tax cap, the report states: "The share of earnings that falls under the taxable cap has declined from 90 to 84 percent over time as earnings have grown more unequal. Raising the taxable maximum to again cover 90 percent of earnings would reduce Social Security's 75-year deficit by more than a third."
 
Regarding raising the retirement age, the report states: "Increasing the full retirement age to 68 (for those born in 1960 or later) would eliminate over a quarter of Social Security's expected shortfall."
 
So, doing those two things could reduce SS's projected 75-year deficit by 60 percent. 
 
Finally, as Republicans in the House talk about SS in the context of the fiscal deficit, let's remember:  "Medicare and Medicaid are projected to rise rapidly from 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009 to about 10 percent in 2035. Social Security costs, in comparison ... are expected to go up from less than 5 percent to about 6 percent of GDP—not nearly as big a problem as ballooning health care costs or interest on the debt."
 
Congress hates to do hard things.  Compared to cutting M&M, cutting SS is "easy," but let's not miss the big picture: those two programs are still the beasts devouring our tax dollars.  If the teabaggers and fiscal conservatives are serious about the deficit and don't want to dance around the problem, they MUST confront M&M.
 
 
November 12, 2010 | The Urban Institute
 
URL:  http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412253-Social-Security-Solvency.pdf

Monday, November 15, 2010

Sirota: Dem leaders' predictable post-election blame of election-losing liberals

Can't believe I missed this one after the elections. Here it is. Sirota says it all.


By David Sirota
November 4, 2010 | Open Left

Like many of you reading these pixels, I've found myself in the last year burnt out on American politics, mostly because it has become a glorified red-versus-blue summer camp color war devoid of substance and logic. That kind of thing, which might have been fun as a kid in summer camp, is neither enjoyable nor mildly interesting as an adult muddling through day-to-day issues here in the real world. Sure, political junkies on cable TV, in the blogosphere and in the halls of power think the world revolves around political palace dramas, but as Jon Stewart so aptly put it, "Most Americans don't live their lives solely as Democrats or Republicans or conservatives or liberals -- most Americans live their lives that are just a little bit late for something they have to do."

The fact that so few in our political arena appreciate that truism is one reason I've really just had it. There's only a finite amount of time in a given day, and I -- like most Americans in the real world -- just don't have time or energy to contribute to the part of our culture that pretends D.C. gossip and the day's manufactured partisan controversies are monumentally important when, for the most part, they aren't -- at least not to those of us who are living here in a real recession-hammered world that both parties ignore.

The other reason I've become less interested is because the political arena has become less interesting. It is as if the drama of politics -- once vaguely provocative -- is now all pre-programmed. We know what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are going to say. We know how progressive media is going to respond. We don't even have to tune in to know the reaction.

This is particularly true after elections -- and, in specific, when it comes to the mind-numbing "Future of the Democratic Party" debate. Indeed, I could have told you months ago that the week after the election would be marked by various self-appointed pillars of the Democratic Party coalition saying Democrats should do this or should do that to rescue their electoral future.

For example, I could have told you that a washed-up has-been like Evan Bayh would publish a New York Times op-ed insisting that Democrats "were too deferential to our most zealous supporters" (read: liberals) even after the Democratic Party crushed a public option, watered down Wall Street "reform," extended Bush-era civil liberties atrocities, escalated the Afghanistan War, further ballooned the defense budget and began moving to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Likewise, I could have told you that those careerists in D.C. who make their livelihood off this kind of pablum would publish a "strategy memo" in something self-importantly called "The Democratic Strategist". And I could have told you that this "strategy memo" would defend the bash-the-liberals meme with bromides about how "all of the major perspectives within the Democratic Party have a legitimate place and role in today's Democratic coalition" and about how "the present moment categorically demands a basic level of Democratic unity from every element of the coalition" (read: liberals shouldn't criticize the corporatists who destroyed the Democratic Party -- and the country).

I could have told you all of this because, as I said, it's pre-programmed. It's not spontaneous. It's not reacting to any reality out here in the real world. It's not responding to a changing country. It's pre-written, pre-conceived, pre-packaged feces sprayed at us in liquid form, all to justify a continuation of how it's always been -- and, frankly, how it probably will always be.

In the past, I may have contributed to some sort of organized pushback. But not this year. No, this time I can muster only one Cheney-esque response to the whole grotesque kabuki theater surrounding the inane "Future of the Democratic Party" debate: Go fuck yourself.

Evan Bayh and Third Way and The Democratic Strategist and the DLC and all the professional pundits and cable-TV zombies and D.C. spokesholes - all of you soul-raping corpses and shit-eating poindexters paid to appear on my television screen and scream at me about liberals ruining everything, please, I beg you on behalf of the silent irritated majority: Just go fuck yourself.

Go fuck yourself because all of your arguments are about what policies should be pursued to rescue Democratic politicians' electoral future, rather than about what policies are needed to rescue, say, the fucking country's future. Additionally, go fuck yourself because if you know so much about winning elections and if you are so sure conservadem-ism/Blue Dog-ism is the way to win said elections, how come it was the conservadems/Blue Dog candidates - not liberal candidates - who lost the most elections this year?

Also, go fuck yourself because the fact that you are even trying to create the same old bash-the-liberals debate exposes you not just as substantively wrong, but as professionally employed to despoil our culture with bullshit -- and specifically, with bullshit that you know is bullshit. That, really, everyone knows is bullshit.

The facts are painfully apparent. Though hundreds -- if not thousands -- of people in D.C. are professionally paid to pretend these facts require debate and analysis and parsing and speculation and press releases and pithy Tweets and Sunday Show roundtables and C-SPAN symposia and to-camera cable-TV rants and lengthy thousand-page books, they don't require any of that. The facts are simple. The facts are obvious. The facts are undeniable to anyone not paid fistfulls of sweaty money to lie or sensationalize:

1. The Democratic Party shit on its base with its policies, as noted above.

2. This demoralized the Democratic base, which responded by not turning out to vote. As CBS News notes, "Hispanics, African Americans, union members and young people were among the many core Democratic groups that turned out in large numbers in the 2008 elections (but) turnout among these groups dropped off substantially, even below their previous midterm levels."

3. In cause-and-effect style, the result of all this was, as the Washington Post reports, a freshman congressional class that is primarily made up of angry, white, lunatic-conservative assholes.

So yes, all of you who are wasting all of our time pretending this isn't the basic point-A-to-point-B story of the election -- and there are a lot of you out there -- please, if not for me, then for everyone else: Go fuck yourself.

We've got lives to lead, we've got struggles to struggle through, we've got bills to pay - in short, we've got to get through the shit you've created and continue to create. And as you now incessantly bitch about the alleged scourge of those evil election-losing liberals, as you whine and wail and cry from the cocktail and hors d'oeuvre paradise of TV studios and green rooms and congressional offices and party fundraising events, you've made quite clear you don't give a shit about the harsh reality we all face - the harsh reality we all face thanks to you.

Knowing all of that, I'll end just reiterate my one succinct request: All I ask is that as you continue your hard work to prop up the kleptocracy, as you continue to clog our last remaining democratic conduits with your viscous rhetorical shit bombs, please, do us all a favor and for the love of whatever god you worship - please just stop wasting our damn time and go fuck yourself.

KY man forced by local Talibanis to eat own beard

Hey Taliban, take notes from your fundamentalist, gun-toting counterparts in the lawless provinces of Kentucky! You never thought of this one, had you? Now you know. Making a man who cheated you eat his own beard, his pride and joy, is way worse than making him eat with his poo-hand.


November 12, 2010 | Huffington Post/AP

GOP pledges allegiance to foreign country over President

Summed up Greenwald: "Americans should give up Social Security and Medicare benefits so that they can continue to transfer billions of dollars every year to Israel, a foreign country which offers far more of a safety net to its own citizens [including universal socialist healthcare! - J]. But don't you dare accuse Eric Cantor of haboring allegiance to Israel and subordinating U.S. interests to this foreign country. That would be extremely wrong of you to insinuate."

I'm sick and tired of Israel-worship in American politics.

U.S. financial support of another political democracy with a market economy for no good economic or security reason is just another instance when instead of feeling the pain of cognitive dissonance, fiscal conservatives and teabaggers ignore the hole in their ideology completely.

After all, it's way more fun to be angry and stupid.


By Glenn Greeewald
November 13, 2010 | Salon

$ign of the (end?)times: Gold bug paranoia

I guess gold is like Glenn Beck's "Food Insurance," only in this case it would be "Money Insurance." The only thing is, if there is a total collapse of civilization like Beck predicts, then what are people going to need gold for? They can't eat it, can't build with it, it won't keep them warm, etc. That doesn't stop Beck from trying to fleece his herd with Goldline coin adverts though.

What Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, and other right-wing pundits are really asking their followers to do is to speculate in gold and pump up an existing bubble. As a commodity, gold doesn't produce anything so its value depends purely on trading. The more people who buy gold, the bigger the bubble gets, and the more they'll lose when the gold bubble invetiably bursts. (After all, Republicans will eventually take control of Washington, save America, and restore the dollar, right?) Of course, those in the know who got in early on this paranoia and will sell out before the bubble bursts could make a bundle. But are you that cunning, and did you buy gold early enough? If the answer to either is "no," then stay away from gold unless you're an eccentric millionaire.

Remember, gold is not a very good hedge against inflation, it's a hedge against calamity and instability.


Analysis: Here's why the world's love affair with gold is dangerous.
By David Case
November 10, 2010 | GlobalPost

URL: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/101110/gold-investment-robert-zoellick