An addendum to previous coverage of Republican attacks on Social Security: Social Security: impugned unjustly, Resist the catfood commission

I assumed that the cut in FICA taxes that was part of Obama’s tax cut deal was meant to have a stimulative effect. Silly me. It’s more like part of the ongoing campaign to slice and dice Social Security, as Huffington Post lays out for us:

Obama, as part of the Democratic package, secured a roughly 30 percent cut in the payroll tax, from 6.2 to 4.2 percent. Allowing it to expire in a year will mean that workers will see a nearly 50 percent jump in payroll taxes as the rate reverts back — an event that will surely be described as a tax hike. The cut is estimated to cost $120 billion per year.

……..

Republicans acknowledged that the expiration of the tax holiday will be treated as a tax increase. “Once something like this goes into place, a year from now, when it expires, it’ll be portrayed as a tax increase,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). So in a body like Congress, precedents matter and this is setting a precedent. I think that certainly is going to create some problems down the road if it passes.”

Given that Congress, under Democratic control, can’t gather itself to let tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, members of both parties are convinced that letting the payroll tax rate revert back to its current spot will be near impossible.

“Once you bring a rate down, if it goes back up, people will feel that. They’ll feel their paycheck being less and that argument” — that letting it expire amounts to a tax hike — “eventually is bound to be made,” said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).

When Republicans tell us that the cut is part of their assault, we’d be fools not to believe them.

December 12, 2000. We were in the car, somewhere in Missouri, when we heard the news on the radio. The old media coverage was pathetically bad.

Before we had easy access to blogging we really only had bumper stickers for our own unrestricted public sarcasm.

Stevens, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 00-949

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

[December 12, 2000]

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting….

….Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent.

For a few years leading up to and through the 2000 election I had been a party activist. I ran and was elected as a Gore delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles from Missouri’s 4th Congressional District. The December 12, 2000 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was the beginning of my journey down the path where I find myself today.

In the weeks following the court’s decision I formulated a plan to produce a partisan bumper sticker which would comment on the case. I tried out a few designs, including “Jews for Buchanan”, and finally selected “the one” (with the advice of a few friends) raising the money to print 1500 of them. The entire process took a few months. As I recall we had them ready in June or July 2001 and distributed them around Missouri and to friends across the country.

We waited for and devoured books about the recount and the Supreme Court case – because we had to. Jeffery Toobin’s Too Close To Call and Vincent Bugliosi’s The Betrayal Of America were the best of the lot, especially Molly Ivin’s forward in the latter. Ten years latter blogs give us instant communities and organizing and audiences with no waiting. We didn’t know how to do this at the time. It took us a while to learn.

On July 20, 2001 I participated in my first public protest against dubya’s administration at Dick Cheney’s tax cut photo-op at the Treasury Service Center in Kansas City. The story was my first front page blog post. The photos were taken with a film camera (digital was still too expensive) and the prints were scanned.

I helped organize another protest (but could not attend) when dubya came to Independence, Missouri to speak at Truman High School (yes, the irony was not lost on any of us) in August 2001.

The media coverage was fawning and uniformly bad for both events. I knew at the time that things had to change. I just didn’t know how to go about creating that change.

I did learn some early lessons along the way:

….Grandmothers make the best protesters. They don’t take crap from anyone.

Representative Jerry Nolte (r-33), champion of working people, prefiled a bill to keep Missouri’s minimum wage from exceeding the federal minimum wage:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 61

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES NOLTE (Sponsor), SCHARNHORST, SCHAD, ALLEN, AND SCHNEIDER (Co-sponsors).

0206L. 01I                                                                                                                                                 D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 290.502, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to the minimum wage.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Section 290.502, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 290.502, to read as follows:

290.502. 1. Except as may be otherwise provided pursuant to sections 290.500 to 290.530, effective January 1, 2007, every employer shall pay to each employee wages at the rate of $6.50 per hour, or wages at the same rate or rates set under the provisions of federal law as the prevailing federal minimum wage applicable to those covered jobs in interstate commerce, whichever rate per hour is higher.

2. The minimum wage shall be increased or decreased on January 1, 2008, and on January 1 of successive years, by the increase or decrease in the cost of living. On September 30, 2007, and on each September 30 of each successive year, the director shall measure the increase or decrease in the cost of living by the percentage increase or decrease as of the preceding July over the level as of July of the immediately preceding year of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) or successor index as published by the U.S. Department of Labor or its successor agency, with the amount of the minimum wage increase or decrease rounded to the nearest five cents.

3. The minimum wage calculated under this section shall not exceed the federal minimum wage.

[emphasis in original]

You’ve got to wonder what organized labor thinks of that.

Could the Courts Outlaw the Minimum Wage?

By Adam Cohen Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2010

….At $7.25 an hour, the federal minimum wage is almost impossible to survive on. Someone who works a 40-hour week and earns the minimum wage makes around $15,000 a year – or about 70% of the official poverty level.

In recent years, while the wealthiest Americans have gotten richer and richer – the top 25 hedge-fund managers personally took in more than $25 billion last year – minimum-wage workers are being left behind. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage today is 17% lower than it was in 1968.

Most Americans across the political spectrum support strong minimum-wage laws. Many liberals like them because they put more money in the pockets of people who desperately need it. Many conservatives favor them because they make it worthwhile to have a job – and reward people for getting out of bed every day and doing an honest day’s work….

Many, not all.

Michael Bersin’s post about his twitter exchange with Sarah Steelman concerning the views of American economists (although she has an M.A. in economics, Steelman strangely seems to know little about the range of economic opinion) brought to my mind the noise about Mark Reardon’s very rude treatment of Steelman last week. I know that I am getting to this encounter a bit late – it is old news by now – but I can’t stop thinking about the irony inherent in the situation.

In the unlikely case you missed all the bloggerly chuckling about Mark Reardon’s sharp dissing of Sarah Steelman directly after she gave him an interview on his KMOX radio program, you can hear the  entire oration here (via FiredUp! Missouri). It is widely viewed as an opening salvo between the factions that are forming in relation to the various candidates for the 2012 GOP Missouri senatorial primaries.  

FiredUp! Missouri‘s Sean notes that he “didn’t find Steelman’s interview to be any more vapid than the average guest,” and he’s right. If you saw the interview transcript without names attached, you could easily come away convinced that the responses were from Roy Blunt, or almost any GOP pol – they were nothing more than a cautious iteration of the GOP no-taxes-no way line. While Reardon was right that Steelman’s responses were intellectually “empty,” it hasn’t seemed to bother him when the same empty drivel is served up by other GOPers.  Instead, he condescendingly noted that he had tried to help the poor nitwit out, implicitly compared her run for the Senate to that of the farcial Christine O’Donnell, and noted that “she isn’t the sharpest fork in the drawer.”

Whew! And here’s where the irony comes in. While I don’t know anything about Steelman’s intellect or lack therof based on her interview, this diatribe came from a media shill for the GOP in a state where a sadly all too typical GOP State Representative surveys his colleagues’ personal relationship with Jesus on the state dime; the incoming GOP House Majority Floor Leader is an “unapologetic” birther; the new  GOP U.S. Representative from the 7th district is mostly notable, apart from some poorly digested crumbs of stale Tea Party rhetoric, for his cowboy hat; Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) thinks that the Pilgrims came to the New World to escape a socialist monarchy rather than religious intolerance of the type he espouses; and the entire GOP congressional delegation has decided, based on some imaginary authority, maybe the tooth fairy for all I know, that there is no global warming, and if there is, human beings bear no responsibility, either for causing it or fixing it. These are just a few examples of what we get daily from this confederacy of dunces.  

And yet Mark Reardon doesn’t think Sarah Steelman is the sharpest fork in the drawer. Whoooeee!                          

Previously: A Twitter conversation with Sarah Steelman (r), sort of (December 11, 2010)

Former State Treasurer and announced 2012 U.S. Senate candidate Sarah Steelman (r) continues, sort of, the conversation via Twitter and thereby helps us feed the content beast:

@MBersin Other than Krugman unaware of any economist who believes unemployment benefits are more stimulative than tax cuts. Example please.     about 18 hours ago  via Twitter for iPhone  in reply to MBersin

Sorry to take so long to get back, but I work for a living. Someone else had a late night response or two via Twitter:

@sarah_steelman @MBersin Joseph Stiglitz, for starters. Sensing a trend here with the Nobel laureates? http://daytonos.com/?p=9771     about 8 hours ago  via web  in reply to sarah_steelman

@sarah_steelman @MBersin Or how about Mark Zandi of Moody’s? http://bit.ly/fOX1HZ ROI of UI is $1.61 per dollar spent.     about 8 hours ago  via web  

@sarah_steelman @MBersin Then of course there is the CBO – http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108…     about 8 hours ago  via web  

@sarah_steelman @MBersin And then there is Dean Baker – http://www.cepr.net/index.php/… – Need more? I’m just getting started.     about 8 hours ago  via web  

Ahem, here’s part of the chart [pdf] from Mark Zandi of Moody’s:

Fiscal Stimulus Bang for the Buck

Source: Moody’s Economy.com….

Permanent Tax Cuts

Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.51

Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.32

Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37

Cut in Corporate Tax Rate 0.32

Spending Increases

Extending Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.61

Temporary Federal Financing of Work-Share Programs 1.69

Temporary Increase in Food Stamps 1.74

General Aid to State Governments 1.41

Increased Infrastructure Spending 1.57….

[emphasis added]

My response via Twitter:

@sarah_steelman “Example please.” | Really? You’re the one running for office. Try these: http://bit.ly/fNYETh Do you support the “deal”?  less than 20 seconds ago  via web  in reply to sarah_steelman

[Again, edited after posting to enable adding the URL for this post to the Twitter response. Don’t hurt

your brain too much, think of it as one of those Star Trek time loop story paradoxes.]

And we’ll hand it to Sarah Steelman (r), she is responding, sort of. But we still haven’t found out if she supports the “deal”.

An article By Jo Mannies of the St. Louis Beacon on the challenges faced by Susan Montee, the New Chair of the Missouri Democratic Party, raises some interesting issues.  Mannies notes that Montee and a new activist group, the Progressive Democrats of St. Louis, are both concerned about the organizational and communications failings of the state Democratic party. Beyond that point, though, Mannies’ report implies that when the smoke of the last electoral defeat clears and Montee gets down to work she may not see eye to eye with progressives about the correct direction for the state party.

I find it telling that Montee describes the “messaging” failures of the Missouri Democrats in the last election as follows:

We didn’t talk about what makes state Democrats different from national Democrats or California Democrats.

Would the crucial difference that Montee is hinting at have anything to do with the fact that the most prominent elected Democrats in the state, Senator Claire McCaskill and Governor Jay Nixon, are essentially old-time moderate Republicans in disguise? Although the article makes it clear that McCaskill and Nixon aren’t claiming responsibility for Montee’s selection, it seems equally clear that Montee is the choice of the state Democratic establishment which, from my admittedly limited perspective, seems to bless only good, well-mannered little boys and girls like McCaskill and Nixon.

Montee’s view that her job is to distance the state party from what the GOP represents as the socialist-communist-facist policies of the national Democratic Party (or Nancy Pelosi’s Gay California Hippie Party) indicates that she may have taken too deeply to heart the Republican message, as articulated by the Missouri Republican Party Executive director, Lloyd Smith:

… that Missouri is becoming an increasingly conservative state, ….  Susan Montee was soundly defeated because she embraced the failed policies of Barack Obama and national Democrats.

If this is indeed the case, I would invite Montee to ponder the defeat of her colleague, Robin Carnahan, who was at the head of the losing Democratic ticket in November. As a progressive, the first big disappointment that I experienced in regard to Carnahan was her rush to embrace the Bush tax giveaways for the wealthy. Before that time, I had been annoyed by her incipient posturing as a “deficit peacock,” but her lame effort to deprive the GOP of a campaign weapon at the cost of the core Democratic value of fairness was something that no messaging strategy or slogan could have overcome, not even the “caring, fair and smart” refrain that the spokesperson for the Progressive Democrats of St. Louis, Rea Kleeman, suggested to Mannies as a first step in reviving the party message. I don’t think that I am alone in this feeling; I believe that was the point where many in the Missouri Democratic base cashed in their chips.

I ultimately stuck with Carnahan because I decided a vote for her was a vote for a national Democratic majority, and even – in the long run – a vote for Nancy Pelosi (of the California branch of the party). Lots of Democrats that I know weren’t so forgiving. Carnahan lost decisively and, as I remember, didn’t even do that well in the Democratic strongholds of St. Louis and Kansas City. I wonder if her willingness to betray a core Democratic principle might not have been the final straw in the broom that swept away her margin in those regions?

It bears thinking about, and I hope Montee will be able to take it into consideration as she tries to shape the Missouri Democratic message. Democrats are eager for a strong narrative, one that grabs at our core values with two fists, something that nice girls and boys who are worried about offending Grandma and Grandpa Grundy can’t offer.

Suppose you asked a question of a declared candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in Missouri in 2012 and didn’t expect a response? We did, we didn’t, but we got one anyway.

We were surprised because we’ve been so, you know, rude in the recent past.

It’s in our nature.

This Twitter post from former State Treasurer (r) Sarah Steelman was the start of the conversation:

Unlike @MarkReardonKMOX, I’m not paid to be glib. Mom of 3 w/ MA in Economics is focused on real issues facing MO. Jobs, deficit spending…     7:27 AM Dec 8th  via web  

I responded via Twitter:

@sarah_steelman “…focused on real issues facing MO. Jobs, deficit spending…” | So, what’s your position on the pending tax deal?     about 17 hours ago  via web  in reply to sarah_steelman

And Sarah Steelman (r) replied:

@MBersin Should have paid for unemployment benefits with spending cuts. Must get serious about deficits     about 13 hours ago  via Twitter for iPhone  in reply to MBersin

Well, was this response because we asked a particularly erudite question which could help illuminate the discussion for the remainder of the Twitterverse? Who knows? We ain’t askin’ (other than rhetorically) because it could be a waste of our opportunity for a follow up:

@sarah_steelman Why that part? The most stimulative? What about the rest? What about a deficit offset for tax cuts? http://bit.ly/i5gPPC less than 5 seconds ago via web in reply to sarah_steelman

[Edited after posting to enable adding the URL for this post to the Twitter response. Don’t hurt

your brain too much, think of it as one of those Star Trek time loop story paradoxes.]

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

HIGH-INCOME TAX CUTS SHOULD EXPIRE ON SCHEDULE [pdf]

Extending Tax Cuts for One or Two Years or Exempting “Small Business” Income Would Be Ill-Advised

By Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet

….If Congress extends the tax cuts for married filers with incomes above $250,000 and single filers with incomes above $200,000 – the top 2 percent of U.S. households – then deficits and debt will be $826 billion higher over the next ten years than if it lets them largely expire, as President Obama has proposed. 6 Extending the high-income tax cuts would increase deficits by even larger amounts in subsequent decades. Thus, if Congress extends these tax cuts, the nation’s fiscal trajectory will be even worse, and the risks to future economic growth consequently will increase….

[emphasis added]

We’ll hand it to Sarah Steelman (r), she did respond to the original question. Make of that what you will – hubris, campaign recklessness, supreme confidence.

Now, if we could only get others to return our phone calls.

Last week:

Merkley Lays Out A Course For Reforming The Filibuster In The Next Senate: ‘Mark This Date On Your Calendar’

….Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) laid out a path to fundamentally change the way the filibuster works. Merkeley told Hartmann to “mark this date on your calendar: January 5th. That’s the date we’re going to come in for the next Congress, and it’s on that date that a group of us is trying to pass a motion for the Senate to adopt new rules.”

Merkley then went on to explain his proposal for the new filibuster rules. The senator explained that by assembling 51 votes at the start of the new Senate, he wants to change the chamber’s rules so that when a senator engages in a filibuster, they have to go to the floor of the Senate, “defend your position, hold the floor, and if you’re not there, the Senate goes forth and holds a majority vote.” In other words, Merkley is proposing that if senators want to filibuster bills, they actually have to show up and physically spend time on the floor of the Senate to stop bills from going forth. “Hopefully we can bring together that magic 51 to say let’s make it function, the Senate function, to be that deliberative body that it once was….”

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) via Twitter this morning:

Rs blockng everything until they get extra tax help for multimillionaires:military pay raise,cola for seniors,med help for 9/11 1st respndrs about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPad

And, of course, we chimed in:

@MBersin @clairecmc Then do something about changing the rules in January. #MO 44 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And Blue Girl:

@BGinKC @clairecmc And if the Ds don’t change the rules 1st thing Jan 5th, it stops being their fault and starts being yours. #thatsjustthewayitis 41 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And someone else:

@DoctorD71 @clairecmc You guys need to vote to change the Senate rules to stop the R roadblock. 39 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to clairecmc

And:

@Pnthrgrlgail @clairecmc Rs blocking but Dems will get the blame. Propaganda station Fox will make sure that poor, unemployed blame Democrats not GOP. 34 minutes ago via Twitterrific in reply to clairecmc

Senator McCaskill (D) replied to someone:

@clairecmc @stevetinkham That’s simply not true.We must have 60 votes to stop their filibusters. We don’t have 60 Ds in Senate.Theyve stopped everything 23 minutes ago via Twitter for iPad

Well, what about making the republicans actually stand up there when they filibuster?:

@MBersin @clairecmc Are you going to join with Sens. Merkley and T. Udall on January 5th to make senators, you know, actually filibuster? #MO 23 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

Others, you know, had the same idea:

@atuozzolo @clairecmc let them filibuster, you know, like actually stand out there and talk. 21 minutes ago via DestroyTwitter in reply to clairecmc

@RadioBradshaw @clairecmc Sounds like a good reason to consider filibuster reform on day 1. 21 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

@kennethlaw @clairecmc bring back the old school filibuster. They won’t won’t spend days talking on the floor to stop a bill. Make the Senate work again 20 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to clairecmc

@TerryOlson @clairecmc So are you folks going to change the filibuster rules in January? 19 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

@norskiewa @clairecmc Are you working with @SenJeffMerkley on filibuster reform? 15 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

@jtwill84 @clairecmc Why can’t we keep the filibuster, but require the minority to actually FILIBUSTER…Thurmond and Mr. Smith style? 12 minutes ago via TweetDeck in reply to clairecmc

@clegoues @clairecmc Honest question: why don’t you just let them filibuster? Let them look stupid on CSPAN? 8 minutes ago via Echofon

@AlexForOffice @clairecmc well then why don’t you actually force them to filibuster? Instead of just caving to threats of filibuster. 19 minutes ago via Twitter for Android from Southfield, MI   in reply to clairecmc

If the NFL operated the way the United States Senate does there’d be no scoring. “Uh, we can theoretically block a field goal so we don’t need to actually do so.”

There appears to be no end.

Yesterday at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C001135 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI [pdf] 12/9/2010

Thomas A. McDonnell

4909 Sunset

Kansas City, MO 64112

DST Systems, Inc., CEO

12/7/2010

$10,000.00

Dollar, Burns & Becker

1100 Main Street, Ste. 2600

Kansas City, MO 64105

12/7/2010

$12,500.00

MHA HealthPAC

PO Box 60

Jefferson City, MO 65102

12/7/2010

$15,000.00

Cerner Corporation

2800 Rockcreek Parkway

Kansas City, MO 64117

12/7/2010

$25,000.00

Polsinelli Shughart

700 West 47th St.

Kansas City, MO 64112 12/7/2010

$10,000.00

Enterprise Holdings, Inc. PAC

600 Corporate Park Drive

Saint Louis, MO 63105 12/8/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s $82,500.00 in one day, if you’re counting. And $318,066.66 in December. And $615,566.66 since the November general election.

Apparently the hypothetical possibility of a Peter Kinder (r) administration is sufficiently frightening to shake loose big bucks from people with deep pockets.

Previously:

As if contributions still come in if you’re not running for reelection? – part 6 (December 8, 2010)

As if contributions still come in if you’re not running for reelection? – part 5 (December 7, 2010)

As if contributions still come in if you’re not running for reelection? – part 4 (December 2, 2010)

As if contributions still come in if you’re not running for reelection? – part 3 (November 30, 2010)

As if contributions still come in if you’re not running for reelection? – part 2 (November 23, 2010)

As if contributions still come in if you’re not running for reelection? (November 19, 2010)

Campaign Finance: not quite keeping up with the Kinder (r)… (November 9, 2010)

I’ll bet lots of you recognize the acronym HCAN, and I’d further bet that most of you had never heard of it two years ago. Here’s another acronym you are going to get familiar with: ARA–because the Alliance for Retired Americans will be in the forefront of the upcoming battle to defend Social Security.

My blood pressure is already spiking–not a good thing at my age–because of the campaign by the right and by Blue Dogs to cripple the most successful social program this country has even seen.

“But … but…,” the wingers protest, with their palms spread to show their sincerity. “We hate to be forced to encroach on this beloved program. The times require it, though. The economic ship of state is foundering, and we must all sacrifice to save the country. Social Security is nearly insolvent; in this economy, seniors can’t expect the rest of us to carry them.”

Clamp your hand over your back pocket and listen to me: They’re lying.

For starters, Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit our government faces. Zero. Nada. Goose egg. Diddly squat. The opposite is true. Social Security built up such a surplus in preparation for the retirement of the Baby Boomers that its trust fund has been buying Treasury Bonds–in effect, lending money to the federal government for operating expenses. But Treasury Bonds are a better way to invest that surplus than sticking it under a mattress. They’re safe unless the entire government goes under.

And yet the Commission has the gall to include Social Security in talks about the deficit, thereby implying that this program has somehow contributed to our economic woes. Even including the program in those talks is a case of guilt by association, and it’s a damned calumny! Social Security bailed the government out by buying Treasury Bonds and now it’s taking the blame for our debt? I need a paper bag to breathe into.

It is true that thirty years down the line, if nothing is done, Social Security will be unable to pay retirees 100% of their benefits. There’s a simple, just, way to prevent that day from arriving, though: change or remove the cap on taxable income. Right now, everybody pays 6.2 percent of his income in FICA taxes, but only up to the first $106,000 a person earns. Do you earn more than $106,000. If not, you’re paying FICA on everything you earn. Most of us do. What I want to know is howcome the people who can best afford to pay 6.2 percent on everything they earn, those bringing in, say, 250 thou a year–or more–are the ones who pay FICA on only part of their earnings? Why do they get off easy while the people who pave their driveways, teach their children, ring up their purchase at Macy’s, and protect them from burglars pay it on every penny in their paychecks?

Raise the cap or, better yet, remove it. We could require the wealthier earners to pay, maybe, 3% FICA on everything from $106,000 to $306,000. Or 1% on everything from $106,000 to $450,000. There are a hundred different ways to get those better off to contribute more to the trust fund.

If we had the political will.

Well, there’s the rub. Dick Durbin, a member of the Commission, voted for the the co-chairs’ recommendations. What? I thought he was a good Democrat. And Barack Obama has embraced all the recommendations of the co-chairs of the Deficit Commission. That’s ALL of them, including:

• raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 and the early retirement age to 64
• reducing Social Security benefits for middle income workers, so that, for example, if someone applied for benefits at age 62, he would receive only about $583 instead of the $1,167 currently allowed
• reducing Social Security cost of living adjustments

Hold on. We’re in the middle of the Great Recession. It’s not uncommon for someone to look for work for two years, and we’re contemplating keeping older workers hanging onto their jobs for an extra two years? Right. When Social Security was first enacted, part of the rationale for it was that “superannuation” would help the economy. In other words, older workers could retire–but with enough money to help keep the economic engine pumping–thus making room for younger people in the workforce.

Similarly, the Commission co-chairs–and Durbin and Obama–want to give middle income elderly people half to two/thirds as much money to live on AND SPEND as we have been giving them. Now there’s a half cocked idea for keeping the economy on the move. Those proposing these draconian cuts should know that, according to the ARA, “For one third of seniors, Social Security provides nearly all of their income.” These are people with no 401(k)s to fall back on. You slash that money out of their budgets and you are simultaneously slicing it right out of our economy.

The Alliance for Retired Americans is part of a progressive coalition that will be fighting this nonsense. ARA, three million strong nationwide and 60,000 strong in Missouri, aims to educate its members (you can join for a mere $10) and any seniors it can reach out to. Since seniors vote more than younger people, it’s important to get the correct information to them. In states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois, where ARA has grown the most, it has been credited with swinging some elections. Judith Parker, a St. Louis activist, is busting butt to see that Missouri joins the ranks of the states where seniors know the score and vote accordingly.

Parker will tell you that Social Security is enormously popular, as we saw when Bush tried to privatize it in 2005. We’re counting on that popularity. It ought to slow down the rush to slice into the program. I mean, put yourself in John Boehner’s shoes. Does he really want to hang an albatross around the 2012 Republican presidential candidate? Because bringing legislation to the House floor that would, for example, raise the retirement age to 69 wouldn’t do the GOP ticket any good when the campaign starts revving up a year from now. Not that I’m saying we who want to protect Social Security can take it easy. Here’s a reason we can’t: Congressman Paul Ryan–yes, he of the Ryan Plan–will head the Budget Committee in the House come January. He may be unable to resist introducing bills that chip away at Social Security.

The left is organizing to resist the proposed cuts, and we stand a good chance of preserving this life saving program intact for future generations. After all, it’s an assault that will be mighty unpopular with voters. Seniors don’t deserve to be mugged like this, and they’ll scream bloody murder. Hell, it’s not just an assault on seniors. One in SIX Americans get Social Security, and those who don’t will need it someday. Besides the moral argument that we should not slash the income of the workers who built this economy and who contributed money to the trust fund in good faith, we can also argue that this assault will harm the country’s deficit spending problem rather than help by carving a huge chunk of spending power out of the population.

Too bad it looks like we’ll be fighting this battle without the help of the nominal head of our party or the likes of Dick Durbin.

photo of Ida Mae Fuller receiving the first Social Security check is courtesy of Illinois Social Security blog