The presently constituted Supreme Court has long
been criticized for the very activism that was once directed at a more
progressive Court, but never before has it given any cause to accuse it of
overt racism.
To be sure Robert Bork was rejected for a position on the
court in part because in a New Republic article he condemned “the public
accommodation sections of the (then) proposed 1964 Civil Rights Act aimed at
integrating restaurants, hotels and other businesses” because he “feared that
government coercion of private behavior threatened freedom… (ignoring the fact
that) restaurateurs were not legally permitted to reject service to
well-behaved whites and that the new law intended simply to extend that
principle to blacks.”
But this is the first time that a sitting judge has
allowed his racist views to escape his lips. During argument on the
Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Justice Scalia referred to
Congress’ near-unanimous re-enactment of the act in 2006
as a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
Yes, the reader read that right. The right of US
citizens to vote is, according to Scalia, a “racial entitlement” totally
ignoring that the XIV Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that “No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities
of citizens of the United States… nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And in Section 5 of that
article: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,
the provisions of this article.”
Or does Scalia’s doctrine of “Originalism” deny the
validity of its amendments.
But what causes him such concern is that the Act of
Congress might interfere with “state sovereignty”, which are words not to be
found in the Constitution.
But enough said about a Supreme Court justice who
claims to be a close adherent to the Constitution.
The Sequester
This is a calamity that has me scratching my head.
It was not so long ago that my friends on the Left
were clamoring for the President to allow the country to go over the fiscal
cliff unless Republicans caved, and agreed to the President’s proposal that the
Bush tax cuts be extended for all except those making over $250,000.
Or in Paul Krugman’s words: “So what should he
do? Just say no, and go over the cliff if necessary… This time, nothing very
bad will happen to the economy if agreement isn’t reached until a few weeks or
even a few months into 2013.” And “No deal is better than a bad deal.”
And the headline on an article in the Atlantic dated November 21, 2012
screamed: “The Fiscal Cliff Is Not as Scary as You Think (but a Bad Deal Should
Terrify You).”
But what would have been defined as a bad deal?
Well Krugman, and many others define this as: “where they must agree
to large cuts to public investment and social insurance programs like Medicare
and Social Security…”
So now we have what amounts to half the Fiscal Cliff. So if the Fiscal Cliff wasn’t so bad then surely the Sequester would be even less disastrous. What does Krugman say? He calls the Sequester “one of the worst policy ideas in our nation’s history.”
Now I happen to agree with Krugman on the Sequester. It is indeed one of the “worst policy ideas in our nation’s history”. It was designed to be! The theory having been that if this terrible idea was the alternative to a balanced approach, the balanced approach would win out. But this theory didn’t take into account the extent of the Republican commitment to protecting the rich and destroying everything that does not fully serve the interests of the rich.
So where does that leave us. Is preventing any changes to Social Security and Medicare really the most important thing on the planet? Certainly, the President should never agree to the Republican plan for these programs which amount to their abolition. But does it follow that all changes must be resisted as the many “liberal” organizations are urging? Or as the Campaign for America’s Future calls it; “the Grand Swindle.”
Whether we like it or not according to the Social Security Administration, in 1940 life expectancy for males (at age 65) was 12.7 years. In 1990 it was 15.3. As I said in my blog post entitled "The President’s re-election (More Discussion)," “I have nothing earlier or later, but if we go back to 1930 and forward to 2015 we can assume that it is double that, or 6 years.
So an increase to 71 for males would be justified. Or we could consider changing it altogether, to kick in after 40 years of work. This would have the advantage that those who start work earlier, usually the under class, could draw earlier than those going to college, who earn more and are more advantaged. The figure for women as of 1940 are 14.7 and for 1990 19.6, so at the risk of being sexist, it might make sense to have an older eligibility age for women than for men.” but none of my readers thought this worthy of comment and one in fact asked where I got these ridiculous statistics.
But the Social Security Administration isn’t the only source for life expectancy figures. According to the broker Fidelity “In 1935, when the Social Security Administration was founded, the average life expectancy was about 62 years. Today's average life expectancy is over 78 years.”
I am familiar with the argument that blue collar worker’s have a shorter life expectancy than the more affluent, but that is precisely why I think changes along the lines outlined above should be considered. But I would go further. The payroll tax is 6.2 percent on income under $113,700 and an additional 6.2 percent on the employer. That is a bearable tax on middle and upper-income earners, but it is a devastating tax for those making little, and those earning the minimum wage, which at present is nationally $7.25 an hour, or just over $15,000 a year. Many don’t even make the minimum wage. Isn’t it time that we removed this onerous tax from these people, and all those making under $30,000 or even $50,000 and made it, like the income tax, a graduated tax.
Of course the money would have to be made up by such devices, among others, as raising the eligibility age, removing the cap for the tax, increasing the tax on the affluent, taxing those who have other income, e.g. above $100,000, so that they would in effect get no benefits and possibly increasing the benefits for those having no, or little, other income.
These are not reforms that would bring joy to the Right, and therefor are not tenable at this time, but it isn’t time for a conversation, instead of the cry “no changes."
And may not some of the damage done by the sequester be even worse then being flexible on entitlements? For example, according to the White House, the effect of the sequester, just in the Washington area, would mean, “About 2,000 poor children would lose access to early education. In the area of public health, less funding would mean 31,400 fewer HIV tests and thousands of children may not get necessary vaccines in Georgia."
Is there less concern about these effects then about entitlements because these sequester effects would have less impact on the Middle Class? Are the concerns so heavily weighted about entitlements, the concerns of a predominately White Middle class, who are more concerned with their entitlements, than with the effects on the most vulnerable.
It is time to ask that question!!!
Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.
So now we have what amounts to half the Fiscal Cliff. So if the Fiscal Cliff wasn’t so bad then surely the Sequester would be even less disastrous. What does Krugman say? He calls the Sequester “one of the worst policy ideas in our nation’s history.”
Now I happen to agree with Krugman on the Sequester. It is indeed one of the “worst policy ideas in our nation’s history”. It was designed to be! The theory having been that if this terrible idea was the alternative to a balanced approach, the balanced approach would win out. But this theory didn’t take into account the extent of the Republican commitment to protecting the rich and destroying everything that does not fully serve the interests of the rich.
So where does that leave us. Is preventing any changes to Social Security and Medicare really the most important thing on the planet? Certainly, the President should never agree to the Republican plan for these programs which amount to their abolition. But does it follow that all changes must be resisted as the many “liberal” organizations are urging? Or as the Campaign for America’s Future calls it; “the Grand Swindle.”
Whether we like it or not according to the Social Security Administration, in 1940 life expectancy for males (at age 65) was 12.7 years. In 1990 it was 15.3. As I said in my blog post entitled "The President’s re-election (More Discussion)," “I have nothing earlier or later, but if we go back to 1930 and forward to 2015 we can assume that it is double that, or 6 years.
So an increase to 71 for males would be justified. Or we could consider changing it altogether, to kick in after 40 years of work. This would have the advantage that those who start work earlier, usually the under class, could draw earlier than those going to college, who earn more and are more advantaged. The figure for women as of 1940 are 14.7 and for 1990 19.6, so at the risk of being sexist, it might make sense to have an older eligibility age for women than for men.” but none of my readers thought this worthy of comment and one in fact asked where I got these ridiculous statistics.
But the Social Security Administration isn’t the only source for life expectancy figures. According to the broker Fidelity “In 1935, when the Social Security Administration was founded, the average life expectancy was about 62 years. Today's average life expectancy is over 78 years.”
I am familiar with the argument that blue collar worker’s have a shorter life expectancy than the more affluent, but that is precisely why I think changes along the lines outlined above should be considered. But I would go further. The payroll tax is 6.2 percent on income under $113,700 and an additional 6.2 percent on the employer. That is a bearable tax on middle and upper-income earners, but it is a devastating tax for those making little, and those earning the minimum wage, which at present is nationally $7.25 an hour, or just over $15,000 a year. Many don’t even make the minimum wage. Isn’t it time that we removed this onerous tax from these people, and all those making under $30,000 or even $50,000 and made it, like the income tax, a graduated tax.
Of course the money would have to be made up by such devices, among others, as raising the eligibility age, removing the cap for the tax, increasing the tax on the affluent, taxing those who have other income, e.g. above $100,000, so that they would in effect get no benefits and possibly increasing the benefits for those having no, or little, other income.
These are not reforms that would bring joy to the Right, and therefor are not tenable at this time, but it isn’t time for a conversation, instead of the cry “no changes."
And may not some of the damage done by the sequester be even worse then being flexible on entitlements? For example, according to the White House, the effect of the sequester, just in the Washington area, would mean, “About 2,000 poor children would lose access to early education. In the area of public health, less funding would mean 31,400 fewer HIV tests and thousands of children may not get necessary vaccines in Georgia."
Is there less concern about these effects then about entitlements because these sequester effects would have less impact on the Middle Class? Are the concerns so heavily weighted about entitlements, the concerns of a predominately White Middle class, who are more concerned with their entitlements, than with the effects on the most vulnerable.
It is time to ask that question!!!
Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.
Posts
