The Silence is Deafening

It has been more than a month since I posted and distributed my commentary "Racism Rears Its Ugly Head In The SCOTUS/The Sequester" where I suggested that the focus on preventing any changes to Social Security and Medicare might just be “the concerns of a predominately white middle class, who are more concerned with their entitlements, than with the effects on the most vulnerable.”

I concluded with “It is time to ask that question!!!”

I had hoped that in posing this challenging question, I would start a discussion of our priorities, but as my title exclaims "The Silence is Deafening."

I urge my readers (and I don’t know how many of the approximately 80 who indicated a desire to remain on my distribution list actually read my posts) to read or re-read my post: "Racism Rears Its Ugly Head In The SCOTUS/The Sequester" (click on the title) or the relevant portion, which you can find here and to express their views.

It is instructive that where at one time a main theme of Presidential campaigns was a concern for the poor, that is no longer a subject addressed. The poor vote in very small numbers. The middle class votes in large numbers. But that is precisely why the middle class, or at least the Liberal segment thereof, must represent the poor.

How much we should be concerned with the poor in our midst is illustrated in an article in the New Yorker entitled "Our Invisible Poor" and commented on in Smithsonian Magazine under the title "How a New Yorker Article Launched the First Shot in the War Against Poverty."

At the same time the New York Times reports in an article entitled "Growing Number Are Near Poverty" that in New York City "nearly half of the population (has fallen) into the ranks of the poor or near poor in 2011" but the problem gets scant attention as the Times Public Editor points out in a article about Times Coverage. See here. 

In the meantime the emphasis on raising the federal minimum wage is getting scant attention, even though the Campaign for America’s Future reports: “4.4 million Americans currently earn the federal minimum wage of $7.25, or less. 284,000 of them are college graduates. Worse, the minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. After adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage is lower than it was in 1956." 

But it seems that the only thing that matters is preventing any change to entitlements.

It is not as though we were protecting the original conception of Social Security. The number of times the Social Security Act has been amended is legion as can be seen from the listing shown here and here. Benefits paid in 1940 totaled $35 million. In 2009, $650 billion was paid out in Social Security benefits. It wasn’t until the 50’s and 60’s “that domestic labor, household employees working at least two days a week for the same person were added in 1950, along with nonprofit workers and the self-employed. Hotel workers, laundry workers, all agricultural workers, and state and local government employees were added in 1954.”

It wasn’t until 1972 that the average payment per month rose from $133 to $166 and the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) was instituted. See here.

The payroll tax as set forth in the original Social Security Act of 1935 was 2% (employee and employer combined). It is now 12.4% (employee and employer combined). That is an enormous burden on low wageworkers. Isn’t it time that we addressed this very burdensome regressive tax. See here. 

Don’t get me wrong!! I have no sympathy for the Republican/Ryan approach, which is to gut the program, and I think the President’s proposal for a chained CPI is wrong, for it reduces benefits on all recipients, including those who desperately need an increase in benefits.

According to the AARP nearly nine million older Americans are facing the threat of hunger; Over 20 million low-income people over 50 do not have adequate financial resources. Over 13 million older Americans cannot afford their housing costs. See here.

But people who have an adequate and even generous income from pensions, 401k savings and/ or investments or other income can accept lower benefits, and even none, so that the needs of those who truly need more can be addressed. The payroll tax on lower incomes must be reduced or even eliminated.

My proposal as set forth here is an attempt to at least start a conversation.

If I cannot trigger some thought, and/or some discussion, then I am wasting my time in writing these posts.

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