It is said that a test of character is how the most vulnerable are treated. Being honest, we have to admit that we live in a society devoid of any character at all. Sure, we hear now and then of isolated of individual heroism and sacrifice, and they not only make us feel human but give us hope that every one in need will be taken care of. But the reality is, this is not the case.
We, all of us, have created a society, either by direct intent, apathy or ignorance, where in those who are the most vulnerable always bear the burden of the heaviest sacrifices to be made, whether that be economic, or even of life and death in war. We enforce the avoidance of this reality with the insistence that, damn near every utterance of our political leaders, when discussing some aspect of America, is prefaced or qualified with the statement, "the greatest country in the world."
But it really doesn't matter who is in power, democrat or republican; the process template of all legislative action is always first do no harm, to the interests of the oligarchy. In EVERY piece of legislation, nothing is passed that calls for any real sacrifices on the part of those at the top. Sure, there is a lot of wailing over "paying their fair share," but rest assured that the "little bit more" the wealthy are asked to pay is the equivalent of most of us being asked to be lighter by a few pennies. Meanwhile, sacrifices are demanded of the rest of us that usually carry significant consequences, in some cases even life and death.
Republicans don't even bother with the pretense any more of pretending to be for "working families." (when was the last time you heard them trot that chestnut out?) And, if we are being real, all the Obama happy talk of "hope and change" has its limits as well. For the latest evidence, you need look no further than the recent fiscal cliff deal to see the ridiculous giveaways. If anything, I hope he changes when it comes to negotiating! When it comes to the 1%, addressing their wants is the priority, while the needs of the rest of us must be sacrificed. That is the template, whether its democrats or republicans.
On the one hand, all this is written off as the "legislative sausage making," the ugly underside of how things get done, e.g. is what it is. Accepting that view is to accept the status quo and tacitly acknowledge that this is how it should be. In other cases, you have those who can be counted on to say, after every "deal," that this was "the best that could be done." If you look at the political process as a sporting contest between democrats and republicans, its fitting. We argue over who won and who lost.
But we avert our eyes from who the real losers are, even when in many cases, its us. And we lie to ourselves, or readily accept lies in order to accept the status quo.
Take for example, the references to "reforming" social security. You hear this from democratic and republican leaders, and that this must be done to "make sure the program is available for future recipients," and also to "deal with the deficit." The facts are future recipients will be taken care of until 2036, at which time there will be enough in the trust fund to pay 75% of benefits without making some adjustment. The other fact is, social security's funds have nothing to do with the deficit; its trust fund is, by law, separate from the general fund.
They want to "reform" social security by applying the so-called Chained CPI, a method of calculating future benefits. By all accounts, this amounts to a cut. Every other method of "reforming" the program has also been some form of a cut, including raising the retirement age.
Proponents of Chained CPI, democrats and republicans, crow about the billions of dollars this will save, but just know that when we are talking about saving money, this is money we are also talking about denying seniors. Putting this in a wider context, what we are really talking about is denying thousands of dollars to senior citizens who are already squeezed to death trying to make it on an average social security income of $15,000 per year in retirement, to "save billions of dollars" that does not impact the deficit one way or the other. So why do it? Essentially we're saying: let's cut their benefits today, so we don't have to apply some solution in 2036. It makes no sense at all. Why not apply a solution today?
And there is a simple solution: raise the cap on payroll taxes used to fund the program. Right now, for an individual, its $106,000 per year. Social security is due to everyone, no matter the income, so why not raise it? Here's an example of the impact: I make more than $106K per year. I hit that point about a 6 weeks or so before the end of the year. The paycheck I get that is the first one that after I've made the $106K for a given year does not have any payroll taxes taken out. The difference is negligible either way. Why not raise the cap to address the shortfall?
And yet, this simple solution has been practically ignored, by both parties. Instead we hear talk of making sure the poor and middle class have "skin in the game," which essentially speaks to the weird obsession by the political and wealth classes to not only have those at the bottom fund the excesses of the top, as we did with the bank bailouts, but also to make sure that we experience pain in return for the few crumbs that are left after they've taken yet another "share."
I have recently heard more discussion over raising the cap, including among some in the democratic party, but this simple solution remains a heavy political lift at this point, and because of that I don't expect more to stick their necks out for it. And it is a heavy lift because here is a solution that is not favored by the oligarchy, those who pay for the political campaigns for both democrats and republicans.
We say we want to "reform" social security when we don't have the balls to admit that we want to cut the already meager benefits of senior citizens just to sate the warped sensibilities of the oligarchy who demand sacrifice for the sake of it. And its not out of a sense of shame that the political class hide behind the Orwellian "reform" moniker, but expediency.
No comments:
Post a Comment