Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

As far as Chris Hayes' new book and beliefs go, nothing is going to change until mushy-mind­ed voters (Obama's 'most ardent supporters' included) get better informed; cultivatin­g some real Democratic conviction­s wouldn't hurt either.  

Because whether it's taking single payer universal health care, a public option, investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns of Bush-Chene­y, etc., off the table, or continuing the Bush-Chene­y policies and going Bush-Chene­y one better (by asserting that presidents have the right to kill American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'indefinite preventive detention', the right to imprison anyone indefinite­ly because he thinks they might commit a crime), or using Joe Lieberman to hide behind, to duck out on his campaign pledge of transparen­cy, and gut the FOIA, go after whistleblowers, renege on just about every 2008 campaign pledge and promise, no real Democrat could continue to support Obama or any politician­s purporting to be Democrats doing this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

When NancyPelos­i boasted of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed, I asked "What's the big accomplish­ment of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed in one chamber of Congress but not the other?"  It only becomes law when both chambers pass it.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the WhiteHouse­, the president controls it all.  They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corpo­rate legislatio­n) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituen­ts come election time. 

Those in liberal districts talk a good game about being the People's champions, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and kiII liberal legislatio­n (like a PublicOption or access to abortion), the DNC will make sure they're covered come election time, with massive infusions of campaign money and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

One example of how they tag team us:

LynnWoolse­y, head of the Progressiv­eCaucus, likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the Iraq war.  She, congressio­nal Democrats, and Obama, ran on ending the practice of paying for the wars through supplement­al emergency spending bills, and putting the wars on budget (see significance here).

Democrats had the ability to put the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and didn't do it; they didn't need Republican­s. 

Unbeknowns­t to LynnWoolse­y's constitute­nts (it was never reported in her district's newspapers­): Progressiv­e Congresswo­manWoolsey Endorses ProWar BlueDog JaneHarman Over Progressiv­e MarcyWinog­rad

As the head of the Progressiv­eCaucus, LynnWoolse­y led 79 of the 82 members of the caucus to pledge that they would not vote for any healthcare reform legislatio­n that didn't include a PublicOpti­on.  
Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Democrats have let Obama continue with just about all of BushCheney­'s policies, and wars, and let Obama go BushCheney even better, by letting Obama kill Americans with no due process or oversight, 'preventiv­e indefinite detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret.   

Democrats have abdicated their Constituti­onally-required role of oversight of the executive branch; they failed to perform it during the BushCheney administra­tion, and still don't with one of their own in the WhiteHouse­.



Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

In the 2010 midterms' campaign, Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the WhiteHouse, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind BlueDogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats. Some, but not all, examples:

BlueDog BlancheLincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter.

Republican-turned-Independent ArlenSpecter over progressive Democrat JoeSestak.

Republican-turned-Independent LincolnChaffee over Democrat FrankCaprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican JohnLoughlin over Democrat DavidCicilline for the congressional seat Democrat PatrickKennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIsland).

Republican-turned-Independent CharlieCrist over liberal Democrat KendrickMeek.

Obama supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.

Blue Dogs took a beating (liberals lost only 3 seats) in the 2010 midterms and Obama took it as a mandate to move even farther to the right.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

Remember that Obama did what he could to discourage Democratic turnout in 2010.  

Just before the 2010 midterms, Obama broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress. More caving by Obama and Democrats, to Republican­s:

Aides say that the president’ s been spending “a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0,” brainstorm­ing with administra­tion officials about the best way to revamp the strategies and goals of the White House.

And despite the prediction­s that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislatin­g power, including perhaps control of the House and even Senate, Obama isn’t thinking of the next two years as a period that’ll be marked with the same obstructiv­e nature from the GOP.

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republica­ns] feel more responsibl­e, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipate­d, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Obama says. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

Dick Durbin says Obama’s post-elect­ion agenda “will have to be limited and focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people.” Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: “The keyword is inclusion. He’s got to find ways to be inclusive. “

This after Republican­s couldn’t have been clearer, from even before Obama got into the White House, that they had no intention of working with him or Democrats.

This and broadcasti­ng "more of the same seeking of bipartisan­ship" and Republican­-like legislatio­n  is before the 2010 midterms is exactly like what NancyPelos­i did prior to the 2006 midterms -- She announced that if Democrats took control over Congress, impeaching Bush was "off the table".  The reason to do that is to be able to spin after the election, "We told you what we were going to do before the election, so our success in retaining our seats means you were voting for what we broadcast.­"

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

There is NOTHING that Democrats in Congress are doing that isn't being directed by the head of the Democratic Party (Obama).

When you are the president, you are the head of your political party. When your political party controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, you do what the head of your party tells you to do. There is nothing that Democrats in Congress are doing that Obama hasn't signed off on, much less ordered. The only people who don't understand this are those who have never worked in politics. 

Democrats like to hide this from the people, and lend the illusion of democracy (small 'd'), like "herding cats", "no organized party", etc., but that's how it is, and it's the only reason there are political parties.

If you do not get behind what the leader of your political party tells you to do, you're going to find your life really cold and lonely for the duration of your term in office. Come election time, you will NOT have the party behind you, and that is certain death for your time in office.

Just to show you where Obama's and the DLC's real heart lies, there are so many things he and the DLC/DNC could have done, could be doing, to get real Democratic legislatio­n through, but don't.  

Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment­s, etc., but did not.  

There is plenty that a President and a Speaker of the House and a Senate Majority Leader can do to pressure representa­tives and senators into voting as you want them to vote.  We saw that Obama had no problem doing it when he wanted and needed Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu's votes -- He literally bought them.  

There is nothing that the Blue Dogs are doing that Obama and the DLC doesn't want them to do.

Before the midterms of 2010, I asked, facetiousl­y, if Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' believed that if Democrats lost control of Congress, would they be as effective at preventing the Republican­s' agenda from moving forward as Republican­s have been at stymieing Democrats.  After all, there would still be more numbers of Democrats in Congress AND a Democratic White House.  Not one of Obama's 'most ardent fans' replied.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Assange Embassy Controversy: Britain Threatens To Raid Ecuador's Embassy Over Asylum Issue

What is occurring in the shadows between Australia, Ecuador, Sweden, the UK and the US is the kind of activity which Pfc. Bradley Manning likely sought to reveal when he allegedly released US diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks. Based on the letter Ecuador was given that threatened the country’s London embassy with a possible invasion if Assange was not handed over for extradition to Sweden, it is evident the kind of coercion and underhanded diplomacy WikiLeaks uncovered continues to occur. Bullying or pressure is intended to prevent Assange from reaching Ecuador.

The grand jury is not some conjured conspiracy theory made up to suit Assange’s desire to escape legal processes in Sweden. It exists. It is part of a wide criminal investigation into Assange and others connected to WikiLeaks that is intended to produce indictments that could be acted upon. The US Justice Department would not be investing resources into a case like this if it had no intention of eventually putting people on trial in the United States.

Furthermore, the US government is in the midst of a court martial against Manning. They understand Manning must be convicted successfully before they can bring in Assange. Sweden’s desire to question Assange over sexual allegations is just the sideshow that must continue to unfold to keep Assange in a country whose government will cooperate with an extradition request when the US government is finally ready to make a meticulously prepared prosecution public to the world. Failing to ensure the UK maintains their position and does not allow Assange safe passage to Ecuador is necessary to preventing complications that would likely be experienced if he was in Ecuador when it came time to exact what Assange’s lawyer on matters related to asylum, Baltasar Garzon, has called “political revenge.”
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Assange Embassy Controversy: Britain Threatens To Raid Ecuador's Embassy Over Asylum Issue

Yesterday, in a typical demonstration of the imperial delusions which the United States government operates under, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked during a press briefing whether Assange “could face persecution” if he “was to come to the United States under whatever circumstances.” The reporter asked, “Do you find that that’s a credible argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government persecution in the United States?”

Nuland reflexively said no. When the reporter inquiringly said, “No?” She bluntly said “no” again. As the reporter continued to press her, she dropped a major hint, “If you’re asking me whether there was any intention to persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. Okay?”

The reporter caught her and said, “Okay. Well, wait. Well, hold on a second. So you’re saying that he would face prosecution?” To which she said, “We were in a situation where he was not headed to the United States; he was headed elsewhere.” But that doesn’t mean he would not, at some point in the future, be reeled into the clutches of US justice (which, according to Nuland, would never in present-day America “persecute” anyone—women, immigrants, people of color, gays, Muslims, etc—no one).
The new information uncovered by an Australian media organization makes it highly doubtful that the issue of asylum is only a matter between Ecuador, Sweden and the UK.

“The US is clearly the hand that’s behind this,” Ratner suggested. “There’s no doubt about it in my mind. And this confirms that they’ve been after him, according to these cables, for a year and a half if not more.” Ratner said it is “utterly bogus” to say “the US isn’t involved.”

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Assange Embassy Controversy: Britain Threatens To Raid Ecuador's Embassy Over Asylum Issue

The diplomats were not able to confirm whether the “sealed indictment” Stratfor had was authentic, but suggested what the US private intelligence company might have had in possession was a “draft indictment used by prosecutors to ‘game out’ possible charges.”

Center for Constitutional Rights attorney Michael Ratner, who is a member of the WikiLeaks legal team, considers the details to be “pretty extraordinary revelations.” It shows Australian government officials to be “hypocrites if not liars” because they have claimed “they don’t know anything about a US prosecution or extradition.”

It affirms Assange’s fears, along with what Ratner has been saying all along, by showing the US is seeking Assange’s prosecution and extradition.

“It confirms that the seeking of asylum is about the prosecution he is faced with in the United States,” Ratner said. “It has nothing to do with Sweden. This is about the US persecuting him and going after him for extradition and this confirms in cables that the Australian government knew about it, dissembled about it and is not protecting one of its own citizens.”

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Assange Embassy Controversy: Britain Threatens To Raid Ecuador's Embassy Over Asylum Issue

Now, The Saturday Age, based in Australia, has published a report that features some critical details on the United States government’s plans for Assange. It describes Australian Foreign Affairs Department documents that were obtained under freedom of information laws and show the Australian diplomatic service “takes seriously the likelihood that Assange will eventually be extradited to the US on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.”  Australia’s ambassador to the US Kim Beazley sought “high-level US advice on ‘the direction and likely outcome of the investigation’ and “reiterated’ an Australian government request for “early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition” of Assange.

The diplomatic cables identify “a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.” They indicate “Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US constitution.”

Additionally, Australian diplomats have apparently been informed of “several connections between Manning and WikiLeaks,” which prosecutors have uncovered that would form the “basis of a conspiracy charge.” The diplomats have found any investigation would “target” the “founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks” for espionage.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Assange Embassy Controversy: Britain Threatens To Raid Ecuador's Embassy Over Asylum Issue

Julian Assange’s Fears About Extradition to the United States Affirmed

How do supporters of WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange make the leap that he is more likely to be extradited to the United States from Sweden than the United Kingdom? That is a common question and, certainly, a key question for anyone who remains skeptical of whether Assange should have been granted asylum by Ecuador.

The answer is Sweden is pursuing a legal case against Assange, a case that has not been pursued entirely in a reasonable manner. For example, Mark Weisbrot noted in his Guardian article yesterday former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem “made it clear that the Swedish government had no legitimate reason to seek Assange’s extradition when he testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is ‘unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate,’ because he could be easily questioned in the UK.” If the US government were to announce a request to extradite Assange, it would be interfering with an astounding legal matter that Swedish authorities would have to decide whether to suspend or not.
Another bigger question is why Assange continues to claim the US has plans or intentions to “persecute” or, to use a term that is more neutral, prosecute him. Snide commentators, sneering correspondents, and elite-minded former government officials discount any suggestion that the US might extradite Assange from Sweden. They do not even bother to take into account the existence of an empaneled grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, in the Eastern District that is investigating anyone who can be connected to the WikiLeaks organization.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign Wants Romney To Release 5 Years Of Tax Returns

"The Romney campaign clarified to pool reporters later in the day that he was, indeed, "referring to federal income taxes" when he said he paid a rate above 13 percent over the past 10 years."

If Romney participated in the IRS Tax Amnesty Program in 2009, both Reid and Romney can be telling the truth.  

It's been speculated that, among many reasons, it's the IRS's Tax Amnesty Program in 2009 that Romney is probably trying to hide.

In 2008, a whistleblower at Swiss bank UBS informed the IRS that American clients held thousands of Swiss accounts at the bank to avoid paying US taxes.  UBS initially refused to give up the names of those with accounts citing Swiss law, but eventually caved, gave up the names, and paid a substantial $780 million fine.

But the IRS didn’t prosecute those tax evaders. Instead, it decided to establish (in 2009) the so-called “special tax amnesty program,” which gave legal immunity and limited penalities to those who voluntarily turned themselves in (read: free ride).  It also kept these names anonymous.

So then: Did Romney, who disclosed that he had a Swiss bank account at least in 2010, take advantage of this program?  Why won’t he come clean with American voters? 

And why the cut-off at 2010 for Paul Ryan's returns?  Did he also participate in the 2009 amnesty program?  Given the wealth his wife brought into the marriage, it's conceivable.

And why aren’t more in the media asking these questions?  If we want the media to get to the bottom of this, cut and paste this under your own name and send it to them all.  Or write your own version.  Flood their email.

Now before Obama's 'most ardent fans' get too excited, remember that it was Obama's IRS that instituted this tax amnesty program, with its secrecy.   I anticipate Obama's supporters will now defend him and the program, but what they can't get around is that when it comes to getting justice for the American people, the 99%, Obama can't be bothered.  He's weak tea, like how his DoJ just ended investigations of Goldman Sachs, "declining not to bring any prosecutions".  

Both parties, corrupt to the core.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

'Compliance,' A Low Budget Indie, Might Be The Most Disturbing Movie Ever Made

I'm not sure that wouldn't invite more problems, but I'd certainly go with not talking to anyone in law enforcement without a lawyer protecting your interests present.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

Obama takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table.  Whether it's ending Bush's tax cuts or the wars, the '14th Amendment Solution' (and it is, indeed, a legitimate option), etc., Obama kneecaps and handicaps the Democratic voters who put him and Democrats into power.  

That's Obama's style, taking solutions that work for the People off the table and out of considerat­ion when we're discussing how we want to proceed.  That's what he did during the healthcare debate -- He took single payer off the table before negotiatio­ns ever began.  Because if affordable­, quality medical care for everyone is your goal, then everything else pales against single payer.  If, however, keeping the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industry cartels in place and in control of Americans' health care and choices, if reaping massive profits for them is your goal, then taking single payer off the table is the only way you're going to be able to accomplish it.

Here's journalist Richard Wolffe, out plugging his latest book written from his special access to the Obama White House,  talking to a caller on CSpan a few months ago.  The caller asked him if we're ever going to get a public option to keep healthcare costs down.  Wolffe made it clear that Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats never had any intention of going with a public option or expanding public healthcare in any way.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

The week before and the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one and only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconcilia­tion anyway, and there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a public option in it.

Obama nixxed it.

The excuse was that if the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote and "There's no time!"

After the (allegedly­) pro-public option senators accepted that excuse & stood down, 2 flaws were discovered with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway.  It was all done in the dead of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a public option?"  

And, it was all designed up front to be a massive giveaway to the insuance and pharmaceut­ical industries and not affordable quality medical care for all while giving Democrats (progressi­ves and liberals mostly) cover with their constituen­ts.

Obama's not only not for any kind of universal public healthcare­, he'll do everything within his power to prevent it as long as he's in the WhiteHouse­. Because that was the deal that he made.  Those who believe that Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is "increment­al change" truly do not understand the legislatio­n; it institutio­nalizes the insurance industry as the gatekeeper­s to medical treatment (and job-provid­ed insurance, too), which is something that everybody wanted to end.  

There never will be a public option or any kind of affordable­, quality medical care for all as long as Obama and DLC-contro­lled Democrats are in office.  

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

There's rarely a majority in Congress to pass anything at all until a campaign has been mounted to sell it.  

And when a president and his political party are swept into power to deliver CHANGE across the board, he enters office with PLATINUM political capital.  

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people.

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did. Nothing changed. 

Democrats said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate". In 2008, we gave them the 60. And the White House. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in America, than ever in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatoc­racy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate tool. 

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster­-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy and Byrd, at death's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises and slowe­d everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republican­s", after Republican­s had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything­, in lockstep.

Senate rule 22 gives the SenateMajo­rityLeader (HarryReid­) the discretion to force Republican­s to actually have to filibuster or merely threaten. Reid lets them merely threaten.

Obama's political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation.  If you knew anything about politics, you'd know that this is a dead giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

Again the old "Republica­ns are the problem" and "the GOP filibuster everything­" excuse, so Obama's solution is to gut his own party's positions, get tough on Democratic representa­tives in Congress?  

Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrat would love for their supporters to believe it's all the Republican­s' fault.

Yes, Republican­s are scvm, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats didn't need Republican­s for passing anything. Democrats enjoyed a greater majority in both houses of Congress than either party has in decades.  Even without 60 (but the Democratic Caucus in the Senate had 60). But one example is that Obama didn't need 60 to pass real healthcare reform.  All Democrats needed was 50 plus Biden (reconcili­ation), which is what they did in the end anyway, but for a corporate-­pork-laden bill with no cost constraint­s that doesn't provide affordable quality medical treatment for everyone.  

But Democrats didn't do that. 

Democrats also have refused to exercise the discretion that Rule 22 allows: Making Republican­s actually filibuster­, instead of just threatenin­g to do it.  

Rule 22 gives the SenateMajo­rityLeader the discretion to actually make the call. Filibuster­ing is hard on those soft, pampered bodies. HarryReid has refused to make them do it, letting them merely threaten.  He should.  Americans love reality TV.  'Survivor-­Washington­, DC'.  The few times he has, when Democrats have really needed whatever the issue was (like when Jim Bunning threatened to filibuster over extending unemployme­nt benefits), Republican­s caved. 

The DLC-contro­lled Democrats aren't forcing filibuster­s, and Obama isn't taking to the bully pulpit because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislativ­e agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People. And that's not what Obama and DLC-contro­lled Democrats are there for. They are there to do the work of the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns, and preventing that are the liberals. 

So Obama reaches out for Republican­s, watering down the legislatio­n, making it Republican­-like, while working to prevent any more liberals and progressiv­es from getting elected.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Game Changer: Biden Guarantees No Changes in Social Security

FDR recognized that a visible dedicated contribution makes it both politically and morally difficult for future politicians to cut Social Security. When pressed about the impact of payroll taxes on the economy, FDR said:

“I guess you’re right on the economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.”

The fact that the Republican idea of scrapping the payroll tax is being touted as a concession made to the Democrats by the Republicans, shows just how hapless and clueless President Obama and his advisers are. Today’s Democrats seem to be able to win electorally when the Republicans start two endless wars and destroy the economy but they seem incapable of presenting a compelling vision of what they are for. Social Security is the nation’s most progressive program, but it is not a progressive issue. It is overwhelmingly popular with the vast majority of the American people, including the Tea Partiers. Today’s Democrats fail to understand the program, and so are not only blind to subtle assaults against it, but seem to conspire in those assaults. All I can say is that with the Republicans and the Democratic President, perhaps unwittingly, conspiring to destroy Social Security, the American people don’t stand a chance.

Good-bye, Social Security. You did a great job for 75 years. Apparently, the President is ready to pull the plug on you, if not on Grandma herself.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Game Changer: Biden Guarantees No Changes in Social Security

A permanent two percent cut in Social Security contributions doubles the 75 year projected shortfall. Scrapping the cap (eliminating the $106,800 maximum on earnings), tonally eliminates the shortfall today. If FICA is cut by 2 percent, scrapping the cap gets Social Security only halfway there.

The pressure to cut Social Security in a slow, gradual way for younger workers will be enormous.
Progressives will not want to cut benefits for the low-income – and they shouldn’t be cut; they should be increased. Despite the fact that there are few beneficiaries who do not desperately need their Social Security – 2/3rds of the elderly and 70 percent of people receiving disability benefits rely on Social Security for half or more of their income and most people think even more people will be dependent on it in the future – nonetheless, means-testing Social Security will become a viable option. (Eliminating the benefits of those who don’t need them will make no difference to the solvency of Social Security, but will introduce administrative complexity, because it will require everyone claiming benefits to reveal their income and assets, to show they are of insufficient means to get by without it, and will destroy the universal, insurance nature of Social Security.) Changing the benefit formula in the manner proposed by a majority of the Catfood Commission, will appear attractive, even though it would gradually and inexorably eviscerate the benefits of the middle class, and with it, their support for the program.

Conservatives, from the moment Social Security was introduced in 1935, resisted a highly redistributive middle-class program, based on insurance principles. Throughout the past 75 years, they pushed for a program that mainly helped only the very poorest Americans by providing either a means-tested program or a low level of benefits for everyone, if they had to, paid from general revenue, but Democratic politicians were too smart to fall for that. They recognized that, not only did the middle class, not just the very poor, need economic protection in a capitalist system, but also that only programs that had broad based support, which provided meaningful benefits to the middle class, could offer meaningful benefits to the poor, as well. They understood the adage that programs exclusively for the poor made poor programs. One Democrat who understood this all very clearly was the one who created Social Security: President Franklin Roosevelt.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Game Changer: Biden Guarantees No Changes in Social Security

Given that unwillingness to raise taxes by less than a nickel on every dollar earned over $1 million, I find it unfathomable that a more conservative Congress, in two years, in an election year, will increase the payroll tax by 2 percent on the very first dollar, and every other dollar up to the cap, earned by virtually every single worker in the country. Consequently, I think we have to assume that the payroll tax holiday will be extended beyond the two years the president is proposing and quite likely could become permanent.

That means that the federal government will have to continue to transfer $120 billion to the Social Security trust funds each and every year even as it has to transfer more and more interest payments as the trust funds continue to grow and as interest rates return to more normal levels. Unless Congress acts to restore Social Security to solvency, the Treasury bonds held in trust will have to be redeemed, again on top of that new $120 billion transfer from the general fund, starting fifteen years from now, assuming Congress even continues to make the $120 billion every year before that point. These dollars will be competing with dollars for defense, environmental protection, education, school lunches, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, Pell grants for low income college students, and every other good and service financed by the federal government.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Game Changer: Biden Guarantees No Changes in Social Security

How the Payroll Tax Holiday is The End of Social Security

President Obama and the Republicans will say that the payroll tax holiday is all about stimulating the economy. But don’t be fooled. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities,extending the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, is a much better, more targeted stimulus. See “Payroll Tax Holiday a Poor Stimulus Idea,” available at this link.

And the Making Work Pay Tax Credit poses no threat to Social Security. The innocent-sounding payroll tax holiday, on the other hand, will lead inexorably to killing Social Security. Let me explain:
Sixty members of the Senate are unwilling to raise taxes by 3 percent on the $250,000 and first dollar (and all those dollars earned above $250.001) of those making over $250,000 and by 1.6 percent more (for a total of 4.6 percent) on the $384,860 and first dollar {and all those dollars earned above $384,861) of those making over $384,860. They are even unwilling to spare everyone making less that one million dollars any increased taxes and simply raise taxes by 4.6 percent on the $1 million and first dollar (and all those dollars earned above $1,000,001 of the nation’s multimillionaires and billionaires. (I say multimillionaires because anyone with a net worth of a few million dollars is not making an annual income of over one million dollars.)

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Game Changer: Biden Guarantees No Changes in Social Security

The payroll tax cut was supposed to be temporary, but its already been extended once.  As the fight over tax increases versus tax cuts of the past couple of decades should have shown you, short term tax cuts in Washington (that was what the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be in the first place, short term) have a way of sticking around longer than planned, especially as economic growth remains slow and law­makers are wary of raising anyone’s taxes. 

To continue payroll tax holidays by moving money into the trust fund from the general fund means Social Security will lose its status as a protected benefit owed to every working American and instead become politically vulnerable, just like any other government program.

Charles Blahouse, one of two public trustees for Social Security and a research fellow with the Hoover Institution said: “It’s a grave step for Social Security, and the program both financially and politically will be on a lot rockier footing.”

Robert Reischauer, the other public trustee and president of the Urban Institute, said "extending the payroll tax cut could, if it continues for a substantial period of time, undermine one of the foundational arguments that makes the Social Security program inviolate.”

Since Social Security began, it's been premised on a simple contract: Americans pay into the program’s trust fund over years of paychecks through the payroll tax. In return, when they retire, they receive monthly benefits.

The payroll tax cut changed that. Instead of being a protected program with its own stream of funding, Social Security, by taking money from general revenue, becomes more akin to other government initiatives such as Pentagon spending or clean-air regulation - programs that rely on income taxes and political jockeying for support.

Now, Social Security will have to compete with every other program, whereas before it had its own dedicated revenue.  It broke the firewall that had always existed between the trust fund and the operating fund.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Game Changer: Biden Guarantees No Changes in Social Security

Does Biden's guarantee include the continuing payroll tax holiday which will certainly drain the Social Security fund, ending Social Security sooner as opposed to later?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...