For
a very long time, Americans on the political right have
known that anyone who receives anything from the government
- especially a helping hand in time of need - is a somehow
inferior being and is to be approached with some caution.
That
rule applies, of course, only to individuals. The reason
for that is that individuals, especially if they are women,
children, and the elderly infirm, really can�t do much to
harm their detractors.
This
condition may not be uniquely American, but many Americans
on the right have brought it nearly to an art form. So many
millions of them - people who can be assumed to be living
a comfortable or affluent life - have a need to look down
on those who need such things as unemployment insurance
benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, or help from a food pantry,
now and then.
Now,
those who are collecting benefits from Social Security -
or are about to - are considered to be �lesser people.�
At least, that�s the view of Alan Simpson, the former Republican
senator from Wyoming,
who is co-chair of President Obama�s deficit reduction commission.
It�s
known in some circles as the Social Security reduction commission,
since that is one of the three primary target areas at which
the commission is looking. The commission is looking at
so-called entitlements to reduce the federal government�s
annual bill for things that serve the people.
Strangely,
the people who receive monthly checks from Social Security
don�t look at the program as an �entitlement.� Rather, they
look at it as something they participated in and paid into
for as much as a half-century or more. And, they don�t agree
that it is going out of business any time soon.
Statistics
show that, if nothing is done for the next three decades,
Social Security may have to pay only 75 percent of benefits,
but that is not likely to happen, since economists and accountants
with a bit of integrity in their backgrounds know that,
with a few adjustments, the money that flows into the system
will outstrip the money that is paid out. All that�s needed
is a little equity in paying for it.
Obama�s
quest for bipartisanship resulted in his choosing one of
the more right-wing members of Congress of recent decades
as co-chair of his commission - Simpson, who in a long career
in the U.S. Senate never saw a social program that he liked.
Fattening on his pay and other perks of office - private
and public - he came to expect that all Americans should
be able to get what he stooped to achieve.
In
retirement, though, he can afford to be magnanimous. He
wants to save programs like Social Security, so that the
�lesser people� of America
will have some kind of floor under their financial existence.
At least, that�s what he told an interviewer as he left
a commission meeting room earlier this summer (the meetings
are not open to the public or the press or others).
In
a combative interview that was conducted by a very respectful
interviewer (all on videotape), Simpson verbally abused
the interviewer from Social Security Works, Alex Lawson,
as Lawson tried to get from Simpson some idea about how
they were approaching debt or deficit reduction in the three
major programs - Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Lawson tried to determine whether the commission was considering
the �adequacy� of the programs, rather than just the cost.
Simpson
said that the 15 members of the commission were not balancing
the cost of the programs and the federal budget �on the
backs of� senior citizens. Asked whether the rumored raising
of the retirement age from 65 to 70 was a benefit cut, Simpson
further verbally abused the interviewer, and so it went
for the duration of the interview.
When
Lawson pointed out that the Social Security fund has some
$2.5 trillion in it, Simpson retorted that that was just
�a bunch of IOUs,� and just because the fund is backed by
the full faith and credit of the U.S. government doesn�t mean that the $2.5 trillion
is there to be used for benefits. That money, he said, was
used for the Interstate highway system and other things
that Americans have enjoyed for generations.
In
other words, it�s possible in Simpson�s view, that the government
can default on its obligation to its own people - who have
paid into the $2.5 trillion fund - in deference to paying
off the debt to more important entities, like to China or Japan, or others who own a large portion of our
global debt.
What
the right wing of America doesn�t seem to know
- or, if they know, they won�t acknowledge - that Social
Security is not an �entitlement� program, in which people
who haven�t paid in get some kind of benefit. Rather, it
is a funded program into which people have paid all of their
working lives.
Even
Medicare and Medicaid are programs that would be universal
(that is, for everyone in the country), if we had kept up
with the enlightened social programs of all of the other
industrialized or �developed� countries and adopted a medical
program that was not owned by the for-profit insurance and
health industries.
To
protect the profits of those industries, people like Simpson
have done all in their power to keep huge money-generating
programs in private hands for generations, thus ensuring
that the costs never would come down, because, if the costs
came down in the current system, it would mean lower profits
for Corporate America.
Welfare
for the poor and infirm always has been the whipping boy
for the minions of the corporations. They are the �entitlement�
programs that have to be curbed, even though it is clear
that tax breaks, subsidies, grants, and other benefits,
created for corporations, are the real �entitlements� and
account for greater claims on the federal budget than single
mothers with a child or two, or older people who cannot
work, or the disabled. Otherwise, there could not be the
historic current disparity in wealth that exists in America, something that has not been seen for
a century.
It
may have been a Freudian slip on the part of Simpson to
say that people who are beneficiaries of social programs
are �lesser people,� it was a slip that has shown the attitude
of the rich and powerful about the American people through
much of our history.
That
attitude apparently is common, whether members of the ruling
class were scions of the robber barons or made their way
from rather wild teen years in Wyoming into the U.S. Senate.
Considering
the powerful myth of America
as a classless society, this kind of thinking never should
occur, but Simpson exposed it in two words this summer,
and the politics of the nation gives evidence of it every
day.
To
the recent suggestion that the rich should be taxed as a
means of increasing the government�s income and paying off
the nation�s debts, Paul Craig Roberts (who obviously thinks
a lot like Simpson) recently wrote that the rich have enough
money and, if their taxes are raised, they�ll just stop
�earning.� It shows how little Roberts and Simpson know
about working for a living. Generally, these people �earn�
nothing; they�re just paid a lot.
When
it comes to �earning� their wages, the �lesser people� will
be expected to just keep on working and supporting everyone,
especially the top percent or two, who seem always to find
a way to concentrate most of the money. It will now be up
to the �lesser people� to make certain that Social Security,
Medicaid, and Medicare are not hollowed out and those who
actually work get some benefit from their labor.
BlackCommentator.com
Columnist, John Funiciello, is a labor organizer and former
union organizer. His union work started when he became a
local president of The Newspaper Guild in the early 1970s.
He was a reporter for 14 years for newspapers in New York State. In
addition to labor work, he is organizing family farmers
as they struggle to stay on the land under enormous pressure
from factory food producers and land developers. Click here
to contact Mr. Funiciello. |