Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lessons from FDR: When the Right Cries Wolf, Bite Back (updated)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 12:13 PM
Original message
Lessons from FDR: When the Right Cries Wolf, Bite Back (updated)
Edited on Mon Aug-16-10 12:29 PM by ProSense
Peter Dreier and Donald Cohen

Lessons from FDR: When the Right Cries Wolf, Bite Back

<...>

In retrospect, it is obvious that Social Security's Depression-era opponents engaged in fear-mongering, not economic reality. Their opposition was based on a free-market fundamentalist ideology that abhorred any attempt by reformers to utilize government to improve American's living conditions, working conditions, or public health.

In 1936, Landon and the Republican Party made the repeal of Social Security the centerpiece of their campaign. This year, GOP candidates for Congress are calling for repeal of the health care reform law enacted in March, using much of the same rhetoric.

Just like the early battle over Social Security wasn't really about old-age insurance, current fights over public policy are really place-holders for broader concerns. They are about what kind of country we want to be and what values we consider most important.

Indeed, business groups, Republicans, and right-wing zealots today not only oppose health care reform, but also tougher financial regulations, stronger workplace safety laws, policies to limit climate change, labor law reform, higher taxes on the rich, extension of unemployment insurance to the long-term jobless, and even providing medical benefits to the cops, firefighters and other 9/11 first-responders. The issues vary, but mantra is the same: This liberal (fill-in-the-blank) policy will kill jobs, undermine the entrepreneurial spirit, and destroy freedom.

The success of Social Security teaches us two important lessons.

First, the White House and progressive activists should aggressively challenge business groups and their political and academic allies whenever they issue warnings about the awful disasters that will befall us if government protects consumers, workers, seniors, children, the disabled, and the environment. As we've seen time and time again, they are usually "crying wolf."

Second, the radical ideas of one generation are often the common sense of the next generation. . Don't be surprised that by the time they can vote 18 years from now, the children born this year will take universal health care, clean energy, and gay marriage for granted. Throughout our history, progress is made when progressive activists and politicians propose bold ideas, and then win a series of stepping stone reforms that add up to major changes that redefine the social contract.


Edited to add to the point in the last paragraph: We're celebrating 75 years of Social Security, and it's important to remember that the legislation evolved to become what it is today.

FDR's statement on the 1939 amendments to the Social Security Act of 1935:

IT WILL be exactly four years ago on the fourteenth day of this month that I signed the original Social Security Act. As I indicated at that time and on various occasions since that time, we must expect a great program of social legislation, such as is represented in the Social Security Act, to be improved and strengthened in the light of additional experience and understanding. These amendments to the Act represent another tremendous step forward in providing greater security for the people of this country. This is especially true in the case of the federal old age insurance system which has now been converted into a system of old age and survivors' insurance providing life-time family security instead of only individual old age security to the workers in insured occupations. In addition to the worker himself, millions of widows and orphans will now be afforded some degree of protection in the event of his death whether before or after his retirement.

The size of the benefits to be paid during the early years will be far more adequate than under the present law. However, a reasonable relationship is retained between wage loss sustained and benefits received. This is a most important distinguishing characteristic of social insurance as contrasted with any system of flat pensions.

Payment of old age benefits will begin on January 1, 1940, instead of January 1, 1942. Increase in pay-roll taxes, scheduled to take place in January, 1940, is deferred. Benefit payments in the early years are substantially increased.

I am glad that the insurance benefits have been extended to cover workers in some occupations that have previously not been covered. However, workers in other occupations have been excluded. In my opinion, it is imperative that these insurance benefits be extended to workers in all occupations.

The Federal-State system of providing assistance to the needy aged, the needy blind, and dependent children, has also been strengthened by increasing the federal aid. I am particularly gratified that the Federal matching ratio to States for aid to dependent children has been increased from one-third to one-half of the aid granted. I am also happy that greater Federal contributions will be made for public health, maternal and child welfare, crippled children, and vocational rehabilitation. These changes will make still more effective the Federal-State cooperative relationship upon which the Social Security Act is based and which constitutes its great strength. It is important to note in this connection that the increased assistance the States will now be able to give will continue to be furnished on the basis of individual need, thus affording the greatest degree of protection within reasonable financial bounds.

As regards administration, probably the most important change that has been made is to require that State agencies administering any part of the Social Security Act coming within the jurisdiction of the Social Security Board and the Children's Bureau shall set up a merit system for their employees. An essential element of any merit system is that employees shall be selected on a non-political basis and shall function on a non-political basis.

In 1934 I appointed a committee called the Committee on Economic Security made up of Government officials to study the whole problem of economic and social security and to develop a legislative program for the same. The present law is the result of its deliberations. That committee is still in existence and has considered and recommended the present amendments. In order to give reality and coordination to the study of any further developments that appear necessary I am asking the committee to continue its life and to make active study of various proposals which may be made for amendments or developments to the Social Security Act.

link


Some of those excluded:

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.<11> Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.<12> The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.<13> These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.<14> Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.<13> Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.<15><16> At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”<16>

link




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. No comment? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well...Since you asked for comments.....
The devil in the comparisons between this and opur current health care "reform" will depend on whether Obama and the Democrats actually WILL fight to improve the basically crappy plan they passed.

That means if they will initiate and fight for a real social insurance program for health care that gives EVERYONE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ROBBER BARON INSURANCE COMPANIES, whether it be a universal, mandatory form of basic coverage similar to Social Secirity or a meaningful and real Public Option open to everyone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You know what's interesting
Edited on Mon Aug-16-10 01:03 PM by ProSense
that people can label a law "crappy" that for the first time in history does something Medicare didn't do: make "preventive care – including annual physicals, wellness exams, and tests like mammograms" free for seniors as well."

That is something, and mind you, not the only thing, new and unique to this new law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. how do you make congress vote for something?.
this is the beginning and eventually we will have single payer.
The Democratic Party needs to tell its represtatives in Congress they have to keep going. How to make the republicans vote for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Protest works to a degree.
Senator Kerry always talks about the environmental protest of the 70s. If that was happening now, I suspect a climate change bill like Kerry/Boxer would have sailed through. When Kerry attempted to filibuster Alito, the protest was noticeable, but weakened by a few who didn't want to challenge certain Senators.

Effective protest works: it's the difference between the Whole Foods and Target situations. What happened to the protest in the latter?

As for Republicans, protest isn't as effective. It may move Collins and Snowe to vote for cloture on a health care bill, but not to support it in the end, and definitely not to support progressive ideas like a public option.

Still, there are always elections, as Elizabeth Dole found out.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. The problem is that it's a pea shooter against an elephant
Yes there are some good things in the bill. But it avoids the much bigger issues. People will continue to be captives of the insurance oligarchy, and the obscene rates people have to pay the criminals continues to go up and up.

As I said originally, that is acceptable if the democrats continue to fight for real change. Butr if they allow it to remain as it is, it the the equivalent of putting a band aid on a malignant melanoma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Here is the problem:
"Yes there are some good things in the bill. But it avoids the much bigger issues...that is acceptable if the democrats continue to fight for real change."

That is the point of the OP. By the logic you apply here, Social Security was a "pea shooter."





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. How do you propose we make the Republicans and our spineless members vote for single payer?
everybody sat back and looked at them and said oh they are not voting to change much.
What sort of fight is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Personally I added quite a bit to my long distance bill...
calling DC reps about this when it was debated.

The Democrats eith spine were great in the health care fight. The problems is that they had to fight the spineless Democrats and were outnumbered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC