A "Pledge of Resistance" to Defend Social Security (and Defund the Empire)

[eridani]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/a-pledge-of-resistance-to_b_804692.html

For the third time in the last 20 years, establishment voices, with high-profile slots in traditional media, are trying to convince the public to accept cuts to Social Security by endlessly claiming such cuts are necessary without giving coherent evidence to justify the claim. Twice, under President Clinton and the second President Bush, these voices were defeated. But they didn't give up. And now they are in striking distance of their goal: the fact that Republicans have taken over the House, combined with the fact that the president appointed a deficit reduction commission which nearly recommended a cut in Social Security benefits, and might well have done so if Rep. Schakowsky hadn't worked to undermine the co-chairs' plan, means that one can't be complacent; some reports have suggested that the president may indicate support for cuts to Social Security in his State of the Union speech. Of the two principal Washington political actors who will shape the outcome -- the Republican leadership and the president's team -- one is a determined adversary of the public interest, the other a very uncertain ally. The most successful anti-poverty program in U.S. history is again in grave danger.

<snip>

Consider, for example, proposals to raise the normal retirement age. How much would that save? How else could we save the same amount of money?

On September 29, the Washington Post editorial board - Fox on 15th Street - expressed outrage that President Obama, as portrayed in Bob Woodward's book, "repeatedly cites the cost of the war and the need to shift resources to domestic priorities," despite the fact, the Post assured us, that "spending on Afghanistan is well below 1 percent of U.S. gross domestic product." Thus, for the Washington Post, when considering the war, spending of less than 1% of US GDP is not a big deal.

At the time, I asked economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research how much then-current proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age would save. He said they would save about 0.7% of GDP. For example, a proposal to raise the retirement age to 70 by 2040 would save $155 billion by 2020. Thus, less than 1% of GDP is not a big deal when it is spending for the war that the Washington Post supports, but it is a very needed savings when it comes to proposals for cutting Social Security benefits by raising the normal retirement age, a proposal that the Washington Post - Fox on 15th Street - supports.

[dkf]

1. The war in Afghanistan will end. Social security won't.

[4dsc]

2. One contributes to the deficit the other one doesn't

Simple choice here.

[eridani]

3. Kick for Thursday n/t