Ayn Rand keeps rising from the muck to infect the thinking of what otherwise might be rational, intelligent people. National Public Radio most recently stirred the vat with a piece it labeled on its website as "On Capitol Hill, Rand's 'Atlas' Can't Be Shrugged Off" http://www.npr.org/2011/11/14/142245517/on-capitol-hill-rands-atlas-cant-be-shrugged-off?ft=3&f=111787346&sc=nl&cc=es-20111120.
I've ranted in this and other spaces before about Rand, but the pieces of the chopped-up snake keep growing new heads. We've seen them affixed to politicians like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, for whom I think she was actually the namesake.
Here's the NPR promo blurb that bubbled up in my email inbox today touting its story that aired last week as one of its most emailed stories:
"In the 1950s, Rand felt that her ideal of unfettered capitalism was missing in politics. But today, her ideas are alive and well-represented in the U.S. Capitol. Her philosophy has sunk so deeply into our political thought, many people don't even recognize it as hers anymore."
First, anyone old enough to remember the 1950s, which I am, can recall that the 1950s was one of the most, if not the most, prosperous decades--at least for a vast swath of Amercans, not just a minute sliver of the richest--in the country's history. It is also nostalgically romanticized as the "good old days" and that time the TPers of today seem to want to take our country back to.
So if unfettered capitalism was missing, meaning that capitalism functioned, but with some semblance of responsibility that included controls, regulations, restrictions or whatever that enabled the nation to flourish economically, then that must have been a GOOD policy.
Beyond that, though, my view of Rand and her adherents/admirers is that they are nothing short of delusional. I won't go into all the flaws in Randism philosophy, politics and thinking, but here is my reaction to just one line in NPR's blurb:
"(Rand's) philosophy has sunk so deeply into our political thought..." That explains the greed, me-ism, hypocrisy and shallow, vapid thinking that has this nation in its destructive grip. Rand's path is a greased slide into the same fate that's bankrupted today's Greece, where Greeks refuse to pay taxes, and has led to the anarchy of Somalia, which has no central government. Randites are in complete denial of the very definition of "society" and the vital elements of a healthy, vibrant society. Take all the government services and benefits that Rand and her acolytes use and enjoy--including Social Security and Medicare, which Rand applied for under her married name to keep from being found out--and they wouldn't make it out of their front door. Heck, they probably wouldn't even have a front door or a house for a front door.
I posted a comment on this NPR story when it aired on Nov. 14, focusing on Rand's assertion that socialists and people on public assistance or who take money from the government are "moochers." Here's my comment:
"Ayn Rand and her ilk, whether called libertarians, anarchists or something else, are the real moochers. They want all the benefits of living in a society--public roads, breathable air, drinkable water, safe food and drug supplies, an energy grid, etc.--but don't think they should have to pay for it. The very regulations they eschew are as necessary for Americans' safety and well being as a strong military is for national security. The most frightening aspect of Randism these days is that so many are falling under its fatal spell. We can view the U.S. of the future by looking at Greece of today,where Greeks blow off paying taxes, and Somalia, which has no central government. Although Rand's hypocrisy is stunning (read her novella 'Anthem'), she was at least honest about being an atheist. Her politician acolytes of today, however, claim to be Christians, yet there is nothing in the philosophy Rand espoused that in any way resembles what Jesus taught."
It's gratifying to note that my comment got 65 "Recommendations", more than any of the other thousand-plus comments.
Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Perry's Ponzi Scheme
So, U.S. president wanna-be Rick Perry has come out with guns a'blazing at Social Security. It's a "Ponzi scheme," he claims. It won't be there for young people when they need it. It's even unconsititutional!
First, don't you think that all of the rabid Social Security critics and fascists--particularly those with legal training--who have tried to dismantle the program in the seven decades since FDR signed it into law would have mounted legal battles and, if it really were unconstitutional, would have been able to get it struck down as such?
Second, who does Perry think he's fooling by saying Social Security won't be around for Americans who haven't yet reached 65? Even if nothing's done to change anything, it will be fully funded for the next 25 years. And by making one simple change--raising the $106,000 cap on which income is subject to Social Security tax, or better yet removing the cap altogether--it can be solvent for a great deal longer. (Yes, that's right, folks, all those mega millionaires who already skate on paying their "fair share" of taxes on the lucre that overflows their coffers, pay nothing into Social Security over the first $106,000 of their income. That cap is just one more way the rich guys have bought off lawmakers.)
Third--and most important--by saying Social Security has got to go and that people need to rely on private pensions, Perry is providing irrefutable proof that he's been living either under a rock or in deep space for the past decade. It was during his fellow Texan's turn at the presidential till that private pensions began to disappear--just ask United Airline employees whose wonderful pensions were simply confiscated--as company execs and boards of directors began to raid employee pension funds to cover their faltering operations budgets.
And that's for the folks who are 'fortunate' enough to have jobs that even provide any benefits at all. So, what are the "private pensions" is Perry talking about? 401Ks? IRAs? CDs? The stock market? Storing gold bricks in the closet?
Oh my god, no, Mr. Perry! Ain't no way anybody is ever going to have any kind of retirement fund if it's going to be up to you and the greedy, grasping, heartless, soulless corporate world.
Social Security is exactly what its name says it is. It provides at least a modicum of security for aging people in our society and for their children and grandchildren so they won't be burdened with having to support granny and great-grandma in addition to their own children and hope for any kind of a decent lifestyle. Social Security keeps everyone--except the mega rich like Mr. Perry and his well-heeled cronies who don't need it--from becoming impoverished and being put in the poorhouse.
Oh wait! Poorhouses don't exist anymore, do they. And when they did, they were government institutions, weren't they? So I'm sure Perry will make sure they don't resurface. 'Cause no gubment is good gubment, is it Mr. Rick "I want to be prezdent of what I think is evil" Perry?
Nope, I'm way too conservative to want to trust my future and that of my children, children and great-grandchildren, or the well-being of The People of this country to a Perry parisite of what he wants to destroy (keeping in mind that he will keep intact any way he and his ilk can benefit from a government program as he has done so well as governor of Texas).
First, don't you think that all of the rabid Social Security critics and fascists--particularly those with legal training--who have tried to dismantle the program in the seven decades since FDR signed it into law would have mounted legal battles and, if it really were unconstitutional, would have been able to get it struck down as such?
Second, who does Perry think he's fooling by saying Social Security won't be around for Americans who haven't yet reached 65? Even if nothing's done to change anything, it will be fully funded for the next 25 years. And by making one simple change--raising the $106,000 cap on which income is subject to Social Security tax, or better yet removing the cap altogether--it can be solvent for a great deal longer. (Yes, that's right, folks, all those mega millionaires who already skate on paying their "fair share" of taxes on the lucre that overflows their coffers, pay nothing into Social Security over the first $106,000 of their income. That cap is just one more way the rich guys have bought off lawmakers.)
Third--and most important--by saying Social Security has got to go and that people need to rely on private pensions, Perry is providing irrefutable proof that he's been living either under a rock or in deep space for the past decade. It was during his fellow Texan's turn at the presidential till that private pensions began to disappear--just ask United Airline employees whose wonderful pensions were simply confiscated--as company execs and boards of directors began to raid employee pension funds to cover their faltering operations budgets.
And that's for the folks who are 'fortunate' enough to have jobs that even provide any benefits at all. So, what are the "private pensions" is Perry talking about? 401Ks? IRAs? CDs? The stock market? Storing gold bricks in the closet?
Oh my god, no, Mr. Perry! Ain't no way anybody is ever going to have any kind of retirement fund if it's going to be up to you and the greedy, grasping, heartless, soulless corporate world.
Social Security is exactly what its name says it is. It provides at least a modicum of security for aging people in our society and for their children and grandchildren so they won't be burdened with having to support granny and great-grandma in addition to their own children and hope for any kind of a decent lifestyle. Social Security keeps everyone--except the mega rich like Mr. Perry and his well-heeled cronies who don't need it--from becoming impoverished and being put in the poorhouse.
Oh wait! Poorhouses don't exist anymore, do they. And when they did, they were government institutions, weren't they? So I'm sure Perry will make sure they don't resurface. 'Cause no gubment is good gubment, is it Mr. Rick "I want to be prezdent of what I think is evil" Perry?
Nope, I'm way too conservative to want to trust my future and that of my children, children and great-grandchildren, or the well-being of The People of this country to a Perry parisite of what he wants to destroy (keeping in mind that he will keep intact any way he and his ilk can benefit from a government program as he has done so well as governor of Texas).
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Tin Ears and Bad Policy
Part of that absurdity is tpers' thinking that reducing revenue increases economic prosperity. That has never been the case historically and certainly isn't true for families or individuals. Ditto the business world and just about every other aspect of society.
People and companies traditionally seek ways to increase their income as a means of achieving economic viability, stability and security. Of course, they have to be fiscally responsible, but after cutting expenses down to necessities, the consequences become pretty dire.
So how does reducing government revenue work any differently? The major cause of the fix the U.S. is in is the Bush administration eight-year spending binge that, because they took a cut in pay, they charged on the nation's credit card. So now, tpers rationalize that the secret to getting out of this hole is to shrink the size of government, which means slashing benefits and services.
But what they mean is to cut government benefits and services for other people and for programs that don't affect them.
Remember tper signs during the summer of tp rage? "No socialized healthcare" but "Keep your hands off my Medicare."
Even as newly elected tp pols took office in January, some were outraged that their GOVERNMENT-FUNDED healthcare didn't kick in immediately, but involved a short waiting period before they became effective.
Even tp governors who are slashing state government and government-funded services jump immediately to request federally funded emergency help when their states or areas in their states are devastated by natural disasters. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker applied for federal funds in the wake of a winter blizzard, Alabama and Missouri governors sought federal aid after tornados tore up regions of those states.
Then there is pathetic Texas Gov. Rick Perry who talked possible session last year then whined pitifully that Pres. Barack Obama had ignored his state when wildfires plagued it yet visited Alabama when tornados flattened parts of that state.
All the while, thanks to these same tpers, multinational corporations that are pulling in record profits (while much of America is losing wealth) are not only not paying their way -- i.e. they're getting a free ride -- we, the people who've lost jobs, homes, pensions and wages, are paying these fat cats subsidies and funding their tax credits.
Below is a letter my friend sent to novice Ohio Sen. Rob Portman followed by Portman's "reply," which really is stretching the meaning of that word.
But first, an observation: It is obvious from my friend's letter that he is (1) a senior citizen, (2) a retired decorated military officer, (3) never indicated that he goes by anything other than his given name, which is Richard. Yet, this elected official cavalierly addresses him as "Dick."
As another aside, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof points to the long-term consequences of a tp ideology in his column in today's Times, which is at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html?
Here is my friend's letter:
Dear Senator Portman
As a preface, let me tell you who I am. I am a Centerville, Oh resident. I am a veteran of 28 years service in the USAF. I served as a combat aircrew member during what is now being called the Southeast Asia war and have been decorated for valor during that war only to be spat upon on my arrival back in the country. I am retired on a fixed income and my wife and I depend on Medicare, Wright-Patterson Medical Center, and Tricare for Life for our medical needs. Our income comes from Social Security and my Air Force pension. We live comfortably but not ostentatiously. I am an Independent voter.
The time has come to balance our National Budget and begin to reduce our debt. I get the sense that the Congress and leadership of the country believes that we can do this by reducing spending alone. To me, this is an absurd conclusion. I am sick and tired of listening to the mantra, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Sir, we have a revenue problem and should admit to it.
Throughout history nations have funded wars through tax increases. With the advent of 9/11 we seemed to have decided to do the opposite. We have entered into two Wars of Convenience that have, and continue to, severely strain our funds, yet we instituted a "temporary" tax reduction in 2002 which continues to this day. This reduction in taxes has further strained our budget but seems to have had no positive impact other than to satisfy the obscenely rich. I hear reports on the news of families with incomes of over $250K who say they cannot make ends meet without the temporary tax cut. They clearly do not have a revenue problem but rather a spending problem. The tax levels during the late 1990s were not oppressive and allowed us to balance the budget. I keep hearing Washington pundits say that this temporary tax cut will enable small businesses to create new jobs. After 10 years of temporary reductions where are the jobs? Compare unemployment rates in 2001 to what we have today. It is time to admit we have a revenue problem.
A return to the tax levels of the 1990s will be a great step forward toward balancing the budget. That, coupled with intelligent reductions across the entire spectrum, will put us on the proper path. I and many of my colleagues, believe that a return to the 1990s level will not overly strain our financial position. Those making less will see a minuscule increase. Those making more will see a proportional increase and should be able to meet their tax demands. Now, remember, I am not calling for a tax increase but rather the end of a temporary tax reduction. I am convinced that this should delay, or eliminate the need for, a much greater tax increase in the future.
I hope that you, and your colleagues, will open your minds to the need for abolishing the temporary tax cuts of 2002.
I also subscribe to the need to reform Social Security and Medicare. This can be done by an increase in age eligibility, a substantial increase in the wage ceiling, and a reasonable increase in medicare monthly premiums. We also need to look toward cost reductions and delivery of care options. A move toward "privatization" is not the answer.
Please consider proposing reasonable modifications to our social programs. Let's improve Medicare and not proliferate "mediscare".
Sincerely,
Richard L. Brice
LT. Col USAF (ret)
Portman Responded:
Dear Dick,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about TRICARE. I understand your displeasure with the changes in TRICARE proposed in President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012. It is good to hear from you.
I have a great appreciation for our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much for our nation. I am committed to supporting our troops in their retirement years. In order to do this effectively, we must get our fiscal house in order. As Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted, the national debt is the single biggest threat to national security.
As you may be aware, the TRICARE fee increases proposed in the President's budget only impact retirees under 65 enrolled in TRICARE Prime, the managed care network. Retirees who use TRICARE Standard or TRICARE for Life would not see higher fees. Retirees' annual enrollment fee for TRICARE Prime would climb by $60, to $520, for families and by $30, to $260, for singles. This fee would be indexed to Medicare cost increases. These changes would result in a five-year savings of $430 million for the Department of Defense.
The President's budget also makes changes to copays for drugs for TRICARE beneficiaries in order to encourage greater use of generic and mail order prescription drugs. These changes could save TRICARE $2.6 billion over five years.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the vice chairman; and the four services' chiefs of staff sent a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee supporting the TRICARE proposals. They stated, "We understand that any changes to health care benefits create concern among the people we serve and the communities from which we receive care. . . . Our approach is careful, gradual, and responsible."
Thank you for taking the time to contact my office. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I will keep your views on TRICARE in mind. For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Rob Portman
As a preface, let me tell you who I am. I am a Centerville, Oh resident. I am a veteran of 28 years service in the USAF. I served as a combat aircrew member during what is now being called the Southeast Asia war and have been decorated for valor during that war only to be spat upon on my arrival back in the country. I am retired on a fixed income and my wife and I depend on Medicare, Wright-Patterson Medical Center, and Tricare for Life for our medical needs. Our income comes from Social Security and my Air Force pension. We live comfortably but not ostentatiously. I am an Independent voter.
The time has come to balance our National Budget and begin to reduce our debt. I get the sense that the Congress and leadership of the country believes that we can do this by reducing spending alone. To me, this is an absurd conclusion. I am sick and tired of listening to the mantra, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Sir, we have a revenue problem and should admit to it.
Throughout history nations have funded wars through tax increases. With the advent of 9/11 we seemed to have decided to do the opposite. We have entered into two Wars of Convenience that have, and continue to, severely strain our funds, yet we instituted a "temporary" tax reduction in 2002 which continues to this day. This reduction in taxes has further strained our budget but seems to have had no positive impact other than to satisfy the obscenely rich. I hear reports on the news of families with incomes of over $250K who say they cannot make ends meet without the temporary tax cut. They clearly do not have a revenue problem but rather a spending problem. The tax levels during the late 1990s were not oppressive and allowed us to balance the budget. I keep hearing Washington pundits say that this temporary tax cut will enable small businesses to create new jobs. After 10 years of temporary reductions where are the jobs? Compare unemployment rates in 2001 to what we have today. It is time to admit we have a revenue problem.
A return to the tax levels of the 1990s will be a great step forward toward balancing the budget. That, coupled with intelligent reductions across the entire spectrum, will put us on the proper path. I and many of my colleagues, believe that a return to the 1990s level will not overly strain our financial position. Those making less will see a minuscule increase. Those making more will see a proportional increase and should be able to meet their tax demands. Now, remember, I am not calling for a tax increase but rather the end of a temporary tax reduction. I am convinced that this should delay, or eliminate the need for, a much greater tax increase in the future.
I hope that you, and your colleagues, will open your minds to the need for abolishing the temporary tax cuts of 2002.
I also subscribe to the need to reform Social Security and Medicare. This can be done by an increase in age eligibility, a substantial increase in the wage ceiling, and a reasonable increase in medicare monthly premiums. We also need to look toward cost reductions and delivery of care options. A move toward "privatization" is not the answer.
Please consider proposing reasonable modifications to our social programs. Let's improve Medicare and not proliferate "mediscare".
Sincerely,
Richard L. Brice
LT. Col USAF (ret)
Portman Responded:
Dear Dick,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about TRICARE. I understand your displeasure with the changes in TRICARE proposed in President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012. It is good to hear from you.
I have a great appreciation for our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much for our nation. I am committed to supporting our troops in their retirement years. In order to do this effectively, we must get our fiscal house in order. As Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted, the national debt is the single biggest threat to national security.
As you may be aware, the TRICARE fee increases proposed in the President's budget only impact retirees under 65 enrolled in TRICARE Prime, the managed care network. Retirees who use TRICARE Standard or TRICARE for Life would not see higher fees. Retirees' annual enrollment fee for TRICARE Prime would climb by $60, to $520, for families and by $30, to $260, for singles. This fee would be indexed to Medicare cost increases. These changes would result in a five-year savings of $430 million for the Department of Defense.
The President's budget also makes changes to copays for drugs for TRICARE beneficiaries in order to encourage greater use of generic and mail order prescription drugs. These changes could save TRICARE $2.6 billion over five years.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the vice chairman; and the four services' chiefs of staff sent a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee supporting the TRICARE proposals. They stated, "We understand that any changes to health care benefits create concern among the people we serve and the communities from which we receive care. . . . Our approach is careful, gradual, and responsible."
Thank you for taking the time to contact my office. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I will keep your views on TRICARE in mind. For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Rob Portman
I responded:
I don't believe you read my letter completely. I merely stated that I receive my medical care through Tricare. I said nothing regarding the proposed increase in premiums. Currently Tricare for Life costs me nothing. I would not be averse to a small premium. What I did say in my letter was that I believe that the 2002 TEMPORARY tax cuts should be terminated. I also said that Medicare must be revamped but not in the way the Republican Part is advocating.
It is most discouraging to see one of my Senators replying to a letter with "Stock Reply XXX" just because I used the term "TriCare". I hope you attention to matters in the Senate is more focused. We need to let tax cuts expire in order to build our revenue stream. Simply cutting programs will not solve our national problems
Sincerely Disappointed,
Richard L Brice, Lt. Col. USAF, Ret.
It is most discouraging to see one of my Senators replying to a letter with "Stock Reply XXX" just because I used the term "TriCare". I hope you attention to matters in the Senate is more focused. We need to let tax cuts expire in order to build our revenue stream. Simply cutting programs will not solve our national problems
Sincerely Disappointed,
Richard L Brice, Lt. Col. USAF, Ret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
A friend recently tried to communicate with one of his U.S. senators about the country's debt situation and ended up as frustrated as I am about the tin ear of the current crop of tp pols and the total absurdity of their ideology.