The GOP Reward For Service

Political Cartoon is by Jim Morin in The Miami Herald.

Gore Vidal

It Is Better. . .

Baby Boomers Are Starting To Retire & Collect Social Security

Immediately after the end of World War II, there was a huge increase in the number of babies being born in this country -- and that got that generation their nickname (Baby Boomers). The Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964, a period of 19 years. Today, the oldest Baby Boomers are 68 years old and the youngest are 50 years old.

That means the Baby Boomers are now starting to reach retirement age -- with 61% of the 65 year olds, 66% of the 67 year olds, and 68% of the 68 year olds already out of the work force. Right-wing Republicans have been trying to scare Americans for several years now by talking about the size of the Baby Boomer generation (which admittedly is large), and claiming that this generation will "bankrupt" the Social Security system. Their hope is to create enough fear among younger Americans to let them damage Social Security by cutting benefits and raising the retirement age.

Don't believe them! They are lying -- and they are doing that to protect their real constituency, the rich, from having to pay as big a percentage of their income into FICA taxes as the working and middle classes currently pay. Currently, the rich pay a much smaller percentage than all other Americans pay, because the FICA tax is capped at a certain income (and that's just the way the Republicans like it).

Let me set a couple of things straight. The Baby Boomers have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund all of their working lives -- and they deserve to retire at the same age as previous retirees, and they deserve to be paid their full benefit. Anything less is a betrayal.

And the Baby Boomers are NOT going to bankrupt the Social Security system. The Social Security Trust Fund can continue to pay full benefits for about another 20 years, and after that, it can pay 80% of those benefits far into the future. It is in no danger of going bankrupt.

And the system can be easily fixed to allow the system to pay full benefits far into the future, without raising the retirement age or cutting retirement benefits. All Congress has to do is raise (or eliminate) the cap on the income subject to the FICA tax (commonly called the payroll tax). This would affect only the richest Americans -- and would not cost the working and middle classes a penny more in taxes.

The Republicans have never liked Social Security. They opposed it when it was created, and they have tried to abolish it since then. They know it is too popular right now to do away with it, so they are trying to chip away at it -- cutting benefits and raising the retirement age and damaging it a little bit at a time (until it is so bad that they can abolish it). Don't let them do it! Don't let them scare you into allowing them to destroy the federal system that has worked better than any other (and cut senior poverty from above 50% to below 10%).

NOTE -- The charts above were made from a new Gallup Poll done throughout 2014 of a random national sample of 134,168 adults, with only a 1 point margin of error.

Bread Bags ?

Political Cartoon is by Steve Sack in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Presidential Job Approval Is Still Rising

The Gallup Poll publishes daily a three-day average of the job approval for the president -- and the latest job approval number was 50%. That's the highest job approval percentage since June of 2013 (more than a year and a half ago). This latest survey was done between January 23rd and 25th of a random national sample of 1,527 adults, and has a margin of error of 3 points.

They also looked at the latest numbers for several groups, and compared them to the presidential job approval just one month ago -- in December 2014. As the chart above shows, the approval of the president has risen in almost every group (and the two groups showing a small drop in approval have a difference that is within the poll's margin of error).

The truth is that about half of all Americans approve of the job President Obama is doing. Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled Congress (which is acting like it has a mandate of support from the people) is still mired down at about 15.2% (the RealClearPolitics average of all the latest polls).

The Republicans had better be careful about butting heads with an increasingly popular president. They could find themselves back down into single digits (and go into the next election with most Americans hating them).

Passing The Torch ?

Political Cartoon is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

"Compassionate Conservatism" Rears Its Ugly Head Again

Evidently, some Republicans have been reading the writing on the wall, and they're starting to understand that a majority of Americans think the economy is unfair, and that it has created a huge and still growing wealth and income gap in the United States -- and they want the government to do something about it.

Presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush are now talking about fixing the problem of inequality in America. Are they serious, or is this just a replay of George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" -- which was just a meaningless phrase designed to get votes. The truth was that the Bush administration had no compassion for ordinary Americans. His administration helped the rich to get richer, and made all other Americans poorer.

Here is former Labor Secretary Robert Reich's take on this new "compassionate conservatism" (from his own blog):

Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are zeroing in on inequality as America’s fundamental economic problem.

Bush’s new Political Action Committee, called “The Right to Rise,” declares “the income gap is real” but that “only conservative principles can solve it.”

Mitt Romney likewise promised last week that if he runs for president he’ll change the strategy that led to his 2012 loss to President Obama (remember the “makers” versus the “takers?”) and focus instead on income inequality, poverty, and “opportunity for all people.”

The Republican establishment’s leading presidential hopefuls know the current upbeat economy isn’t trickling down to most Americans.

But they’ve got a whopping credibility problem, starting with trickle-down economics.

Since Ronald Reagan moved into the White House, Republican policies have widened inequality.

Neither party deserves a medal for reversing the trend, but evidence shows that middle-class and poor Americans have faired better under Democratic presidents.

Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more with Democrats in the White House than Republicans.

Under Bill Clinton, in whose administration I am proud to have served, even the wages of the poorest fifth rose.

According to research by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, more jobs have been created under Democratic presidents as well.

These broad-based job and wage gains haven’t hampered economic growth. To the contrary, they’ve fueled it by putting more money into the pockets of people who spend it — thereby boosting business profits and hiring.

Which is why the economy has grown faster when Democrats have occupied the Oval Office.

I’m not saying Democrats have always had it right or done everything they should. The lion’s share of economic gains over the past thirty-five years has gone to the top regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans inhabit the White House.

The most recent recovery has been particularly lopsided, President Obama’s intentions notwithstanding.

Nor can presidents alone determine how the economy performs. At best they orchestrate a set of policies that nudge the economy in one direction or another.

But that’s exactly the point: Since Reagan, Republican policies have nudged it toward big gains at the top and stagnation for everyone else.

The last Republican president to deliver broad-based prosperity was Dwight D. Eisenhower, in the 1950s.

Then, the gains from growth were so widely shared that the incomes of the poorest fifth actually grew faster than the incomes of the top fifth. As a result, America became more equal than ever before or since.

Under Ike, the marginal tax rate on the richest Americans reached 91 percent.

Eisenhower also presided over the creation of the interstate highway system – the largest infrastructure project in American history — as well as the nation’s biggest expansion of public schools.

It’s no coincidence that when Eisenhower was president, over a third of all private sector workers were unionized. Ike can’t be credited for this but at least he didn’t try to stop it or legitimize firing striking workers, as did Ronald Reagan.

Under Reagan, Republican policy lurched in the opposite direction: Lower taxes on top incomes and big wealth, less public investment, and efforts to destroy labor unions.

Not surprisingly, that’s when America took its big U-turn toward inequality.

These Reaganomic principles are by now so deeply embedded in the modern Republican Party they’ve come to define it.

As a matter of fact, they’re just about all that unite the warring factions of the GOP – libertarians, tea partiers, and big corporations and Wall Street.

Yet because these very principles have contributed to the stagnation of American incomes and the widening gap between the rich and everyone else, Republican aspirants who says they want to reverse widening inequality are faced with an awkward dilemma.

How can they be credible on the issue while embracing these principles? Yet if they want to be nominated, how can they not embrace them?

When Jeb Bush admits that the income gap is real but that “only conservative principles can solve it,” one has to wonder what principles he’s talking about if not these.

And when Mitt Romney promises to run a different campaign than he did in 2012 and focus on “opportunity for all people,” the real question is whether he’ll run on different economic principles.

That the leading Republican hopefuls recognize the economy has to work for everyone and not just a few is progress.

But unless they disavow the legacy of Ronald Reagan and adopt the legacy of Dwight Eisenhower, their words are nothing more than soothing rhetoric — akin to George W. Bush’s meaningless “compassionate conservatism.”

Tarnished Legacy

Political Cartoon is by Rob Rogers in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Rich Are Taking Their Share (And Yours)

"It Was Legal"

Americans Are More Liberal Than Many Think

We are constantly being told by the media and political pundits that the United States is a conservative country. And I have no doubt that if you took a poll of all Americans and just asked "Are you a conservative or a liberal?", a majority would say they are a conservative. But is that really true?

I don't think so. I think a lot of people would hesitate to call themselves a liberal because the right-wing, with the cooperation of the corporate media, have been successful in demonizing the word liberal. But when it comes to their actual beliefs (rather than a political label), most Americans agree with liberal ideas more than conservative ideas.

The chart above (from a Public Religion Research Institute survey done in September of 2014) shows this. All of the ideas on that chart are liberal ideas -- and they are all supported by a significant majority of Americans. And all those ideas are opposed by right-wing (conservative) Republicans. It seems there is a big difference between calling yourself a conservative and believing in conservative ideas (most of which favor the rich and the corporations instead of the people).

Republicans will point to the last election as proof that most Americans agree with their ideas, but that is just not true. They won in 2014 because too many people stayed home and didn't vote -- not because most support the regressive ideas of Republicans.

Democrats need to forget labels, and just campaign on issues -- especially the issues listed in the chart above. If they do that, they'll find they have the support of most voters in 2016.

The Anointing

Political Cartoon is by Joel Pett in the Lexington Herald-Leader.

Greens & Libertarians To File Suit To Be Included In Debates

Green Party and Libertarian Party beliefs and policies are miles apart -- but they both share one thing. They are ignored by the powers that be when an election season rolls around. Both the media and the Commission on Presidential Debates ignore the Green and Libertarian Party candidates. They don't give them any media coverage and don't allow them to participate in candidate debates.

This effectively shuts them out of the political process by giving voters the impression that they must choose between one of the two major parties (Democrats or Republicans). And they do this in spite of the fact that both the Greens and Libertarians have qualified for enough state ballots to theoretically have a chance of winning enough electoral votes to win the presidency.

To say this is unfair is a huge understatement -- it is un-American and anti-democratic. And it makes our government less responsive to the will of the people than in most other democratic countries (where a multitude of parties are given equal access to the electoral process).

I'm not saying that every tiny party or splinter group should get equal access (although an argument can be made for that). But any party that qualifies for the state ballot should get equal media coverage -- and any party that gets on enough state ballots to theoretically get 270 electoral votes for the presidency, should get equal coverage from the media and should be invited to participate fully in all presidential debates.

Both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party currently qualify for full inclusion in the political process. While their views may not currently represent the views of a majority of Americans, the same can be said many times of both major parties -- and the Greens and Libertarians deserve to be able to get their beliefs and policies before the American electorate. It would make our democracy more inclusive, and I believe it would enhance the rather pitiful voter participation in this country.

And it looks like both the Greens and Libertarians are tired of being excluded. They have joined forces to file suit to be included in the presidential debates. Here is how the website of Our American Initiative describes the proposed action:

The 2012 presidential and vice-presidential nominees of both the Libertarian and Green parties are joining forces to challenge the Commission on Presidential Debates and its use of selection criteria that limit participation in general election presidential debates to the Republican and Democratic nominees.

The Our America Initiative, a non-profit advocacy organization, is coordinating the legal challenge. In addition to announcing the plaintiffs in the legal action, Senior Advisor for Our America Initiative, Ron Nielson, also announced the legal team that will handle the lawsuit. The plaintiffs will be represented by Rocky Anderson, former Salt Lake City mayor, 2012 Justice Party presidential nominee, and respected public interest attorney, and Bruce Fein, a nationally-known constitutional lawyer who served as Associate Deputy Attorney General and General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Reagan.

In addition to 2012 Libertarian presidential and vice-presidential nominees Gov. Gary Johnson and Judge Jim Gray (Ret.) and Green Party nominees Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, plaintiffs in the lawsuit will also include the candidates’ campaign organizations and both the Libertarian and Green national parties.  When finalized, the lawsuit will be filed in federal court in Washington, DC.

The legal challenge will maintain that the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private organization, formed by the chairs of the Democratic and Republican parties, unfairly and intentionally limits participation in the nationally-televised debates to the Democratic and Republican nominees — placing other national party nominees at a severe and unjust disadvantage. 

The proposed remedy will be that the debates include candidates who are legally qualified to serve and whose names appear on enough states’ ballots to potentially secure a majority in the Electoral College.  In 2012, that threshold would have allowed participation by the Libertarian nominee Johnson and the Green Party’s Stein, as well as the two parties’ vice-presidential nominees.

This won't give them complete equality in access to the political process, but it would be a very good start -- and if they were invited to the presidential debates, it might encourage the media to give those parties (and their candidates) more coverage. I hope they win this suit, because both parties have earned their place in our political system.