Cut Social Security, Don't Tax The Rich: Where Is The Outrage?

Maybe you feel, on days like this, the same way I do -- that you live in an alternate universe. In my alternate universe, I wouldn't consider cutting education, health care, or aid to the poor before asking the richest people in our society to pay their fair share in dues. In my alternate universe, I would tax the rich before even talking about "reforming" (read: cutting) Social Security and Medicare -- which are sacred compacts we have with people who have paid their dues for many years in society. And in my alternate universe I would be surrounded by millions of people filled with outrage that we are even discussing imposing more burden on the least able in our society, while letting the rich skate by.

Yesterday, I argued that we need not worry about deficits nor consider cutting domestic programs because we could easily fund our needs if we demanded from the richest people in society to pay their fair share in dues to live in our society--to the tune of several hundreds billion dollars.

Today, I read that the new Administration is looking at cutting entitlement costs. This from The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama pledged Wednesday to attack surging spending on entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and he promised to lay out specific federal programs to cut when he unveils his first budget blueprint next month

Or The New York Times:

President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration's efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.

Actually, the headline I've used for this post is not accurate. Even if we don't tax the rich, THERE IS NO CRISIS IN SOCIAL SECURITY. I pointed this out more than a year ago in response to then-candidate Barack Obama's statement about a crisis in Social Security.

Let me repeat this: THERE IS NO CRISIS IN SOCIAL SECURITY. If you want to read an entire book about the phony Social Security crisis, pick up Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker's Social Security: The Phony Crisis. For a shorter version, see this.

As for Medicare, the crisis in that program is about one thing -- our insane health care system. If "reforming" means cutting benefits, that is a cause for outrage. If "reforming" means putting in place a single-payer health care plan -- which would save the system hundreds of billions of dollars and provide more efficient care -- I'm all for it.

But, the real question is: where is the outrage?

Where is the labor movement, the seniors' movement, the citizens' movements of all stripes who should be marching in front of the country clubs and mansions of the rich, demanding that the richest one percent cough up some of the massive fortunes they have amassed in the past decade so that kids can get schooled, people can get decent health care, and we can build roads and bridges that won't collapse--the very roadways that the rich use.

Where is the outrage?

Where are the mass protests when the governor of New York talks about cutting education and health care, yet refuses to significantly raise taxes on the rich which would mean that those cuts would be unnecessary?

Where is the outrage?

Comments

[truthglow]

I WAS outraged when I heard it, but I felt all alone. No one is allowed to criticize Obama these days.

[onkobo]

The economy is entering into a phase of depression. We should be glad, preposterous as it may sound. It's the only real chance we have to reverse the process of cyborgization we have been undergoing for some time and re-humanize ourselves by rediscovering the good old class struggle.
Outrage is not enough. Wee need constructive rage. Hopefully it won't be the kind that drive people to loot supermarkets.

[MiHi]

"Useful steps would include boosting the formula for widowed spouses, ensuring a minimum benefit for retirees who worked their whole lives in low-wage jobs, and allowing college students to receive survivors' benefits up until the age of 22."

I've been permanently disabled since I was a child and rely on survivor's benefits to literally.......survive. Without it would no doubt be homeless and my condition would give me NO chance to stay alive on the street.

There's no chance I am going to become "undisabled" any time in my life and I'm well over 22. Does this mean that under a new plan I may have my income yanked from underneath me in order for Larry Flynt to get his freaking sack of bailout cash??

Oh, there's much outrage about it from this individual, terror even. But what can I do just as one person (and a disabled one as well)?

[MontanaMaven]

Here's another Galbraith quote from the Mother Jones article "Stimulus is for Suckers". This is a direct refutation of the Economics of Nudgers ideas.
"The historical role of a stimulus is to kick things off, to grease the wheels of credit, to get things "moving again." But the effect ends when the stimulus does, when the sugar shock wears off. Compulsive budget balancers who prescribe a "targeted and temporary" policy followed by long-term cuts to entitlements don't understand the patient. This is a chronic illness. Swift action is definitely needed. But we also need recovery policies that will continue for years."

[MontanaMaven]

James Galbraith's idea is to actually increase Social Security benefits.
"Third, we should support the incomes of the elderly, whose nest eggs have been hit hard by the stock market collapse. We can't erase those losses case by case (nor should we), but we can sustain the purchasing power of the group. The best way is to increase Social Security benefits. Useful steps would include boosting the formula for widowed spouses, ensuring a minimum benefit for retirees who worked their whole lives in low-wage jobs, and allowing college students to receive survivors' benefits up until the age of 22. But let's go further and raise benefits across the board, which has not been done for a generation...
Fourth, we should cut taxes on working Americans. Obama proposes to effectively offset the first $500 of Social Security taxes with a refundable credit. It's a good idea, but can be expanded... let's declare a payroll tax holiday, funding Social Security and Medicare directly from the treasury..."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2009/01/stimulus-is-for-suckers.html
Much better idea that "The Shock Doctrine". I suggest buying more copies of Naomi's book and pass them around. I've passed around ten of them.

[plumnelly]

If the rich think the public won't be out in the streets if the middle class has to take another hit with their families and their aging parent's social security, they're dead wrong. The Bernie Madoff crowd will find out we've been pushed too far. Bush tried to privatize social Security and it didn't happen. This Shock Doctrine approach to the crisis won't work with the middle class if you start undermining the aging grandparents. I voted for Obama, but if he starts to play Bush games with America's economics, I'll join others in taking to the streets. It's time to make the rich share in America's reality check, Paris Hilton clueless isn't so cute in these times.

[Imabachi]

It's incomprehensible that millions of Americans haven't been and aren't now loudly, lustily and vigorously demanding that this government also end all the giveaways, the tax loopholes, the outrageous CEO salaries and bonuses, to name a few, that the rich have garnered over these many years.
We're entering a new era though and it's going to be very much more than "interesting."

[GoCards1978]

I live on Social Security Disability ($1121/mo.) and dropped Part B/D coverage due to their deductibles. I'm extremely outraged at the inequity of asking people such as myself to sacrifice more. I can't afford to cut any more. I fast twice a week and don't see my doctor as it is. Enough welfare for the rich already!

[LeftRight]

"Where are the mass protests when the governor of New York talks about cutting education and health care, yet refuses to significantly raise taxes on the rich which would mean that those cuts would be unnecessary?"

People don't have time for that, they are busy protesting the FORMER Governor of New York for seeking companionship outside of his marriage.

[paixa3]

I hope that when the details are published and spoken that the congressional mail systems crash from volumes of pissed off citizens. The same goes for the telephone systems.

What a stinking sham. Where is the change? Forgettaboutit.