Monday Miscellany On (Oops! Sorry!) Wednesday

• Kidnapped Abroad And Solitary Confinement: This Is What Due Process Looks Like For A Palestinian In Israel
  

  (Richard Silverstein at Shadowproof)

• Workers To Face Biosurveillance From Employers
  

  (Dan Wright at Shadowproof)

• A Texas Conservative Openly Calls For Violence Against LGBT People
  

  (Kossacks for Marriage Equality)

• The GOP’s deeply flawed field
  

  (Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation at WaPo)

• There was that time JEB! forced single mothers to post their sexual history in the newspaper...
  

  (SemDem at Kos)

• Krugman: Why All The Republican Candidates Are Attacking Social Security
  

  (Dartagnan at Kos refers to...)

• Republicans Against Retirement
  

  (Krugman at NYT)

Ten A Dozen Essential Ideas For Fixing The American Economy — Robert Reich

Robert Reich has completed, not his scheduled ten, but an even dozen videos succinctly expressing the great ideas essential to making the American economy more robust for all its participants and transforming American society into one more committed to equality of treatment of all its members under the law.

The 12 Videos appear (in reverse order) in the right-hand column of Reich's blog, and each video runs about 2-3 minutes. I can't think of a better way for an adult or adolescent American to spend about a half hour than in watching these videos. (In addition to his insight, Reich has a great hand as a cartoonist, which he exercises along with voiceovers on the current topic. You'll have fun learning some excellently framed talking points!)

Rand Paul To NH Repubs: SocSec Disability Is A Scam; Recipients Are Malingerers

Josh Marshall, head honcho at TPM, tells you everything you need to know about GOP plans to whack Social Security:

...

Paul the Younger; Paul the Snot-nosed

Speaking to Republican presidential primary voters in New Hampshire, [Sen. Rand] Paul said that most Social Security disability recipients are in fact malingerers and scofflaws who have no business receiving benefits in the first place.

"The thing is that all of these programs, there’s always somebody who’s deserving, everybody in this room knows somebody who’s gaming the system. I tell people that if you look like me and you hop out of your truck, you shouldn’t be getting a disability check. Over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts. Join the club. Who doesn’t get up a little anxious for work every day and their back hurts? Everyone over 40 has a back pain."

As Michael Hiltzik explains here (and others have in other publications), as a narrowly factual matter these claims are demonstrably false and by a huge margin. Even if you think that severe anxiety disorders and chronic back problems aren't real disabilities, they don't make up anywhere that number of recipients. But the headline isn't really the point. It's the subtext. The score rather than the libretto. The point is that this is taxpayer money for people who don't want to work, people complaining about everyday problems that most of us get by with no problem as an excuse to get a government check.

...

(Bolds mine. - SB)

Marshall then points out that the whole zero-sum nature — retirees vs. disabled competing for the same dollars — is manufactured by proudly self-proclaimed libertarians like Sen. Paul. The whole idea is to shrink the funding of SocSec for everyone.

I'd like to see either of the Pauls, father or son, try to earn an honest living in a fair labor market. Even better, I'd like to see them try to earn a living under the very restrictions they have placed, or will have placed, on SocSec recipients. I'd bet on the granny-starvers to starve their very own selves under those conditions. And I'd just laugh and laugh.

Could GOP Turn Social Security Reallocation Into A Yearly Crisis Like The Debt Limit?

Dylan Scott at TPM:

...

House Republicans have been transparent about their intentions of using the new rule to force a debate on changes to the program, while advocates and Democrats warned that the rule could lead to benefit cuts. But there is another possibility: Republicans could pass a short-term reallocation that would set up another shortfall a few years down the road -- and one that could arrive under a new Republican president.

It would in theory turn Social Security reallocation into something akin to the debt ceiling of the last few years: A formerly routine accounting move that the GOP is now trying to use as a leverage point to advance conservative proposals. Advocates told TPM that it was a scenario they were taking seriously.

"Just as with the debt limit, Congress could require regular short-term action, keeping a climate of crisis and requiring new legislation frequently," Nancy Altman, co-director of Social Security Works, told TPM. Advocates are pushing for a clean reallocation, which is projected to keep both funds solvent until 2033.

...

Just before the last election, the GOP answer was apparently "NO" ... they wouldn't substantially whack Social Security; there was ample political support for the 80-year-old program across the political spectrum. But there's nothing like winning an election to turn mild-mannered GOPers into raging, raving, right-wing demons. And apparently, post-election, this proposal is doing exactly that.

How many of you would side with "Granny-Starver" (Rep. Paul Ryan) in favoring an evisceration of Social Security for people who have diligently paid into the system all their working lives? Remember, it's not a gift: we earned it. The often-mentioned "contract across generations" only works if each generation in turn acts in good faith to make it work.

Damn these GOPers to Hell, I did my part. I can't begin to say what I would do if they don't do theirs.

Is Obama Preparing To Join With Republicans In Cutting Social Security?

The short answer, via Dylan Scott at TPM: Obama won't say:

When House Republicans signaled last week that they would provoke a fight over Social Security in the next two years, progressive stalwarts like Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren decried the action, with Brown alleging the GOP wanted to "set the stage to cut benefits for seniors and disabled Americans.”

Who's our friend?
Neither one!

But notably silent on the Republican stance, which prevents what has been a routine transfer of revenue between the retirement and disability funds, upping the chances of a crisis for the latter in late 2016, was the Democratic official who might actually be at the table if conservatives succeed in forcing negotiations in the next Congress: President Barack Obama.

TPM asked multiple times last week for the White House's position on the House action, but never received a formal response, a stark contrast to the loud public pronouncements of Brown, Warren, and others. It also invokes the uneasy relationship between the White House and Social Security advocates, who were dismayed by Obama's willingness to accept cuts to the program during the 2011 grand bargain talks with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).

,,,

(Bolds mine. - SB)

I live mostly on Social Security retirement benefits. Forced to retire five years early by the Baby Bush recession, I was inevitably compelled to begin using my carefully accumulated retirement savings for living expenses long before I anticipated having to retire. But I wasn't too worried: not only had I saved for the rainy day that arrived early and just kept raining, but Social Security retirement benefits had my back, so to speak. I had paid into SocSec all my working life (actually, all but the 10 years I worked for the State of Texas), supporting earlier generations in their retirement years in the good-faith understanding that younger generations would, in part, support me in my own "golden" (yeah, right) years.

But as we all are discovering, the "contract across generations" was never based on anything more substantial than good faith... and our current government officials, in both parties and at least two branches, seems ready and willing to break faith with me and everyone like me. Why? Good question; the best answer I can come up with is a combination of "because they can" and "because it better serves the exceedingly wealthy," who provide elected officials with the obscene amounts of money they need to run for office.

Fv<k them all, and fv<k the horses they rode in on. If we can disrupt this vicious cycle, we certainly should do so. And if we can't... well, there's no telling what a hungry person will do, is there?

Medicare Application: One Small Step For A Man...

... hardly a giant leap for mankind, but at least one man has taken one step toward getting into the Medicare system. I ran into only one technological glitch in the application process: I had to pause my sign-up to ask Stella a question about our current insurance; when I came back to sign in again, there was a mysterious obstacle. When the help line called me back (better than waiting on the phone for the advertised 55 minutes), I explained the problem. Try again, they said; although I had already tried three times, I did as they asked, and it worked. I'm guessing there was something keeping my previous session alive, though for the (session) life of me, I couldn't have told you what it was. Perhaps it had to do with the partial Social Security sign-up one must do even if signing up only for Medicare.

One recommendation to anyone else about to face medicare.gov for initial sign-up: don't try to learn everything before you try to do anything. It isn't possible; it is exasperating, and it isn't necessary. I tried yesterday only to end up a basket case; I abandoned the attempt for the day. If you try reading the entire "Medicare and You" pamphlet as an introduction, you'll end up screaming in frustration. Being led by dialogs through the process today worked pretty well when I got around to trying it. And there appears to be no penalty for not having all your ducks in a row before you start the process: they'll tell you what they need that you've forgotten.

Now I have to decide on some options and pick a plan. I have an idea, but I'm waiting for some info from Stella's brother, who just went through the same process. I'll let you know what happens.

How Would A Government Shutdown Affect You?

Of course, if you're a federal worker, you may (or may not) be furloughed, and you will be informed Friday about your status for Monday. Some essential services will be continued... national security, etc. But some of us will still feel the effect:

Not all of government would cease to operate. Services considered critical to national security, safety and health would go on as usual, such as border patrol, law enforcement and emergency and disaster assistance. Social Security and Medicare benefits would keep coming, for example, but there likely would be delays in processing new applications. [Bolds mine. - SB]

Oops... that last clause applies to me. I had just begun gathering my documents in preparation for a trip to the local SSA/Medicare office (it's near our house, and in-person often works better) when I read about this... I suppose I won't know until tomorrow afternoon, or maybe even Monday. It really gives me a sense of confidence :-( in the government programs that are supposed to provide me a livelihood and health care before too long...

(Yes, folks, I finally gave up and created a post category for "Government Shutdown"! Is that my expression of... what did Obama call it... "the oh-dash-it-all of hope"?)

Will Obama's Version Of Chained CPI Be Even Worse For Seniors Than Rest Of Population? YES, Says CBO

Bookmark for bad fiction

Some call it Obama's "stealth" Social Security cut, and Brian Beutler of TPM, using Congressional Budget Office analyses, shows how that is true:

...

The report [.pdf] addressed and largely affirmed a key criticism of an inflation measure called Chained CPI, which among other things would reduce Social Security cost of living increases and kick people into higher income tax brackets, if adopted across the government.

The implicit finding: Chained CPI — which President Obama included as a compromise measure in his budget — will typically harm seniors more than the rest of the population.

...

(Bolds editorial.)

Just what we seniors need: another kick in the pocketbook. I don't know about you, but my carefully hoarded retirement savings are already draining pretty quickly. This is Obama's idea of a "compromise." Sounds pretty damned Republican to me; I don't see the compromise. But please read it yourself.

I Am The American Economy's New Enemy

Krugman holds welfare queen

According to Paul Krugman, you can ask just about any right-wing nutjob these days: persons with disabilities are the new welfare queens. Never mind that, as Krugman and others readily demonstrate, it simply isn't true; it wasn't true of welfare recipients either.

Meanwhile, I await in vain a government check in my mail, and it just keeps not coming...

FTR, I will in fact apply for Social Security when I am eligible. I'm probably not eligible for Social Security Disability, but if it comes my way, I won't turn down what the radical right sees as undeserved charity, either, because during my working years, I worked my fucking ass off and paid payroll taxes and other taxes to support all of those programs. I don't deserve it? Fuck that shit!

But at this point I have accepted no government money just for still being alive (as the nutjobs see it). The wingnuts can just cross-thread themselves. I'm happy to help them if they're incompetent to do it alone.

COLA And Chained CPI: What Are They? What Impacts Would Obama's Proposed Changes Have?

A New York Times editorial discusses these (at greater length than most editorials) and concludes that President Obama, having not gotten his tax concessions from Republicans as they did not get their lowered cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), still seems "determined to include the COLA cut" in forthcoming negotiations... a policy evidently harmful to seniors currently receiving Social Security benefits and liable to be even more harmful as years go by.

If someone can give me a good answer why any Democrat should advocate striking such an obvious blow against seniors... the population cohort overwhelmingly most supportive of the Democratic Party (and quite possibly directly responsible for Mr. Obama's re-election)... I'd really like to hear it. Otherwise, this "chained CPI" approach is nothing but another failure of Democrats to act like Democrats... and thus another sharp stick in the eyes of senior citizens who have supported that party.

Just What We Need

Krugman:

So, is my timing good or not? Right after I warn about the risk that Democrats, including the president, might betray the mandate they seem likely to get for preserving the safety net, we learn that Senate leaders are at work on a plan based around, well, you guessed it:

[Krugman then quotes Jonathan Weisman at NYT, who examines possible outcomes of attempts to avert the sadly misnamed "fiscal cliff" triggered by last year's budget negotiation failure, and finds an outcome distressingly similar to Bowles/Simpson. - SB]

Just to say, this would be politically stupid as well as a betrayal of the electorate. If you don’t think Republicans would turn around and accuse Democrats of cutting Social Security — probably even before the ink was dry — you’ve been living under a rock.

Bowles/Simpson 'Nest Egg'
Social Security Plan

Yes, Mr. President, that would be politically ill-advised.

If you want to risk your lead in the polls for a real-world result that no one with an income under a half-million bucks a year wants to see, by all means, let this misbegotten effort go forward.

If, on the other hand, you want to keep the "votingest" part of your base... senior citizens... talk to the "Senate leaders" with whom you have the most influence and attempt to avert this catastrophe.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Dean Baker, co-director of CEPR (Center for Economic and Policy Research), has cross-posted an article on CEPR and TruthOut titled "Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?" Sadly, given Obama's repeated advocacy of Bowles-Simpson, the answer appears to be yes:

...

One of the items in the Bowles-Simpson plan is a reduction in the annual cost-of-living adjustment of roughly 0.3 percentage points. This would be accomplished by using a different index that, by design, would show a lower measured rate of inflation. It is important to recognize that this is an annual cut that would accumulate over time. After a retiree has been receiving benefits for 10 years the cut would be 3.0 percent, after 20 years it would be 6 percent. If a typical retiree lives long enough to get benefits for 20 years the average benefit cut over their years of retirement would be 3 percent.

...

Baker notes that these are not the only cuts to Social Security in Bowles-Simpson, which, remember, has Mr. Obama's support:

...

... The plan also would gradually raise the age at which retirees receive full benefits to 69. It also phases in a reduction in benefits for workers whose earnings averaged more than $40,000 a year over their working lifetime.

...

Sixty-nine is an age to which many people simply do not live, especially people in lower socioeconomic classes with less access to health care during their working years. And reducing benefits for workers who earned an average of over $40,000 a year... really a very modest income by today's standards... seems grossly unfair in light of tax cuts for the oligarchy that have been passed since G.W. Bush took office in 2001.

If Mr. Obama wants the support of Morgan Stanley board member Bowles and retired wealthy Republican Sourpuss, er, Senator Simpson, I'm sure he's got it. If he wants the votes of a substantial majority of seniors in November, I'm not so sure. Perhaps he needs to rethink the matter.

Social Security: Just The Facts, Ma'am

Nail your family wing-nut to a chair and make him (or her, but it's usually a "him") watch this:



H/T ellroon.