Disgusting: Warmonger Joe citing MLK

Almost as much disgust as a wingnut citing Martin Luther King's color of their skin as an excuse to junk affirmative action and pretend it worked, or if you're a Black wingnut like Clarence Thomas, to ignore that it worked to some degree and you benefited.

Anyway, here's Warmonger Joe Biden, per the WaPost, riffing on King's "I Have a Dream" speech itself, given 60 years ago this week.

First, this:

Trickle-down economics holds that taxes should be cut for the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, that public investments in priorities such as education, infrastructure and health care should be shrunk, and good jobs shipped overseas. It has exacerbated inequality and systemic barriers that make it harder for Black Americans to start a business, own a home, send their children to school and retire with dignity.

You've done nothing to reverse the Trump tax cuts that exacerbated that, or the Bush tax cuts that became the Obama tax cuts, when your then-boss, Dear Leader, accepted them. And, don't tell me you have a Republican House now; you didn't in the first two years. You've also, while attacking Republicans on Social Security, have offered no concrete plan for shoring it up. And, while in the Senate, you supported partial privatization, like both Dear Leader and Slick Willie did as president.

Second, Martin Luther King didn't die a week after that speech. And as Jonathan Eig knows, and states, in his truly magisterial new bio of King, with an extended version of my Goodreads review here, he went on to protest the Vietnam War, and some degree, militarism in general, as well as the non-racial as well as racial causes behind poverty.

I quote, as he noted in the epilogue:

The epilogue is good in noting Reagan’s resistance to making his birthday a holiday, and how we still have failed to address King’s “call for an end to the triple evils of materialism, militarism, and racism.”

That anti-militarism would surely extend today to poor Ukrainians going into a proxy war meatgrinder, as well as the poor Russians also in that meat-grinder because we never really fully abandoned Cold War politics vis-a-vis Russia, other than when exploiting the nation.

As for the racism? Let's not forget that Warmonger Joe, like Bill and Hillary, was Superpredator Joe back in the 1990s.

Is it any wonder that Biden and #BlueAnon surrogates fear a third-party presidential run by a Black man, Cornel West, who is hitting on all three of these things?

More #BlueAnon hypocrisy on Social Security

Via Kuff, Talking Points Memo talks about how Rethug Congresscritters' proposals for age hikes on Social Security amount to benefit cuts for early retirees. True. Unmentioned by these #BlueAnon, both TPM and Kuff, is that Status Quo Joe hasn't proposed increasing income subjected to FICA taxation  and then putting a COLA on it. Neither did Status Quo Barack or Status Quo Bill. Of course, the three have been at various times Privatizer Joe, Barry and Slickster, too.

'But Republicans' on Medicare and Social Security is but bullshit by Team Blue thought leaders

Saw this piece tweeted by Molly Jong-Fast, talking about how a number of House Republicans have already indicated they plan to hold Neoliberal Joe hostage over the debt ceiling being hit again next year, assuming they regain the House, take top spots on major committees, etc. and their price is going to be hiking the age on both Social Security and Medicare, among other things.

First, as an aside yet not an aside, why didn't Dear Leader fix this whole debt ceiling bullshit in his first two years, along with getting the Reproductive Freedom of Choice Act passed, etc.?

Now, to our main story.

First, it's not like Neoliberal Joe hasn't talked about partial privatization before himself. Or cuts. Or other things. He's got a long history. (So did Dear Leader, his boss for eight years.) So, contra Jong-Fast clutching her pearls, and Fancy Nancy Pelosi palavering, this would actually be Jason Smith et al pushing against a semi-open door.

Second, it's not like Dear Leader didn't push Medicare Advantage expansion when he was prez, since he did.

Third, don't say the "first" and "second" are old news. As we speak, Biden is continuing a Trump Admin program that expands the privatization of Medicare. And nominated an American Enterprise Institute staffer who is pro-Social Security privatization to serve on SSA's Advisory Board.

As for Medicare? A good step one would be simplifying it. A better step two would be addressing the whole problem of fee-for-service medicine. That includes, from here, calling out Green Party thought leaders and MDs Jill Stein and Margaret Flowers.

I'll keep a Jong-Fast friended on whichever of my Twitter accounts it is, precisely because it's good to know what a Team Blue thought leader is claiming.

Social Security is healthy, but don't thank FDR

Social Security Works!: Why Social Security Isn't Going Broke and How Expanding It Will Help Us All by Nancy Altman
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Informative, but with notable historical errors

Per the header, this book is informative about how Social Security works, and why, and about Pete Peterson, the Koch Bros and others launching attacking against it, and President Obama, per Teddy Roosevelt, not having the backbone of a chocolate eclair to defend Social Security.

However, the authors make some BIG missteps on how Social Security got started, big enough that, with all the apple polishing of other reviewers, the book deserves a two-star ding, because you can read other books about how Social Security works and how bazillionaires hate it.

FDR did not magically dream up Social Security, either by himself or with the help of Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins. Nor did he magically decide to push for the adoption of Social Security himself.

Instead, he had to be pushed, and pushed hard, into making it part of his second New Deal in 1935. That's after Francis Townsend pushed his Townsend Plan in California. That's after Upton Sinclair ran for governor of California in 1934 on his Townsend-based EPIC plan, and FDR himself connived with the California Democratic Party to kneecap Sinclair. That's after Huey Long pushed his Share the Wealth ideas.

After FDR finally pushed for Social Security, he had to be pushed by Townsend-organized activists to increase the originally planned benefits, and to start the payout in 1940 instead of 1942.

It also has a present-day error or two. Yes, folks like the Center for American Progress allegedly are fighting to "save" Social Security. However, the authors don't tell you that CAP has repeatedly supported trimming Social Security benefits by changing how its cost-of-living adjustments are calculated to using the chained CPI, a move they deride earlier in the book.

To put it bluntly, allegedly "progressive" Democratic think tanks arguing for the chained CPI is just a mirror of the old GOP argument for eating hamburger instead of steak when meat prices go up. But, if you're already eating hamburger, and not very often, and your OTC medication or prescription prices go up, then that argument for the chained CPI is totally idiotic.

I know the authors know this. Why they insisted on telling falsehoods about the start of Social Security, and elisions about "liberal" think tanks today, I have no idea. But, it hurts their credibility.


View all my reviews

Three numbers for 2016: 67, 3, $10

Those are three numbers that are key for my presidential vote.

First, I don't want any neolib Democrat, let along a Republican, raising the age of full Social Security eligibility any higher. And, of course, I don't want any privatization talk. Instead, try making all income subject to FICA taxes. And, we can use that to better means-test Medicare. (Which could be a backdoor way to do single-payer national health care as "Medicare for all," but that's another story.)

Second, if not like Europe, we need to at least be like Canada, and guarantee employees above certain age and experience three weeks of paid vacation a year. Given the tumult of the US economy, this shouldn't be chained to specific jobs. The sad part is that this isn't even on the radar screen of many Americans, whether their work collars are blue, white or gray. And it should be.

I'm sure wingnuts would say "We can't afford this." Well, it's more affordable than people burning out on jobs, eventually to take early Social Security, and maybe even, especially if their collars are blue, to find the need to file for SSDI.

Third, we need to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. That's in line with what it was at its peak in the 1950s 1960s. It's never been more than $11 an hour, even in Eisenhower Johnson-era prosperity, when far fewer married women, especially with kids, were working. So, and I've blogged about it before, while $15/hour might (even then, I'm not sure) be OK as a local minimum wage in pricey places like Seattle, it's way too high as a national standard. You'll kill red-state and blue-state rural areas alike.

But, $10 is needed. Then, let's make a COLA for the minimum wage part of the bargain, like Social Security, so the minimum wage doesn't start lagging again. We get both liberals and conservatives of various degrees and stripes to do this and take it off the table afterward.

And, I'm not alone in this!

Arindrajit Dube, an economics prof, says the same thing. Move to $10 an hour, then implement a COLA and take this out of the realm of politics. He discusses the issue in detail here.

Christmastime birthdays, aging, and modern America

As a number of social media friends, including one of my fellow Texas bloggers, know, today is my birthday.

No biggie in general, I passed a sort of "milestone" birthday last year. More on that in a moment.

First, talking about Christmastime birthdays.

My parents got me separate gifts, and made sure I had a regular birthday.

That said, I had a dad who refused to open his Christmas gifts one year — and still hadn't opened them months later — because we kids were being too noisy at Christmas. And, two parents together who, when I was 10, or maybe 12, not only didn't get me the Scientific American gift subscription I wanted, but didn't inquire further about how they could bolster the education of a kid that age wanting a subscription to Scientific American back in the days when it was still a real science magazine.

Both parental units are now dead, and I can't overcome the past. I can only continue to work on how the past may affect me today. Anyway, that's a slice of my childhood family life.

Back to today.

As noted, I had a milestone birthday of sorts last year. Not the last decadal milestone before the bounty of Social Security is redeemable, but the one before that, and one that is commonly recognized as a milestone.

And I can report that not only is 50 the new 50, it's got other issues.

For example, as I blogged this summer, I believe I've been the victim of employment-related age discrimination, which is even harder to prove than sex or racial discrimination. And, I suspect something like "social media skills" is going to be an ongoing trick to try to weed out oldsters in the future. That's because I was in Dallas several years back when the Morning News dumped a bunch of older, better paid columnists and such, and justified it on the grounds that it was worried about their ability to improve their computer skills.

Second, I of course hope that some partnership of welfare-hating Republicans and neobliberal Democrats doesn't further increase the Social Security eligibility age, further undercut benefits or make other changes. That's especially true because of the age discrimination issue, and also because of America's continued fraying of the "safety net" otherwise.

There are plenty of near-seniors who have saved nothing for retirement. There's plenty of others who haven't saved a lot.

In many of their, or our, cases, it's not due to frivolity. It's due to some mix of stagnant wages, troubled career fields, job loss and more.

Finally, as I get older, without being lower-c cynical in any greater degree, I do fully hope and intend to become more and more philosophically Cynical. Here's why.

Debt deal revitalizes the Catfood Commission; nothing "clean" here

Or, some sort of surrogate for it.

As part of the deal on the Senate's bill that ended the federal government shutdown and pushed back the debt ceiling limit, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed to fast track discussions on  what sure sounds like it will lead to "entitlement reforms:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor Wednesday that under his agreement with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, the two leaders would name members to a bicameral budget conference committee “that will set our country on a long-term path to fiscal sustainability.” ...

The ultimate deal may end up looking like the one that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., proposed last week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: “We could provide relief from the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act in exchange for structural reforms to entitlement programs.”

So, while the Democratic Party may have gotten a "clean" win in yesterday's votes, we the non-neoliberal people did not. Cue up the Catfood Commission theme music.

And, it will be harder for non-neoliberals to slow this down in the Senate:

“Probably the most important part of budget reconciliation is that a reconciliation bill can approve policy reforms with only 51 votes in the Senate,” said Loren Adler, the research director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. This fast-track process “could be critical in increasing the chances for tax reform” and reform of entitlement programs to succeed.

Wunderbar. 

That's even though the Gipper himself knew that entitlements (theoretically, per Al Gore's "lockbox") weren't connected to the deficit:



Beyond that, some economists say the deficit is being reduced too quickly right now.

Obama plays 12-dimensional #SocialSecurity chess with 11-dimension mind, gets burned

Eleven-dimensional chess is the inside-the-Beltway idea of a master politician thinking not just one move ahead, but at least one dimension ahead, of his foes.

Obamiacs both inside and outside the Beltway, in things like the Bush Obama tax cuts, the sequester, and now budget deals, have consistently said that we mere true liberal mortals couldn't see ahead the end result of Obama's 11-dimensional moves.

Well, it seems like the GOP is handing him his hat in the 12th dimension on chained CPI for Social Security, older eligibility age for Medicare, and more.

And, per the second page of the story, the right-wing talking machine is already spreading lies:

“Politically, this is not a winner. Our brand is the party that brought you Social Security,” said Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), adding that his mother said she had heard that Obama was eliminating benefits for people older than 80. “We’ve now opened up the door for rumors about how Social Security will be reduced or eliminated. We don’t need that.”

Wow.

Followed by this:

The Club for Growth, another group that promotes conservative economic policies, threatened to find a primary opponent for Walden. President Chris Chocola noted that in 2005 “it was Republicans who said no” to President George W. Bush’s more ambitious plan to overhaul Social Security by adding private accounts.

Nooo, it was we the progressive people who helped stop it.

So, these are the folks whom Obama thought he could sweet talk with his mellifluous voice singing Kumbaya. (April 30: Democratic House members eying midterm elections are trying to distance themselves from that voice.)

Meanwhile, the "most transparent administration in history" signs into law the bill I saw last week, where Congress exempts its own members and staffers from online financial disclosures.

Obamiacs must have perpetual flu viruses; they can't wake up and smell coffee.

Once again, Obama, and Obamiacs, demonstrate the soft bigotry of low expectations.

I am more and more at the point where I fully think Obama's a worse president than Jimmy Carter.

But, just at times I wonder whether W. was that stupid, or rather, he was that devious, I wonder whether Dear Leader is that politically naive, or its more he's that, that, that neoliberal, that, re the Obamiacs, he's in Dimension 13, looking for even more austerity.

Another alleged liberal sellout on entitlements - Cong Progressives

About 70 percent of the Congressional Progressive Caucus refused to sign a letter pledging to oppose cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Yes, you read that right. Refused to sign.

As of today, after many weeks of progressive lobbying and pleading and petitioning nationwide, 47 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have refused to sign the letter, initiated by Congressmen Alan Grayson and Mark Takano, pledging to “vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits -- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.”

List of refusniks here.

Howqver, just two short months ago, the same CPC sent a letter to Dear Leader proposing to fight Social Security cuts.

So, is Medicare, or Medicaid, the deal-breaker for the 47 pseudoprogressives?

In that case, is this an issue of "old people vote, but poor people don't"?

Just.Wow.

I'd like to think there's some other reason involved. Sheila Jackson Lee is about as liberal as you can be and still be inside today's Democratic Party, and she's a refusnik. John Lewis is a veteran of all sorts of progressive causes.

Stay tuned.

The real Obama - he was always there

Obama's latest sellout reminded me of some of my photoshopping from a few years back. I did this on Shepard Fairey's own iconic photoshopping. It has a 2012 campaign companion photo here.

No, I'm not being too harsh on Obama. Wake up, folks. Vernon Jordan took him on a dog-and-pony show before a bunch of Wall Streeters way back in 2003 for their USDA Prime seal of approval. (He got it.)

You Obamiac types are still "projecting" your wish fulfillment on him. You "my Democrats right or wrong," as I've said before, are "enabling" Obama like a spouse or lover enables an alcoholic or addict.

So, stop posting your Daily Kos and Salon links on Facebook. If you want any chance of stopping Obama's Social Security sellout, the only way is by dealing with the Republican devil.

Yeah,  I know, he's actually a genius. Secret plan to end the war, too, and all that.

Of course, exactly two years ago, he was a genius in the same situation, right? Only it wasn't even the same situation, because the GOP didn't yet control the House. Yet, somehow, Dear Leader managed to turn the Bush tax cuts into the Obama tax cuts with almost nothing  of note in return.

Bummed over #OBummer and Social Security? A modest solution

I love that Democratic friends of mine on Facebook are saying "call your Congressman" over Dear Leader's proposed cuts to Social Security. (This doesn't mention a possible increase in the Medicare retirement age, or whatever else is in his magic box of rocks, either now, or in 2014 when Fiscal Cliff Part Deux hits the shitscreen.)

Now, why would I do that?

O'Bummer is surely already leaning on Hairy Reed, aka Harry Reid, to take back any hint of possible opposition he has expressed to this idea.

You want to try to stop this effing train wreck?

If you're a Democrat, whether "Democrats always, right or wrong," an independent-minded Democrat, an independent-minded left-liberal of sorts like me, or whatever, there is a Plan B.

Especially if, like me, you live in a red state.

DO call your Republican Congresscritter or Senator.

Tell him (it's very unlikely to be a her) that you oppose this deal because it's not good enough. For example, if you're here in Texas? Tell John Cornyn, Lamar Smith, even Gohmert Pyle if you have the stomach, to hold out for more. Tell them to buck John Boehner.

That's the only way this gets stopped.

Of course, there's a hell of a risk.

And, if you aren't still wearing rose-colored glasses, you know that risk.

It's that O'Bummer finds even more stores to give away.

And, it is a real risk.

Why?

Because he's a liar. He's telling a tacit lie that Social Security has something to do with the deficit.

That's not just me saying that.

Ronald Reagan (and remember how much Obama likes him?) says so too:

Obama's Social Security sellout is starting - let the lies follow

Yeah, yeah, Obamiacs. Tell me how "he's better than the alternative." Tell me about how his hands are tied, etc.

And, I'll respond with reality.

So will Ronald Reagan, who also, to put it politely, sets Obama straight, or to put it bluntly, calls him a liar:



Obama's already caving on how COLAs will be calculated for Social Security. And he's also caving on the Bush Obama tax cuts ending, changing the baseline from $250K to $400K.

And, we're nowhere near a "deal" or Jan. 1, 2013 yet.

What's next?

Raising the retirement age?

Raising the Medicare eligibility age?

And what of substance is the GOP giving back?

Have we heard anything about raising rates on capital gains? Closing top-end loopholes?

No and no.

Simpson and Bowles will probably get invited to a White House press conference about the Catfood Commission's stamp of approval before that happens. Stand by for Dear Leader to continue compromising away the compromise.

Krugman says he's not sure on the deal parameters so far, and, he's not mentioning what else could be in the mix before we're done. Ezra Klein says it is indeed possible it will include Medicare age hikes.

So, I will actually be in the reality-based community.

Where the Obama-based community will be, I don't know.

Beyond a backstabber, he's a liar, if Social Security is being put in the mix in order to cut the deficit. Because we all know that FICA taxes have nothing to do with the deficit. Period. End of story.

Therefore, Obama acting as though they do? He's a liar. Sorry ... no other word for it. He's not claiming it's to help Social Security's solvency. Rather, it's part of a deficit/debt deal in the general budget, therefore he's a liar.

Will Harry Reid stand by his pledge last month to reject any "deal" that includes Social Security, or will he become a liar, too? Stay tuned. His most recent verbiage have him at least halfway firm, but, White House pressure to do any deal before Christmas will probably get hot and heavy.

For a realistic idea about what to do to try to stop this, go here.

Hutchison going wingnut on 'saving' Social Security

Over the past several years, Kay Bailey Hutchison had developed and cultivated an image as a moderate conservative Republican, that is a non-wingnut conservative.

As she heads toward retirement pasturelands, she seems determined to gut that.

The latest? Her plan to "protect" Social Security.

I have put forth a plan, the Defend and Save Social Security Act, to preserve and strengthen Social Security.  My approach is sensible, fair, and easy to implement.

First, as Americans live longer, it makes sense to increase the retirement age gradually – without impacting those who are about to retire.  Under my bill, anyone who is currently 59 years or older would not be affected.

For everyone else, both the normal retirement age and early retirement age would increase by three months each year, starting in 2016. That means the normal retirement age would reach 67 by2019, 68 by 2023, 69 by 2027 and 70 by 2031. The early retirement age would also be gradually increased to 63 by 2019 and 64 by 2023.

Reality? Kay Bailey Cheerleader is all wet in numerous ways.

First, as anybody who knows one iota about Social Security knows, FICA taxes have zip to do with the general budget, and so does Social Security's expenditures.

Second, life expectancy is more and more nearly plateauing.

Third, related to that, life expectancy may already be flat for anybody not in the 1 percent.

But wait, that's not all! Any year the COLA would be above 1 percent, her act would trim 1 percent off the COLA.

Of course, the Big Question is not about KBH — it's about what sort of "negotiations" Dear Leader will do with allegedly "sensible conservatives" like her.

Two bankrupt candidates, lying about bankruptcy

Well, Mitt Romney was right about one thing in tonight’s debate ­— both he and Barack Obama falsely believe (or at least profess to falsely believe) Social Secuirty is going bankrupt. Hence’s Romney’s desire to privatize it, and Obama’s Catfood Commission.

It was at that point, after about half an hour of tuning in, that I decided it was high time to tune out again and turn off the TV.

In “chess match” terms, Obama didn’t wax the floor with Romney, from what I saw, unlike Biden with Ryan. But, he did seem ahead on points, to use boxing analogies, while counterpunching a bit better than Romney and throwing his own jabs, too.

Sometime later this week, I’ll probably do a more in-depth post on one Democrat/Obamiac cherished anti-Green, etc., talking point — the appointment of Supreme Court justices — and myth vs. reality here.

Where's our articulate prez on the safety net?

In his latest column, Paul Krugman asks why so many red-state voters are so fervently that way, even when it's against their economic self interest.

He first mentions Thomas Frank's idea, that they've been seduced by social conservativism talk. Second is taking social influences the other way, using this to explain why the rich in blue states are at least quasi-liberal, being repelled by that same social conservativism.

And, third is, well, denialism!

When 44 percent of those on Social Security, 43 percent on unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of Medicare users say "they've not used a government program," it's no wonder tea party-type wingnuts keep attacking the government.

Needed? Far beyond George Lakoff, an articulate president explaining these things. Allegedly, the country elected one. (Soft bigotry of low expectations strikes again, I guess.)

That said, it's not just Dear Leader. It was only the 2010 midterms that really brought this to the surface. On the other hand, that was nearly two years ago. And, where is Obama? Or other top Dems, for that matter?

Obama jobs speech blogging - hypocrisy's bad moon on rise

1. Hypocrisy in infrastructure, in talking about Chinese building bridges for America. (In case you don't know the reference, large parts of the refurbished Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge were built in China.) In the parallel case of "green jobs," the Obama Administration refuses to do anything about China subsidizing such jobs itself, even as his own administration touts Chinese job creation:

Last week, for instance, the White House's U.S. trade representative, Ron Kirk, said we shouldn't be concerned with jobs that are about "making things that, frankly, we don't want to make in America -- you know, cheaper products, low-skill jobs."

Just a few short grafs show how much of a disconnect there is between Obama the myth and Obama the reality.

The hypocrisy is repeated later, with "corporate tax breaks for creating jobs in America" even as the administration promotes new free trade treaties ("strangely" not mentioned tonight), treaties with claimed job gains without mention of job losses, or average wages of either added or lost jobs.

Add to the hypocrisy with Obama's "made in America."

He later says we don't need to cut collective bargaining rights, cut pollution protections, etc. as part of a "race to the bottom," but doesn't tell us how that squares with neolib outsourcing of jobs, etc.

2. "Cutting red tape"? Small businesses say they're not worried about that. Reality? Big biz members of the U.S. Chamber don't like them, especially any that regulate pollution. (Actually, failure to better regulate finance-based big biz, including insurers, hurt small companies) True, Dear Leader may have to pander to outside-the-Beltway stereotypes a bit, but ... he did this on the smog regs too. (And, no, they weren't that legally indefensible, as California Sen. Barbara Boxer showed by her call for somebody to sue the administration.

3. The tax credit for long-term unemployed? A good one. But ... combine it, behind the scenes, with the "stick" of hinted-at Department of Labor investigations of companies that run the "no unemployed need apply" ads. The hint of likely age discrimination lawsuits would get some attention.

4. Calling the GOP out on the FICA tax "holiday" continuing or not? Brilliant politically, but Social Security/Medicare taxes should never have been cut in the first place. The Earned Income Tax Credit should have been expanded instead.

5. What are "modest adjustments" to Medicare and Medicaid? Not mentioned. That said, cue up the Catfood Commission. Such "modest adjustments" will include raising the eligibility age for Medicare, which will have more looking at using Medicaid more.

6. What is a "fair share" of taxation for the rich, other than finally getting the Bush Obama tax cuts to expire? No details.

7. "We're all rugged individualists"? No, we're not. Many of the original 13 colonies were founded as royal colonies, or else royal land grants to pay debts. We've not been rugged individualists since then.

OK, a few pundits. Paul Krugman likes it, on paper at least, for politics as well as job help. David Brooks is skeptical of most of the hiring tax credits, saying they'll more likely go for people already employed moving to a new job. (That's why the credit for hiring the long-term unemployed was a bright spot.) The Atlantic's James Fallows likes the rhetoric of the "pass this jobs bill."

Summary, on a 10-star scale:
Political side NNNNNNN 
Content side NNNN

The rich (and Dear Leader?) versus Social Security

This is the type of world the Koch Bros. et al want to see when they oppose raising the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes.

Sorry, hotel housemaid with fallen arches and varicose veins, but the rich think you're going to wreck the budget and Social Security, and refuse to countenance other fixes. You're going to have to work until 70.

Sorry, truck driver with a bad back. The rich say you just haven't worked long enough and are going to bankrupt Social Security, and refuse to countenance other fixes. You're going to have to work until 70.

Sorry, age-discrimination-suffering person who wound up at 7-Eleven. The rich say that if you really were a better worker in today's Social Darwinist America, you never would have fallen down to 7-Eleven, wouldn't have had to raid your 401, and risk bankrupting Social Security, and refuse to countenance other fixes. You're going to have to work until 70.

Sorry, grandparents who took in a grandkid who was using drugs, and saw the bipartisan police state (hey, it's true) take much of your possessions in an asset seizure forfeiture. The rich are worried you might bankrupt Social Security, and refuse to countenance other fixes. You're going to have to work until 70.

That said, it's not just the rich, it's the water-carriers for the rich. Don't forget that raising the retirement age is part and parcel of Dear Leader's Catfood Commission.

This is the update to Ted Kennedy's Borkian American - a Koch Bros. American not (just) of abortions in back alleys but people being told to wear themselves out because they've been unlucky in the highly contingent game of life, even as they're being called freeloaders in some way, shape, form or language.

The time for emails to Obama is long gone

First, on issues like Social Security and Medicare, he is NOT Bill Clinton "triangulating" in the mid-1990s. He actually wants these cuts. That's one reason he has squeezed House Democrats out of the picture. (Take note, David Brookses of the world who critique his leadership style.)

More proof that he wants these cuts? Remember, the "Catfood Commission" was HIS commission and he has never disavowed its recommendations. Second, his knifing in the back single-payer national health care.

The health care issue also shows not just that Obama lied when he talked about how "open" his administration would be, but the degree of brazenness with which he lied.

And, yet, many people think that clicking a link from MoveOn will magically inspire Obama to "save Social Security."

Wrong.

Get it through your thick heads, people who still have Obama love affairs, bromances, unreturned infatuations. Grover Cleveland Obama doesn't care how you feel, unless you finally get a clue and tell him you're voting Green.

And, that you make that a reality, not just an idle threat.

The only things you accomplish by clicking a MoveOn link are encouraging online slacktivism and encouraging MoveOn to try to hit you up for money.

One way Social Security IS in trouble

I had no idea, until reading this, that Medicare recipients had a "make good" payment from Social Security if the change in Social Security's COLA was not enough, by itself, to cover the annual rise in Medicare Part B premiums, which cover doctor visits and are paid for out of Social Security benefits.

First, this is obviously a robbing Peter to pay Paul issue, so it's dumb on that grounds.

Second, by shuffling off part of Medicare's problems onto Social Security, it hides some of Medicare's problems.

Third, it increases the likelihood politicians of BOTH parties will wrongly handle both Medicare and Social Security.

Annuities instead of Social Security?

Wow. Just wow.

Set aside Rick Perry and Texas GOP wingnuts, and sometimes a good idea like this comes out of the Lone Star State.

Column authors Henry T. C. Hu and Terrance Odean say government-provided annuities would replace the uncertainty of retirement budgeting folks in their 40s and 50s face today and would actually stimulate grown in private annuities, too.

Our proposal is a winner for everyone. The Treasury could lower borrowing costs and diversify its investor base while acknowledging and budgeting for risk that it already bears. Individuals could eliminate the risk of living too long. By looking at the promised rate of return on the annuities, individuals will have a better sense of how much they need to save.

Where do I sign up?

Seriously, I'm not sure on the details, but it sounds like this would level a playing field that currently isn't totally level, on differing Social Security payouts.