This is a policy suggestion--activist to progressive activist (and an open letter to any policy-makers or influencers who may read it). Many of us no longer trust the president to act in our, the party's, or the public's best interest, as he's already demonstrated a willingness to cut vital social programs, in spite of all the evidence and polling to the contrary. So, from now own, the president shouldn't get any freebies: There should be a price--paid upfront--for our support on this issue.
So, it may be time for us to draw a line with the president--the best way to get anything from him, as the Republicans have so amply demonstrated. I know, I know, there are many issues that need similar treatment, but this one might ought to take some measure of priority due to the current focus on jobs by the administration and his expected 'jobs plan'. Specifically, this line should be drawn on the payroll tax the president has already proposed extending as part of his (inadequate-but-still-better-than-nothing) jobs plan.
Since the payroll tax is a key part of what the president wants as part of his jobs proposal, it gives those of us who want a bit of leverage an opportunity to do something good for seniors and for the country. Let's remember that the payroll tax is the funding mechanism for social security, and cutting it (or extending the existing cuts) logically only makes Social Security less funded and more likely to go insolvent even sooner than under current projections--and it thereby only hastens the program-destroying 'crisis' that the Republicans have been salivating over for decades. Maybe President Obama wants that to be his grand bargain legacy, but I don't want that to be our collective future. Nor do I want to let Obama get away with doing the Republican's dirty work for them yet again--regardless of whether he's complicit or just a complete incompetent.
And, what's more, to offset his 'tax cut'--at least in part--the president wants (for some unfathomable reason) to talk about changing COLA calculations to effectively cut retiree's benefits by thousands in future years as the cuts compound over time. Thus, the president's tax cut will be funded by taking it out of the hides of retirees' future benefits, cuts which will be compounded over time such that those who live longest suffer the biggest cuts from what they would get under the current system.
Yet, there is a way to both offset the losses from the president's payroll tax and shore up social security so that the Republican's wet-dream crisis never happens--at least not in our lifetimes, anyway: Eliminate the cap on the payroll tax so that people who make over ~$100,000 also have to continue contributing to the program. Done. Problem solved.
I say "eliminate" because the politics of our time has demonstrated that we should not be shy of demanding something on that order up front and then, perhaps, be willing negotiate it down to raising the cap to a new, more-inclusive and fair level. At a very minimum, progressives should demand that the cap--if retained--should be set at a level that will:
- Offset the lost revenues from the president's payroll tax.
- Gets the president to SHUT THE FUCK UP about the need for changing COLA and effectively promising to cut people's benefits. (more on that below)
This is both good for the president and his re-election (whether he realizes it or not), good politics (it is easy to show that we progressives are "defending social security" with our demands, and that is some solid political ground to be standing on), and, most importantly, it is really what's best for the country (putting money in people's pockets now while still preserving the social safety net for ourselves and future generations).
Extended discussion below the fold...
And About that COLA business...
The current reports are that the president wants to give a ~$250 payment to beneficiaries to make up for the past two years having no cost of living adjustment increase. And in exchange for this money now, he wants to change the COLA calculations to make it "more accurate"--but in a way that makes COLA even more stingy and that will effectively cut future benefits by thousands.
But hold on a minute! The retirees got no COLA increases--for which the president now wants to make a back payment--during this recession. Why? Because the president isn't lying about the present COLA calculations. They are inaccurate and insufficiently reflect seniors increased costs, but that's not because they are too generous--as the president's 'fix' would suggest--but because the COLA doesn't include increases in food and energy costs--the very two sectors that have gone up the most lately and two sectors that senior citizens absolutely have to pay for as part of their true 'cost of living' every month--at least if they don't want to die of starvation, heat, or cold.
So, we should be entirely open and willing to have a conversation with the president about adjustments to COLA. But not the conversation the president wants. While we are demanding eliminating the cap in exchange for voting for the president's payroll tax, we might as well demand that the cap--if it remains--should be set at level that it would fund a COLA calculation that really IS 'more accurate' in that it reflects the TRUE increases in the costs of living for seniors.
So there it is: A plan where we progressives can back up our own rhetoric with action, by drawing a line on principled grounds and sticking to it in negotiations with the president (and Republicans obviously). This should be our unified message (at least as far as the payroll tax portion of the jobs plan is concerned) to the president, the progressive caucus, the black caucus, and all our other allies in congress as this jobs debate goes forward. Not only would it be good for progressive politics, it would be good for seniors and future retirees, and good for the country. It also sets the standard for what we should--and do--expect in the way of results from our leadership, and let's them know by what measure their success or failure in delivering to their base on this issue will be judged.
If successful, we'd take the "social security in crisis" meme off the Republican's table for a generation, if not more. We would put money in people's pockets now while not sacrificing on our longterm needs. President Obama might not thank us for it--but the our children very well may. And, we may thank each other when we are all together in the nursing home enjoying our Soc. Sec. retirement and going senile together. I'd like to hope so, in this time of so many betrayed hopes. At the very least, I think it gives us and our allies something to fight for, and to set a marker for the public that there IS at least one group in this country willing to defend the middle class, seniors, and the social safety net they depend upon.