The Big Idea That Could Bring Disaffected Voters Back to the Polls

[n2doc]

Bernie Sanders has a plan to expand, not “save,” Social Security—and it should be popular.
By William Greider

At his inauguration in 1981, Ronald Reagan declared that “government is not the solution—government is the problem.” The election of 2016 will tell us whether the American people are ready to overthrow the tyranny of that reactionary proposition. I know it’s possible—but only if the Democratic Party finds the courage to embrace a serious left turn.

The 2016 election is not actually about personalities. It’s about ideas—big ideas for governing that, win or lose, can change the country for better or for worse. Republicans are stuck in the past, still longing for the return of their dead president and his trickle-down Reaganomics. Left-liberal and progressive Democrats are prodding their party to reverse the Gipper in major ways by doing big things that would benefit millions of people—like expanding Social Security benefits instead of cutting them. So despite the media’s trivial pursuits, I expect the 2016 election will ultimately pivot on ideological conflict, powered by the great social and economic dislocations that have shaken society’s self-confidence. Dozens of right-left governing issues are already in play, setting up an emotional clash between bleeding-heart optimism on the left and nostalgic resentments on the right.

The most significant of these collisions may be the reemergence of an old and familiar argument about reforming Social Security. This time, left-ish Dems want to expand its benefits and protections and raise the payroll tax on top-level incomes to pay for the expansion. The herd of GOP candidates is once again promising to cut Social Security benefits and maybe turn the government system over to private enterprise (that is, the financial system that wreaked havoc on US prosperity). Veteran campaign reporters evidently think it’s boring, since they seldom mention the issue.

But don’t be surprised if the fight over this old New Deal program emerges next year as a crucial battlefront between the parties. In fact, it may provide Democrats with a great opportunity to change the shape of the American electorate and reconnect with disenchanted working-class voters who feel the Democratic Party abandoned them.

more

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-big-idea-that-could-bring-disaffected-voters-back-to-the-polls/

[peacebird]

1. The Democratic party HAS abandoned working class voters, shift started with the big dog and the DLC

They realized that being proBusiness was more lucrative for them.

Bernie is concerned aboutWe, The People - not just his bank account.

[tecelote]

3. Right. Politicians are acting like business people with profit being sacred above all else.

We need an America for Americans.

[peacebird]

4. Exactly. People are more important.

And the worker getting their fair share of the pie.

[daleanime]

10. Amen.....

[Demeter]

2. Let's Update that Reaganism, shall we? GOP is not theSolution...GOP is the Problem

and that includes the Blue Dog, Third Way DINOsaurs.

[Vincardog]

15. Government is the only way to control corrupt corporations. Government is the only answer.

[Enthusiast]

5. Kicked and recommended!

[bullwinkle428]

6. K&R.

[BeanMusical]

7. Kick and R

[Zoonart]

8. EVERYBODY!

CUT THE CRAP... RAISE THE CAP...CUP THE CAP...RAISE THE CAP... CUT THE CRAP...RAISE THE CAP.........................

[daleanime]

11. Destroy the Cap.....

[d_legendary1]

9. People need to be reminded that government is

of the people
by the people
for the people

The fore fathers did not invent a "problem" that its intended purpose was to screw the people over. That statement that Ronnie Raygun made sounds un-American to me.

[Overseas]

12. K&R. Yes please!

[mountain grammy]

13. It's so frustrating to have senior friends who are completely dependent on

SS and Medicare, supporting the Republican party. I look them right in the eye and say, do you know your party will end these programs as we know them? Do you know that a candidate for president, Senator Bernie Sanders, has supported actually expanding and increasing these benefits? Could you use a raise? Vote for Bernie Sanders.

[mopinko]

14. this is one place where i have problems w bernie.

i dont believe in scrapping the cap, or creating a donut hole. i have yet to hear him address how this affects the eventual payouts to those wealthy workers. and they are workers. they are not the super rich. they are people like my husband, who are lucky enough to have jobs as IT execs, salaried lawyers in big firms, and others. the last good jobs in america.
we did not live in the lap of luxury. we had what used to be an upper middle class life- a nice house, a small piece of rental property, a big family w a full time mom, college for our kids, and a good retirement savings. no big bricks of gold, just a comfortable life.

the ss we will receive is total about $5k/mo. if the cap is scrapped, would people like us get a proportional return on our fica payments? will someone who earns a mil a year get $10k/mo? $15k? or will they get the same max as the $118k/mo worker?
if you think the wealthy hate ss now, wait till you see what happens when people like us have to pay in all year just to get the same as someone who barely hits that hole.
teddy kennedy opposed this idea w his whole heart because it changes the very nature of ss if you decouple earnings from benefits.

but apart from that issue- why isnt bernie talking about care givers? there are people, notably my rep jan schakowsky, who are talking about giving credits to (mostly) women who take years out of their earning life to care for children and elderly and disabled family.
coupled with the usually lower wages that women earn, this is a big reason why women retiring on their own ss get pitiful amounts of money.
there are structural inequalities, too. a lot of women workers pay in large amounts of money that they never see, because they get more in spousal benefits than they will get on their own. why they dont get both still confuses me.
and a small one that i just recently found out about- my marriage is now over. i am 61. i did not know that i cannot collect on that single income until i am 68, because my ex is 6 years younger than i am, and he has to be eligible in order for me to collect.
this is one area where married women do collect on their own wages, as i can take my own paltry bennies at 62, and then switch to his account when he is eligible. but again, i am looking about less than $200/mo because i was a full time mom. even 5 years in caregiver credits would make a difference.

i have no problem w raising the cap to reflect the increased benefits. i think the application of the tax to capital gains is an important way to make it more fair.
but decoupling payments from benefits makes the program about "redistributing wealth" and not about paying your own way, and earning your own retirement.
i think that is just wrong.

and before anyone jumps on me, i am a bernie supporter. i have donated, i will again, and i intend to vote proudly for him. but i think this one is misguided.

[eridani]

16. Payments are already decoupled from benefits

People with lowest lifetime amounts put in already get more than they put in because of the initial benefits determination. Then there is a second, shallower line following benefits for those in the middle. Right now there is a cap on benefits, but this could easily be removed without huge payouts--just add a third line that goes up forever, but with a very small slope.

I agree that there should be a caregiver's benefit. Patty Murray introduced such a bill a few years ago, but it didn't get anywhere.