Entitlements is one of those words that granted the Republicans a number of victories over the years. Do they call health spending an entitlement in Germany? Do they call it an entitlement in England? Why does Cuba, which is in many ways rightfully vilified for its suppression of speech and press, have a better health care system than we do? All three place health care as a human right, while we call it a government entitlement program. (We also call Social Security and entitlement program when it is workers, not the wealthy or government, who pay for it. Another story.) Health care in most situations (perhaps not including cosmetic surgeries like Brazilian butt lifts) is an inelastic demand expenditure that either requires careful regulation, or a single payer system. As is it is now much worse than when you faced the arrogant Senator Coats, yet the argument for and against a reformed health care system remains exactly the same. Your testimony could still not be given honestly. So how do we change the debate to allow the needs of farm workers, factory workers, retail workers, and government workers (including education workers like teachers) to have the same access to good health care as Senators? If you can't say that out loud in a confirmation hearing, does that mean you cannot broach the subject on the Senate floor? I know we have tried, but it seems that the can of worms has been kicked down the road so far the present system will collapse before it can be reformed. I am just glad people like yourself, Mr. Reich, are still trying.
It perplexes me that we do not use the word “insurance” for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. It’s in the official name of Social Security: “Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)”. Medicare is also “Federal health insurance”. These are not entitlements as there are premiums and actuarial-based processes.
What’s left is a convenient way of renaming “war on the poor.” Perhaps when we hear the word entitlement from these politicians we should ask, “Do you mean the part that we pay for as insurance or the war on the poor part?”
Or perhaps we should talk about the carried interest exemption to the income tax as an “entitlement” for the ultra-wealthy?
SSA uses "social insurance." It is not just a retirement program because it also protects disabled workers, their families and provides an average of about a million dollars in lifetime benefits.
An individual does not have an individual "account." Benefits are based on taxing a "wage earner." In order to receive benefits the wage earner must have been "fully" and "currently" insured." Benefits are based on the PIA, "primary insurance amount." In retirement, calculations are generally based on the highest 35 years of earnings to constitute the PIA.
I agree, Daniel. But the widows and orphans weren't added until 1939, 4 years after the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935. In 1972 (the Nixon years) SSI was wrongly added to Social Security instead of the Health and Welfare Department to assist those persons, who through health or injury were not able to help themselves but had never worked 40 quarters (ten years) in their lifetimes. In other words the Republican majority wanted the working class to pay for the "disabled" not the wealthy who paid a higher (but reasonable) income tax at that time. [This information is incorrect, SSI is administered by
SSA, but funded by the general fund, I stand corrected] In the 1990's (while I was working for the Welfare System) The Republicans tried to exclude persons addicted to chemicals, to be unable to get SSI. The thinking was if they couldn't feed and shelter themselves they would die faster. Of course Ronnie baby's War on Drugs. helped increase the addicted society along with his intolerance of mental illness. For those of you too young to remember. dear Reagan was the California Governor who closed all the mental institutions in California, declaring that the "community" would take care of the mentally ill. Of course, being the good little conservative b!@&@5d that he was he didn't bother funding the 58 counties to care for these chronically ill, and at that time incurable individuals, so they joined the growing homeless population. While at the same time enlarging the payout of Social Security, which would still be self-paying if the working class only paid for their own retirement and that of their widows and if the died early, their children.
Fay, SSI is not really part of SSA -- SSA administers the program but the funds come from general revenues of US rather than the SSA trust funds.
What actually happened is the "fix" created by Bob Dole and Greenspan accommodations didn't anticipate that the baby boomers would exceed all expectations. Premiums increased from 4.4% to 6.2% By 2034, the babyboom generation will not be as much a burden.....
I blame Clinton as much as Reagan. Reagan cut the rolls without giving the disabled a right to a hearing. Clinton ended "welfare as we knew it." Was in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, cut alcoholism, and like Reagan and Carter put pressure on the agency to deny claims.
I lived through many of these changes . I was an administrative law judge for 10 years for SSA/HHS. Wrote a number of academic papers.
Misinformation i s the bane of my existence. We were told that the SSI funding came from Social Security funds and since this was a governmental agency , I believed them. Thank you for your correction. On the subject of Social Security administering funds though, I am still of the opinion that they are the worse administrators in the Federal Government. I worked and paid into the Social Security system until I was 6 weeks shy of my 88th birthday. (BTW, I made excellent money in the private sector,. between 60,000 and 120,000 annually) When I inquired why my medicare payments were so high I was told by the manager of the State SSA department that was my penalty for working. When I asked why my Social Security payments were so low due to Windfall Elimination Penalty and Government Pension Offset deductions I was informed (by SSA) it was to protect the "Government" from greedy widows who didn't deserve the money obtained from their hardworking husbands - Both my relatively small government pensions were from MY employment and I paid into both funds the 29 years I worked for them. My Social Security pension is based on 60 quarters of my own earnings not my husband's, but in their zeal to punish widows who served their husbands and children for many, many years but were unpaid for their labor they punish all government employed women forever.
I share your concern. I worked at Neiman Marcus for 10 years supplementing my teacher's income. I was subject to the Windfall Elimination penalty. All of the money I paid into social security was ignored I wound up with a whopping $66. A month in ss benefits. I was never informed regarding how my benefits would be reduced at the time. In this case ignorance was not bliss.
I am retired. On my social net profile where they ask for "company" I put "Entitled Recovery Inc." and for "Job" I put "Recovering the money I paid into Social Security."
Yes, the age of 65 was set when not too many laborers lived much longer than that. My grandfather didn't even make that, but my grandmother survived into her 80s on his SS benefits.
The good Lord willing that is! (Not me however, as I am just a leech who worked a few years, made to to shift manager at a Subway, then had my skull shattered while sledding in my early twenties.)
Not to even MENTION the fact that every single person's social security check COMBINED is only a fraction of a fraction of the cost of a SINGLE military jet!
Good point about the words insurance and entitlements.But then,Democrats and progressives have largely lost the battle over slogans and framing, e.g. parents rights.
The problem isn't the word "entitlement." It's the way Republicans have spent decades trying to convince Americans that "entitlement" is a bad thing.
Legally speaking, "entitlement," as it applies to Social Security and Medicare, simply means: "An individual's right to receive a value or benefit provided by law." And you PAY for these entitlements with your taxes, you aren't getting them for free.
By the above definition, the following are entitlements: voting, public education, workplace safety, minimum wage, the right to own and carry a gun, and much more. These are rights conferred on the people by law, and they are therefore "entitlements."
Turning people against this word is one of the greatest grifts perpetrated by the Republican Party on the people of the US. First, turn them against their rights, then take those rights way.
I can't say that I disagree. An entitlement is a paid for benefit. Republicans now "own" the word, using it as a pejorative (Dave Smucker is correct) and in order to take it back we have to use others. It is a shame. As to the gun point, how the gun lobby has succeeded in separating the right to bear arms from a well-regulated militia is a case study in twisting a meaning that rivals any done to biblical texts. How you untwist the "new meaning" is a Gordian knot of a problem and no one has found Alexander the Great's sword.
The current problem is we can not easily change the way the Republicans have screwed up the meaning of entitlements to mean a freebie. Something the federal government gives you. I can't number the number of right wingers I know who can't wait to turn 65 so Medicare will give them "free" knee replacement. No free lunches even after 65.
We can stop allowing them to scare us off the word. We can own it. As in, "Yes, we ARE darned well entitled to those programs, both by law and by the fact that we paid for them. Just like every other insurance we buy." See? Easy. Next time your right-wing uncle whines about "entitlements," hit him with that. :)
Gail, I like it! Claiming, then using the term "entitlement" honestly. That could be such a relief to so many people who are being made to feel that they are takers from the poor sacrificing givers.
Gail, While you rightfully define “entitlements” denotatively, your explanation, in my view, doesn’t account for the emotionally charged connotative meanings typically ascribed to the term. Hence, my comment, as part of this thread below, wherein I acknowledge I am partial to the term “rights,” but amplify that with rights come duties that embody our obligations to civil society and to one another.
As another example, once I replaced the word “regulation” that has substantially negative connotations with the word “protections,” audiences not particularly receptive to a regulatory state that contained capitalism’s excesses were more appreciative of protections aimed at leveling its effects.
Gail, Republicans do like to reframe words and phrases to make them sound horrible, then they define them incorrectly but the media end up using the terms in the way the Republican propagandists want them used. The negativization of the term "entitlement" is a lie perpetrated to get Americans to feel they are one of the "takers" and those conservatives/Republicans in power see themselves as the "givers," being forced to hand out money and services. However, the people have already paid for it, a kind of insurance program. The "givers" actually give nothing but want everyone to believe they are sacrificing while giving to those unworthy people. Every American has the potential to receive assistance to make it from day to day. That includes the whiny white people who want to pretend only THEY are worthy of receiving largess from our government. Well, they are no more entitled than anyone else no matter how much money and power they have accumulated.
It has always annoyed me the way the media (and Democrats) allow Republicans to define the terms of every debate. This is why Democrats often run on "reducing the deficit," and pushing values that appeal primarily to Republican voters. In the last 2 elections, Dems pushed that envelope a bit due to successes with the pandemic stimulus payments. But now some of them are already walking that back by falling for the right-wing talking point that the stimulus is what caused the inflation we've been experiencing, which is demonstrably false. Dems need to stop getting in their own way.
Apropos of "Dems . . . getting in their own way," it pains me to observe that for the most part, the Democrats' campaigns are financed by the same corporate funds that Republicans are drawing on, generally at lower rates, but with comparable "crunch time" legislative obligations. We are struggling through an era of "Walrus and the Carpenter" so-called leadership.
Gail, you are pointing out an incredibly important piece of information Democrats need to not only be aware of, but also need to act on. It seems, though it is really hard for Dems to get a word in edgewise when Republicans are permitted to BS their way through an issue, or to intimidate a debate opponent (as Trump did to Hillary Clinton). Had Clinton objected, she would have been called a wuss or a weak pathetic woman or a bitch, but standing there and taking it while she was trying to get her points across also made her look weak. She may well have done better had she turned directly to Trump who was looming behind her and told him to grow up and that his bully tactics are childish. The moderator could have shut off Trump's mic immediately when he started his bad behavior, but alas nothing happened. Democrats tend to give others the benefit of the doubt, but it rarely works for Dems because for the most part, the media is run by conservatives who believe they have more to gain when Republicans, as incompetent as they often are, are in office. I don't get it, but clearly it works. Around 74 million people voted in 2020 for an incompetent sociopath, Trump for president. The media got into their heads and helped them to avoid knowing what Trump was really doing to them. I think Dems need some training in dealing with toddler-men and toddler-women so Dems can look as strong as they actually are.
Medicare is another program for which people PAY through payroll deductions during their working lives, it is government managed NOT government handout.
Fay, of course Medicare is government managed, but Republican propaganda twists that to mean that somehow people on Medicare are getting something they are not owed. Republicans whine to the younger workers that "those old people are taking all your money and getting stuff they don't deserve. Because young folks can't imagine getting old, they do not see their payments as an investment in their future. Then they keep broadcasting that Social Security and Medicare will run out of money by or on a particular date to scare the older people too. Republicans are so good at this and people haven't caught on yet that it is part of their lying and cheating, very important parts of their campaigns to do as much harm to working people and poor, struggling people. If Social Security/Medicare were taken out of every dollar earned, Social Security and Medicare would be solvent indefinitely. Republicans really don't want that. I am still waiting for someone to tell me one thing, just one thing in the past 40 years that Republicans have done to help anyone who is poor, struggling, a person of color, a woman, etc. I honestly can't think of one thing. They, on rare occasions, jump onto a Democratic bill that could help their constituents, like the infrastructure bill, but nothing they initiated or even vigorously pushed among their colleagues of both parties. It is shameful!
Thank you for your response Ruth. The current Republican party (justfiably referred to as retrumplicans or rerthuglicans) are interested first and foremost in themselves, their personal agrandisement and increased wealth, and secondly in their wealthy enablers
In technical usage entitlement may be accurate, but the right leans on common usage connotations of entitled attitude, or expecting something without earning it or paying in to receive the benefit. I think their motive of misleading is to get out of paying obligations due to the citizen to offset cutting high income earners taxes. The high income rat is trying to steal our cheese.
Steven, I know you are right about Republican/conservative use of the word "entitlement." They have no problem misinterpreting a term so their unaware followers can have another reason to hate those people who "think they're entitled" to something. They forget they and theirs are receiving Social Security and Medicare, often as their only income. Yep, thinking is weak with these ones.
That one is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which for better or worse, is the basis for all US law. Unfortunately, 2A and other amendments have been perverted by Republican Supreme Court rulings to the detriment of the entire country.
We need a new term for entitlements that more accurately reflects the debt owed by our government to it's citizens that shifts the responsibility back to the debtor. When asked about entitlements, we could reply by correcting the speaker, that they will be mote accurately referred to as government obligation deficiencies, and we are so sorry for inconvenience caused by confusing congressmen beyond reasonable term limits, or alienating the senior GOP associates. If Democrats all responded that way every time it just might stick.
"delayed compensation"? However, in the word "entitlement" we get the clear sense that it is money we are owed, i.e. compensation to which we are entitled. It's just the way the right has twisted the word into a negative connotation, the way they have done with every word associated with something the left advocates.
We already have one. "Insurance." Social Security and Medicare are officially insurance programs. Funny how "conservatives" never complain about insurance when they're paying a private company for it, but when they're paying the government for it, it's a "handout."
Also, we could simply explain to people that entitlement means "you paid for it, therefore, by law, you're entitled to it."
Side note: Many people will not get back as much from Social Security taxes as they put in during their working years. I am cynical and thus suspect that one reason there is so much resistance to a common sense healthcare policy from school lunches on, is to lower the life expectancy of the worker class (we see it happening now) so they don't live long enough to collect all they put in. The earlier people die once they stop putting money in, the more money the government gets to keep. (Please show me I'm wrong and that the government does want me to have a long, healthy retirement.)
Our government, including most of our representatives, have proven that we cannot rely on their benevolence toward the people they represent, so your cynicism is well-founded.
By "the people they represent," it seems clear from context that you are referring to the people living in the districts and states the elected officials represent. This definition accords well with traditional understandings of the electoral process. Under the present Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (558 U.S. 310 [2010]} regime, the "persons" represented by the elected officials amount to those legislative fictions (traditional corporations, NFPs, labor unions, etc.) whose anonymous "support" for campaigns dwarfs consideration of the interests of the nominal "constituents." Between 2016 and 2020, election expenditures more than doubled, to a flabbergasting sum exceeding $14 billion. Both the absolute sum and the rate of increase strongly argue that the de facto "constituents" are monied interests which have a stake in who gets selected to run and who eventually garners the greater tally of votes from the nominal "constituents." I would be inclined to argue that on the most significant issues, the elected officials on both sides of the aisle, with rare and commendable exceptions, can be relied upon implicitly to act in the financial interests of "the 'persons' to whom they owe their seats in the legislature. Those representatives do, as a practical matter, show a certain benevolence toward their secondary constituencies, whose members cast the votes that elected them once the plutocratic fix was in. Following the guidance of the Supreme Court, it seems we prefer legal fictions to common sense, verifiable reality. It is a sad vindication of the old commercial precept, "You get what you pay for." The rest of us, too, get what "they" pay for.
DK. Republicans have promoted that crap. Unlike most other investments, the value of Social Security actually increases amid periods of high inflation. While a deteriorating dollar might negatively affect other investments like stocks or bonds, Social Security benefits remain stable every year as they receive a cost-of-living adjustment.
In order to have a high PIA, a wage earner has to have made high lifetime wages. High income earners may see lower rates of return, because they will have paid the highest payroll tax rates of all the age groups compared in the SSA analysis. Benefit amounts are skewed to benefit lower income earners. .
It's true that some people die early. But SS is based on averages and over time life expectancies have increased. If there is family, beneficiaries may be entitled to widow(ers) and orphan benefits. Also entitled to possibly a million dollars worth of lifetime benefits. In 1935, when the social security pension system was implemented, significant differences in life expectancy existed. Life expectancy at birth was 61.0 for white males and 65.0 for white females. For blacks and other minorities, life expectancy at birth for males was 51.3 and 55.2 for females. Today, Boomers can expect to live to almost 79 years.
Over time Congress made several adjustments. However the baby boom generation deaths will peak about 2034, at which time, things will return to normal.
Wayne, While you rightfully contrast the countries that view healthcare as a human right verses the States, wherein healthcare is viewed as an entitlement, the piece, in my view, missing from your discussion entails the interdependence between rights and duties, by which I mean that with rights come duties that embody our obligations to civil society and to one another. One need only look at the tax structure in much of Europe to sense that its citizens recognize this duality. I believe, as more of us increasingly appreciate the intrinsic connection between rights and duties in all aspects of our lives, we, similarly, will transform the public conversation.
Carol, Once we view duty beyond merely an economic obligation, it applies to all of us. The duty I feel, for example, to be part of this conversation, despite having not yet gone to sleep, on the East Coast I might add, is driven by a felt need to contribute.
Of course, duty applies to all of us, and yes, I haven’t yet gone to sleep—which is unfortunately a problem I have. What I mean is that comfortable snobs can think of the poor as being poor because they’ve neglected their duties—that they’re lazy.
Carol, You’re right that many hold this misguided notion, failing to recognize that people, by and large, don’t choose to be poor. Instead, they are limited and confined by the opportunities afforded or denied them by institutionally oppressive forces largely beyond their individual control.
A "human right" is just another "entitlement"; for the sorts of things we're talking about here, these are same thing. If you give people a right not to starve, a right to some degree of medical care, or a right to anything else, it's going to cost money. Conservatives know this. They simply don't agree that everybody has the right not to starve.
Anatole France said, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." But as enjoyably clever that turn of phrase is, that's probably putting the problem too subtly. Jeremy Hardy is more clear: "The only way you can ever accuse a Conservative of hypocrisy is if they walk past a homeless person without kicking him in the face."
Curt, I wish you weren't right about your description of Republicans and their hypocrisy. I don't remember hearing that quote before, but I feel the truth of it.
The word “entitlement” is an insult. It’s been EARNED. I like what you’re saying here. Republicans are usually selfish and don’t give a damn about working people. We’d still have a King if their thinking had its way.
Barbara, I suspect Republicans have no idea what they want. Their leadership has been pumping so many different kinds of hatred, distrust, fear, and anger their way they have no clue what is right. They will try to cover their confusion because that's what one does, but the only thing one can be sure of is that if they hate everyone who does not look or act like themselves, they will be sure to hate and stand against everyone their leadership is against. I guess there is some comfort in that.
I prefer a King to the leading Republican candidates for President. The King wouldn't need to appeal to fear, hate, racism, etc. that the GOPer's do. (Of course, I would like to be the one who selects the King).
Wayne, I appreciate your comments here. When a nominee can't be honest it is hard to know what kind of person he/she is. I especially like your critique of the use of "entitlement" to describe Medicare and Social Security. A lot of folks like to use the wrong terms for programs they claim not to like. The Senators are going to be taken care of for life. I believe they and all government employees should be on the very same programs including Social Security, Medicare, and have access to save through 401K or 403B plans like the rest of us. They might be more careful of what they vote for or against if their medical care were the same as most Americans. This reminds me of the old "welfare queen" crap of the Reagan years when it was the corporations that were the real welfare queens, but that was not public back then. A Black woman seen as cheating was far more powerful as a propaganda tool than white-owned corporations siphoning money off the top of our government spending.
I thought exactly the same thing about using ENTITLEMENTS when people pay into it. That ass should have been corrected on the spot. Entitlement is not the proper word for a tax-payer funded account, is it Mr Senator? Senator, why do you call it that? Perhaps you can set an example and give up YOUR ENTITLEMENTS!!!
Legally, and according to the dictionary, it is the exact word, and was correctly used. Don't let Republicans scare you off it. You paid your SS and Medicare taxes, so you are, by definition and by law, entitled to receive it once you reach eligibility age (or if you become disabled before that). It is important for ALL of us to own that word, and take it way from the Republican disinformation mill. You are *entitled* to collect SS and MC if you have paid into them. Republicans are wrong to make you think otherwise.
Why do you and others think Republicans have been more successful than Democrats in setting the language and setting the moral framework that much of the electorate uses when thinking about issues ? I think this is 80% of the battle.
RE: language and moral framework — it’s the USA’s culture that’s the problem. The national obsessions are guns and football. Guns kill you, and football is the national sport (unfortunately having replaced baseball decades ago) in which retired professional players sue their erstwhile employers for having provided unsafe working conditions. In the USA, competition is prized above creativity and cooperation. It’s no wonder that there’s an entire political party dedicated by beating up on people.
I don’t see how things get fixed until many corporations are put back in their proper role with respect to society We had a society after World War II where individuals and corporations paid their fair share, and Republicans and Democrats compromised in order to get things done for the good of the country at least some of the time. Now most of that is gone.
so it's an issue of anthropology ,,,,Raimon Panikkar identified 29 ways in which cultural change can be brought about, including growth, development, evolution, involution, renovation, reconception, reform, innovation, revivalism, revolution, mutation, progress, diffusion, osmosis, borrowing, eclecticism, syncretism, modernization, indigenization, and transformation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_change I think about how the Finns esteem educators in the lower grades and how Americans do not.and what accounts for that difference
Yes, the language problem, the reason why so many issues are couched as Me vs. You instead of Us Together is due to factors that lie outside of economics proper. I fondly remember the 1960s, when we young students were reading Teilhard de Chardin, Hermann Hesse, and Timothy Leary — thinking that mankind was riding an irresistible upward arc. Subsequent decades have demonstrated that this arc is indeed being trod by many Americans. However, whether a critical mass develops that can save us from disaster remains to be seen. Dr. Reich seems to think optimistically on this topic.
kdsherpa, I don't know what the "thumbs-up" actually meant to Coates. Did he actually vote for Dr. Reich in the committee or on the Senate floor? Or, was it a thumbs-up to tell his cronies that he had done his best to trip up Dr. Reich. I'd like to think it meant he thought Dr. Reich had done a good job in the hearing.
Looks like the Lion, Ted Kennedy, was were he was meant to be in helping Americans, first by helping you, Bob, to get elected, and much later and just before he passed, Barack Obama. What a great man who spent his life fighting for the people !!
Annie, Yes, wouldn't it be great if Dr. Reich had some serious input into our tax structure and in getting the word out about corporate price-gouging as a major factor in our current inflation levels. Besides, Dr. Reich explains things really well that even people not attuned to economics can comprehend. Yo, President Biden, Dr. Reich is someone you can depend on to help you and your administration.
Yes. I listen to him and read his blog and it seems to be the right path. Thise who pay no taxes, reap huge profits and bonuses, yet do not pass on the earnings to workers and lower prices are part of the reason there is such inflation. I am no economist but I have a household budget to maintain. It angers me that the top benefits on the backs if the bottom workers
The temptation to add comments when a natural pause to a conversation -- or debate -- occures has gotten many of us into hot water over the years. Glad you survived. Thanks for sharing the experience. -- I vaguely remember some of this from news accounts of the day.
Daniel, I do find Graham's charts etc. disturbing because when the media tries to understand and interpret them, they fail because so many of the charts make little sense. Graham is a fraud who has no real idea what he is doing, but plows through hoping people won't notice. It is only Republican constituents who don't notice but the rest of the world gets it.
Agree and if I could offer any criticism here - it would be that the missing element is the historical reason why these grilling occur. And why they take the form that they do. Most of us have no idea that they are not original.... and I knew at one time. wish you would offer that lesson.
I'm glad you were confirmed, because you served workers well. It's too bad you had to suppress your real opinions to do so. I wonder whether you would have been confirmed if you had said what you really wanted to say (except for the criticism by name of Reagan, whom Republicans saw as almost a god at the time).
Carolyn, I agree that Dr. Reich did a good job as Labor Secretary. Reagan was seen as at least a saint by Republicans, and still is. However, I was embarrassed at the number of times Obama called on the name of Reagan. Reagan was a poor president who looked like what people wanted a president to look like. His appearance and acting training helped him to cover his ineptness, willingness to go along with appalling ideas of economists, military folks, and the rest. Obama was looking for a way to connect with Republicans, but Reagan was not a great choice. Oh wait, there is no good choice since Teddy Roosevelt, except perhaps for Eisenhower. He wasn't great either, but he did at least try a bit. Eisenhower and his crew before and during his presidency supported Joe McCarthy in his attempt to destroy the lives of American citizens for his own personal power gain.
Reagan was considered a B rated actor until he became President. Then he showed us what a great actor he really was.
Trump similarly showed us his great entertainer skills after becoming President, keeping his audience, the press & the public, affixed on his every move & utterance. It would seem to indicate that the entertainment business is not where we should draw our presidents, although Republicans surely seem to like them.
But then along came Zelensky, & he has used the skills he got from acting in a very beneficial way for his country. He is an excellent communicator, & has done everything possible to motivate & raise the spirits of his citizens while procuring international support for his cause. And wouldn't you know? Most Republicans seem not to appreciate what Zelensky has accomplished
This made me smile. I do miss the old republican party, before the tea party ruined it. Once a republican myself, I jumped ship and became a democrat in 2008, when I heard the words, "yes we can" from a young senator from Illinois. I any case, health care shouldn't bankrupt people.
They wanted you to do what I hated when people were called to testify. We would say they did not answer the question. Now I know that is the goal. Sad. But republicans like entitlement for the rich and democrats like entitlement for the poor.
George, and the entitlements for the rich are huge but usually hidden in something else so We the People don't notice until it is already done: tax breaks for private planes, bail-outs, capital gains for the rich not counted as income but for middle and working-class, it is income, and so on. It is "taking" if anyone less than rich gets government money even if they have paid into it. It is "deserved" if it is the rich getting what they want.
It's amazing how the right is able to so consistently & skillfully pervert the meaning of words & concepts to fit their narratives & implant them in the public mind.
I was surprised you didn’t mention interacting with my boss, Sen. Paul Wellstone (DFL-MN). He was likely the least senior of the Committee members, but surely not the least interesting!
One of the best senators of the time, bringing up issues that made some people uncomfortable during a career tragically shortened by a mysterious, suspicious plane "accident".
"If it weren’t for twelve years of Republican supply-side economic bullshit, no one would be worrying about the budget deficit to begin with. Besides, if public investments like education and job training and infrastructure are deducted from government spending, and if the remaining amount is expressed as a percentage of the whole economy, it’s not nearly as large a problem as it might seem. And if we cut defense spending as we should — now that the Cold War has ended — and taxed the very wealthy at the rate they were taxed as recently as the 1970s, we could both lower the deficit and have a large pot of money to help all Americans get the skills they need for higher wages."
Very well said!
And let's also not forget that that, in a growing economy, we _must_ have a deficit if we are to grow the money supply in sync with the economy. Unfortunately, most people don't understand that growing the money supply is _not_ automatic inflation (and that inflation has other sources as well, such as not enough goods and services being created to satisfy demand), and so they support actions that can even make the situation worse.
Recoup 1. A trillion or more lost in Afghanistan/Iraq..
2. Billions if not trillions in potential income taxes lost because foreigners and US tax avoiders keep their assets overseas while doing business and profiting from the US economy.
3. Maybe even more from working "off the books."
4. Collect lost revenue due to price fixers and price gougers.
Curt, yes it is disturbing the lack of understanding on the part of conservative/Republican leadership of the way economics work and the awareness that trickle-down economics does not work, ever. The Republican leadership brags that they wenbt to "good" schools yet their ignorance of economics is startling.
I was actually holding my breath in sympathy with you, Professor Reich! My stomach felt tight with anxiety as you were telling yourself to stop talking! I laughed with relief when you got the thumbs up! What a great story, and so well told. Thank you. :-)
Yes, we have a nasty feedback loop. Drug companies raise prices because they can (after years of convincing Americans that there is a pill for every malady, so why change behavior) and health insurance companies follow suit by raising premiums, so drug companies can raise prices again. Single payer is the only solution. Along with teaching Americans about their bodies while they are in public school, where their organs are, what makes them tick, and what throws a wrench in the works.
Entitlements is one of those words that granted the Republicans a number of victories over the years. Do they call health spending an entitlement in Germany? Do they call it an entitlement in England? Why does Cuba, which is in many ways rightfully vilified for its suppression of speech and press, have a better health care system than we do? All three place health care as a human right, while we call it a government entitlement program. (We also call Social Security and entitlement program when it is workers, not the wealthy or government, who pay for it. Another story.) Health care in most situations (perhaps not including cosmetic surgeries like Brazilian butt lifts) is an inelastic demand expenditure that either requires careful regulation, or a single payer system. As is it is now much worse than when you faced the arrogant Senator Coats, yet the argument for and against a reformed health care system remains exactly the same. Your testimony could still not be given honestly. So how do we change the debate to allow the needs of farm workers, factory workers, retail workers, and government workers (including education workers like teachers) to have the same access to good health care as Senators? If you can't say that out loud in a confirmation hearing, does that mean you cannot broach the subject on the Senate floor? I know we have tried, but it seems that the can of worms has been kicked down the road so far the present system will collapse before it can be reformed. I am just glad people like yourself, Mr. Reich, are still trying.
It perplexes me that we do not use the word “insurance” for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. It’s in the official name of Social Security: “Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)”. Medicare is also “Federal health insurance”. These are not entitlements as there are premiums and actuarial-based processes.
What’s left is a convenient way of renaming “war on the poor.” Perhaps when we hear the word entitlement from these politicians we should ask, “Do you mean the part that we pay for as insurance or the war on the poor part?”
Or perhaps we should talk about the carried interest exemption to the income tax as an “entitlement” for the ultra-wealthy?
SSA uses "social insurance." It is not just a retirement program because it also protects disabled workers, their families and provides an average of about a million dollars in lifetime benefits.
An individual does not have an individual "account." Benefits are based on taxing a "wage earner." In order to receive benefits the wage earner must have been "fully" and "currently" insured." Benefits are based on the PIA, "primary insurance amount." In retirement, calculations are generally based on the highest 35 years of earnings to constitute the PIA.
I agree, Daniel. But the widows and orphans weren't added until 1939, 4 years after the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935. In 1972 (the Nixon years) SSI was wrongly added to Social Security instead of the Health and Welfare Department to assist those persons, who through health or injury were not able to help themselves but had never worked 40 quarters (ten years) in their lifetimes. In other words the Republican majority wanted the working class to pay for the "disabled" not the wealthy who paid a higher (but reasonable) income tax at that time. [This information is incorrect, SSI is administered by
SSA, but funded by the general fund, I stand corrected] In the 1990's (while I was working for the Welfare System) The Republicans tried to exclude persons addicted to chemicals, to be unable to get SSI. The thinking was if they couldn't feed and shelter themselves they would die faster. Of course Ronnie baby's War on Drugs. helped increase the addicted society along with his intolerance of mental illness. For those of you too young to remember. dear Reagan was the California Governor who closed all the mental institutions in California, declaring that the "community" would take care of the mentally ill. Of course, being the good little conservative b!@&@5d that he was he didn't bother funding the 58 counties to care for these chronically ill, and at that time incurable individuals, so they joined the growing homeless population. While at the same time enlarging the payout of Social Security, which would still be self-paying if the working class only paid for their own retirement and that of their widows and if the died early, their children.
Fay, SSI is not really part of SSA -- SSA administers the program but the funds come from general revenues of US rather than the SSA trust funds.
What actually happened is the "fix" created by Bob Dole and Greenspan accommodations didn't anticipate that the baby boomers would exceed all expectations. Premiums increased from 4.4% to 6.2% By 2034, the babyboom generation will not be as much a burden.....
I blame Clinton as much as Reagan. Reagan cut the rolls without giving the disabled a right to a hearing. Clinton ended "welfare as we knew it." Was in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, cut alcoholism, and like Reagan and Carter put pressure on the agency to deny claims.
I lived through many of these changes . I was an administrative law judge for 10 years for SSA/HHS. Wrote a number of academic papers.
Misinformation i s the bane of my existence. We were told that the SSI funding came from Social Security funds and since this was a governmental agency , I believed them. Thank you for your correction. On the subject of Social Security administering funds though, I am still of the opinion that they are the worse administrators in the Federal Government. I worked and paid into the Social Security system until I was 6 weeks shy of my 88th birthday. (BTW, I made excellent money in the private sector,. between 60,000 and 120,000 annually) When I inquired why my medicare payments were so high I was told by the manager of the State SSA department that was my penalty for working. When I asked why my Social Security payments were so low due to Windfall Elimination Penalty and Government Pension Offset deductions I was informed (by SSA) it was to protect the "Government" from greedy widows who didn't deserve the money obtained from their hardworking husbands - Both my relatively small government pensions were from MY employment and I paid into both funds the 29 years I worked for them. My Social Security pension is based on 60 quarters of my own earnings not my husband's, but in their zeal to punish widows who served their husbands and children for many, many years but were unpaid for their labor they punish all government employed women forever.
I share your concern. I worked at Neiman Marcus for 10 years supplementing my teacher's income. I was subject to the Windfall Elimination penalty. All of the money I paid into social security was ignored I wound up with a whopping $66. A month in ss benefits. I was never informed regarding how my benefits would be reduced at the time. In this case ignorance was not bliss.
My wife is CSRS and will not collect ANY SSA although she made some payments.
I am retired. On my social net profile where they ask for "company" I put "Entitled Recovery Inc." and for "Job" I put "Recovering the money I paid into Social Security."
Excellent job, Mr. Boyte! They DO owe you!
The reality is that most of us will live long enough to collect more than we paid into SS.
Yes, the age of 65 was set when not too many laborers lived much longer than that. My grandfather didn't even make that, but my grandmother survived into her 80s on his SS benefits.
The good Lord willing that is! (Not me however, as I am just a leech who worked a few years, made to to shift manager at a Subway, then had my skull shattered while sledding in my early twenties.)
Not to even MENTION the fact that every single person's social security check COMBINED is only a fraction of a fraction of the cost of a SINGLE military jet!
Best thing to throw back at them! 👍🏼
WOW!
Okay, so maybe I exaggerated, but $900.8 billion for EVERY Medicare recipient vs $753 million for ONE stealth bomber is still asinine if you ask me.
Exaggerate away, Daniel. Either way is a national disgrace.
Thank you for not holding it against me.;)
Good point about the words insurance and entitlements.But then,Democrats and progressives have largely lost the battle over slogans and framing, e.g. parents rights.
Dr Doug, I never heard the original name if SS. Thank you for that education. 🙂
The problem isn't the word "entitlement." It's the way Republicans have spent decades trying to convince Americans that "entitlement" is a bad thing.
Legally speaking, "entitlement," as it applies to Social Security and Medicare, simply means: "An individual's right to receive a value or benefit provided by law." And you PAY for these entitlements with your taxes, you aren't getting them for free.
By the above definition, the following are entitlements: voting, public education, workplace safety, minimum wage, the right to own and carry a gun, and much more. These are rights conferred on the people by law, and they are therefore "entitlements."
Turning people against this word is one of the greatest grifts perpetrated by the Republican Party on the people of the US. First, turn them against their rights, then take those rights way.
I can't say that I disagree. An entitlement is a paid for benefit. Republicans now "own" the word, using it as a pejorative (Dave Smucker is correct) and in order to take it back we have to use others. It is a shame. As to the gun point, how the gun lobby has succeeded in separating the right to bear arms from a well-regulated militia is a case study in twisting a meaning that rivals any done to biblical texts. How you untwist the "new meaning" is a Gordian knot of a problem and no one has found Alexander the Great's sword.
The current problem is we can not easily change the way the Republicans have screwed up the meaning of entitlements to mean a freebie. Something the federal government gives you. I can't number the number of right wingers I know who can't wait to turn 65 so Medicare will give them "free" knee replacement. No free lunches even after 65.
We can stop allowing them to scare us off the word. We can own it. As in, "Yes, we ARE darned well entitled to those programs, both by law and by the fact that we paid for them. Just like every other insurance we buy." See? Easy. Next time your right-wing uncle whines about "entitlements," hit him with that. :)
Gail, I like it! Claiming, then using the term "entitlement" honestly. That could be such a relief to so many people who are being made to feel that they are takers from the poor sacrificing givers.
Gail, While you rightfully define “entitlements” denotatively, your explanation, in my view, doesn’t account for the emotionally charged connotative meanings typically ascribed to the term. Hence, my comment, as part of this thread below, wherein I acknowledge I am partial to the term “rights,” but amplify that with rights come duties that embody our obligations to civil society and to one another.
As another example, once I replaced the word “regulation” that has substantially negative connotations with the word “protections,” audiences not particularly receptive to a regulatory state that contained capitalism’s excesses were more appreciative of protections aimed at leveling its effects.
Gail, Republicans do like to reframe words and phrases to make them sound horrible, then they define them incorrectly but the media end up using the terms in the way the Republican propagandists want them used. The negativization of the term "entitlement" is a lie perpetrated to get Americans to feel they are one of the "takers" and those conservatives/Republicans in power see themselves as the "givers," being forced to hand out money and services. However, the people have already paid for it, a kind of insurance program. The "givers" actually give nothing but want everyone to believe they are sacrificing while giving to those unworthy people. Every American has the potential to receive assistance to make it from day to day. That includes the whiny white people who want to pretend only THEY are worthy of receiving largess from our government. Well, they are no more entitled than anyone else no matter how much money and power they have accumulated.
It has always annoyed me the way the media (and Democrats) allow Republicans to define the terms of every debate. This is why Democrats often run on "reducing the deficit," and pushing values that appeal primarily to Republican voters. In the last 2 elections, Dems pushed that envelope a bit due to successes with the pandemic stimulus payments. But now some of them are already walking that back by falling for the right-wing talking point that the stimulus is what caused the inflation we've been experiencing, which is demonstrably false. Dems need to stop getting in their own way.
Apropos of "Dems . . . getting in their own way," it pains me to observe that for the most part, the Democrats' campaigns are financed by the same corporate funds that Republicans are drawing on, generally at lower rates, but with comparable "crunch time" legislative obligations. We are struggling through an era of "Walrus and the Carpenter" so-called leadership.
Gail, you are pointing out an incredibly important piece of information Democrats need to not only be aware of, but also need to act on. It seems, though it is really hard for Dems to get a word in edgewise when Republicans are permitted to BS their way through an issue, or to intimidate a debate opponent (as Trump did to Hillary Clinton). Had Clinton objected, she would have been called a wuss or a weak pathetic woman or a bitch, but standing there and taking it while she was trying to get her points across also made her look weak. She may well have done better had she turned directly to Trump who was looming behind her and told him to grow up and that his bully tactics are childish. The moderator could have shut off Trump's mic immediately when he started his bad behavior, but alas nothing happened. Democrats tend to give others the benefit of the doubt, but it rarely works for Dems because for the most part, the media is run by conservatives who believe they have more to gain when Republicans, as incompetent as they often are, are in office. I don't get it, but clearly it works. Around 74 million people voted in 2020 for an incompetent sociopath, Trump for president. The media got into their heads and helped them to avoid knowing what Trump was really doing to them. I think Dems need some training in dealing with toddler-men and toddler-women so Dems can look as strong as they actually are.
Medicare is another program for which people PAY through payroll deductions during their working lives, it is government managed NOT government handout.
Fay, of course Medicare is government managed, but Republican propaganda twists that to mean that somehow people on Medicare are getting something they are not owed. Republicans whine to the younger workers that "those old people are taking all your money and getting stuff they don't deserve. Because young folks can't imagine getting old, they do not see their payments as an investment in their future. Then they keep broadcasting that Social Security and Medicare will run out of money by or on a particular date to scare the older people too. Republicans are so good at this and people haven't caught on yet that it is part of their lying and cheating, very important parts of their campaigns to do as much harm to working people and poor, struggling people. If Social Security/Medicare were taken out of every dollar earned, Social Security and Medicare would be solvent indefinitely. Republicans really don't want that. I am still waiting for someone to tell me one thing, just one thing in the past 40 years that Republicans have done to help anyone who is poor, struggling, a person of color, a woman, etc. I honestly can't think of one thing. They, on rare occasions, jump onto a Democratic bill that could help their constituents, like the infrastructure bill, but nothing they initiated or even vigorously pushed among their colleagues of both parties. It is shameful!
Thank you for your response Ruth. The current Republican party (justfiably referred to as retrumplicans or rerthuglicans) are interested first and foremost in themselves, their personal agrandisement and increased wealth, and secondly in their wealthy enablers
In technical usage entitlement may be accurate, but the right leans on common usage connotations of entitled attitude, or expecting something without earning it or paying in to receive the benefit. I think their motive of misleading is to get out of paying obligations due to the citizen to offset cutting high income earners taxes. The high income rat is trying to steal our cheese.
Steven, I know you are right about Republican/conservative use of the word "entitlement." They have no problem misinterpreting a term so their unaware followers can have another reason to hate those people who "think they're entitled" to something. They forget they and theirs are receiving Social Security and Medicare, often as their only income. Yep, thinking is weak with these ones.
I agree with everything except “the right to own and carry a gun,” which is being contested these days.
That one is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which for better or worse, is the basis for all US law. Unfortunately, 2A and other amendments have been perverted by Republican Supreme Court rulings to the detriment of the entire country.
You’re right.
We need a new term for entitlements that more accurately reflects the debt owed by our government to it's citizens that shifts the responsibility back to the debtor. When asked about entitlements, we could reply by correcting the speaker, that they will be mote accurately referred to as government obligation deficiencies, and we are so sorry for inconvenience caused by confusing congressmen beyond reasonable term limits, or alienating the senior GOP associates. If Democrats all responded that way every time it just might stick.
"delayed compensation"? However, in the word "entitlement" we get the clear sense that it is money we are owed, i.e. compensation to which we are entitled. It's just the way the right has twisted the word into a negative connotation, the way they have done with every word associated with something the left advocates.
We already have one. "Insurance." Social Security and Medicare are officially insurance programs. Funny how "conservatives" never complain about insurance when they're paying a private company for it, but when they're paying the government for it, it's a "handout."
Also, we could simply explain to people that entitlement means "you paid for it, therefore, by law, you're entitled to it."
Side note: Many people will not get back as much from Social Security taxes as they put in during their working years. I am cynical and thus suspect that one reason there is so much resistance to a common sense healthcare policy from school lunches on, is to lower the life expectancy of the worker class (we see it happening now) so they don't live long enough to collect all they put in. The earlier people die once they stop putting money in, the more money the government gets to keep. (Please show me I'm wrong and that the government does want me to have a long, healthy retirement.)
But many of us will collect more than we paid into SS.
Our government, including most of our representatives, have proven that we cannot rely on their benevolence toward the people they represent, so your cynicism is well-founded.
By "the people they represent," it seems clear from context that you are referring to the people living in the districts and states the elected officials represent. This definition accords well with traditional understandings of the electoral process. Under the present Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (558 U.S. 310 [2010]} regime, the "persons" represented by the elected officials amount to those legislative fictions (traditional corporations, NFPs, labor unions, etc.) whose anonymous "support" for campaigns dwarfs consideration of the interests of the nominal "constituents." Between 2016 and 2020, election expenditures more than doubled, to a flabbergasting sum exceeding $14 billion. Both the absolute sum and the rate of increase strongly argue that the de facto "constituents" are monied interests which have a stake in who gets selected to run and who eventually garners the greater tally of votes from the nominal "constituents." I would be inclined to argue that on the most significant issues, the elected officials on both sides of the aisle, with rare and commendable exceptions, can be relied upon implicitly to act in the financial interests of "the 'persons' to whom they owe their seats in the legislature. Those representatives do, as a practical matter, show a certain benevolence toward their secondary constituencies, whose members cast the votes that elected them once the plutocratic fix was in. Following the guidance of the Supreme Court, it seems we prefer legal fictions to common sense, verifiable reality. It is a sad vindication of the old commercial precept, "You get what you pay for." The rest of us, too, get what "they" pay for.
DK. Republicans have promoted that crap. Unlike most other investments, the value of Social Security actually increases amid periods of high inflation. While a deteriorating dollar might negatively affect other investments like stocks or bonds, Social Security benefits remain stable every year as they receive a cost-of-living adjustment.
In order to have a high PIA, a wage earner has to have made high lifetime wages. High income earners may see lower rates of return, because they will have paid the highest payroll tax rates of all the age groups compared in the SSA analysis. Benefit amounts are skewed to benefit lower income earners. .
It's true that some people die early. But SS is based on averages and over time life expectancies have increased. If there is family, beneficiaries may be entitled to widow(ers) and orphan benefits. Also entitled to possibly a million dollars worth of lifetime benefits. In 1935, when the social security pension system was implemented, significant differences in life expectancy existed. Life expectancy at birth was 61.0 for white males and 65.0 for white females. For blacks and other minorities, life expectancy at birth for males was 51.3 and 55.2 for females. Today, Boomers can expect to live to almost 79 years.
Over time Congress made several adjustments. However the baby boom generation deaths will peak about 2034, at which time, things will return to normal.
That should have been more accurately referred to.
Wayne, While you rightfully contrast the countries that view healthcare as a human right verses the States, wherein healthcare is viewed as an entitlement, the piece, in my view, missing from your discussion entails the interdependence between rights and duties, by which I mean that with rights come duties that embody our obligations to civil society and to one another. One need only look at the tax structure in much of Europe to sense that its citizens recognize this duality. I believe, as more of us increasingly appreciate the intrinsic connection between rights and duties in all aspects of our lives, we, similarly, will transform the public conversation.
You’re right, but we must not see the poor as somehow neglecting their duties, as many people who live comfortably see them.
Carol, Once we view duty beyond merely an economic obligation, it applies to all of us. The duty I feel, for example, to be part of this conversation, despite having not yet gone to sleep, on the East Coast I might add, is driven by a felt need to contribute.
Of course, duty applies to all of us, and yes, I haven’t yet gone to sleep—which is unfortunately a problem I have. What I mean is that comfortable snobs can think of the poor as being poor because they’ve neglected their duties—that they’re lazy.
Carol, You’re right that many hold this misguided notion, failing to recognize that people, by and large, don’t choose to be poor. Instead, they are limited and confined by the opportunities afforded or denied them by institutionally oppressive forces largely beyond their individual control.
A "human right" is just another "entitlement"; for the sorts of things we're talking about here, these are same thing. If you give people a right not to starve, a right to some degree of medical care, or a right to anything else, it's going to cost money. Conservatives know this. They simply don't agree that everybody has the right not to starve.
Anatole France said, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." But as enjoyably clever that turn of phrase is, that's probably putting the problem too subtly. Jeremy Hardy is more clear: "The only way you can ever accuse a Conservative of hypocrisy is if they walk past a homeless person without kicking him in the face."
Curt, I wish you weren't right about your description of Republicans and their hypocrisy. I don't remember hearing that quote before, but I feel the truth of it.
A truckload of 💖's for your splendid comment/question!!!!
The word “entitlement” is an insult. It’s been EARNED. I like what you’re saying here. Republicans are usually selfish and don’t give a damn about working people. We’d still have a King if their thinking had its way.
No, it isn't. Read my comment below for an explanation of "entitlement" in regard to how it applies to SS and Medicare.
Which is what the Repuglicans want, not a democracy-proof is Jan. 6.
Barbara, I suspect Republicans have no idea what they want. Their leadership has been pumping so many different kinds of hatred, distrust, fear, and anger their way they have no clue what is right. They will try to cover their confusion because that's what one does, but the only thing one can be sure of is that if they hate everyone who does not look or act like themselves, they will be sure to hate and stand against everyone their leadership is against. I guess there is some comfort in that.
I prefer a King to the leading Republican candidates for President. The King wouldn't need to appeal to fear, hate, racism, etc. that the GOPer's do. (Of course, I would like to be the one who selects the King).
Wayne, I appreciate your comments here. When a nominee can't be honest it is hard to know what kind of person he/she is. I especially like your critique of the use of "entitlement" to describe Medicare and Social Security. A lot of folks like to use the wrong terms for programs they claim not to like. The Senators are going to be taken care of for life. I believe they and all government employees should be on the very same programs including Social Security, Medicare, and have access to save through 401K or 403B plans like the rest of us. They might be more careful of what they vote for or against if their medical care were the same as most Americans. This reminds me of the old "welfare queen" crap of the Reagan years when it was the corporations that were the real welfare queens, but that was not public back then. A Black woman seen as cheating was far more powerful as a propaganda tool than white-owned corporations siphoning money off the top of our government spending.
Very well said Ruth! 👏🏻👏🏻
I thought exactly the same thing about using ENTITLEMENTS when people pay into it. That ass should have been corrected on the spot. Entitlement is not the proper word for a tax-payer funded account, is it Mr Senator? Senator, why do you call it that? Perhaps you can set an example and give up YOUR ENTITLEMENTS!!!
Excellent!
Legally, and according to the dictionary, it is the exact word, and was correctly used. Don't let Republicans scare you off it. You paid your SS and Medicare taxes, so you are, by definition and by law, entitled to receive it once you reach eligibility age (or if you become disabled before that). It is important for ALL of us to own that word, and take it way from the Republican disinformation mill. You are *entitled* to collect SS and MC if you have paid into them. Republicans are wrong to make you think otherwise.
Why do you and others think Republicans have been more successful than Democrats in setting the language and setting the moral framework that much of the electorate uses when thinking about issues ? I think this is 80% of the battle.
RE: language and moral framework — it’s the USA’s culture that’s the problem. The national obsessions are guns and football. Guns kill you, and football is the national sport (unfortunately having replaced baseball decades ago) in which retired professional players sue their erstwhile employers for having provided unsafe working conditions. In the USA, competition is prized above creativity and cooperation. It’s no wonder that there’s an entire political party dedicated by beating up on people.
I don’t see how things get fixed until many corporations are put back in their proper role with respect to society We had a society after World War II where individuals and corporations paid their fair share, and Republicans and Democrats compromised in order to get things done for the good of the country at least some of the time. Now most of that is gone.
so it's an issue of anthropology ,,,,Raimon Panikkar identified 29 ways in which cultural change can be brought about, including growth, development, evolution, involution, renovation, reconception, reform, innovation, revivalism, revolution, mutation, progress, diffusion, osmosis, borrowing, eclecticism, syncretism, modernization, indigenization, and transformation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_change I think about how the Finns esteem educators in the lower grades and how Americans do not.and what accounts for that difference
Yes, the language problem, the reason why so many issues are couched as Me vs. You instead of Us Together is due to factors that lie outside of economics proper. I fondly remember the 1960s, when we young students were reading Teilhard de Chardin, Hermann Hesse, and Timothy Leary — thinking that mankind was riding an irresistible upward arc. Subsequent decades have demonstrated that this arc is indeed being trod by many Americans. However, whether a critical mass develops that can save us from disaster remains to be seen. Dr. Reich seems to think optimistically on this topic.
Things don't look so great at the present time. but things are always changing
It doesn't sound to me like Coates was arrogant. Not with that "thumbs up" at the end of the hearing!
kdsherpa, I don't know what the "thumbs-up" actually meant to Coates. Did he actually vote for Dr. Reich in the committee or on the Senate floor? Or, was it a thumbs-up to tell his cronies that he had done his best to trip up Dr. Reich. I'd like to think it meant he thought Dr. Reich had done a good job in the hearing.
That caught my eye, too. I wondered if he was playing Devil's advocate.
The thumbs up came from the erstwhile coach, who wisely advised Dr. Reich in practice.
Looks like the Lion, Ted Kennedy, was were he was meant to be in helping Americans, first by helping you, Bob, to get elected, and much later and just before he passed, Barack Obama. What a great man who spent his life fighting for the people !!
That was fun! You ARE smart. I wish Biden and his administration listened to you now on taxing the corporations higher. Or even at all.
Annie, Yes, wouldn't it be great if Dr. Reich had some serious input into our tax structure and in getting the word out about corporate price-gouging as a major factor in our current inflation levels. Besides, Dr. Reich explains things really well that even people not attuned to economics can comprehend. Yo, President Biden, Dr. Reich is someone you can depend on to help you and your administration.
Yes. I listen to him and read his blog and it seems to be the right path. Thise who pay no taxes, reap huge profits and bonuses, yet do not pass on the earnings to workers and lower prices are part of the reason there is such inflation. I am no economist but I have a household budget to maintain. It angers me that the top benefits on the backs if the bottom workers
The temptation to add comments when a natural pause to a conversation -- or debate -- occures has gotten many of us into hot water over the years. Glad you survived. Thanks for sharing the experience. -- I vaguely remember some of this from news accounts of the day.
Too many politicians are not interested in the answer. The play's the thing.
Consider people like Lindsay Graham, who loads up his "questions" with accusations, pulls out charts and graphs, to get media attention.
Daniel, I do find Graham's charts etc. disturbing because when the media tries to understand and interpret them, they fail because so many of the charts make little sense. Graham is a fraud who has no real idea what he is doing, but plows through hoping people won't notice. It is only Republican constituents who don't notice but the rest of the world gets it.
Some of them are expert at making excellent points using charts though, like Jeff Merkley & Katie Porter. Graham uses charts to obfuscate.
Agree and if I could offer any criticism here - it would be that the missing element is the historical reason why these grilling occur. And why they take the form that they do. Most of us have no idea that they are not original.... and I knew at one time. wish you would offer that lesson.
Agree. And it's the sound bite that can be taken out of context.
I'm glad you were confirmed, because you served workers well. It's too bad you had to suppress your real opinions to do so. I wonder whether you would have been confirmed if you had said what you really wanted to say (except for the criticism by name of Reagan, whom Republicans saw as almost a god at the time).
Carolyn, I agree that Dr. Reich did a good job as Labor Secretary. Reagan was seen as at least a saint by Republicans, and still is. However, I was embarrassed at the number of times Obama called on the name of Reagan. Reagan was a poor president who looked like what people wanted a president to look like. His appearance and acting training helped him to cover his ineptness, willingness to go along with appalling ideas of economists, military folks, and the rest. Obama was looking for a way to connect with Republicans, but Reagan was not a great choice. Oh wait, there is no good choice since Teddy Roosevelt, except perhaps for Eisenhower. He wasn't great either, but he did at least try a bit. Eisenhower and his crew before and during his presidency supported Joe McCarthy in his attempt to destroy the lives of American citizens for his own personal power gain.
Yes, Eisenhower didn’t rein in Joe McCarthy before McCarthyism got out of hand. Ike knew better but didn’t act. A pity.
Reagan was considered a B rated actor until he became President. Then he showed us what a great actor he really was.
Trump similarly showed us his great entertainer skills after becoming President, keeping his audience, the press & the public, affixed on his every move & utterance. It would seem to indicate that the entertainment business is not where we should draw our presidents, although Republicans surely seem to like them.
But then along came Zelensky, & he has used the skills he got from acting in a very beneficial way for his country. He is an excellent communicator, & has done everything possible to motivate & raise the spirits of his citizens while procuring international support for his cause. And wouldn't you know? Most Republicans seem not to appreciate what Zelensky has accomplished
There was a reason that Kennedy was popular, and also you, Robert Reich, as well! Majority rules!
This made me smile. I do miss the old republican party, before the tea party ruined it. Once a republican myself, I jumped ship and became a democrat in 2008, when I heard the words, "yes we can" from a young senator from Illinois. I any case, health care shouldn't bankrupt people.
Yes, we need affordable health care, not affordable health-care insurance.
Here is another - 👍, for ya.
Can't wait for your memoir to come out.
They wanted you to do what I hated when people were called to testify. We would say they did not answer the question. Now I know that is the goal. Sad. But republicans like entitlement for the rich and democrats like entitlement for the poor.
George, and the entitlements for the rich are huge but usually hidden in something else so We the People don't notice until it is already done: tax breaks for private planes, bail-outs, capital gains for the rich not counted as income but for middle and working-class, it is income, and so on. It is "taking" if anyone less than rich gets government money even if they have paid into it. It is "deserved" if it is the rich getting what they want.
It's amazing how the right is able to so consistently & skillfully pervert the meaning of words & concepts to fit their narratives & implant them in the public mind.
I was surprised you didn’t mention interacting with my boss, Sen. Paul Wellstone (DFL-MN). He was likely the least senior of the Committee members, but surely not the least interesting!
One of the best senators of the time, bringing up issues that made some people uncomfortable during a career tragically shortened by a mysterious, suspicious plane "accident".
"If it weren’t for twelve years of Republican supply-side economic bullshit, no one would be worrying about the budget deficit to begin with. Besides, if public investments like education and job training and infrastructure are deducted from government spending, and if the remaining amount is expressed as a percentage of the whole economy, it’s not nearly as large a problem as it might seem. And if we cut defense spending as we should — now that the Cold War has ended — and taxed the very wealthy at the rate they were taxed as recently as the 1970s, we could both lower the deficit and have a large pot of money to help all Americans get the skills they need for higher wages."
Very well said!
And let's also not forget that that, in a growing economy, we _must_ have a deficit if we are to grow the money supply in sync with the economy. Unfortunately, most people don't understand that growing the money supply is _not_ automatic inflation (and that inflation has other sources as well, such as not enough goods and services being created to satisfy demand), and so they support actions that can even make the situation worse.
Recoup 1. A trillion or more lost in Afghanistan/Iraq..
2. Billions if not trillions in potential income taxes lost because foreigners and US tax avoiders keep their assets overseas while doing business and profiting from the US economy.
3. Maybe even more from working "off the books."
4. Collect lost revenue due to price fixers and price gougers.
Excellent points on how our government loses money by coddling the rich & pouring money into Defense.
Curt, yes it is disturbing the lack of understanding on the part of conservative/Republican leadership of the way economics work and the awareness that trickle-down economics does not work, ever. The Republican leadership brags that they wenbt to "good" schools yet their ignorance of economics is startling.
I remember a TV show called "Make Me Laugh". It sounds like the TV show you were stuck on was "Make Me Cry." 8^D Or maybe "Make Me Cry 'Uncle!'"
The entire anecdote illustrates an example of "political theater".... which is apparently the case for ALL Senate confirmation hearings.
RE: choice of words. Not a great idea to place "drowned" so close to "Kennedy" in a sentence. Just saying....
Not ironic intentionally...(?)
Maybe
= D
Probably a subconscious association of those 2 words.
I was actually holding my breath in sympathy with you, Professor Reich! My stomach felt tight with anxiety as you were telling yourself to stop talking! I laughed with relief when you got the thumbs up! What a great story, and so well told. Thank you. :-)
Your full autobiography will be a best-seller. Could be shelved under both humor and politics.
Yes, we have a nasty feedback loop. Drug companies raise prices because they can (after years of convincing Americans that there is a pill for every malady, so why change behavior) and health insurance companies follow suit by raising premiums, so drug companies can raise prices again. Single payer is the only solution. Along with teaching Americans about their bodies while they are in public school, where their organs are, what makes them tick, and what throws a wrench in the works.
When I was younger, it was illegal for drug companies and for lawyers to advertise. Overthrowing those laws has changed our world -- for the worse.