Syndicate and Hague

This post is in absolute danger of becoming a long, long rant about trickle down economics, deregulation, supposed “free market” capitalism, and the decimation of the true middle class. I will throw down some knowledge on that this week, but not today. Today, I want to focus on a small, small portion of the Social Security issue in light of what has happened on Wall Street this month.

It starts as simply as this. McCain wants to privatize Social Security. Obama doesn’t.

I believe, last week, that McCain compared Wall Street to a casino and had all kinds of quasi-regulatory talking points (”Cleaning up Wall Street” is not the same as saying you’re actually going to hold them accountable. It’s all talk.)

If Wall Street is a casino, why does McCain want us to trust the entirety of our retirements to it?

Imagine the absolute freak out that would be happening in this country if the entirety of not only our pensions and 401ks were on the line, but our Social Security as well. Of course, the government bailout essentially puts Social Security on the line, but that’s another topic.

So here’s your choice on your future.

Vote for Obama and you vote for someone who argued against privatization at the National Press Club in 2005 and has voted against Republican amendments to privatize Social Security.

Vote for McCain and you vote for someone who, if he’d had his way, would already have had your retirement in the rollercoaster stock market and free the government from any accountability for its citizens in their old age, despite them working to build the economy of this country for their entire lives.

Do not let McCain rewrite his own history on this. In 2000, part of his presidential agenda that he ran on was to privatize Social Security in “personal accounts” and he voted for Bush’s 2006 Social Security Privatization Plan, which would have moved Social Security’s annual surpluses into a reserve account that would become private accounts (ahem, you know, in the Wall Street Casino). [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

Seriously, people. We cannot afford for McCain to be president. I don’t care which “culture war” issue may have to hedging to the Republican side, the downfall of our economy is NOT worth it. I’ll address the “culture war” issue - and how those issues are used to distract people - in another post.

This is so dire, folks. I really hope that anyone who is remotely considering voting for McCain or not voting at all hears this one, because if there is anything at all that will kill your budget, here you are.

I’m going to throw a lot of sources at you, because I want you to see that this isn’t some far out rant from the Huffington Post. This is real.

John McCain wants to destroy employer-based health benefits. Is destroy too severe of a term? I don’t think so. Part of McCain’s plan is to tax you for the amount your employer contributes to your health care benefits as if it were income. More on that after this public service moment.

First, you need to see through the carefully constructed terminology he uses on his website:

John McCain Believes The Key To Health Care Reform Is To Restore Control To The Patients Themselves. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care…An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people’s needs, lower prices, and portability…While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider.

What this means: this means that you are on your own. Things like “restoring control to the patients” and “families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care” sound really nice. What they mean is that you are on your own. Have you ever tried to afford insurance on your own or worked for a small business whose coverage was minimal? I have. Cheap health insurance comes with ungodly deductibles before they even begin to cover doctor visits; caps on prescription drug spending; and bureaucratic nightmares if you need something actually covered. Small business’s insurance policies have similar problems.

The problem is, people often don’t notice these things until they get sick. Or in an accident.

The basic concept behind health insurance is one that is anathema to conservatives like Phil Gramm and John McCain - in theory, everyone pays into a system that disproportionately benefits those who need it most. It’s essentially making the burden of risk and the profit of benefit public. I would argue that conservative philosophy is exactly the opposite - they prefer privatizing profit and have no problem lobbying for the public carrying the burden of risk. This is where health care would go under McCain. Private profit, public risk. Keep repeating that. Private profit, public risk.

So back to the employer benefit and taxation issue. Highlighted in today’s Huffington Post is what is rarely spoken. I’ll quote:

McCain intends to tax workers for the value of health insurance that they receive from their employers. Really. It’s not included in the description of his plan on his web site. It is, however, on the site of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit organization that specializes in health policy…It says McCain would “reform the tax code to eliminate the exclusion of the value of health insurance plans offered by employers from workers’ taxable income.”

Gerard breaks it down in numbers: “The value of the typical plan provided by an employer to a family is $12,106, of which the employer pays $8,824, and the worker pays the remaining $3,282. The median household income is $44,389, which places most American families in the 15 percent income tax bracket. McCain wants to add the employer’s cost — an additional $8,824 — to that middle class family’s income, then tax it. The hit to the average family is 15 percent of the McCain-added income — $1,323 more in income taxes. And since the McCain tax credits are for privately purchased health care ONLY and do not extend to employer-paid benefits, you are literally losing at least $1,323 per year. I just ran the numbers for myself and - as a single person with no dependents, which means less costly health care - I would be looking at a $1300 increase myself.

Know what I don’t have? $1300. It is ridiculous for workers with benefits to be pressured to buy substandard insurance on the market.

Want to read more? I hope you’re outraged. I hope you know where you have over a thousand dollars to cut from your annual budget. Tell people about this. McCain Health Plan Could Mean Higher Tax (NY Times) The Tax Increase McCain Doesn’t Want to Talk About(Washington Monthly) McCain’s Health Care Proposal Will Increase Costs and Reduce Benefits (AFL-CIO) McCain’s $5,000 Promise (FactCheck.org) McCain’s Health-Care Proposal (Businessweek)

What I wish I could give you is more focused discussion of Obama’s health care proposal. Part of the problem is that the majority of time the news spent discussing any of Obama’s proposals/issues were in contention with Clinton. Since then, the news really couldn’t care less about his policy ideas. I’ll give you some info from his website and then add a couple of highlights. God he has so much more specificity on his site than McCain does. It’s beautiful.

I really encourage you to review Obama’s site that I linked to above. The plan is so detailed that I have a hard time summarizing it. But this is my attempt.

The goal is to have a publicly backed health care system. Key elements include guaranteed eligibility, benefits on par with the plan members of Congress have, affordability, subsidies for individuals in need, and accountability on the part of insurance companies. The National Health Insurance Exchange concept is to also allow individuals who want to purchase a private plan - it will act as a watchdog group and create rules/standards (accountability!) for private insurances. They would be required to issue everyone a policy and charge rates that aren’t dependent on health status. Employers must make a contribution, except for small business who can also receive a tax credit to help reduce their health care costs. Mandatory coverage of children. Ensuring Medicaid and SCHIP. Providing a safety net for the cost of catastrophic illnesses for employers/employees IF such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers’ premiums.

You guys, it just keeps going. Go to the site. He addresses women’s issues, civil rights issues in health care, disability/mental illness, technology research, prescription drug companies AND ON AND ON.

This is the man to vote for. He’s got the ideas, he’s got the plan, he needs the platform.

I’ve developed a new morbid addiction. The Ron Paul Survival Report is an awesome site that is essentially devoted to showing what is wrong with Ron Paul. The blogger is thorough as hell. Every time I’ve checked his sources to make sure he was accurate (I try to vet the people I quote, you know), he’s been right on.

Most recently, Ron Paul is doing another one of his “money bombs” on MLK day. Ignoring his history of racist statements and affiliations, the general philosophies of extreme free market economics he espouses (which disenfranchise the vast majority of us), and the plethora of white supremacists who have flocked to his campaign (seriously)…RP is reinforcing his status as racist by actually speaking at Bob Jones University tonight at 5 p.m. It’s currently on his website (I checked).

So. Do you folks know about Bob Jones University? Well…let me enlighten you. Back in 2000, candidate George Bush spoke at Bob Jones, which set of a firestorm even from some of the most ridiculously conservative folks around (Bill Kristol, I’m looking at you). Why? From the Salon.com archives.

The school refused to admit any African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, most unmarried African-American applicants were denied admission, presumably to prevent interracial dating. After 1975, the school — under court order — began admitting unmarried African-American students, though according to the U.S. government, it rejected “any applicant known to be a partner in an interracial marriage.”

After the 1975 court order, Bob Jones administrators established rules requiring expulsion for any student who married or dated outside his or her race or belonged to an organization that advocated or encouraged others to marry or date outside his or her race.

In 2000, this was still the policy. After the controversy stirred up by Bush’s visit, they subsequently dropped the policy. In 2000. Eight years ago.

Now, you could argue: “But they changed the policy!” Despite the fact that I think that’s crap, I still think a candidate (or anyone) should not speak somewhere that is this misogynistic. From the Bob Jones website:

Dress Code for Women

Classroom/general dress consists of a dress or top and skirt; however, pants may be worn for some recreational activities. Shorts may never be worn outside the residence halls and fitness center.

Pants

• Loose-fitting pants may be worn between women’s residence halls, for athletic events, and to homes in the area.
• Loose-fitting jeans may be worn in and between women’s residence halls and when participating in activities where the durability of the fabric is important, such as skiing and ice-skating.
• Low-riders are not permitted.
• Shorts may be worn only inside the residence halls and fitness center

Other

• Combat boots, hiking boots or shoes that give this appearance are not permitted. Leather sandals, including those with a strap between the toes, will be permitted at times when women are not required to wear hose. Flip flops made of rubber, plastic, etc., are not permitted in public.
• Hairstyles should be neat, orderly, and feminine. Avoid cutting-edge fads and cuts so short that they take on a masculine look.

For some added hilariousness:

Abercrombie & Fitch and its subsidiary Hollister have shown an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness in their promotions. In protest, we will not allow articles displaying their logos to be worn, carried, or displayed (even if covered or masked in some way).

Anyway, so, whatever. I’m not worried that RP is going to win the Republican nomination, much less the general election, but I do feel concerned that a certain segment of people respond to his rhetoric. It’s isolationist, self-interested, and generally loathsome. Anyone who believes we shouldn’t be funding public education is setting up a situation in which the poor remain poor and the rich get richer. From his website:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.

Yeah. Um. Hello? If schooling is funded by local taxes, poor areas will not have competitive schools. I see no way in which this doesn’t disproportionately (moreso than now) advantage people who already have money and power. If your local tax base is small, where is money coming from to fund education?

Here’s the thing. This whole “personal liberty”/”I know what’s best to do with my money”/”personal responsibility” argument is just one thing: extreme selfishness. We live in a society, which is like being part of a household. A household has expenses. Let’s say we each need to put in 50% of our incomes so that we can pay our bills and improve things. Great. I’m a contributing member of the household. I’m willing to do what I need to in order for this to be a good place to live.

Now here comes along someone who says “This is ridiculous! Why should I put in 50% of my hard-earned money? You don’t do things right. You waste money on things I don’t think we should bother with. Let’s just leave it up to each individual to pay for each thing as it comes.”

You’d never live with someone like that unless you are a fool. You’d think they were supremely selfish and wonder how they expected to be part of a household when they obviously placed no value on it.

Anyway.

The images below are from the Ron Paul Chalk Flickr set. They make me laugh about us.