(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Protecting America: We Need Social Security [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-03-23
In the 1960s, I got a little white card with blue print on it from the government. I needed it because I started working, and a tiny part of my tiny wages had to go to the government for my future retirement.
My taxed earnings that year were $33. It was kind of a lot for a ten-year old and more money than it seems like now. (Given inflation, it was equivalent to the princely sum of $320 today.)
No one I knew thought Social Security was an issue. By that time, Republicans had failed to kill the program for about thirty years. The country was moving on, and there were more pressing issues. Would “the Negro” get equal rights. Would the boys sent to Vietnam get the vote if they made it back to Paradise alive? Would we get to the Moon and back?
Would I go to college, and how was that going to happen?
Now that those issues have been sorted (except for equal rights), Republicans think they can kill Social Security. After I bloody well paid into it for fifty years.
What a truly stupid idea. Why? Why would they want to destroy a program that has successfully pulled the elderly out of poverty and allowed Americans the opportunity to retire? And how? How do they plan to destroy Social Security? What’s their great idea for that?
Let me start with the stupidity of the idea.
A Truly Great Idea
Think back to the early 1930s. In her poignant story, She remembered being hungry… by SeriousB, her mother told her she was “...so hungry that a peeled raw potato tasted like an apple.”
That was in the early 1930s. Her father went to the relief office to get food and brought home that potato.
We are in what can fairly be called The Donald Trump Intentional Recession. Over just a few weeks, he took steps to radically increase costs and radically decrease supplies.
Even before his meddling, there were hungry people in this country. Hunger is more than just a feeling. You might “feel hungry”. That’s not it.
It is “a condition in which a person does not have the physical or financial capability to eat sufficient food to meet basic nutritional needs for a sustained period” [Hunger]. It is a worldwide problem. Consider The Hunger Project for an attempt at a worldwide solution.
But we still have hunger in the U.S., and I blame the Republicans.
In the Thirties, a sizable chunk of workers were hungry. The economy had collapsed. A quarter of U.S. workers were out a job. And there was little hope for them because our thoroughly capitalist economy pitted individual workers against corporations with no minimum wage to ensure they would be paid enough to eat. The first federal minimum wage law was enacted in 1938, and it exempted large parts of the workforce. (Minimum wage in the U.S.)
This is the country the fascists want to return to. When they say, “Make America Great Again”, they mean for the ultra rich. Not you. “Again” here means the Thirties. That’s what they want, because that’s the way to maximize profits.
In the world of the Thirties you were not going to retire. That was just a cold, hard economic fact. Employers only had to pay you enough to keep you alive while you were able to work. That’s all economics dictates. If you pay someone who can’t work, then you aren’t getting every ounce of work out of them you can for what you are paying. And therefore your costs are greater than the market demands.
Fortunately, the New Deal folks thought that you could be paid more. Not because the market dictated it; but because the government did. Workers could use democracy to demand a better system, one that paid them not just for when they were working, but when they couldn’t work, either because they were disabled or because they were too old.
That’s what Social Security does. It is a form of minimum wage. It requires employers to pay enough that their workers can survive beyond work and into retirement.
Republican Implacable Opposition
This is what Republicans are threatening to destroy. This is what they’ve always wanted to destroy. Remember: Their goal is to squeeze every ounce out of workers they can at the lowest possible cost. Social Security is a huge impediment to that because it requires employers to pay enough for workers to live not just while they are working but when they can’t.
When the bill to create Social Security was debated in Congress, in 1935, Republicans (and conservative Democrats) tried to stop it. Here they are:
House:
Rep. Ernest Lundeen (R-MN): A vocal critic, Lundeen argued the Act was unconstitutional and detrimental to individual liberty and states' rights.
A vocal critic, Lundeen argued the Act was unconstitutional and detrimental to individual liberty and states' rights. Rep. Hamilton Fish, Jr. (R-NY): Emphasized the financial burden on businesses and potential future insolvency of the system.
Emphasized the financial burden on businesses and potential future insolvency of the system. Rep. Bertrand Snell (R-NY): Opposed the inclusion of unemployment insurance, calling it an overreach of federal power.
Senate:
Sen. Arthur H. Vandenberg (R-MI): Criticized the Act's complexity and its bypassing of traditional state-level welfare programs.
Criticized the Act's complexity and its bypassing of traditional state-level welfare programs. Sen. James Couzens (R-MI): Focused on the Act's potential for government overreach and its potential abuse of collected funds.
Focused on the Act's potential for government overreach and its potential abuse of collected funds. Sen. John G. Townsend Jr. (D-DE): Expressed concerns about the financial sustainability of the program and its fairness to different income groups.
And here are Key Arguments Against the Act:
Constitutionality: Opponents questioned the federal government's authority to establish such a broad social insurance program, arguing it violated states' rights or exceeded enumerated powers.
Opponents questioned the federal government's authority to establish such a broad social insurance program, arguing it violated states' rights or exceeded enumerated powers. Financial Concerns: Fears centered on the long-term solvency of the program, questioning its ability to sustain itself and potential future burdens on taxpayers.
Fears centered on the long-term solvency of the program, questioning its ability to sustain itself and potential future burdens on taxpayers. Individualism and Liberty: Arguments against government interference in individual matters were prevalent, including concerns about limiting personal choice and reducing self-reliance.
Arguments against government interference in individual matters were prevalent, including concerns about limiting personal choice and reducing self-reliance. Federal Overreach: Some opposed the expansion of federal power, advocating for state-level or private sector solutions instead.
Some opposed the expansion of federal power, advocating for state-level or private sector solutions instead. Specific Provisions: Criticisms targeted specific aspects like unemployment insurance, deemed unnecessary or an intrusion on state responsibility.
[This is courtesy of Google Bard.]
On the other side, one of the primary proponents of the bill, Senator Robert F. Wagner (D-NY), rebutted these arguments. He noted, for example, that this program clearly served a national purpose and fell within the Constitution’s directive to Congress to provide for the general welfare. He said it would need careful planning, but he pointed to the payroll tax funding and the trust fund as mechanisms to ensure long-term sustainability.
Fortunately, Democrats were able to work the legislation through Congress, and the President signed it into law.
But Republicans have still not given up.
The Profit Motive
As we will see later, ending Social Security isn’t economically feasible. Not without killing people. So, why are Republicans still trying to destroy this program? It’s not like it’s unpopular. Over 70 million people get retirement payments from Social Security. It’s not like they have a better plan. They have concepts of a plan, but if you question what they want to do, it’s all smoke and mirrors.
It’s a con worthy of Donald Trump.
The reason they want to end Social Security is because of their (faulty) values. They value money over people. They want more wealth for themselves and their fat-cat friends. Even if it comes from the suffering and deaths of people.
In fact, Republicans repeatedly talk about privatizing Social Security, not because they think it’s a good idea or even believe it could be done. They are simply signaling to the financial services industry that the Republican Party is on their side.
This is just virtue signaling. The Republicans are signaling: “We have no virtue.”
We love you so very, very much! We would do anything for you, Wall Street. We would even sell out the American people if we possibly could, just for your benefit. So, fund our campaigns.
But they can’t. There isn’t enough money to get rid of Social Security.
I’ll explain why next time.
Series
The start of this series is:
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3/23/2311834/-Protecting-America-We-Need-Social-Security?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
