Teddy Roosevelt:
[...] when the former Republican president [Teddy Roosevelt] was running as a Progressive Party candidate for what would have been his third term (after a four-year break), the party advocated national health insurance in its platform.
Health care was the 11th issue listed under "Social and Industrial Justice," after occupational safety, a child labor prohibition, a minimum wage, "one day's rest in seven" and other progressive ideas.
"The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice," the platform said. "We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in State and Nation for ... the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use."
Obama invokes Republican icons on health care -- politifact.com, Mar 5, 2009
Good to know.
It was good to see Obama, quote that progressive stance. Progressives do occasionally have a good idea, or four. It's just that it takes a fight to make them happen. ... Just ask, that other Roosevelt ... the Democrat who fought to make that Social Security insurance plan, actually happen ...
FDR:
"This law represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means completed -- a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions, to act as a protection to future administrations of the Government against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy -- a law to flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation -- in other words, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness."
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Aug 14, 1935; Source: ssa.gov Social Security History
Funny, FDR intended that "cornerstone" of Social Security to STOP cycles of Govt Debt and prevent Human misery -- NOT encourage though things.
Perhaps if our current Govt Treasury would quit borrowing against that Social Security "Trust Fund," and START PAYING it back, then those 25% projected shortfalls, starting in 2037 -- would be nothing to worry about, NOW. (and especially when we have Other very Real Debts racking up, on war and such.)
Fast Forward to more "recent" Social Security history ...
Raise the Cap on the payroll tax on wealthy individuals
"What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system, if we are going to deal with this problem specifically. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority of the audience here pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I've said that was not fair."
Barack Obama, NH Democratic primary debate -- Jan 6, 2006; Source: ontheissues.org
YES, Raise the Income Limit Cap on FICA Tax collections for the Trust Fund, from $106,000 to something like the first $250,000 of income. Obama was right, that is is "what we need to do" -- that is the "fair solution". I can't wait until that happens, until the Deficit Commission -- makes THAT recommendation. Wait. What's that? They will raise the Cap -- by the year 2075. Too bad they plan to raise the Retirement Age too, right along with the Cap, an Offset, I guess. Sounds like a Benefit Cut, to me.
Used to be a time when some National Treasury Debt solutions -- like raising the Retirement Age where unthinkable. Some even said they were "off the table" ... what ever happened to that resolve ...
Cutting Benefits & Raising Retirement Age are wrong answers
Q: You said earlier this year that everything should be on the table for Social Security, including looking at raising retirement age, indexing benefits, and then suddenly you said, "I'm taking them off the table."
A: That's not what I said. I said I will convene a meeting as president where we discuss all of the options that are available. I believe that cutting benefits is not the right answer; and that raising the retirement age is not the best option, particularly when we've got people who are still in manufacturing.
Q: But in May you said they would be on the table.
A: Well, I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected. That is the option that I will be pushing forward.
Q: But the other options would be on the table?
A: Well, I will listen to all arguments and the best options.
Barack Obama, providing those Answers. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 -- "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007; ontheissues.org
Lately, these "weighty fiscal matters" have been entrusted to the recommendations of a Commission. Despite the otherwise strong convictions, to protect Social Security, as is. To leave that crucial program, in place for "future generations".
Use to be, there was a "moral component" to helping those in need, like our Seniors. Now we let bi-partisan commissions, made up of mostly rich people, decide how to best go about dismantling tweaking FDR's historic Cornerstone.
Warren: What is America’s greatest moral failure?
Obama: I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we ... still don’t abide by that ... basic precept in Matthew that: 'whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.' And that notion of — that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not ... thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class.
I mean, there’s a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these.
Rick Warren’s Interview of Senators Obama and McCain -- Aug 16, 2008
Indeed good advice, and a serious "metric" of the country's moral failings; or conversely a metric for our country's "moral success".
As President Obama implied not so long ago, we need to be looking to those with the Least in Society, to gauge how "well" the Nation is really doing.
NOT look to the Wealthy, to decide what's best; but instead, Look to the "least among us".
Like, for example,
Look to the unemployed.
Look to the underpaid ... to the overworked.
Look to those who can barely make ends meet.
Social Security and the COLA
By Jennie L. Phipps -- Bankrate.com, Retirement Blog -- Dec 16, 2010
Social Security cost of living adjustments, or COLAs, are shaping up to be a major retirement planning issue in 2011.
[...] the overly generous COLA that Social Security recipients got in 2009, resulting inadvertently in no COLA in either 2010 or 2011 -- a freeze that will cut benefits for new retirees for the rest of their lives.
[...]
Today, the Senior Citizens League, which claims to be the nation's largest organization of seniors, calculated the loss of the compounding effect of missing two years' worth of COLAs on 25 years of benefits. [...] Seniors who turn 62 during the years of no COLA will be affected the most. If you were born in 1946 [...] you'll receive $30,163.60 less over 25 years than you would if you had been born in 1945, according to the Senior Citizens League calculations.
Freezing cost of living may not sound like much of a sacrifice ...
But those 2 years of Social Security COLA Freezes, when compounded over a retirement -- can add up to $30K "sacrifice" year over year.
Those are Social Security Benefit Cuts, taking place as we speak.
$30K may not sound like much to those who enacted these COLA Freezes -- but to Seniors living on less than half that a year, a $30K reduction in retirement income, means serious cutting corners somewhere else, NOW, in their day-to-day lives.
It means choosing between buying gas, maybe fixing the car, or buying food and maybe half the medicine. It means choosing between paying the winter utility bills or paying for a few meager gifts for the grandkids. It means the loss of a real "measure" of their human dignity.
I wonder what would Jesus Do ... about this Social Safety Net -- that was designed protect "the least of these; designed to protect those, who need the help the most. NOT those who need the help, the least. Yet our Nation's Tax Policies are certainly not geared with that "Moral Principle" in mind. Funny ... given the GOP's reflex-reliance on Christian rhetoric.
Some might call it hypocritical of them, to always be favoring the Wealthy over the needs of the Poor?
And, I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt would Do? ... if he were around to see this era's current incarnation of the "Robber Barons"-- BACK in action, just a hundred years later? And they are stronger than ever. Not so funny.
How in the world did we end up with all these "Reverse Robin Hood" policies ... especially after all his hard-fought "trust busting" victories, way back in the day? History should rest, on such victories.
Theodore Roosevelt Speech - Social and Industrial Justice, Progressive Party 1912
TheSpeechSchool
http://www.youtube.com/...
Maybe if we had that "Living Wage" in America that [Progressive] Theodore Roosevelt was calling for -- maybe then, there wouldn't be such a near-universal desperate need for that Social Security safety net, in the first place?
Progressives do occasionally have a good idea, or twelve. It's just that it takes a fighting spirit to make them happen sometimes. A willingness to stand up -- and to Fight, for what's is Right ... as some of History's Champions have dared to do.
Real Differences, are built on such stands. As any real champion of the people knows.