Category Archives: National News/Commentary
Keeping the promise between generations
By Becci Robbins
SC Alliance for Retired Americnas
Seventy-five years ago this week, FDR signed the Social Security Act into law. As senior and retiree groups threw parties across the country to mark the occasion, opponents of Social Security continued their multimillion dollar campaign to fool the public into believing that benefits for seniors must be cut to reduce the deficit.
It is a cruel message that puts the burden of fixing the country’s financial problems on the backs of seniors and people with disabilities. It is also dishonest.
They don’t blame our economic problems on Wall Street bailouts, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans or funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And they won’t tell you that Social Security’s solvency can be resolved with small adjustments, such as raising the payroll tax cap on Social Security taxes for the wealthy or by freezing the estate tax and applying that money to the program.
Those who depend on Social Security — or love someone who does — would do well to pay attention to what’s going on. The next couple of months are critical.
In December, President Obama’s Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will offer to Congress its recommendations on how to reduce the deficit. Given the make-up of the body, it’s likely that Social Security and Medicare will be targets.
The Commission’s co-chair, for one, famously described older Americans as “greedy geezers” and supported efforts to privatize Social Security. If he’d had his way, those investment accounts by now would have lost 20 percent of their value.
While the Commission has several other known foes of entitlement programs, it also includes US Rep. John Spratt, who promises to continue to work to keep Social Security strong for future generations. South Carolina voters have a unique opportunity to engage their family, their neighbors and the congressman on this matter to make sure he stays true to his commitment.
Social Security, funded with taxes paid by workers and their employers, is a promise between generations that belongs to the people who have worked hard their whole lives to provide for their families.
The program is critical to many of South Carolina’s retirees and their spouses. Don Thacker, 80, says Social Security and Medicare allow him to live at home and get medical care as an outpatient. “Many people live on very limited incomes in South Carolina and have to make choices between food and medicine,” he said. “These programs make a difference.”
Columbia resident Ruby James says, “I worked for many years and then became disabled. I’m able to live now off of my Social Security.” Her daughter’s husband died at a young age, leaving her with three children, one with a disability. Social Security benefits helped two of those children finish college.
Without Social Security, 19.8 million more Americans would be poor, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Without Social Security, 45.2 percent of elderly Americans would live below the poverty line.
But Social Security doesn’t just benefit seniors; children and people with disabilities also depend on the program. The program lifts more than 1 million children out of poverty. And it is is the most important source of income for the 112,000 children living in South Carolina’s grandfamilies, households headed by a grandparent or other relative.
Sue Berkowitz says that her husband and a former roommate would not have been able to attend college if not for Social Security benefits. “So even though we were prior to retirement age, I know two people who are dear to me who it helped.”
While the debate rages about how to manage our national deficit, the loudest voices are spreading fear and misinformation. The rest of us need to make our own voices heard at the polls in November.
Becci Robbins is an organizer with the SC Alliance for Retired Americans. For details about the organization, email scalliance@mindspring.com.
SC AFL-CIO President Donna Dewitt and SC Progressive Network Director Brett Bursey honor US Congressman John Spratt with a plaque at a SC Allilance for Retired Americans party celebrating Social Security’s birthday in Rock Hill on Aug. 13. See more photos here.
On 75th anniversary of Social Security, where does Wilson stand?
This weekend on Meet the Press, Republican Leader John Boehner reiterated his support for making deep cuts in Social Security. South Carolina Democrats met the assertions with criticism, calling on Second District Congressman Joe Wilson to denounce Boehner’s plan to take away the benefits seniors have earned. Wilson’s silence on this issue and refusal to protest the GOP plan to raise the retirement age to 70 shows just how out of touch with South Carolina he is.
“It’s time for Joe Wilson to show that he’s willing to fight for South Carolina’s seniors,” said South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler. “He’s made a career out of voting the way his party leadership tells him to, but cutting the benefits that people have worked a lifetime to earn is taking partisanship too far. It’s time for Joe to stand up for his constituents, not Wall Street Banks and the GOP’s privatization schemes.”
BACKGROUND
Wilson votes with GOP 96.7% of the time. [Washington Post Votes Database, Accessed 8/9/10]
Meet the Press exchange between host David Gregory and Republican Leader John Boehner:
GREGORY: All right. One of the ways you talk about getting your arms around spending was something you suggested back in June. That is that social security, the retirement age, ought to be raised to the age of 70. Is that something that the GOP will campaign on in the fall?
BOEHNER: David, I think it’s time for the American people to have an adult conversation about the problems that we face. These entitlement programs serve tens of millions of Americans and are critically important. We know that these programs are unsustainable in their current form, and I really do think it’s time we sit down and talk to the American people together about how we solve this. I think we need to bring Democrats and Republicans together in order to solve this problem.
GREGORY: You favor raising the retirement age?
BOEHNER: David, there are a lot of options about how you solve these, but I don’t want to get the cart before the horse. I think it’s important to have this conversation. It’s going to be a difficult conversation, but it’s time to have it and come up with solutions done in a bipartisan way to address the problems. [Meet the Press, 8/8/10]
Boehner Said he’d favor raising the Social Security retirement age to 70. Earlier this summer, Boehner outlined his support for raising the Social Security retirement age to 70, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation, and limiting payments to those who need them. [Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 6/29/10]
Described support for existing Social Security system as “nostalgia.” Boehner said, “We need the courage to strengthen Social Security for our children and grandchildren. We can’t be blinded by nostalgia for a broken system or casual about the problems it’ll cause our families down the road…” [US Fed News, Boehner Answers Community’s Questions, 4/29/05]
Boehner promised agenda of privatizing Social Security if he took Ccarge. In 2006, Boehner said he’d push to privatize Social Security if he was in charge. “If I’m around in a leadership role come January, we’re going to get serious about it.” [Washington Times, 7/31/06]
Federal voting machine case clears first hurdle
On July 28, Federal Judge Cameron Currie ruled that the SC Election Commission had until Aug. 20 to defend itself against a complaint that the voting machines in South Carolina do not meet federal requirements for record keeping. (For background on the case, see earlier post.)
SC Progressive Network Director Brett Bursey filed the complaint June 17, and the judge gave the parties a month to try and resolve the matter. On July 19, Bursey filed a report that concluded there could be no agreement between the parties regarding an independent audit of the entire voting system.
“I believe that the Election Commission doesn’t want a full system audit for fear that it would conclude — like a recent audit in Iowa did — that these machines should be scrapped.” Bursey said. “We warned the SCEC in 2004 not to buy these machines, and their continued defense of a voting system that cannot reliably tell us who won an election is regrettable.”
Only six states now use a statewide, paper-less system like we have in South Carolina. (Maryland outlawed the paper-less machines last year, but have not funded a replacement.) According to the Verified Voting Foundation, ballots in 38 states are cast on “voter verifiable paper records.”
Email network@scpronet.com to receive regular updates on the lawsuit.
Please consider making a secure donation now to help cover court costs. Indicate in the gift information “verified voting.” Or make a check to SC Progressive Network and mail to PO Box 8325, Columbia SC 29202. We appreciate your support.
NOW Participates in Launch of Campaign to Protect and Strengthen Social Security
By Terry O’Neill
National Organization for Women President
The National Organization for Women is glad to be a part of this large and diverse coalition to strengthen our country’s most important and successful social insurance program–Social Security. Speaking on behalf of NOW’s 500,000 members and contributing supporters, my message is simple: Social Security is especially vital to women, who would be disproportionately harmed by cuts in benefits.
The “three-legged stool of retirement” is meant to consist of a pension, personal savings, and Social Security. But all too often, women have neither a pension nor savings. In fact, fewer than one in three women has income from a pension. Moreover, after a lifetime of wage discrimination, women are far more likely than men to have little in the way of personal savings. The situation for women of color is particularly dire. According to a recent report by the Insight Center, women of color often have no personal savings, or even negative net worth, as they head into retirement.
As a result, Social Security is the mainstay for millions of older women. Every year, a major share of the nearly 24 million women age 62 and older who receive benefits are kept out of poverty because of Social Security. Often that monthly Social Security check is their only income.
We call upon the members of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to act responsibly and reject any effort to reduce entitlement program benefits — now or in the future. Raising the retirement age to 70 would be an especially cruel benefit cut, forcing a hardship on millions of women (and men) who have physically demanding jobs, as our sister organization the Older Women’s League (OWL) has found.
If anything, Social Security benefits should be improved — especially for elderly women, because many exhaust their savings as they grow older, and for disabled, divorced and never-married women who have had modest incomes and have been unable to save and invest for retirement. Reducing benefits for these women would be calamitous.
Rather than cutting Social Security and putting millions of women’s financial security at risk, the Fiscal Commission should address the real causes of the deficit — unfunded wars, irresponsible tax breaks for the wealthiest, and an economic crisis caused by financial regulatory failures. Women are watching the commissioners, but will we be invisible to them?
*******
If you live in South Carolina, find out how you can help protect Social Security by contacting the SC Alliance for Retired Americans at scalliance@mindspring.com.
Killing for fun; military madness
by Tom Turnipseed
Columbia, SC
Successful professionals enjoy their work. The Obama administration has picked a successful and happy warrior in Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis to head the US Central Command. The command includes all US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, the entire Middle East and Central Asia. Mattis has gloated that it is “fun to shoot some people” and “have a plan to kill everybody you meet”.
Killing is the key to success in military actions. Killing enough insurgents by invading and occupying US forces enables the winners to subdue and subjugate the survivors. The real winners in the Middle East are the US based corporations who seek to exploit the resources of energy and mineral rich countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Also the corporate war profiteers of the defense industry are making out like bandits. They furnish the killing tools, the hired mercenaries and other wasteful and expensive materials, equipment and supplies for our never-ending wars-on-terror.
Mattis has a strong resume in the military killing business. He was a lieutenant colonel in the US invasion of Iraq in 1991, directed the Marines in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, headed the US assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004 and helped design the siege that destroyed the city and killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. Mattis also commanded the initial troops that went into Afghanistan in 2001.
Describing his feelings about the people in Afghanistan, General Mattis said, “… It’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”
Author Thomas Ricks wrote that Mattis told his troops to, “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
During Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, Mattis reportedly told his troops, “It’s the mission of every Marine in the battalion to send one dead Iraqi home to Mama.”
Perhaps World War II Army General George S. Patton, Jr. is a role model for Mattis in his glorification of military madness and the joy of killing. Patton said “Magnificent! Compared to war all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God help me, I do love it so!” and “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country, He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” Patton also said, “America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser, this is why America has never, and will never, lose a war.” Of course that was before our ill-fated military ventures in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Mattis “one of our military’s outstanding combat leaders and strategic thinkers, bringing an essential mix of experience, judgment and perspective to this important post.” Asked about Mattis’ bloodthirsty rhetoric, Gates brushed off an official rebuke against Mattis saying it was five years ago.
In Afghanistan, US and NATO forces casualties continue to escalate. The number of Americans killed so far this month is at least 23 with 14 killed last week. In June, 102 occupation troops were killed including 60 Americans. 1,149 American soldiers have been killed in the war in Afghanistan, and countless numbers of Afghan civilians have died. We don’t do body counts of “the enemy” because, as former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said, “death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.”
Our economic crisis is directly tied to the cost of the war. It costs $1 million per year to maintain a single soldier in Afghanistan. The 2010 Pentagon budget is $693 billion, which surpasses all other discretionary spending programs combined–while our deficit soars. We desperately need money to create green jobs, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and improve education.
President Obama replaced General McChrystal with General Petraeus as commanding general of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. McChrystal had made derogatory remarks about Obama and his administration’s conduct of the war. Petraeus was head of the Central Command and will be replaced by Mattis. Obama said, “War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or president.”
The war in Afghanistan is a big loser. Rearranging deck chairs to include one more “fun to kill” military madman will not keep it from sinking like the Titanic. Only ending the war will save Obama.
A recent ABC / Washington Post poll found that people felt the war was not worth fighting by a 53 to 44 margin. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll had 62% of the American people saying the country was going in the wrong direction and Obama’s approval rating at 45% with 48% disapproval.
President Obama was the most successful politician in the US who seemed to enjoy being elected to the highest office in the land. Fulfilling his promise of peace, hope and change is a winner. However his failure to conclude killing for fun military madness will make him a loser in 2012 and doom his party in November
Tom Turnipseed is an attorney, writer and peace activist in Columbia, SC. His blog is here.
Restoring balance between Wall Street and Main Street
By Frank Knapp Jr.
President and CEO of SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce and small business organizations and owners across this country want Wall Street reform. But you wouldn’t know that from the attention the media gives to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is the mouthpiece for the big financial institutions that oppose reform.
The U.S. Chamber purports to represent small businesses. However, the reality is quite different. The July/August edition of the Washington Monthly features an eye-opening story on Tom Donohue, the CEO of the U.S. Chamber, who has a plaque on his desk that reads, “SHOW ME THE MONEY.” In 2008, a third of the Chamber’s revenues came from just 19 big companies.
When big oil, insurance and other companies are out of favor because of their greed, they turn to the U.S. Chamber to convince Congress and the public that the needed reforms are bad for business in general and small business in particular. This is exactly what is going on regarding Wall Street reform.
It’s clear that the U.S. Chamber does not represent the interests of small businesses that have suffered because of the irresponsible actions of the nation’s biggest banks. The greed of these financial institutions collapsed our economy and shut down loans and credit lines to our small businesses. We hear macro and micro stories every day about small businesses not getting access to the money they need. And every economist acknowledges that small businesses must hire the employees we need to lead us out of this recession just as they have in the last three economic recoveries.
But ironically, the only business sector that’s apparently hiring is Wall Street, as the New York Times explains in a recent piece. Greed is still alive and well on Wall Street. And we all know that without Wall Street reform, greed will bring our economy down again and tear apart our small businesses — if we can ever get them back on their feet.
Yet, the U.S. Chamber still wants Congress and the public to be afraid — very afraid. Wall Street reform will dry up loans to small business, the U.S. Chamber warns. That’s wrong. Their big bank donors are doing pretty well right now and they aren’t doing that by making small business loans and investing in our communities. They’re making money gambling on Wall Street.
The U.S. Chamber pretends to be a friend to Main Street worried that Sam the Butcher, Joe the Orthodontist and your local car dealer will be regulated out of business. That’s not in the Wall Street reform proposal.
What the butcher, orthodontist and car dealer want are customers — the customers who lost their jobs because of Wall Street greed.
Small business supports this reform because it will restore balance between Wall Street and Main Street through fair and commonsense policies and create a stable, transparent financial environment in which community banks and credit unions can once again feel secure in making loans.
We at the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce have been strong supporters of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to better protect consumers, which includes small businesses. We’re not afraid of good regulation that keeps our customers and us safe from financial predators.
We’re in favor of making banks be banks and not gambling houses. We have been strong supporters of the “Volcker Rule” to put the brakes on proprietary trading by banks — the practice that largely is responsible for bringing us to the brink of another Great Depression.
Congress should just say no to the U.S. Chamber. The financial health of our country and our small businesses depends on it.
Activists urge senators to vote on jobs bill
On June 30, union and community leaders gathered in front of US Sen. Jim Demint’s office in Charleston. They were among thousands of others across the nation sending a message to their Republican Senators: “Vote on the Jobs Bill Now!”
“On Thursday, June 23, the Senate again failed to get cloture on the Jobs Bill even after Democrats agreed to reduce the overall cost of the bill.” said Leonard Riley, ILA member and president of Carolina Alliance for Fair Employment (CAFE).
Riley was joined by leaders of the Charleston and Columbia Central Labor Councils(CLC), SC Alliance for Retired Americans (ARA), SC Progressive Network, ILA Local 1422, AFSCME Local 1199 and the SC AFL-CIO.
Jenny Patterson, president of the Columbia CLC, said, “We are tired of Senator Demint pulling the rug out from under unemployed workers in our state and our public health and safety just to score political points. His refusal to vote for funding to keep teachers, police officers and other workers on the job and to protect elderly residents from being tossed out of nursing homes is outrageous.”
Vic Rawl, former Democratic candidate for US Senate, was among those attending the action. Rawl was endorsed by the SC AFL-CIO.
It’s time to refocus abortion debate
Cory Manning
S.C. Coalition for Healthy Families
On June 16, the Legislature passed the so-called 24-hour waiting period bill. Previous versions of the bill required women to make two trips to an abortion provider: one to get the materials and one to have the procedure. The bill that was finally passed allows women to review the materials on-line, eliminating the two-trip requirement. This was a victory for S.C. women and others concerned about reproductive rights.
Unfortunately, this was yet another example of the misguided discussion regarding abortion.
The participants in the abortion debate often seek legislative endorsement of moral positions that leave little room for compromise. Instead of seeking to score points or curry favor with constituent groups, they should focus on addressing the problem: unintended or unwanted pregnancies.
Both sides of this debate, if they are being realistic and want solutions, would support measures that reduce unintended or unwanted pregnancies. For example, educating teenagers with age-appropriate information about sexual activity, including contraception and abstinence, and supporting low-income women in economically rational ways that give them real choices regarding the decision to have a child will reduce the number of unintended and unwanted pregnancies (and hence the number of abortions) in South Carolina. If both sides focused on this common ground, we could see genuine improvement in the quality of life for women, children and all citizens of South Carolina.
Help us now to protect your vote in November!
SC Progressive Network Director Brett Bursey filed a complaint in federal court on June 17 to require the state to preserve voting records in federal elections. Since then, the Network has worked to arrange an audit of the entire June 8 South Carolina primary vote.
As you know, the results of two federal elections — US Senate and Congressional District 1 — were, in the words of numerous well-credentialed experts, “anomalous.”
The Verified Voting Foundation released a statement on the South Carolina primary results that concluded, “Whether specific reports of irregularities in this election are confirmed, the most important fact about South Carolina’s voting system is that most ballots cannot be effectively audited or recounted. Serious concerns about the integrity of the primary (and of other elections conducted using the same technology) are inevitable, and legitimate.” For the full statement go to Verified Voting.org.
Since a “recount” of the voting machine tallies we use in South Carolina can only produce the same number, over and over, an audit of the internal memories on the machines is the only way to discover anomalies — and even this won’t reveal the intent of the voter beyond what is recorded by the software.
South Carolina is one of only eight states that uses paper-less, touch-screen devices that are not routinely audited. Thirty-four states now require a “voter verified paper ballot” that can be referred to in the event of a recount or audit.
“We are not questioning the results of the June 8 primary,” said Bursey. “We are questioning whether the machines we use can be audited to insure that the results reflect the voters’ true choices, and if the preserved records satisfy federal requirements.”
Yesterday, we gave up on trying to get the SC Election Commission to agree to a third-party audit of the entire system. The executive director of the SCEC, as well as the board chair, both had roles in the purchase of these machines in 2004. They maintain that the system works fine and no audit is necessary.
We are now focusing on the federal complaint we have filed that questions whether the intent of the federal records preservation statute can be met using the counties’ current systems and software. Our lawsuit is the only thing standing between us and another election in November with unverifiable results.
We have filed a request for all the compact discs that each county was supposed to have used to record the flash memory of each voting machine.
The state Election Commission does not know if all counties followed this procedure, or whether this procedure adequately preserved the records, or whether what is preserved is sufficient to reliably determine the voters’ intent. The state Election Commission is arguing that it is not its job to keep these records, nor to gather them for us.
We need immediate financial help to make our case. We need to raise $3,000 to cover filing fees and expert assistance. If you can help, please do.
We hope that this case, and the growing public awareness of the inherent shortcomings of our voting system, will lead to a voter-verifiable, recountable, paper record of the most critical part of our democracy — our vote.
Please make a secure donation now and indicate in the gift information “verified voting.”
Thank you for your support.