Excerpt: "Republicans have wanted to destroy Social Security since it was invented in 1935 by my predecessor as labor secretary, the great Frances Perkins. Remember George W. Bush's proposal to privatize it? Had America agreed with him, millions of retirees would have been impoverished in 2008 when the stock market imploded."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Republican Economics As Social Darwinism
27 September 10
�
ohn Boehner, the Republican House leader who will become Speaker if Democrats lose control of the House in the upcoming midterms, recently offered his solution to the current economic crisis: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmer, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, lead a more moral life."
Actually, those weren't Boehner's words. They were uttered by Herbert Hoover's treasury secretary, millionaire industrialist Andrew Mellon, after the Great Crash of 1929.
But they might as well have been Boehner's because Hoover's and Mellon's means of purging the rottenness was by doing exactly what Boehner and his colleagues are now calling for: shrink government, cut the federal deficit, reduce the national debt, and balance the budget.
And we all know what happened after 1929, at least until FDR reversed course.
Boehner and other Republicans would even like to roll back the New Deal and get rid of Barack Obama's smaller deal health-care law.
The issue isn't just economic. We're back to tough love. The basic idea is force people to live with the consequences of whatever happens to them.
In the late 19th century it was called Social Darwinism. Only the fittest should survive, and any effort to save the less fit will undermine the moral fiber of society.
Republicans have wanted to destroy Social Security since it was invented in 1935 by my predecessor as labor secretary, the great Frances Perkins. Remember George W. Bush's proposal to privatize it? Had America agreed with him, millions of retirees would have been impoverished in 2008 when the stock market imploded.
Of course Republicans don't talk openly about destroying Social Security, because it's so popular. The new Republican "pledge" promises only to put it on a "fiscally responsible footing." Translated: we'll privatize it.
Look, I used to be a trustee of the Social Security trust fund. Believe me when I tell you Social Security is basically okay. It may need a little fine tuning but I guarantee you'll receive your Social Security check by the time you retire even if that's forty years from now.
Medicare, on the other hand, is a huge problem and its projected deficits are truly scary. But that's partly because George W. Bush created a new drug benefit that's hugely profitable for Big Pharma (something the Republican pledge conspicuously fails to address). The underlying problem, though, is health-care costs are soaring.
Repealing the new health-care legislation would cause health-care costs to rise even faster. In extending coverage, it allows 30 million Americans to get preventive care. Take it away and they'll end up in far more expensive emergency rooms.
The new law could help control rising health costs. It calls for medical "exchange" that will give people valuable information about health costs and benefits. The public should know certain expensive procedures only pad the paychecks of specialists while driving up the costs of insurance policies that offer them.
Republicans also hate unemployment insurance. They've voted against every extension because, they say, it coddles the unemployed and keeps them from taking available jobs.
That's absurd. There are still 5 job seekers for every job opening, and unemployment insurance in most states pays only a small fraction of the full-time wage.
Social insurance is fundamental to a civil society. It's also good economics because it puts money in peoples' pockets who then turn around and buy the things that others produce, thereby keeping those others in jobs.
We've fallen into the bad habit of calling these programs "entitlements," which sounds morally suspect - as if a more responsible public wouldn't depend on them. If the Great Recession has taught us anything, it should be that.anyone can take a fall through no fault of their own.
Finally, like Hoover and Mellon, Republicans want to cut the deficit and balance the budget at a time when a large portion of the workforce is idle.
This defies economic logic. When consumers aren't spending, businesses aren't investing and exports can't possibly fill the gap, and when state governments are slashing their budgets, the federal government has to spend more. Otherwise, the Great Recession will turn into exactly what Hoover and Mellon ushered in - a seemingly endless Great Depression.
It's also cruel. Cutting the deficit and balancing the budget any time soon will subject tens of millions of American families to unnecessary hardship and throw even more into poverty.
Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon thought their economic policies would purge the rottenness out of the system and lead to a more moral life. Instead, it purged morality out of the system and lead to a more rotten life for millions of Americans.
And that's exactly what Republicans are offering yet again.
�
Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet" and "Supercapitalism." His upcoming book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future," is due out in mid-September. His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
If you opt for the body-groping, you have to ask the groper to change gloves. The TSA gov't goons protect themselves from the people they touch, but apparently you don't deserve the same unless you ask.
There is no body-groping or cancer scanning at Geneva Int'l airport. You don't have to take off your shoes, either, and walk barefoot on a filthy or wet airport floor and then put on your socks and shoes over your now dirty feet that are covered with whatever is on that floor.
Ain't America great?
Maybe gov't tries to control and manipulate passengers in other non-American airports - don't know - but I think not b/c my French friends won't come to America - they refuse to put up with this kind of crapola - but they have no problem flying out of Paris, Amsterdam or Quito. So chances are, it ain't happening in those places either.
Speaking of waterboarding the Janet doll, here's an idea: maybe two hours of enhanced interrogation on some of the reptilians on Capitol Hill can learn us about the secret deals and behind-closed-d oors horrors they are planning for their next dog-and-pony show.
Now here is one terrific idea! Even if we didn't learn anything about their shenanigans, they would learn that waterboarding is torture.
I'm British and we have a long standing historical dispute with France over numerous national conflicts like Agincourt (2 finger salute anyone?), Waterloo, and others (even got one going on right now with Sarky and Co over finance) but on this particular issue I'm with the French tourists you talk of. I ain't going to the US in a million years either with the set up they have. Don't know what I would catch, if not from the airport groperamma then from the toxic food chain, poisoned water and chem trails.
So glad to not be anywhere near that lot thank you very much. :)
I'd rather live in France where you can buy good food at decent prices - for organic (bio) no price gouging. In America, you can't afford organic food. Plus it's a much better life in general - Sarkozy or no Sarkozy. And, everyone has access to decent healthcare. Even if there are a few problems here and there, they are nothing compared to the freak show in America.
Every country has a bad news gov't so you can't get away from that.