[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Re: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Obama’s ‘Jobs Act’ Proposal: Why Less is More of the Same

[Robert Naiman]

David seems to be on one of his jihads here, so I'm going to bow out
of this discussion after clearing up one fact that David seems to be
unwilling to concede, or maybe David has permanently seceded from
fact-land. It is a fact that under Obama's proposal, as under the
current payroll tax holiday, the reduced revenues to Social Security
will be made up from general revenues:

""Normally, money from the payroll tax goes to fund Social Security.
Under Obama's plan, money would be transferred from the government's
general fund to cover the revenue losses to Social Security, but
Republicans argue that is a dangerous game."

- "Obama's proposed tax cut a quandary for GOP," Lisa Mascaro and
Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times, September 09, 2011,
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/09/nation/la-na-obama-jobs-20110910

Hate Obama as much as you want, but as I said and wrote repeatedly
during the George W. Bush administration in arguing that progressives
should support the Bush Administration's policies on reforming U.S.
food aid by relaxing the requirement that it be spent on U.S.
agricultural goods and on forcing the World Bank to convert from loans
to grants in the poorest countries: "If George W. Bush says that two
plus two equals four, it's still four."

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
> "...Listening to Obama talk about jobs and shared prosperity yesterday
> reminded me that we are back in campaign mode and Barack Obama has started
> doing again what he does best – play the part of a progressive. He's good at
> it. It sounds like he has a natural affinity for union workers and ordinary
> people when he makes these speeches. But his policies are crafted by
> representatives of corporate/financial America, who happen to entirely make
> up his inner circle.
>
> "I just don't believe this guy anymore, and it's become almost painful to
> listen to him."
>
> [From <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/06-6>.]
>
>
> On 9/11/11 7:10 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bob's argument would make sense if it weren't for what Obama said in
>> the course of the deficit talks: that he supports massive cuts in
>> entitlement programs, including Social Security, and that he supports
>> the most modest of tax increases on the wealthy in order to provide a
>> patina of 'fairness' and 'shared sacrifice,' without materially
>> affecting the super-rich. --CGE
>>
>>
>> On 9/11/11 6:49 PM, David Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> *Bob,* ** *You obviously have NOT looked at the details of Obama's
>>> plan !* ** *It is SOLELY targeted at Social Security payroll
>>> taxes, both what employees and employers pay.* ** *It is a
>>> DEFUNDING of Social Security !* *Pure and simple !* ** *It
>>> specificly says that ; " Social Security payroll taxes paid by BOTH
>>> employers and employees will be reduced from 6.2 % to 4.2% and then
>>> to 3.1%.* *AND, in addition to this, employers will be exempt from
>>> paying ANY ( NO ) social security tax for ALL new hires and for ALL
>>> employees they give a raise to ( which the percentage wage increase
>>> is unspecified, so it could be as little as 1- cent per hour ), up
>>> to FIFTY MILLION dollars per COMPANY, with no time limit specifics
>>> !* ** *Face the facts, Obama is a puppet of corporate America and a
>>> closet republican neo-con.* *He admires Ronald Reagan and has not
>>> only continued the Bush agenda but has expanded it beyond what ANY
>>> republican would have dared.* ** *The phoney son of a bitch needs
>>> to be " taken down " ! * ** *We need SOMEBODY to run against him in
>>> the Dem primaries ( Dennis Kucinch or whoever ) and if that doesn't
>>> work, we need a third party candidate !* ** *Obama has betrayed
>>> EVERY SINGLE campaign promise he has made, and he needs to be
>>> exposed and opposed.* ** *Protecting Social Security and EXPANDING
>>> Medicare to every man, women and child in this country should be
>>> THE ISSUE that we need to advocate ( in addition to an immediate
>>> withdrawl of ALL U.S. troops and private mercenaries from Iraq and
>>> Afganistan, that would save the taxpayers $ 2.7 BILLION a week ).*
>>> ** *For those who agree, we should support !* *For those who do NOT
>>> support or state wishy washy views, we need to vote out of office.*
>>> ** *This is THE issue we can win with !* ** *The time of automatic
>>> and blank check support for democrats is past.* *Until we realize
>>> this and PRACTICE this, this country and the world is DOOMED !* **
>>> *David J.* ** **
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Robert Naiman
>>> <mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> *To:* David Johnson
>>> <mailto:dlj725 at hughes.net> *Cc:* JWJ C-U
>>> <mailto:centralILJwJ at yahoogroups.com> *Sent:* Sunday, September
>>> 11, 2011 2:27 PM *Subject:* Re: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Obama’s ‘Jobs
>>> Act’ Proposal: Why Less is More of the Same
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The payroll tax holiday isn't de-funding Social Security - that
>>> isn't the way the payroll tax holiday has worked so far. The money
>>> has been made up from general revenues. Which, in fact, has had
>>> the (temporary) effect of making Social Security more progressive.
>>> (The payroll tax is regressive, because it is capped; Social
>>> Security is progressive overall, even though it is funded by a
>>> regressive tax, because the payout is steeply progressive.)
>>>
>>> Some progressives have in the past argued against the payroll tax
>>> holiday on the grounds - they have argued - that it is dangerous
>>> to weaken the political link, even temporarily, between the payroll
>>> tax and the benefit, and that this weakening of the link will later
>>> be used as an argument to undermine the program.
>>>
>>> But, on balance - given that there are very real benefits from the
>>> payroll tax holiday, in terms of economic relief for working
>>> people in tough times and in terms of boosting employment - I find
>>> this argument unconvincing. The link between the payroll tax and
>>> the benefit hasn't stopped people from arguing for cuts to Social
>>> Security benefits in the past, and current proposals to cut
>>> benefits, such as by cutting the cost of living adjustment (a
>>> proposal, unfortunately, supported by President Obama) haven't
>>> appeared to be slowed by the link between the payroll tax and the
>>> benefit.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, we already have a payroll tax holiday at present, so
>>> such a holiday has to be withdrawn at some point, the question is:
>>> now or later? Later - when we no longer have 9.1% measured
>>> unemployment - makes more sense.
>>>
>>> Given that extension of the holiday - like extension of
>>> unemployment benefits - is a significant chunk of economic stimulus
>>> that has a plausible chance of getting through Congress right now,
>>> I think that on balance the extension of the payroll tax holiday is
>>> worthy of support. Others may disagree. But I think the claim that
>>> this is a nefarious plot to undermine Social Security is
>>> dramatically overblown.
>>>
>>> At the end of the day, Social Security is a check from the U.S.
>>> Treasury. At the end of the day, what defends Social Security is
>>> defending Social Security: a supermajority of voters defending the
>>> payout.
>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern