Letter to AJC 4-26-2012
I am always amazed at the republican memory. It is short lived and selective. It seems to paint a rosy picture when suited to its ideological bias and recalls dire effects when progressive steps actually succeed in making our lives better. I'm sure future analysts will write reams on the conservative mind, and perhaps find a right-wing gene just as scientists are now uncovering the god gene.
Take for example their blinkered view of our hero Reagan. The man has been elevated to godlike status and is seen as the ultimate defender against tax increases. Strange that in the real record he actually raised taxes 11 separate times during his reign. But those small details don't seem to stick to the right wing memory. Perhaps it is too painful a connection to make. Maybe they don't want to admit that Reagan was actually a centrist.
Now that the primary season has passed its peak of entertainment, and we are saddled with the default candidate I'm sure we will be subjected to reruns of Reagan adoration as Romney tries to confuse voters with his execu-speak. And as we watch the faithful fall in line I will be reminded of that old Reagan witticism "there you go again".
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Social Security Funding
Letter to AJC 4-24-12
Per the headline in the AJC, the social security trust fund is projected to exhaust in 2033. That issue can be completely solved by removing the cap on payments into social security. Currently, anyone earning up to $110,000 pays 6.2% of their income into the trust fund. People earning more pay a smaller percentage.
For example someone earning $250,000 pays 2.7%, and anyone earning a million dollars or more pays 1.0% or less. Is this a reasonable formula? Once again rich people pay less than their fair share, and those that really need social security to live with some form of dignity in their senior years, will suffer a loss of benefits because of this inequity.
Per the headline in the AJC, the social security trust fund is projected to exhaust in 2033. That issue can be completely solved by removing the cap on payments into social security. Currently, anyone earning up to $110,000 pays 6.2% of their income into the trust fund. People earning more pay a smaller percentage.
For example someone earning $250,000 pays 2.7%, and anyone earning a million dollars or more pays 1.0% or less. Is this a reasonable formula? Once again rich people pay less than their fair share, and those that really need social security to live with some form of dignity in their senior years, will suffer a loss of benefits because of this inequity.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
David Brooks Column 4-16-2012
Letter to AJC 4-16-2012
David Brooks has pinpointed one of the biggest reasons for high unemployment; industrial efficiency gains. Even as our export trade grows by leaps and bounds, workers in traditional manufacturing and service roles find it extremely difficult to locate and keep a job. Brooks has labeled this new economy I (E-I) and made the erroneous jump of claiming that only the republicans occupy that E- I mindset. Thats a nice political spin move, but it just doesn't ring true, given the number of democrats spear heading large efficient corporations. Unfortunately Brooks did not offer any solutions.
It's clear that the normal process for job creation has changed. Large industrial corporations have developed ways to increase their output per employee by using sophisticated technology that reduces the need for people. This demands new thinking about our long term education and training programs to prepare for future demands instead of the current system that has failed our graduates in terms of career selection and skills. It also demands a new approach to job creation, something that no longer depends on the vagaries of the rich.
Tom
David Brooks has pinpointed one of the biggest reasons for high unemployment; industrial efficiency gains. Even as our export trade grows by leaps and bounds, workers in traditional manufacturing and service roles find it extremely difficult to locate and keep a job. Brooks has labeled this new economy I (E-I) and made the erroneous jump of claiming that only the republicans occupy that E- I mindset. Thats a nice political spin move, but it just doesn't ring true, given the number of democrats spear heading large efficient corporations. Unfortunately Brooks did not offer any solutions.
It's clear that the normal process for job creation has changed. Large industrial corporations have developed ways to increase their output per employee by using sophisticated technology that reduces the need for people. This demands new thinking about our long term education and training programs to prepare for future demands instead of the current system that has failed our graduates in terms of career selection and skills. It also demands a new approach to job creation, something that no longer depends on the vagaries of the rich.
Tom
Friday, April 13, 2012
Hilary Rosen comments on Ann Romney
Letter to AJC 4-13-2012 (This one was published)
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words when Hilary Rosen commented on Ann Romney "not working a day in her life". That's an unfair characterization of mothers in general, but then no one can really say that Ann Romney is a typical mom. With two Cadillacs, three houses, untold wealth,and unlimited outside help, it's clear she hasn't experienced the daily grind of the real American mom.
Unfortunately the main point of Rosen's quip has been glossed over by the diversionary tactics of the republican media machine. If Mitt Romney considers his wife an advisor on the nation's economy, it is an unsettling exposure of his inadequacy to lead this country.
Tom
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words when Hilary Rosen commented on Ann Romney "not working a day in her life". That's an unfair characterization of mothers in general, but then no one can really say that Ann Romney is a typical mom. With two Cadillacs, three houses, untold wealth,and unlimited outside help, it's clear she hasn't experienced the daily grind of the real American mom.
Unfortunately the main point of Rosen's quip has been glossed over by the diversionary tactics of the republican media machine. If Mitt Romney considers his wife an advisor on the nation's economy, it is an unsettling exposure of his inadequacy to lead this country.
Tom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)