Wednesday, June 23, 2010
MoveOn.org is of course blaming Republicans and Conservatives for the cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
Dear MoveOn member,
It sounds like something Glenn Beck would cook up: a powerful cabal of right-wing ideologues hatches a secret plan to force cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and they're on the verge of succeeding. 1 But it's true.
Right now, the stars are aligned for conservatives who've spent decades trying to cut Social Security—the heart of the New Deal. They're focusing public anxiety over the economy on the deficit—and even though the deficit is almost entirely a result of Bush cutting taxes for the rich while waging two wars, the "deficit hawks" want us to cut the programs vulnerable Americans rely on to survive—Social Security and Medicare. 2
And instead of articulating a progressive response, Democrats seem frozen, like deer in the headlights.
Against this backdrop, the President has appointed a "deficit commission" stacked with deficit hawks. Right after the election Congress will vote on the commission's recommendations.
Right now, this threat isn't even on most of our radar screens. So we have a special request: will you help us fund a major campaign to keep this from happening? We'll use every tool at our disposal, and the combined voices of 5 million MoveOn members, to demand that Congress deal with the deficit the right way—by helping the middle class get back on their feet and making Wall Street pay its fair share. And we'll show wavering politicians that cutting Social Security will cost them at home.
To do it, we need to raise $185,000. That means we need 3 people from your town to make a contribution. Can you chip in $5?
Why does the deficit commission pose such a threat? Because almost all of its members have interests in seeing cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other safety net programs.
Here's an introduction to some of the folks on the Commission that we're up against:
Erskine Bowles, Co-Chair: An investment-banking millionaire who now sits on the Board of Directors for Morgan Stanley and General Motors. Bowles was Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, where he was called "Corporate America's Friend in the White House" as he negotiated with Newt Gingrich for how best to cut safety net programs.
Alan Simpson, Co-Chair: A GOP power player during the Conservative movement's heyday, he led Clinton-era attacks on Social Security and is already crusading publicly for cuts to Social Security and Medicare to address the deficit.
David M. Cote: CEO of Honeywell, a defense contractor making millions from the Department of Defense and responsible for costing us millions of dollars in misconduct—including failing to test bulletproof vests sent to US troops.
And they're just the tip of the iceberg.
We're planning a full-court press. Washington has to hear the stories of the real people who will be hurt by cuts. We'll run ads and organize in home districts of members of Congress considering cuts, work with progressive policy experts to push real solutions, and respond to the conservative propaganda wherever we can.
But we need to get started. Can you chip in $5 to make it crystal clear to lawmakers how the American people feel about Social Security cuts?
Thanks for all you do.
–Nita, Daniel, Duncan, Amy, Stephen, and the rest of the team
MoveOn.org's been dealt quite a blow recently when Blanche Lincoln beat the progressive they were fighting for in the election, Bill Halter. They've been pretty quiet with the e-mails since that loss.
Now they're trying to tackle another issue with lies. MoveOn's exact words call Social Security "the heart of the New Deal". That's proof enough that the New Deal was a bunch of sh*t from the beginning.
Did you know that when Social Security was passed the average life expectancy was 59? Yet the program didn't pay out any benefits until you turned 62. Coincidence...you make the call. If you did in fact live past 62 then you made out well in the beginning of Social Security. Most who received it made far more on the program than they ever paid into it and there were far more workers paying the Social Security tax than there were collecting the checks.
The problem is that the program has remained the same for nearly 80 years! It has never been reformed even though people now tend to live much longer than 62. Hell, many people work until they're 65 before they even retire, never mind the likely 20 years or so they can be expected to live beyond that retirement.
MoveOn thinks that nobody has been paying attention to the spending of the Obama administration. They say, "They're focusing public anxiety over the economy on the deficit—and even though the deficit is almost entirely a result of Bush cutting taxes for the rich while waging two wars".
They should research history a little more. When taxes are decreased, revenues increase, it's an easily proven fact if you do the homework on it. Art Laffer's Laffer curve explains it fairly simply. If you want the proof then read, The End Of Prosperity, by Art Laffer and Roger Moore.
Also, it's worth noting that all of the failed stimulus spending, political payoffs in health care, the health care bill itself, plus the billions and billions more being spent by this administration as well as the last one, are costing us much more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Remember this: *note: I'm sure you don't:
"If I may, let me explain the situation and what it is we were trying to do with Social Security. I have reneged no pledge. I said during the campaign that we would do nothing to hurt those presently dependent on Social Security checks - that we would not pull the rug out from under those people so dependent. I did say that I would try to restore the integrity to the program. As it is now, the program without change will run out of money for paying benefits to the present recipients sometime late in 1982. Beyond that, however, there is a long-range actuarial imbalance which means that down the road in the next century, but within the lifetime of younger workers today, the program will be several trillion dollars out of balance." - Ronald Reagan July 24, 1981
This quote has proven so true that it makes Reagan critics look ridiculous. Nobody can deny that he was right. It's also worth noting that he did temporarily save Social Security in the 80's but let's get back into modern times.
Do you remember when Bush talked about private accounts for Social Security? Democrats were proud of the fact that they didn't support the long term solution for Social Security. You don't have to agree with that plan, but isn't it fair to ask for a solution of your own. The Democrats didn't support private accounts but offered absolutely no solution themselves.
Now it's a far bigger crisis. There are far less people working now than there were a few years ago. That means less people paying into the Social Security system and even more people taking money out of the government because of unemployment benefits etc. It's causing Social Security to go bankrupt even faster.
"We'll run ads and organize in home districts of members of Congress considering cuts, work with progressive policy experts to push real solutions, and respond to the conservative propaganda wherever we can."
Let me ask you something. What sounds more like propaganda to you, the letter from MoveOn.org, or the points I'm making?
The progressive left call accurate history propaganda. They call various positions supported by a majority of Americans extremist positions: Tea parties, no government run health care, believing the Constitution doesn't need to be interpreted because it says exactly what it means.
I also find it laughable that every time MoveOn.org takes on a position they send a message of: MoveOn can fix it, send us money. Proof of how dumb the real supporters of MoveOn.org truly are.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Aren't the progressives, as well as those in groups like MoveOn.org, pushing for a government that stands for the very thing Jefferson as well as just about all of the other Founders were warning against?