While our mass media hypes up things that are really diversions, many really relvant issues are ignored or given very little exposure. What issues that are exposed they are often exposed in such a superficial way by politicians that we get no clue as to what that politician’s real philosophy is.
While the media pushes story after story about transgendered individuals, the real political issues we should be talking about are things like wealth inequality, invading other countries, policies that create inflation, individual rights, voting rights and food insecurity and the like.
As we chase rabbits into rabbit holes, huge money is betting on politicians they can control to quietly get the political outcomes they want. One such issue I stumbled on earlier this week is crypto currency. We have written about it before as have many others, but the behind the scenes workings of crypto remains mysterious as does who will win if (when) crypto is legitimized. Considering the money behind crypto you can bet it won’t be you and me.
Here is a video from our friends at More Perfect Union that makes an attempt to demonstrate how corrupting crypto is and how damaging it will be. This video is 11 minutes long. It scared the hell out of me. Note that preliminary congressional action will happen September 15th. So write of call now to let them know you are watching:
Another seldom spoken of issue is the coming Social Security insufficiency that is scheduled to arrive around 2032. That is in a little over 5 years. What that means is that the vote that we cast this year for a senate candidate this year will be in office as the Social Security issue becomes a crisis. That is of course assuming that there will be no fix until it becomes a crisis.
Keep that in the back of your mind as you go to cast your ballot this November. Do you think Josh Turek will do anything to update the Social Security system before it becomes a crisis? I do. Turek is a populist. A decent retirement is part of a populist agenda.
Do you think Ashley Hinson do anything to make Social Security stronger. Based on her votes and on her positions as a MAGA candidate, I can easily say that she will do all she can to bring about the end of SS as we know it. I could easily see her as a vote to privatize Social Security and turn the trillions of the elderly over to those who fund the Republican Party.
One thing for sure – in order to maintain Social Security taxes will most likely have to be raised on the rich. You surely won’t see Hinson do that. So if you vote for Hinson understand that your are probably voting to end Social Security.
Paul Krugman took a look at SS as a hostage issue a couple of months ago:
Now, unlike food stamps — but like the highway trust fund — Social Security is on paper supported by a dedicated tax, the payroll tax, that is assigned to that program. But I say “on paper” because from an economic point of view assigning the payroll tax to Social Security is just an accounting convention. What matters for the U.S. economy is the overall balance between government spending and government revenue, not the difference between one type of spending and one source of revenue. So there’s no inherent economic significance to the fact that by 2034 payroll tax receipts will be insufficient to cover promised benefits.
There is, however, a legislative issue. As long as the Social Security Administration can pay benefits out of payroll taxes and its cash reserve, there’s no need for Congress to vote each year to authorize benefits — they just keep going out until further notice. However, once those resources become insufficient, benefits will fall —by 17 percent according to the Trustees — unless Congress passes new legislation that “tops up” Social Security’s finances.
Yet the current administration and Republican party are such extremists that there is a real risk that Social Security will be held hostage on behalf of their goals. If this should come to pass, the hostage-takers will claim that shoring up Social Security is unaffordable. Right on cue, Mike Johnson, the Trump-sycophant Speaker of the House, declared on Monday that “entitlement programs” like Social Security “have to be adjusted and fixed,” and that Republicans will introduce a plan to that effect next year.
But this is a ploy, because while the cost of maintaining Social Security benefits at their promised level isn’t trivial, it is in fact affordable. According to the Trustees’ report, the actuarial balance of OASDI up through 2050 — the amount of additional funds it would need to keep paying full benefits for the next 25 years — is 1.06 percent of GDP. To put that number in perspective, the Trump administration proposes increasing military spending next year by $420 billion, equivalent to about 1.4 percent of GDP – without any discussion of whether that’s affordable
Alex Lawsson of Social Security Works (2 minutes):
Blog For Iowa 