WHEN THE LEFT IS RIGHT

Ra Energy Fdn.
Raleigh Myers
Worksheet bio
http://raenergy.igc.org/bio.html
Blog
http://raenergy.blogspot.com/

WHEN THE LEFT IS RIGHT

by Marty Jezer

The political nomenclature "left" and "right" originated at the time
of the French Revolution. French legislators favoring radical reform
sat on the left side of the legislative assembly and those favoring
the old aristocratic order sat on the right.

Through the years, as the political terminology has evolved, leftists
have come to be associated with social and political change while
rightists have come to be identified as conservatives who revere
tradition and the maintenance of the status quo.

In the United States in 2004 the meaning of these two terms has been
reversed. The self-described "conservatives" of the Bush
administration are pushing for sweeping, far-reaching change. It's the
Democrats, or left-of-center liberals, who are in the position of
fighting to preserve the status quo.

Since the 1930s, the United States has been governed by a political
philosophy of a mixed economy, government regulation of the
marketplace, and economic and social programs to moderate poverty and
encourage economic opportunity and growth.

This philosophy has been predicated on a social contract of shared
burdens, with all Americans contributing to the national good on the
basis of their incomes and skills. We all kick in tax money for public
investment, to fight poverty, and to assure that our fellow citizens
have a comfortable retirement. This philosophy transformed us into a
prosperous nation, the richest and (for good or for ill) the most
powerful nation in the world.

The Second World War was the best expression of this national
consensus. Americans from all economic classes fought and, without
complaining, shared in the rationing of resources and in the paying of
higher taxes. John Kennedy, in his 1960 inaugural address, articulated
this still existent social contract very well. "Ask not what your
country can do for you," he said, "ask what you can do for your
country."

Under the Bush administration this philosophy of shared burdens is
under assault. The most egregious examples are the war in Iraq and the
proposed effort to privatize social security.

It's understandable that most parents don't want their children
risking their lives by joining the military. It's also understandable
that most college-educated kids with job opportunities are not avidly
pursuing military careers. But it's unprecedented -- and a gross
violation of the social contract that has long drew us together --
that the most gung ho supporters of war oppose paying taxes to finance
it.

The Bush administration has transformed patriotism into a cheap and
symbolic sentiment. Wear an American flag lapel pin, but buy SUVs and
Hummers, burn gasoline, and oppose the raising of taxes to support
public investment in energy independence. Poor and working class kids
will meet the needs of military recruiters; the rest of us sacrifice
nothing. Wave the flag and party hearty.

This is even truer of the social security proposal. When I was growing
up, young people expected to pay a payroll tax to help finance the
retirement benefits of their parents and grandparents. Even during the
generational battles of the 1960s no one complained about the payroll
tax; young people didn't think it an unfair burden.

I don't think today's young people are more selfish than previous
generations. But all of sudden we hear that the social security tax is
unfair; that young people shouldn't be forced to support the
retirement of their elders.

This mantra comes not from young people but from right-wing
ideologues, the political descendents of those who opposed social
security from the very beginning. Just as 9/11 gave them an excuse to
start a pre-planned Iraqi war, right-wingers have used an apparent
crisis in Social Security as an excuse to sabotage the integrity of
the entire system.

The crisis of course is a hoax. Because of the retirement demands of
the baby boom generation, the government projects that, without
reform, the Social Security Trust Fund will run out of money in 2042.
Protecting the Trust Fund requires simple adjustments, not basic
restructuring. As it exists, the Social Security payroll tax is highly
regressive. Low and middle-income employees pay a much greater
percentage of their wages than wealthy individuals. One easy fix is to
raise the cap on payroll taxes, which now stands at $87,900. But with
the Bush administration this is a non-starter. Their first principle
of governance is to lower taxes for their wealthy benefactors.

Moreover, financial investments are always risky. Investors have been
known to lose their shirts in the stock market. Indeed, any prospectus
for buying stocks warns as much. The brilliance of Social Security is
that it provides risk-free pensions for senior citizens. Those who
want to invest in the financial markets and partake in the risks of
the "ownership society" are always free to do so, with or without
privatization.

The plan to privatize social security is a gift to the financial
industry and an attack on one of the most successful programs ever to
come out of the New Deal. It will also be terribly expensive, with
transition costs, according to proponents of the plan, estimated at
between hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars over a decade.
Because of tax cuts, all of this money will have to be borrowed.
According to Joshua B. Bolten, the director of the White House's
Office of Management and Budget, such massive borrowing, even with
existing deficits, is "fiscally prudent."

There is nothing prudent or, for that matter, conservative, about the
administration's Social Security plan or its militaristic foreign
policy. Both policies, and many others, represent a reckless ideology.
Republicans are hell-bent on destroying our country's unifying social
contract. History calls upon Democrats to uphold conservative
doctrines and traditional governing values, and to defend those
ethical principles of social justice that have inspired our nation for
generations.

-30-

Marty Jezer is a weekend columnist for the Brattleboro (VT) Reformer
where this commentary first appeared. He welcomes comments at
mjez@sover.net.


"Fascism should more appropriately be called CORPORATISM because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini (from Encyclopedia Italiana, Giovanni Gentile, editor). http://raenergy.igc.org/republicanfascistparty.html



Ra Energy Fdn.
Raleigh Myers
Worksheet bio
http://raenergy.igc.org/bio.html
Blog
http://raenergy.blogspot.com/

Call to Action blog a virtual seminar for change
http://www.google.com/search?q=Global+Vote+raenergy&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=02Eigc%2Eorg%2Faction%2Ehtml

Newsgroups beginning in the eighties click on date and web
http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Ra+Energy+Fdn%2E%22

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - - Margaret Mead