The Washington Post's editorial board has been arguing for Social Security benefit cuts for years, so their negative reaction to the president's call to expand the program should come as no surprise. Still, readers might wonder about some of the claims made in the editorial: first, that the wealthy would benefit most from across-the-board expansion plans and we should instead help the "very poorest," second, that American seniors are better off than working-age adults and have higher incomes than their counterparts in other advanced economies, and finally, that we have better things to do with the limited tax revenues we might be able to wring from the wealthy.
Social Security is a through-the-looking-glass policy world, where progressives are constantly pushing back against conservatives who claim to want to focus on the poor. But the claim by conservatives that we should narrowly tailor Social Security to provide help to the poorest seniors sets up a destructive false choice. Social Security became the most effective antipoverty program precisely because it is social insurance and not simply a safety net program. We already have a means-tested old-age program—SSI—and it iswoefully inadequate. You'll get no argument from progressives on the need to increase SSI benefits, so ask yourself why conservatives want to make Social Security more like SSI.
Is it wasteful to expand a universal program that's unambiguously progressive but not narrowly targeted on the poor? No. First, it's important to understand that almost everyone, not just low earners, would better off if we expanded Social Security. Since the decline in traditional defined benefit pensions even many high earners—though maybe not those in Mitt Romney's income class—could use more secure retirement and disability benefits. But for most people, Social Security only replaces less than half of pre-retirement earnings. It's an efficient program with very low administrative costs. Instead of expanding it, however, we cut Social Security benefits in 1983, just as disastrous 401(k) plans came on the scene.
The Drumpf Horse
A Bebop Fable
The Drumpf Horse, a huge hollow bag of fetid wind constructed of Balsa wood, in the shape of a gigantic My Little Pony, and painted with rude effusions and insults very popular in the Republican Party during its Last Days. The bag was built by Bill Shite, a little-known, but immensely wealthy, human waste engineer, who, it turned out, was NOT a Republican. Indeed, the sole purpose of the Drumpf Horse was to expose and soil the entire party with a stench from which it could never recover. Each week the bag's messages of waste were exposed in front of everyone, right on TV, in ever more extravagant and colorful hues.
The Republican leaders were at first dismayed that so many of their heartfelt feelings on race, nationality, gender, democracy, violence, ignorance and venality were so exposed without the usual wrappings and codings. Some wondered if this could affect the flow of cash and power regularly derived from these confusions and divisions in the body politic. But they were silenced, one by one: "Last hurrah for the white man" some said, and were thrilled at the sight of the Drumpf Horse, usually found hovering above a media outlet. One by one, as the Drumpf horse gathered more and more Republican followers, the Republican leaders declared, some with gritted teeth, their LOVE for the Drumpf Horse, and sang along in xenophobic, misogynistic, humiliating glee!
O but the horror! O but the Unfairness of it all: After invading the hearts, minds and loins of nearly every remaining Republican, the Drumpf Horse exploded on election day. The wind was truly the beginning of a nasal winter. The results: complete obliteration of the Republican Party.
Bill Shite, Drumpf Horse Architect
----
For His Latest Trick, John Oliver Forgives $15 Million in Medical Debt
// NYT > Business
The host of HBO's "Last Week Tonight" has perfected the art of explaining complicated subjects.
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
[T]he overall labor market situation has been quite positive. In that context, this past Friday's labor market report was disappointing. Payroll gains were reported to have been much smaller in April and May than earlier in the year, averaging only about 80,000 per month.2 And while the unemployment rate was reported to have fallen further in May, that decline occurred not because more people had jobs but because fewer people reported that they were actively seeking work. A broader measure of labor market slack that includes workers marginally attached to the workforce and those working part-time who would prefer full-time work was unchanged. An encouraging aspect of the report, however, was that average hourly earnings for all employees in the nonfarm private sector increased 2-1/2 percent over the past 12 months--a bit faster than in recent years and a welcome indication that wage growth may finally be picking up.Yellen remains cautiously optimistic, but no indication of a rate increase in June.
Although this recent labor market report was, on balance, concerning, let me emphasize that one should never attach too much significance to any single monthly report. Other timely indicators from the labor market have been more positive. For example, the number of people filing new claims for unemployment insurance--which can be a good early indicator of changes in labor market conditions--remains quite low, and the public's perceptions of the health of the labor market, as reported in various consumer surveys, remain positive. That said, the monthly labor market report is an important economic indicator, and so we will need to watch labor market developments carefully.
A man leaving a campaign rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump squares off against protesters following him on Thursday, June 2, 2016, in San Jose, California. A group of protesters attacked Trump supporters who were leaving the presidential candidate's rally in San Jose on Thursday night. A dozen or more people were punched, at least one person was pelted with an egg and Trump hats grabbed from supporters were set on fire on the ground.
The 2016 election may not quite be turning into a repeat of 1968, but the tension is certainly rising. Just as the violence around Donald Trump's rallies seemed to abate, it has now returned, in a widening circle of chaos. And now people outraged by Trump are getting in on the action; last Thursday outside a Trump rally in San Jose, Trump supporters were hit with eggs and fists, leading to some blood being spilled and people being arrested. Prominent Democrats everywhere condemned the incident, including Hillary Clinton andBernie Sanders, not to mention all manner of liberal pundit-types. But there were also voices on social media praising the violence, essentially arguing that since the threat from Trump is so urgent, beating up some people who support him is justified.
That's plainly ridiculous; if you object to Donald Trump's thuggish ways, breaking out a little thuggery of your own has no moral justification. If you slug a Donald Trump supporter, all you're doing is agreeing with him that people who disagree with you politically should be subjected to violent abuse as punishment for their thought crimes. As Jamelle Bouie writes, "it's mobocracy. And it runs counter to the liberal democratic ideal—the thing we're defending in the first place."
It's also just about the worst way you could come up with to move events in your desired direction, presuming that those few lefties throwing punches actually want to see Trump defeated. There's going to be an election in five months, and if you don't want Trump to become president, you should think about how to persuade the maximum number of people to vote against him, because that's how he'll be defeated. I'm pretty sure that beating up Trump supporters in front of the news cameras is not the way to do that.
But I'd guess that the ones spoiling for a fight aren't thinking strategically. They're mad, and they go down to the Trump rally to express their anger. And let's be clear about something else: It's pretty exciting, even if you don't start a melee. Just being in a hostile environment, facing off with your comrades against people you're sure are personally contemptible, and are certainly participants in a cause you despise, guarantees you an eventful evening.
We should never underestimate the role drama plays in motivating political involvement and political decisions. Political action isn't just about bringing the kind of change you think is desirable, it can also offer social gratifications and a sense of purpose. Nevertheless, most of the things one does to participate in politics are pretty unexciting. There's rarely anything electrifying about knocking on doors or making phone calls, no matter how meaningful the overall effort. But going to the other side's rally to confront his supporters? That'll get your blood pumping.
I suspect that the desire for drama is now leading at least a few Bernie Sanders supporters to consider a way to thrust their swords one last time at Hillary Clinton, no matter how doomed the effort. As Annie Karni of Politico recently detailed, some Sanders delegates are heading to the convention in Philadelphia with the intention of stirring things up, eager to stage protests and draw attention to their own ideas and concerns. To which one might say: Of course they are. Even if the overwhelming majority of Sanders voters will vote for Clinton and realize there's not much purpose in trying to screw up the convention for her, there are those for whom a unified convention seems like the end of a noble crusade, with no gratification to offer them. There are some activists participating in this primary contest not because they want Democrats to win or even because they're all that concerned about the outcome of the presidential race, but because it's a vehicle for them to draw attention to their own issues, the issues they cared about before this election began and the ones they'll care about after it's over. "This is a battle and we're not going to give in," one told Karni. "We will not stop yelling about what we think the people need." If that's your plan, no concession on the party platform is going to satisfy you; the yelling is the whole reason you're there.
That's not really Bernie Sanders' fault; right now he's trying to both give his supporters hope that he can still beat Clinton and turn the focus on Trump, which is a tricky line to walk. But disruptions could happen at the Democratic convention whether Sanders sanctions them or not. When he issues his call for unity (and he will), there will be Sandernistas who conclude that Sanders himself is insufficiently committed to the Sanders cause. And they'll want to keep fighting Clinton in Philadelphia, because fighting her and what she represents is what gives them energy and purpose; joining with her to fight Donald Trump doesn't feel quite as revolutionary.
So both conventions may end up featuring loud protests, backroom dealings, and even some pushing and shoving, if not worse. The comparisons to the bloody Democratic convention of 1968 will be inevitable. In that campaign, there was a candidate who claimed to speak for the "silent majority." He used the violence at the Democratic convention to weave a tale of a nation in chaos, with crime in the streets, hippies scorning traditional values and hierarchies, war overseas, and a general atmosphere of societal breakdown. He aired ads like this one, meant to tie it all together in one horrifying, seizure-inducing assault on all that was right and good. And, he said, Democrats were the enablers of chaos, too weak and indulgent to give those no-goodniks the smack upside the head they deserved.
This year isn't quite the same; Donald Trump may claim to speak for a new silent majority, but it's obvious to just about everyone that he's the primary sower of chaos. That's not to mention the fact that he doesn't have a majority, and his supporters are anything but silent. And if he looks like he's losing, more of his supporters, who already feel like the America of their youth has been stolen from them, may be tempted to take a swing at the people they perceive are sending them to another defeat. This isn't the last time we'll see bloodied noses at a campaign event, from one side or the other. Let's just hope it doesn't get any worse.
