The ruling class has always been telling us that we need to make cuts in order to eliminate the national deficit. They have talked about cutting taxes and government spending in order to accomplish this. In addition to this, they are in favor of cutting "entitlements" such as Social Security and raising the retirement age, thereby making the working class pay for their crisis.
The narrative goes something like this: We have a have a huge national deficit. We also have high unemployment. In order to get the top of the economy investing in jobs again, we need to cut taxes. This, however, will increase our already bursting-at-the-seams deficit. This means we have to cut government spending. This is OK, because for years we have been told government can’t do anything right, so why not cut it even more!
But this means we’ve got to find programs to cut. Cutting military spending is obviously out of the question. Do you want to be seen as less than patriotic? I’ve got it! “Entitlements” are the problem! Why should anyone think they are entitled to anything anyway? Of course, the word “entitlement” is purposely emphasized. If you listen you can even hear pundits pronounce it a bit bolder, and with a fair amount of cynical disdain, as to say “handout.” In reality, they’re benefits we have earned through our own labor -- deferred wages and benefits we have been promised to be paid when we retire.
While no one was quite bold enough to campaign openly on cutting the nation’s favorite government program, Social Security, the topic is still being discussed in back rooms by politicians and appointed bureaucrats alike. This is the case with President Obama’s deficit commission, or rather the “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform,” headed by former Senator Alan Simpson and Morgan Stanley board member Erskine Bowles. Both of these entrenched hagglers have endorsed cuts to Social Security as well as raising the retirement age.
This commission is set to give a recommendation to the outgoing Congress that is almost sure to include such measures. It’s not unthinkable that in some bizarre plot to “save” Social Security before the Republicans take over the House, the Democrats will push through “reforms,” in reality, counter-reforms. Instead of tweaks to shore up the program completely for the next century or so, which would not be too difficult at all, they almost certainly would be “kinder, gentler” cuts in an effort to beat the Republicans to the punch. In the wild and crazy world that is Democratic policy-making, this sort of jump to the right would be presented as a strategic victory. (Remember Clinton’s welfare “reform”?)
For their part, the Republicans want to destroy the very idea of Social Security. From witchcraft to people who made their fortune off sweaty groin kicks, the Republican Party is more of a reality show than a political party. But due to lack of a viable alternative, America has tuned in, desperate for change, any change. But they didn’t vote for the privatization of Social Security! Given this was already tried and quite handily rejected, various “nips and tucks” to benefits will more likely be their short term goal. In this, they are in complete agreement with the Democrats.
As we have made clear in these pages, your Social Security is not safe with a Democrat or a Republican in office. Despite the fact that it remains one of the most popular, and solvent, government programs in the history of the country, the attacks from the two parties of business will not relent. It will take nothing less than a class independent political presence to protect what is rightfully ours.
Source: Socialist Appeal (United States)