It was worse than that. The original (1935) act just covered workers and
wasn't supposed to start until 1942. In 1939, they amended the act to
add survivors and moved up the start date to 1940. But those were
different times, with different power relations. In this environment,
the Senate bill is such a long slog, I think it would be better to
start over again, with something less cluttered like lowering Medicare
to age 55.
Joel Blau
Max B. Sawicky wrote:
It's true there are no good options politically.
If they pass something crappy there is some chance of it being amended
and expanded, salami-style.
I should remind all that Social Security had some egregious features
as
enacted too -- namely the de facto exclusion of African-Americans.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael
Perelman
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:28 PM
To: Progressive Economics
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Coming unhinged over health reform?
The Dems are damned if you do and damned if you don't. If they pass
it &
nothing great happens before the next election cycle begins in a few
months, they will look bad.
Max wrote:
Assuming Dean is right that the bill sucks too much for words, there
is still no persuasive
fallback position politically that I see. I see a repeat of 1994
and two to four years of
even more Clintonesque crap. Dean admitted that the Dems at best
would see reduced majorities
in the Congress, and their Senate majority isn't worth shit now.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
