Julio, I just got these posts.
The relationship between a Social Security recipient and the federal government with respect to Social Security benefits is not a contractual relation. However, a Social Security recipient does have a legal right to benefits ( assuming they did what is required to get the benefits). So, they could go into court and get the benefits if denied them. It is just that their cause of action would not be a contract breach. I don't think the amount of benefits is specified, or if I skimmed accurately, it is as Doug says , that Congress can change the benefit amounts. As to Full Employment, I don't think that Humphrey-Hawkins or the earlier act gives every individual a right to a job, so, there would be no individual cause of action. Unfortunately , the Full Employment law is pretty much worthless, because the law doesn't make mandatory any specific economic policy actions to make full employment. The right could claim that supply side measures or cutting taxes on the rich lead to full employment, and there would be no legal way to counter that. I hope this is on point . Charles From: Julio Huato I reposted my contributions to this thread on my blog: http://juliohuato.wordpress.com/ And I added this postface: I will end this post by conceding to Doug that, his belief that ? for whatever reason (because they are ?well defined? or whatever) ? private contracts are more binding than public programs enacted and ?funded? by Congress to provide a social safety net is a belief that seems to be shared by a lot of Americans (aside from the fact that legal casuistry matters, for as long as people abide by the law). To that extent, Doug is indeed talking of the world we live in, because the fact that people massively believe the story turns it ipso facto into a harder-wired social reality, whereas the notion that all financial assets are contingent and represent merely ways in which societies reshuffle the wealth that they produce may be a theoretical notion incomprehensible to most Americans right now and, hence, not real. But if now ? when a triple-whammy combo is shaking U.S. capitalism (the crises of the economy, the environment, and U.S. hegemony) ? is not the time for the critics of capitalism to emphasize the fluidity or plasticity of social forms, then when? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
