There's now intense discussion about Social Security. It is deserved. BUT what will be the VEHICLE to carry any conclusion/recommendation forward, the Democrats?
I think that progressive economists should look up local activist coalitions and organizations on campuses and in communities in the areas they live in and help them prepare for the Social Security and other economic battles, offering their expertise as researchers. If money is needed to get local campaigns going, visit <http://fundrace.org/neighbors.php>, do a neighbor search, look up individuals who gave to Democrats, and pitch campaign proposals (in neat Power Point presentations) to them -- some of them might cough up pocket change.
At 8:29 AM -0500 11/6/04, Paul Zarembka wrote:
I understand that Clinton was going to undermine SS along the lines Bush will be suggesting, but his impeachment saved the day and we gained time.
What progressive economists need to remembers is that not only Bill Clinton and the DLC took an initiative in undermining Social Security (presented as a way to fix the non-existent problem and save Social Security from the Republican predators) but PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS, UNIONS, and LIBERAL NON-PROFITS lined up behind it!
Progressive economists should revisit the Social Security debate in the Clinton era, determine which Democrats supported and opposed the Clinton plan, and, if the ones who supported it are still in Congress, (together with their local allies -- see my first paragraph above) start putting pressures on them as well as on Republicans. Do a preemptive strike!
[In the unlikely event that Bush goes unilateral, rather than multilateral, on domestic big-ticket items, a few more Democrats than just Dennis Kucinich and the like might get motivated to fight it.]
Cf. Rescued from the memory hole:
<http://www.progressive.org/conniff9903.htm> Will Democrats Abandon Social Security? By Ruth Conniff
. . . The Social Security debate is a case study of Clinton's twisted relationship with the left wing of his party.
If Clinton's welfare reform bill undermined the foundation of New Deal liberalism, his bid to "save" Social Security from insolvency and begin investing part of the program's funds in the stock market may finish the job.
Many Democrats are supporting Clinton in this effort--even though they don't believe Social Security is in any danger of going bankrupt. They publicly accept the idea of "saving" the system from a projected shortfall, because, they say, that's what the public believes must happen.
"The AFL-CIO has had polling done, and they convinced the unions and convinced me that the rightwing propaganda has been so successful, if you say there's no crisis, people won't listen to you," says Representative Jerry Nadler, a progressive Democrat from New York, who supports the President's Social Security plan.
Does that mean the Democrats are backing a plan to fix a problem that doesn't exist?
"That's exactly right," Nadler says. "The problem is illusory, but you have to act as if it's real."</blockquote> -- Yoshie Furuhashi English & Comparative Studies Ohio State University <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 614-668-6554
