The Big Idea That Could Bring Disaffected Voters Back to the Polls By William Greider November 18

[Proserpina]

Bernie Sanders has a plan to expand, not “save,” Social Security—and it should be popular.

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-big-idea-that-could-bring-disaffected-voters-back-to-the-polls/

...The 2016 election is not actually about personalities. It’s about ideas—big ideas for governing that, win or lose, can change the country for better or for worse. Republicans are stuck in the past, still longing for the return of their dead president and his trickle-down Reaganomics. Left-liberal and progressive Democrats are prodding their party to reverse the Gipper in major ways by doing big things that would benefit millions of people—like expanding Social Security benefits instead of cutting them. So despite the media’s trivial pursuits, I expect the 2016 election will ultimately pivot on ideological conflict, powered by the great social and economic dislocations that have shaken society’s self-confidence. Dozens of right-left governing issues are already in play, setting up an emotional clash between bleeding-heart optimism on the left and nostalgic resentments on the right.

The most significant of these collisions may be the reemergence of an old and familiar argument about reforming Social Security. This time, left-ish Dems want to expand its benefits and protections and raise the payroll tax on top-level incomes to pay for the expansion. The herd of GOP candidates is once again promising to cut Social Security benefits and maybe turn the government system over to private enterprise (that is, the financial system that wreaked havoc on US prosperity). Veteran campaign reporters evidently think it’s boring, since they seldom mention the issue. But don’t be surprised if the fight over this old New Deal program emerges next year as a crucial battlefront between the parties. In fact, it may provide Democrats with a great opportunity to change the shape of the American electorate and reconnect with disenchanted working-class voters who feel the Democratic Party abandoned them.

Social Security is arguably the federal government’s most popular program, more efficient and responsive than most. It is valued by overwhelming majorities across party lines, age brackets and even income levels. It’s supported by Republicans (81 percent) and by Democrats (94 percent) and by independents (91 percent), from Baby Boomers to Generation Xers and to millennials. What is most relevant is that strong majorities in all sectors—even 62 percent of Republicans—think the government should consider increasing the benefits. So why don’t media see the story?

The distorted politics surrounding Social Security is itself a scandal. It demonstrates how gravely representative democracy has been eviscerated during the last generation by the political elites and financial interests who claim Social Security is dragging the country to financial ruin. Again and again, high-minded experts in the academy and Washington think tanks issue “Chicken Little” forecasts and mobilize well-financed campaigns to persuade politicians (if not citizens) that Social Security must be pruned back substantially in order to reduce federal deficits. This is an utterly fallacious complaint, but the prestige media have lazily swallowed the propaganda. Missing from their “crisis” stories is any evidence that reporters have actually talked to real people—the workers or retirees who depend on the program. If they did, people would explain that the Social Security payments are actually their money—not appropriations from Congress or Treasury or taxpayers. Working people contribute to Social Security every payday with the FICA deductions from their paychecks...

TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND THEIR PLANS FOLLOWS...SEE LINK

[longship]

1. Greider is always a worthwhile read. R&K nt

[Doubledee]

2. Those who do not choose to vote

are a part of the serious problems affecting our system of governance. That the right works diligently to limit voter participation has been true for many years and shows plainly how important full participation is to a democracy.

[hobbit709]

4. Too many people don't get excited about R-Lite and "not as bad as the other guy"

No clear choices means no motivation to a lot of people.

[daleanime]

7. A problem 'party leadership'.....

is all too willing to avoid.

[raouldukelives]

5. Indeed. And also those who back and invest in right leaning corporations.

For they, ultimately, bear the most responsibility for being an owner. For literally financing and putting their John Hancock on the efforts to limit voting to the least represented by wealth among us.

[nashville_brook]

6. is it "the people who choose not to vote" or the system that communicates their vote

doesn't count, or won't be counted?

[hedda_foil]

16. It's both, of course.

Remember, Democrats regularly were elected in statewide races in Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida and Georgia (including Dem presidential voting) until the less than Supremes decided that little Bush should be president.

But by that time, the DLC and the right wing takeover of AM radio (enabled by Clinton among other things,) kept some white liberal Dems from the polls and began the outrageous caging of black voters, particularly, in the South, but soon to be everywhere.

[Fuddnik]

8. Give me someone to vote FOR instead of AGAINST, and I'll think about it.

I haven't missed an election since 1972. But, I'm getting tired of voting for one asshole, just to keep a bigger asshole out of office.

[Doubledee]

10. No shortage of FOR votes

Perhaps first one must understand that progress is incremental and seeking political purity in a candidate is futile. I think voting for Green Party candidates, especially in local and state races, is such a FOR vote, you might not.

But the point remains that no candidate is 100% in line with your wishes, or mine either. But voting for the candidate who, on balance, supports the majority of what you seek is a good step. Once elected , and presumably working towards those common goals, the power of the people can be put to bear to work for the rest of the agenda we seek.

I hope you do think about it.

[MisterP]

15. but there's been a shortage of candidates "who, on balance, supports the majority of what you seek"

they tell us to "go vote in the primaries if you're unhappy," but primaries are the perfect place to block change even when the challenger is more popular against the Pub than the incumbent: Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, Buono, Lutrin, Rev. Manuel Sykes, Weiland, now Wendy Davis, Grimes; they ran Coakley, Mahoney, Alex Sink, and Mary Burke as outright punters

the party establishment backed Lieberman's third-party run over and gave us Clarence Thomas back in 1991; all their wailing about Nader and SCOTUS isn't to *convince* us but to delay any resistance to their well-heeled takeover; this process is very clear to DU vets

[libdem4life]

17. The New Deal, The Fair Deal and The Real Deal.

Someone posted this in graphic form.,.would like to see and share with those missed it.

Spoiler Alert ... they are all proud Democrats

Edit..,,then there is The Raw Deal from the Scrooge Party

[orpupilofnature57]

3. I called unregistered people 18-23 last month and Bernie is the only reason they did .

The hypocrisy of the " Third Way " is an esoteric message to the youth of this country , and the listless feeling of being ineffectual is parallel with the heroin epidemic, no goals career wise, and the apathy about voting .

[Akamai]

9. You are correct! The third way is anti-progressive and, as far as I can see, exists

simply to defang progressives and limit their well-placed anger against the RW extremists.

We should not compromise with people seeking to destroy the social fabric of this country.

[greymattermom]

11. Just make it local

Tell folks what projects will get done in their area, what money will end up in their pockets, how their grandma will benefit, and folks will vote. Folks will vote to replace OUR rickety bridge and OUR crumbling dam, and put some more money in OUR paychecks. Candidates need to add local content to their stump speeches at every stop. All candidates need to add a couple of sentences mentioning specific things the will do that will be seen and felt locally.

[humbled_opinion]

12. However,

people do worry about how government will be able to pay for all of this. It doesn't help that the national debt has gone from 10 Trillion in 2000 to nearly 20 Trillion in 15 years.. The wars that cost these trillions are promoted by politicians on both sides and with Russia in Syria, Iran and Israel, it appears that peace is very far away indeed. So the right will talk about people cheating and gaming the social welfare systems, the left will talk about the need to reduce spending on the MIC.... and a happy medium will not be found. We will be torn one way or the other and well if nothing gets done simply math will eventually do us all in.

[erronis]

13. Excellent post - thanks for putting it on my plate this morning.

I agree that Social Security is immensely popular (it's how I pay all my bills) and that it should be strengthened and expanded. Of course if the higher-income payees make higher contributions, they'd also expect higher payouts

Along these same lines is the expansion of Medicare to *all* Americans, including the armed services, federal workers, and congress. No more special "socialized" medicine for the critters.

[Fast Walker 52]

14. The elites or PTB that run the media HATE social security!

they see it as a useless use of government money, from which they can't make a profit. Never mind how many lives it saves and helps.