CARRYING FOR THE RICH EVERY DAY by RW SPISAK
LAST NIGHT on his Program "THE LAST WORD" Mr. O'Donnell offered a spirited defense, of the Presidents' heartless betrayal of Social Security recipients.
Many of us who White House staffers have in the past called "THE PROFESSIONAL LEFT" disagree heartily with Mr. Lawrence (one more rich guy) assessment for why the poor should suffer more.
Lest we forget these benefits are entirely self-funded payments. NOT ON BORROWED CHINESE DEBT, like the Bush/Obama Wars and Mr. Paulson's GIVEAWAYS. Mr. O'Donnell summoned the Olympian names of Social Security's founders Ms. Frances Perkins and President Roosevelt, only to claim they would be SHOCKED SHOCKED at the luxurious cost of living increases which had not been anticipated as the program was originally conceived. Since the average monthly payment would barely break the poverty level** it can hardly be called overgenerous even if it was UNTAXED. (yes Virginia they do TAX Social Security Income). Mr. O'Donnell (I love it when the rich offer their insight on how the poor over-reach) also informed us that President Roosevelt only intended that Social Security protect the poor from destitution. He wanted no able man of 60-70-80 or 90 on the dole. Mr. President hated "the dole", said Colonel Larry.
He also attempted in his "high liberal tone" to dismiss any scurrilous talk of removing the wage cap.
He said, it would mean that those who earned more and paid more, would not get the benefit of their higher pay-in. (I supposed he's forgotten that the reason they could pay in more was because they were earning more that the $113,000 per year where the cap rests so jauntily.) And obviously regardless of the desire to take benefits away from those whose only income is that 1200 per month.
We can't take any more money from the highest earners. Let us not be unfair to the rich. It's so much easier to make the poor suffer.
I cannot summon the crocodile tears for individuals too wealthy to benefit from a sum, that is less than what they pay their maid from the Philippines. (When they remember to pay her.) Sorry, Larry if lifting that ill-fitting cap would increase the funds available to feed, clothe, house and care for seniors who have not benefited from the pillaging of the working class, I'm all for it. Not everybody benefits from their offshore tax haven. Some of us, in Leona Helmsly's apt phrase are the "little people" for whom laws and even tax laws are written.
Anyone, who has the temerity to characterize $1,230 per month, as an over generous DOLE, that would allow otherwise able-bodied 60-70-80 and 90 year old men from lounging on the governments dime. Mr. 'Odonnell have you ever tried living on the $1230 per month that the "all too generous " social security payment might allow. I suspect not.
I doff my Social Security Cap to you! Thanks for the tip.
* From the Social Security Administration [http://alturl.com/xradh]
** University of Michigan National Poverty Center [http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/]
*** Currently, only wages below $113,700 are subject to the 6.2 percent tax that funds Social Security benefits. That means someone earning $1 million will pay the same amount in Social Security taxes - $7,049 - as someone earning $113,700. [ http://alturl.com/m5sjm ]
The Last Word