There's An Easy Solution To This (On Election Day)
A new poll from Data For Progress released on the day millionaires and billionaires have reached the $168,600 taxable amount limit and stopped paying into Social Security, shows that most Americans— 69% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans and 57% of independents— want to see Social Security benefits increased. Only 5% think they should be decreased (to reduce the national debt). Asked if increasing taxes on the wealthy is the right way to decrease the national debt, 78% liked the idea— including 93% of Dems, 74% of independents and even 66% of Republicans— while just 18% of our countrymen oppose the idea.
As far as the Republican decision to create a new commission to cut Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors, opposition is strong (70%— including 73% of Democrats, 71% of Republicans and 66% of independents) and just 23% of voters like the idea.
Ted Lieu told me that “Instead of creating a back room star chamber to secretly devise schemes to cut Social Security, Republicans should allow a vote on Representative John Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act. That legislation would increase benefits and strengthen Social Security for the next century. I’m a proud coauthor of Social Security 2100 and it is the best path forward for Social Security, for our seniors and for our country.” That bill pays for the increased benefits by “ensuring millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share by applying FICA to earnings above $400,000, with those extra earnings counted toward benefits at a reduced rate [and by] closing the loophole of avoiding FICA taxes and receiving a lower rate on investment income by adding an additional 12.4% net investment income tax (NIIT) only for taxpayers making over $400,000.”
Diane Young, the Michigan progressive taking on Trump puppet John James in the suburbs nothing of Detroit, sees it much the way Lieu and Larson do. “The Republicans, like John James,” she told me yesterday, “have made it a priority to cut Social Security, which has been one of the most successful programs we have ever done. It has lifted millions of beneficiaries out of poverty and ensured that seniors can retire with dignity. We should be working to strengthen it, not gut it.”
On Thursday, Pramila Jayapal tweeted that “Democrats’ biggest swing voters are our base who won't swing to Donald Trump, but they will swing out to the sidelines if they think they're being ignored or taken for granted.” I assumed she was thinking about Gaza, not just because of the 100,000 Democrats who voted for “uncommitted” instead of Biden in Michigan Tuesday but because her own state’s largest labor union has endorsed “uncommitted” over Biden for the March 12 primary. And so did the Seattle alternative paper, The Stranger, referring to Biden and Trump as the “two genocidal geriatrics leading the polls.” The people who read The Stranger are a big part of the reason why Pramila won her primary instead of Brady Walkinshaw or Joe McDermott.
When I asked her if she had Gaza in mind, she said Gaza and immigration policy are definitely on progressives’ minds. She added that “But generally also, we are working with the White House to put together a really progressive economic agenda that is proactive— our ‘proposition’ agenda, not just an opposition agenda. So that’s on the positive side, we need to really speak to progressives about issues that are important to them and work to win those votes.”
That’s good. But for many people, enabling genocide is a bridge too far. They’re not going to vote for Trump. But they’re not going to vote for Biden either. It was a no-brainer for me to vote for a protest candidate in the California primary this week. Genocide really is beyond the pale. In 3 days, voting ends in California’s primary, not just for the president, but for congressional races too. There are 15 candidates who made the ballot in my district. Of the 8 actual contenders, only two are anti-genocide, Maebe Pudlo and Jirair Ratevsoian. The rest are either ducking the topic— “Gaza? Is that the new Japanese restaurant in East Hollywood?”— or flat out AIPAC-supporting ethnic cleansers and Likud cheerleaders. Even Laura Friedman, the charter school-backed Assemblywoman who’s managed to persuade gullible progressives she’s on their team, obfuscates enough so that pro-AIPAC and anti-genocide people can both walk away from her bullshit thinking she’s on their side. (The pro-AIPAC people are getting that one right in this case.)
I know one thing for sure… no matter what office we’re talking about— if a candidate can’t unambiguously denounce genocide, they need to look for a new line of work. In L.A.’s San Fernando Valley there are two Democrats running for an open congressional seat. One, Luz Rivas, is heavily backed by the genocide lobby, which is helping finance her campaign. The other, Angélica Dueñas just told us “We are watching a genocide streaming live right before our eyes. The outright massacre of Palestinian civilians that we have witnessed cannot be erased from our memories. We need leaders who are ready to stand alongside Humanity and put an end to the genocide. The people of the world want Justice for Palestine.”
Comments