Things to Remember

 

                                 Things to Remember

Before you make a decision on how to cast your vote for Governor of Florida, consider this:

One of the very first legislative votes cast by the current Florida governor, who is more than willing to accept any and all federal aid in the wake of Hurricane Ian, was in his second day as a US Congressman. He voted against a bill to appropriate adequate funding for Hurricane Sandy relief. This shows the character, or lack thereof, of this little man. Also, The Federal money he spent to grandstand on the immigration issue would be nice to have now in SW Florida to augment the FEMA funds that President Biden ordered in his disaster declaration. Ask yourself how this might have played out if the roles were reversed, based on DeSantis’ record.

Additionally, when Ron DeSantis self-congratulates about giving first responders $1000 bonus checks, remember this: These are not stimulus payments to aid families who aren’t working, but a bonus to folks who, while they may well deserve them, are working and earning. More importantly, these aren’t state funds, but are part of President Biden’s American Rescue Plan, so don’t thank DeSantis, thank Biden.

This of course is in addition to the DeSantis attacks on public education, and on voting rights which make me so mad just can’t stand it.

And, on Republican financial policies in general:

In the 1930’s when the social security program was originally adopted, FDR said, “I guess you’re right on the economics. We put those pay roll contributions there (meaning Social Security as payroll, deduction) so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”  Social Security benefits weren’t taxed at first, but in fact, this was the result of a series of administrative rulings by the Treasury Department and not part of the act which established Social Security. In 1983, The Reagan administration pushed for, and got, a bi-partisan bill to tax Social Security benefits for the first time.

Unfortunately, Reagan and his Republican controlled Congress also reduced top marginal income tax rates from 70% to 28%. It is difficult to find any single better example of the Republican ethos which, if written as a mission statement, might read: “Reduce financial liability and responsibility of the rich, while increasing that of the lower income population.”

Today there are those of the Republican persuasion who favor allowing people to opt out of Social Security in favor of privately managing their retirement. These are, by and large, people who will, in truth never need the monthly SS stipend to any real extent. They attempt to sell privatization as a positive issue, when in truth, more than 20% of the households in America depend on SS for at least 80% of their income, and half of American households relied on SS for at least half of their income as of 2018. These are usually not folks who, while working, have the disposable income to invest unless it is deducted before they get paid. That is factual like it or not. In the absence of SS, many of these folks would be impoverished wards of the state.

George W. Bush also tried pushing privatization of SS during his first term. Privatization may sound good, like chocolate, but…. There are three key reasons that it is far more complex.

First, Social Security is an insurance program; it offers features that just can’t be measured by a rate-of-return analysis. Second, the claimed higher returns in the private market come from ignoring the cost of increased risk, such as markets tanking as in 2009. When that cost is taken into account, the supposed “free lunch” from stock-market investments disappears. Finally, to secure the supposedly higher returns of private accounts, one must also incur relatively large transition costs. Once the transition costs are considered, as they must be for a valid, comparison, the “higher returns” in private accounts are seen to be illusory. Even more fallacious is the “privatizer’s” refusal to acknowledge that SS is:

1) Based, and fixed on, work history and Cost of Living Adjusted (COLA), which an IRA isn’t.

 2) Guaranteed for life at the same level, plus COLA. In other words, you can’t “run out” of SS. Very few investments which the average worker could afford offer that degree of security. In simple terms, SS isn’t subject to market whims.

3) Since the inception of Medicare, which is in essence a sort of Siamese twin of SS, an individual who privatized his SS would either continue payroll deduction contributions to Medicare or be forced to pay for far more expensive healthcare coverage in retirement.

And…. Lindsey Graham, who is assiduously attempting to draw up legislation which would strip American women of their reproductive rights, has no children, no significant other (whom he acknowledges, anyway) and no family, but believes he is entitled to tell the rest of us how and when we should have ours.

And…   The Fairness Doctrine, enforced by the Federal Communications Council, was a result of the US media environment in 1949. There was increasing concern that the three main US networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, had what amounted to monopoly audience control, and could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda. More to the point it was the age of Red Scare and the beginning ascendency of Joe McCarthy, hardly a mainstream media darling. Adopted in 1949 as a guiding principle, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Congress backed that policy in 1954, and by the 1970s the FCC called the doctrine the “single most important requirement of operation in the public interest – the standard of behavior for the granting or renewal of broadcast licensure.

The Supreme Court upheld said doctrine. In 1969’s Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, a journalist sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade (!!) radio program after their host attacked him on air. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the individual’s right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on.

The doctrine remained in effect and enforced until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, Reagan’s former campaign staffer, now FCC Chairman, Mark Fowler, issued a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. This was coincident with increased media criticism of Reagan’s policies and the rise of radio voices such as Rush Limbaugh. In Reagan’s second term the doctrine was so eroded that the FCC voted 4-0 to void it altogether. In June 1987, Congress, angered by this reversal of their intent, attempted to preempt that FCC decision via the (bipartisan) Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987. Reagan vetoed the bill.

While you may wonder why the hell, I even bring this up, you must understand that this Reagan policy change is why we have Fox News and other one sided, no-rebuttal, accountability or facts required, outlets who seem to work for the GOP in 90 percent of cases. This flouting of reality is what makes pols like Trump and DeSantis even more dangerous.

 When you vote this December, do it early, if possible, insure you do everything correctly, and choose as if your quality of life depends on it, because it does.