Dean Baker Slams WashPost Mischaracterization of AFL-CIO Policy Positions
The Washington Post Has Not Heard that the Retirement Age for Social Security Has Been Raised
by Dean Baker
Beat the Press Round-up, July 7, 2010
In her column bashing AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus complains that Trumka got angry at the suggestion that the retirement age for Social Security be raised in response to the increase in life expectancy in recent decades. Apparently, Ms. Marcus did not know that the retirement age has been raised already. In 1983, Congress voted to raise the normal retirement age from 65 to 67 over the period from 2002 to 2022. Ms. Marcus seems unaware of this 27 year-old law.
Marcus also implies that Trumka believes that the country’s fiscal problems can be solved exclusively by taxing the rich. This is not true. Trumka and the AFL-CIO have consistently been strong proponents of measures that would make the U.S. health care system more efficient, such as a public health insurance option and negotiated prices for prescription drugs.
Such measures would make health care much more affordable for both the public and private sector. If per person health care costs in the United States were the same as in any other wealthy country, the United States would be looking at huge long-term budget surpluses rather than deficits. It is difficult to understand how Marcus could have missed this aspect of Trumka’s political agenda.
It is important also to note that measures that reduce the trend toward growing inequality, such as improved corporate governance that reins in CEO pay or a trade policy that is not designed to increase inequality, would also have beneficial budgetary impact. As more income goes to those at the middle and bottom, there would be less need for various government transfer programs. It would be useful if Post columnists would try to directly address the agenda of the unions, rather than caricature it in order to discredit it.
July 30th, 2010 at 11:47 am
The “you only want to tax the rich” story has been around since the day that Congress passed, and Bush signed, the ’01 and ’03 tax cuts for the rich with the expiration prior to the ten-year CBO projection period. There is no doubt that the political tactic put in place then, was to place this expiration in the lap of a future president; they began spinning it this way immediately. Trying to call it a tax increase by some future administration and Congress. While false, it’s a useful political trick.
To return the top income tax marginal rates to the Clinton era would make hardly a dent in the after-tax position of these high-earners; they would hardly notice it.
The other tactic is to use the tax rates on the high earners (say, those over $250,000) to tell the American people that “they want to raise YOUR taxes.” In fact, since the median household income is (2009) around $52,000, the YOUR that is being referred to is THEM.
And on Social Security, not one of my students, when we cover that topic, does not ask why the FICA wage cap (now at $106,800) is so low and that all earnings above that level go untaxed. This is ragardless of the students political leanings. The portion of Amercians’ earnings subject to FICA has been steadily falling since the 1983 reforms, primarily because of the increased income stratification over the past 27 years.