Open thread February 18, 2023
Open thread February 7, 2023, Angry Bear, angrybearblog.com
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
Open thread February 7, 2023, Angry Bear, angrybearblog.com
Fixing Social Security and Medicare: Where the Parties Stand
NY Times – Feb 18
Republicans and Democrats have sharply divergent approaches to repairing the programs. Any solutions will affect younger workers as much as retirees.
The unusual back and forth between President Biden and Republican lawmakers on live television during last week’s State of the Union address kicked off a high-stakes political debate about repairing Social Security and Medicare.
The noisy exchange — provoked by Mr. Biden’s charge that some Republicans want to “sunset” Medicare and Social Security — may have left viewers wondering where politicians stand on fixing these critical programs, which face financial problems in the years ahead. Theatrics aside, both parties have detailed their ideas in legislative and campaign proposals.
Most Democrats are unified behind proposals that would raise new taxes on the wealthy and expand benefits; Republicans are less united, but conservatives have outlined changes that would shrink benefits and reduce eligibility.
Any changes enacted by Congress will affect current retirees and people getting close to retirement — but younger workers, too, since changes to these programs typically are phased in over many years. …
Social Security pays benefits out of its retirement and disability trust funds. Think of these as checking accounts, with funds flowing in primarily from the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA, which levies a 12.4 percent tax on wages that is split by employers and workers. The combined trust fund accounts are projected to be depleted in 2035.
Lower birthrates mean that fewer workers are paying into the system today than the growing number of people retiring and collecting benefits. Another cause of the shortfall is rising income inequality. Social Security collects FICA contributions only up to a certain wage ($160,200 this year), leaving a growing share of wages outside the taxable base.
Unless Congress acts by 2035, Social Security funds will be sufficient to pay only about 80 percent of the program’s obligations to retirees and disabled workers. The resulting benefit cut — estimated at 20 to 25 percent over time — would affect current and future beneficiaries alike, pushing up poverty rates among retirees by 60 percent, according to projections by the Urban Institute.
The cuts would be especially painful for today’s younger workers and people of color, according to the institute’s projections. If the financing gap is left unaddressed, 49 percent of workers born from 1980 to 1989, or early millennials, would lack the income they need to meet basic living expenses — a rate that jumps to 53 percent for Black adults in that age group, and 62 percent for Hispanic adults.
“People of color depend disproportionately on Social Security, so if benefits are cut it’s going to be especially devastating for them,” said Richard Johnson, senior fellow and director of the Urban Institute’s Program on Retirement Policy.
Aside from the 2035 problem, Social Security is already on track to replace less pre-retirement income for today’s younger workers than for today’s retirees. That is attributable, mainly, to the last major changes to the program, which were enacted in 1983. That legislation put in motion a gradual increase in the Full Retirement Age, or F.R.A. — the age when you qualify to receive 100 percent of your benefit. Before 1983, the F.R.A. was 65, but for everyone born in 1960 and later, it is 67. Every year increase in the F.R.A. equates roughly to a 6.5 percent cut in benefits. …
“Aside from the 2035 problem, Social Security is already on track to replace less pre-retirement income for today’s younger workers than for today’s retirees.”
I am 62. I am eligible for early retirement. I believe that the above statement is false where you compare me to younger workers.
Arne,
You believe?
I invite someone to post a link suggesting I am wrong, but the benefits formula for anyone my age or younger is exactly the same. And it was defined 40 years ago.
So, what does that mean?
Biden Mkaes Surprise Visit to Kyiv
NY Times – Feb 20
President Biden made a surprise, hourslong visit to Kyiv on Monday, pledging the United States’ “unwavering commitment” to supporting Ukraine in a dramatic show of resolve almost one year into Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Mr. Biden rode 10 hours by train from the Polish border to arrive in the Ukrainian capital on Monday morning. As air-raid sirens sounded, Mr. Biden strolled in the sunshine with President Volodymyr Zelensky and announced $500 million in additional military aid for Ukraine during a joint news conference. “Kyiv has captured a part of my heart,” he said. …
NYT:
Zelensky said talks with Biden were “meaningful,” calling the U.S. president’s visit “the most important” in the history of Ukrainian-American relations. “At this time, when our country is fighting for its freedom and freedom for all Europeans, for all people of the free world, it emphasizes how much we have already achieved and what historic results we can achieve together,” he said on Telegram. …
Biden made a final decision to go to Ukraine during a huddle in the Oval Office on Friday, White House officials said. Planning for the president’s highly secretive trip had been under way for months, but knowledge about it was highly limited, even inside the White House and the Pentagon. …
(Jake Sullivan, the president’s national security adviser) described the visit as “not a celebration but an affirmation” of the U.S. commitment to Ukraine and of “the resilience of the Ukrainian people.” He said the president decided that sending that message was worth the risk of traveling to a country at war, where the United States does not control the infrastructure and has a very small diplomatic presence. …
“Beating the drums of war“…
Lawmakers urge stronger Ukraine support amid worries over China
Washington Post – Feb 19
Some more hawkish members of Congress are ready to provide fighter jets, though Biden has not supported that step
Top officials on Sunday called for more tools to penalize Russia as its invasion of Ukraine nears its first anniversary and fresh concerns have arisen about the possibility that China may be getting ready to support Russia in the war effort.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in appearances on several Sunday shows that it appears as if China is considering providing “lethal support,” including weapons and ammunition, to Russia – a worrying move to Ukraine’s allies.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) urged the Biden administration to designate Russia as a sponsor of terrorism as well as increase training for Ukrainians.
“We need to do two things quickly: Make Russia a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law, which would make it harder for China to give weapons to Russia, and we need to start training Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 now,” Graham said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Graham also said it would be foolish for China to support Russia and its aggression.
“To the Chinese, if you jump on the Putin train now, you’re dumber than dirt,” he said. “It would be like buying a ticket on the Titanic after you saw the movie. Don’t do this.”
Over the last several days, Graham, Blinken and many other U.S. officials and lawmakers took part in the annual Munich Security Conference, a forum for world leaders to discuss key geopolitical challenges, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Several bipartisan groups of members of Congress traveled together to the conference to present a united front, even as some right-wing lawmakers have urged a pullback in U.S. support.
The new concerns about China’s intentions have surfaced ahead of a “peace speech” that Chinese President Xi Jinping is planning to deliver on Friday, the anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
China will lay out its position on resolving the Ukraine conflict in a document underscoring that warring countries’ territorial integrity must not be violated, said China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, who spoke on a panel at the Munich conference on Saturday and met with Blinken on the sidelines. …
“We have seen them provide nonlethal support to Russia for use in Ukraine,” Blinken said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “The concern that we have now is based on information we have that they’re considering providing lethal support – and we’ve made very clear to them that that would cause a serious problem for us and in our relationship.”
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) called for even more weapons, including sending U.S. jets – something that President Biden has ruled out.
“We need to throw everything we can into this fight so that they can win,” McCaul, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“For the past year, we have been very slow at getting these weapons in, in the name of it being too provocative,” McCaul added. “If we put the stuff in from the very beginning of this conflict, a year from now may have been very different, as we look at the anniversary on Feb. 24. The longer they drag this out, they play into Putin’s hands.”
The call for more weapons comes after Vice President Harris declared Saturday at the Munich Security Conference that Russia had committed “crimes against humanity.” She called for the world to stand strong in continued support for Ukraine.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, did not rule out providing F-16 jets to Ukraine in an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.” But she stressed that Ukrainians needed to be trained on any equipment they use.
“It doesn’t help them if we provide weapons systems that they are not able to use and they don’t have the capacity to maintain,” she said. “So the discussions will continue over the course of the next few weeks and months as we determine how best to support them.”
She also said China would face consequences if it provided support to Russia.
“If there are any thoughts and efforts by the Chinese and others to provide lethal support to the Russians in their brutal attack against Ukraine, [then] that is unacceptable,” she said. “Again, that would be a red line.”
In a widely watched trip, Biden is scheduled to travel to Poland this week and is expected to reiterate the United States’ commitment to Ukraine as well as praise Poland’s support for the war. The United States has about 10,000 personnel on rotation in Poland as part of the NATO alliance.
When asked on “Face the Nation,” Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said that he hoped the United States would provide troops to help deter Russian aggression.
“We are in the process of discussion with President Biden’s administration about making their presence more permanent and increasing them,” Morawiecki said. “It’s not only about us. It’s also about creating stability around us.”
China clarifies…
Beijing as only trying to coax Moscow and Kyiv into peace talks
NY Times – Feb 20
Bristling against U.S. claims that Beijing may be poised to send “lethal support” to help Russia’s war in Ukraine, China accused the Biden administration on Monday of spreading lies and defended its close partnership with Russia. Later the same day, China’s most senior foreign policy official arrived in Moscow for talks, according to Russian state media.
The remarks, by a spokesman from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, were part of a series of moves by China as the country’s leader, Xi Jinping, tries to keep Russia close — but also repair ties with Western powers. He has sought to preserve relations with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia while casting Beijing as a blameless onlooker in his invasion of Ukraine, trying only to coax Moscow and Kyiv into peace talks. …
As much as I am concerned about the fate of plucky Ukraine, I am reminded that the NY Times is doing it’s level best to support what a few years ago would be openly called a NeoCon Position to impose US will on the ‘Western World’, extending well into central Europe.
The Western World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol
…Ideas
During the late 1960s up until the 1970s, neoconservatives were worried about the Cold War and that its liberalism was turning into radicalism, thus many neoconservatives including Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and Daniel Patrick Moynihan wanted Democrats to continue on a strong anti-communist foreign policy.[12] This foreign policy was to use Soviet human rights violations to attack the Soviet Union.[12] This later led to Nixon’s policies called détente.[12]
In 1973, Michael Harrington coined the term, “neo-conservatism”, to describe those liberal intellectuals and political philosophers who were disaffected with the political and cultural attitudes dominating the Democratic Party and were moving toward a new form of conservatism.[13] Intended by Harrington as a pejorative term, it was accepted by Kristol as an apt description of the ideas and policies exemplified by The Public Interest. Unlike liberals, for example, neo-conservatives rejected most of the Great Society programs sponsored by Lyndon B. Johnson and, unlike traditional conservatives, they supported the more limited welfare state instituted by Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In February 1979, Kristol was featured on the cover of Esquire. The caption identified him as “the godfather of the most powerful new political force in America – Neo-conservatism”.[14] That year also saw the publication of the book, The Neo-conservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America’s Politics. Like Harrington, the author, Peter Steinfels, was critical of neo-conservatism, but he was impressed by its growing political and intellectual influence. Kristol’s response appeared under the title “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed – Perhaps the Only – ‘Neo-conservative'”.[15]
Neo-conservatism, Kristol maintained, is not an ideology but a “persuasion”, a way of thinking about politics rather than a compendium of principles and axioms.[16] It is classical, rather than romantic, in temperament and practical and anti-utopian in policy. One of Kristol’s most celebrated quips defines a neo-conservative as “a liberal who has been mugged by reality”. These concepts lie at the core of neo-conservative philosophy to this day.[17] …
Fred,
That said, then I am not nor have ever been a fan of the Neo-con persuasion, but I have never been a fan of the governments of the USSR, Russian, or the PRC either although I studied them extensively in my teenage years. Political theory is complex. Owen Paine back at EV identified me as an advocate of anarcho-syndicalism, which did not help me much in establishing a political identity given that I have never met another like-minded individual.
The republican system that alludes to itself as democracy, but more correctly dollar democracy as I call it, has been best described by Jonathan Swift whereas authoritarianism has been best described by Desmond Morris and Jane Goodall.
Current vehement support for unfettered aid for Ukraine without regard to implicit nuclear threats from Russia are certainly an outgrowth of neo-conservatism, as such. These adovcates including David French & Thom Friedman from the NYT no longer call themselves neo-cons, but that’s what they seem to be to me, and this got us into Iraq & Afghanistan, and now they may get us into what will have to be called WW3 sooner or later. Which would most likely be world ending. Neo-conservatism is still with us, but those who practice it don’t use the term these days, if they ever did.
Anarcho-syndicalism is a very quaint term, if not well understood.
David French has been with the NYT for about two months, but seems to have settled in on their free-thinking right wing nicely.
The only to have WW3 & keep it from being world ending will be to never, never use nukes. Would that be possible? Maybe. Care to find out?
Fred,
Yep, we are playing with fire in Ukraine, but it was Putin that started that fire and now Xi Jinping appears posed to further fan those flames. Whatever that we may choose to do about it, then both the US and Ukraine will get burned along with much of NATO. We are facing an effectively existential threat whether we choose either appeasement or war because the quest for global authoritarian power will not stop of its own accord. Even if Putin and Xi croak, their legacy will live on.
Denial is a powerful force too. It has worked wonders with climate chaos.
So far, Ordinary Joe has played his bad hand superbly. The best outcome would be if Putin’s war machine just runs out of gas. Putin is unlikely to escalate with nukes because he is more of a paranoid megalomaniac than he is a complete fool, despite all the dumb moves that he has made so far with Ukraine. OTOH, Xi is far better positioned to win out in a nuclear war of attrition despite having less of a nuclear arsenal because he has more bodies to lose. In either case, mutually assured destruction should not lend us great comfort in an insane world, but it may be the best bet we have.
Weird thought. Does it also work the other way? Is a neoliberal (a.k.a., Wall Street or limousine liberal) a conservative who has been mugged by reality?
Joined by the Washington Post, with the Boston Globe not far behind.
(The article above was also printed in the Globe.)
To be fair, western & central Europe almost uniformly support Ukraine over Russia, while much of the Trump wing of the GOP do not, apparently.
Lindsey Graham excepted.
The essence of the problem may be that Russia & China, the dominant powers in Asia – whti large armies & nuclear arsenals – do not support democracy.
Not in the least. This sets up enormous instability with the The West, which is devoted to democracy – except for the GOP in the US.
MSNBC is on board with total support for unfettered aid to Ukraine at this point and since I mostly subscribe to their viewpoints on this, I am about ready to fully accept them. So be it.
I think it is quite dangerous for the planet to assume that Putin will not pull the nuclear trigger at any moment. We seem to me to be very close to a Dr Strangelove moment.
The only saving grace would be for them to adopt the No First Use POV, as I believe the US has if only implicitly. Then we can just go on with a horrific ‘traditional’ sort of World War, with all other New Technologies brouight to bear.
The most desireable final outcome will be for Ukraine to then join NATO and we will get back to normal life thereafter. All who are left will live happily ever after.
Speeches today from Biden in Poland, and Putin in Moscow may shed more light on where we stand, fatewise.
Too late now for any desirable outcome. Back before the invasion then a negotiated settlement over Crimea and Donbas might have been possible. Whether the US made some mistakes or was just looking for a fight is beyond my ability to discern.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/settlement-ukraine-not-appeasement-201666
Maybe Putin would settle for a big hug & a promise te take war crimes charges off the table.
Putin delivered a defiant speech hours before Biden
NY Times – just in
President Vladimir V. Putin said on Tuesday that Russia would suspend its participation in the New START nuclear arms control treaty, declaring a sharper break with the West by pulling back from the last major such agreement remaining with the United States. In a lengthy national address, he again falsely claimed that Western nations had “started the war” in Ukraine and showed no sign of ending an invasion that has failed to achieve almost any of its objectives after nearly a year of brutal fighting.
Later on Tuesday, and 800 miles away, President Biden is scheduled to deliver a speech in Warsaw, a day after a brief but dramatic visit to Kyiv that highlighted the American commitment to supporting Ukraine.
The dueling speeches — three days before the anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion — offer a rare moment of almost direct confrontation between two leaders at opposing ends of the global order. And they come as Russia tries to escalate a new offensive, while the United States and its allies rush tanks and armored vehicles to help Ukraine fight back. …
… If much of President Vladimir V. Putin’s 100-minute state-of-the-nation speech on Tuesday sounded familiar, that was by design: Its purpose, it appeared, was to emphasize to Russians that war is the new normal.
Mr. Putin’s only major revelation was that Russia would suspend participation in New START, its last remaining nuclear arms control treaty with the United States — and one that the State Department had already declared Russia to be not compliant with. He did not signal any major change in how he will wage the war in Ukraine: There was no official declaration of war, no announcement of a new draft, and no new threat of using nuclear weapons.
Instead, Mr. Putin’s main underlying message was that Russians, and implicitly the Western coalition that opposes him, must prepare for the war to last for years. He urged oligarchs to bring their money home, because Western countries were not to be trusted. He promised changes to Russia’s education system and to science and technology policy to help the country outlast Western sanctions. And he pledged that soldiers and draftees taking part in the war would receive two weeks of leave every six months.
Noting that the invasion — which he continued to call a “special military operation” — began one year ago, Mr. Putin said in the address to governors and lawmakers gathered in Moscow: “We will solve the tasks before us step by step, carefully and consistently.” Claiming that the West was trying to “shift a local conflict into a phase of global confrontation,” he pledged that “we will respond accordingly.”
“The more long-range Western systems are being delivered to Ukraine, the farther we will be forced to move the threat from our borders,” Mr. Putin said.
His words signaled that Russia was prepared to intensify the fighting, but they sounded far less ominous than the barely veiled threats he made several times last year about the potential use of nuclear weapons. Mr. Putin’s tone and diction, too, sounded far more measured than that of his last major speech to the nation, in September, when he announced a military draft and said he was ready to use “all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people.”
“Everything is changing now, changing very fast,” Mr. Putin said on Tuesday, referring to the consequences of war and of sanctions. “This is a time of not just challenges, but of opportunities.”
The rosy picture presented by Mr. Putin drew plenty of applause from the ruling elites — regional officials, lawmakers, Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church — gathered in a hall across Red Square from the Kremlin. It ignored Russia’s repeated setbacks at the front and its bloody, slow-moving efforts to eke out territorial gains in eastern Ukraine.
But Mr. Putin, his speech made clear, believes that time is on his side, because Ukraine’s people could still turn against their government and the West could face political upheaval. After going through a litany of what he described as the West’s moral depravity — saying that “the Anglican Church, for example, plans, to consider the idea of a gender-neutral God” — Mr. Putin said that many people around the world agreed with him. …
‘We will not tire,’ Biden says of support for Ukraine hours after Putin delivers defiant speech to Russians.
NY Times – just in
President Biden vowed on Tuesday that the United States would “not tire” in its support of Ukraine, describing the American commitment to NATO and Ukraine as a battle for freedom against autocracy in a speech delivered just hours after President Vladimir V. Putin presented a radically different account of the war.
In his national address, Mr. Putin showed no sign that he would change course, instead signaling that Russians should prepare for a long war ahead. He accused the West of a “totalitarian” project to control the world under the guise of spreading liberal values, and declared Russia was suspending the one remaining nuclear arms treaty with the United States.
Mr. Biden, speaking in Warsaw, blamed Mr. Putin for the war, which he called a test of the United States, Europe and democracies everywhere.
“Our support for Ukraine will not waver, NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire,” he said. “President Putin’s craven lust for land and power will fail.” …
… Just hours after Vladimir V. Putin blamed the West for starting the war in Ukraine and said he was suspending the one remaining nuclear arms treaty with the United States, President Biden on Tuesday accused the Russian leader of committing atrocities on a vast scale, and called on the world to stand up to him and other “tyrants.”
In a split-screen moment, the two speeches, only hours apart and just three days before the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion, gave radically different accounts of how a war that has already created hundreds of thousands of casualties is reshaping Europe.
Mr. Biden, speaking at the royal castle in Warsaw on a cold, drizzly day, seemed energized by his surprise trip into Kyiv the day before, repeatedly noting that a capital Mr. Putin thought would fall in days remained free, and that its resolve to face down a far larger power was greater than ever.
“Kyiv stands!” Mr. Biden declared, as a crowd of several thousand, many waving American flags, stood bathed in lights aimed at the centuries-old castle. Time and time again, he referred to Mr. Putin’s many failures over the past year, both military and diplomatic, and made the case that 2022 had been the year that democracies rallied against a common adversary. “Autocrats only understand one word: No, no, no. No, you will not take my country,” Mr. Biden said.
The president thanked Poland for taking in 1.5 million refugees from the war in Ukraine and for becoming the primary transfer point for a flood of arms that have been critical for Ukraine’s military forces. But his rallying cry to the Polish people omitted discussion of the White House’s current worries. …
Mr. Biden made no reference to Mr. Putin’s announcement, before a gathering of governors and lawmakers in Moscow earlier in the day, that he would not allow inspectors from the United States back into Russia to assure Moscow’s compliance with New START. Nor did he talk about Mr. Putin’s episodic threats to employ nuclear weapons, usually uttered when Russian forces were losing ground.
But while the White House has tried at various points to make the case that the war in Ukraine is a battle for the preservation of some norms of national behavior — respect for the sovereignty of nations, and the right of populations to choose their leaders — he kept returning to Mr. Putin himself. At one point he mocked one of the Russian leader’s assertions earlier in the day that NATO had been planning to attack Russia, presumably from inside Ukraine.
“The West was not plotting to attack Russia,’’ Mr. Biden said, going on to say that Russia had taken Ukrainian children in an attempt to steal the country’s future, and had for a time cut off Ukraine’s exports of grain and other farm products. “Putin tried to starve the world,’’ he said.
There was no new policy evident in the speech, though Mr. Biden promised new sanctions on Russia by the end of the week and said vaguely that “we will hold accountable those who are responsible” for the war. He did not call Mr. Putin a war criminal, as he did from this city in March of last year. But he also did not address the limitations of sanctions, something the West has discovered as China, India and Turkey, among others, have kept buying Russian petroleum products.
The speech itself came at a critical moment. While the European allies have held together far more effectively than anyone expected a year ago, there were signs at the Munich Security Conference, which concluded on Sunday, that many European leaders wondered whether they could sustain this level of spending on arms, government support and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.