|
<< Maybe McCain is Lurching Left | Main | M$oft Loses in Court over Java >> December 23, 2002More on Race, Social Security & HealthFollowing up on my post over conservative propaganda that minority groups lose out under Social Security: The National Council for La Raza has a detailed fact sheet on latinos and retirement, with an emphasis on why social security is so valuable to blacks and latinos, despite propaganda otherwise. A basic reality: Social Security benefits are the sole source of income for one-third of both Hispanic (33%) and Black recipients (33%), while the same is true for only 16% of White recipients.And here's the real kicker for those arguing that blacks and latinos receive less from social security because they die earlier. While true, this ignores the fact that they also pay in less as well. As even the generally pro-privatization National Center for Policy Analysis notes (see question #17): even though black workers get a lower rate of return, their overall expected loss from Social Security (discounted value of taxes minus benefits) is slightly smaller. Why? Because they earn lower incomes, they pay less in taxes. Thus, although their return is smaller, their "investment" in Social Security is also smaller. By contrast, the average white worker is forced into making a larger "investment" in Social Security.So even on its own actuarial terms, the "blacks earn a poor return from social security" is false. But that doesn't stop the GOP from repeating the lie. Trent Lott is gone, but replacing honest racism with lying propaganda is no great improvement by the GOP. In the last election, Gingrich's old outfit, GOPAC, was caught running radio ads comparing social security to reparations to whites-- a manipulation of civil rights rhetoric that so outraged black communities in those states that the Republicans were forced to yank the ads. And as I noted in the first post on the issue, the outrage should not be at social security BUT AT THE FACT THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE DYING EARLY! For decades, blacks have been denied equal health care and even charged higher insurance rates (also here) than whites, and even when they have health care, they receive worse health care than whites. See more here. Instead of shredding social security, if we built a real health care safety net, blacks would live as long as whites. If conservatives are really concerned about equity (rather than stockbroker profits from privatization) maybe they should support universal health care and the end of racist discrimination in health care. But then-- the GOP just put a corporate medical man from HCA/Columbia in leadership. And HCA has led the way in undermining the health care of poor and minority communities. As this article details, HCA has been buying up the assets, then shutting down hospitals in minority communities across the country. As John Robinson of the Martin Luther King Community Center writes: Discrimination is fueled not just by personal attitudes and hateful language but by dismissive and abusive corporate behavior toward minorities. Minority Americans are easy pickings for a moneyed giant such as Columbia/HCA Inc.Social Security privatization is just the most audacious corporate raid in history. It adds the additional obscenity of using the language of equity to pursue its discriminatory and anti-poor agenda. But we are living in the new age of Bill "medical fraud" Frist, not the crudities of Trent Lott. But it's the same old racist game, just with more corporate elegance. Posted by Nathan at December 23, 2002 07:19 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsWhile true That says it all... Posted by: Ricky West at December 23, 2002 12:03 AM Ricky, yes, it says that even with new information, conservaties will engage in either willful ignorance or deliberate lies. To talk about social security being a "bad deal" for blacks versus whites because they get less benefits only makes sense if they also paid as much into the system. If I put $1000 into the bank and receive $500 back-- that's a bad investment. If I put $250 in and get back the same $500, that's a quite better return. But because conservatives willfully ignore the progressive nature of taxation and returns built into social security, they avoid dealing with this distinction. It's lying by omission and by promoting mathematical innumerancy. Posted by: Nathan Newman at December 23, 2002 07:44 AM Excellent points, Nathan. As to lies being spread about Social Security... A friend recently sent me an e-mail she had received from conservatives which was replete with lies about the program and about who changed what when. At the top of it were the words, "Non believers, Check it out...It's 100 percent true....." Posted by: Amigo at December 23, 2002 05:57 PM If I put $250 in and get back the same $500, that's a quite better return. And the AVERAGE black (who dies around age 70) doesn't get that return, Nathan. Your pointing out the positive aspects (spouses of age & those with children/dependents) aside, the average black gets screwed. And yes, they get screwed. Posted by: Ricky West at December 23, 2002 10:43 PM Repeat a lie, ignore facts, repeat. That's the conservative talking points style. Just to repeat the point you ignore-- if blacks put in less money in taxes, then their return on "investment" can still be better than whites even if they don't get back as much in total money. Now, in an equitable world, they would be making equal wages while working and living as long as whites. And the fact that social security is a progressive program given the realities of present racism does not erase that problem. But when conservatives start advocating universal health care to address the problem of blacks dying early, I might take their worries about the supposed inequity of social security seriously. Until then, it's obviously just cynical lies with no honest intentions. Posted by: Nathan Newman at December 25, 2002 12:06 AM Ah, so unless someone agrees with your concept of universal health care, the FACT that blacks get screwed when compared to whites is a non-issue (or, as you prefer, "lies"). Nathan, with that type of attitude, what's to keep you from literally setting aside any and all conversations/debate until your preferred concept of taxpayer-financed health care comes to fruition? Is crime off the table? Is military advisement? How about ethics? Or, is it simply social security that is magically conflagrated with universal health care & no dissent is allowed until the advanced version of Hillarycard is implemented? if blacks put in less money in taxes, then their return on "investment" can still be better than whites even if they don't get back as much in total money. 15% of their income being paid into SS over 45+ years doensn't equate to 5 years of social security, Nathan. That's mathematics 097. If that's the best argument you've got in reference to black families getting screwed under the current system, then I bid you a pleasant adieu & hope you had a merry Christmas. Posted by: Ricky at December 25, 2002 11:38 PM Ricky, you merely repeat yourself and act like its an argument. I cited research showing that the investment return for blacks is slightly better than for whites under social security, because while they get back a higher return on taxes actually paid. Since they pay less into the system, the benefits they do receive work out better. And the assumption that blacks will continue to die early makes the issue of health care inequality absolutely relevant. Even if I agreed that blacks were losing out due to dying early, the solution of undermining social security seems far less relevant than dealing with the underlying inequality of BLACK PEOPLE DYING EARLIER. If we address the latter directly, there would be no issue involved in social security. But conservatives don't actually care about real inequality, or they'd be up in arms over DYING EARLY. No they care about stockmarket profits from privatization, so blacks continuing to DIE EARLY is convenient for their propaganda. So why would they want to do anything about it? Posted by: Nathan Newman at December 26, 2002 02:37 AM pissing Posted by: som at August 24, 2004 05:04 AM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|