Barack wants money

Economically - Challenged & illiterate .. CIA ...

Economically - Challenged & illiterate .. CIA website forced offline (11th February 2012) ...item 2.. Anonymous turns its attention to the U.S. Senate over controversial bill -- upgrade your lifestyle (December 8, 2011) ... (Photo credit: marsmet526)

Today’s mail brought a fund-raiser letter from the President. In 2.5 pages, he made a good case for contributing to his re-election. When I was still employed in 2008, I could contribute generously and I did repeatedly. Today, I am living on Social Security and two small pensions. I cannot afford to contribute. If I had the same wealth as the Koch brothers, I would be willing to finance his campaign by myself. Alas, I cannot.

Right to life part 2

Smile, Your Mom Chose Life

Smile, Your Mom Chose Life (Photo credit: michaelwrose)

In a previous post, Right to life, I discussed my thoughts about when life begins. I don’t really have an answer to that. This time I want to discuss when the right to life ends. Does it end at birth, at becoming legally an adult, at becoming middle-aged and unemployed, at retirement or at death? Some will make a case for each possible age.

If conception implies life and a right to birth, then those who so believe owe the newborn a good start in life. Adequate nourishment, adequate healthcare, adequate and safe shelter and a start on a level-playing field education. That is a lot to owe a newborn.

Once a child attains adult status and can legally make his/her own decisions, does the right to life stop there? An adult can make all kinds of bad decisions: drive recklessly, do drugs, not purchase insurance, join the military, engage in high risk sports, etc. Do we as a society owe anything to a person who lives recklessly?

Suppose an adult makes all the right decisions, purchases insurance and lives within his/hers means. Then at some point in mid-life, a Mitt Romney or Bain Capital enters the picture and all the careful planning to date goes out the window. Jobs for the middle-aged and above are hard to find at comparable wages or just plain hard to find any job even in good times. In a recession like the present, they can be impossible to find. Should the right to life end if the unemployed can no longer contribute to his/her own sustenance?

Then how long must a worker work if we keep moving the goal posts of retirement, Social Security, and Medicare farther and farther into the future? Does the right to life end when a person can no longer feed, clothe and shelter him/herself? Is this not what we do now? The homeless and the uninsured face a short, brutal life on the streets. We know when the right to life begins, when does the right to life end?

Age discrimination part 2

Social Security Poster: old man

Image via Wikipedia

If Mitt and friends have their way, eligibility for Social Security and Medicare will both be delayed til later in life. Some of us work at jobs that are too physically demanding to continue working until age 68 or 69 or 70. Standing 8 hours per day or straining lower back muscles or developing carpal tunnel syndrome are all debilitating. Not all jobs involve sitting in soft, supportive chairs while counting one’s money. That is work that most of us would welcome.

Many people delay their retirement until they are eligible for Medicare, because private healthcare insurance is so expensive. If you lose your job after age 50, jobs are very hard to find due to age discrimination. It’s illegal but surprisingly prevalent. Most people think that it won’t happen to them, until it does. I know from personal experience that management is tempted to replace the experienced older worker with a young worker who will work for less, sometimes much less. And how is the laid-off older worker to survive between age 50 and his/her eligibility for Social Security and Medicare? If the home mortgage is paid off, those years after age 50 are the years where one is planning to save for retirement.

Please see Age discrimination | Retirement

Predatory lending and corporate restructuring

English: Diagram of private equity fund struct...

Image via Wikipedia

What do predatory lending and private equity restructuring have in common. In both cases, value created by the work and savings of individuals was transferred by financial sleight of hand into the pockets of the 1%. Net worth on corporate balance sheets created over many years by the joint efforts of labor and management was stripped out and pocketed by firms like Bain when companies were restructured and loaded down with debt. The equity removed from corporate balance sheets then wound up in the pockets of a few and debt-laden companies were left to flounder and/or go bankrupt.

On a smaller individual scale, but with many more individuals involved, large lenders made predatory loans to financially naive borrowers who trusted that lenders were honest and spoke the truth. In both cases, it was members of the 1%, represented by Wall Street banks and private equity firms who benefited from fleecing those who worked and saved. Savings earned by the sweat of the brow by millions of individuals paying normal tax rates, found their way to the 1% who then paid especially low tax rates on unearned income.

Let me try to make my point more clearly with a typical and fictitious individual, Joe Smith. Joe was employed for 30+ years by one company in Michigan that was restructured by a private equity firm. Joe was laid off with 500 other individuals flooding the local job market. Joe lost his healthcare insurance which he replaced with COBRA for himself and his wife at a combined cost of $850 month. He had planned to work to age 65 to maximize his pension and his Social Security. Since jobs were nonexistent for a person his age, age discrimination is widespread although illegal, he decided to take early Social Security at a 20% reduction and to wait until age 65 to collect his pension, no choice available there.

Then 3 years later when Joe was 63, his former employer declared bankruptcy and notified Joe that his pension would not be paid. Joe was having difficulty making ends meet so he decided to mortgage his home. The home loan broker loaded up the loan with points and unneeded insurance to maximize his commission. Joe received a lump sum payment, but was saddled with a 20-year loan that he could not afford, that would not be paid off until Joe was 84. Four years later as inflation and unpaid medical bills started to mount, Joe started to look for work at age 68. All the work Joe put into his job and the savings into his home had mostly disappeared into the hands and pockets of the 1%.

Please see Mitt and Bain | Bain pain 

Romney cares

English: image edited to hide card's owner nam...

Image via Wikipedia

 

Yes, Mitt loves us. How do we know? Because he says so. Mitt says he will repair the safety net.

If nominated and if elected, Mitt as president has just issued a budget proposal that will cut taxes for the wealthy and balance the budget. Depending on how you analyze the numbers, Mitt’s proposal will cut Medicare and Social security by 25% to 50%. Yes, Mitt loves us, but he loves the 1% more