The Latest from the Prospect
 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌


View this email in your browser
<[link removed]>

 

JULY 25, 2023

Meyerson on TAP

The Plutocratic Policies of No Labels

Cutting Social Security, nixing increases to family benefits, No
Labels' economics are old-school Republican.

Donald Trump may not opt to debate his Republican primary opponents at
the first scheduled GOP presidential candidate debate, which has been
set for next month in Milwaukee, but his line of attacks on them,
whether in debate or just on the stump, is clear. Besides whatever
personal calumnies he'll surely deliver, the Republican field has
opened itself to attack-and not just from Trump-for going after
American politics' third-rail issue: Social Security.

Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and Mike Pence have all said that Social
Security needs to be shored up, by which they don't mean funding
projected shortfalls by taxing the rich, but rather reducing benefits
for Americans who are not yet in or approaching old age-say, Americans
now in their forties or younger. In his 2016 campaign, Trump vowed not
to alter Social Security or Medicare benefits, and that's one vow he
largely stuck to when in office. Given his commanding lead over all his
Republican rivals, he may not even need to levy this particular attack,
but it's there for him if he chooses.

But conventional Republicans aren't the only presidential hopefuls who
cling to the spare-the-rich-and-screw-the-non-rich policies of the
Simpson-Bowles Commission, which called for gutting Social Security
benefits for future recipients in 2011. The demand is one of the few
actual positions that pops up in the 72-page platform
<[link removed]>
of No Labels, which was released earlier this month.

The vast majority of that platform's planks are so "balanced" that
they can't even be characterized as stating a position. (Consider, for
instance, this gem: "America must strike a balance between protecting
women's rights to control their own reproductive health and our
society's responsibility to protect human life.") But on Social
Security, an actual position does peek through the cracks. "[T]he longer
Washington waits to fix Social Security," the platform states, "the
harder it will be to do so, and the more likely it becomes that
Americans will get hit with punishing tax increases, significant benefit
cuts, or both." Like DeSantis, Haley, and Pence, the platform goes on to
pledge that elders and near-elders will be held harmless. Also like the
Republicans, it makes no mention of increasing the progressivity of
Social Security taxes and other taxes on our wealthier-than-ever rich as
the way to keep the system solvent-though it does raise the specter of
tax increases being "punishing."

So whether or not Trump opts to go after his Republican opponents, I
think the No Labels platform opens the door for President Biden to go
after the No Labels nominee, should there be one. For that matter, on a
general-election debate stage that featured, say, Biden, Trump, and Joe
Manchin, Biden could not only attack Manchin for this plank, but point
out that he (Biden) is the only one there who's pro-choice, pro-sick
leave, pro-affordable child care, pro-tuition-free community college
(all the particulars in Build Back Better that Manchin shot down)-the
list goes on and on.

At a time when most Americans believe the United States has become a
plutocracy, a candidate like Manchin and a "party" like No Labels can
justly be attacked as plutocracy's friends, just as Trump can be
attacked as an autocrat-in-waiting. If, as appears likely, No Labels
goes ahead with its plans to wage a presidential campaign, it will be
open to well-grounded attacks on two distinct fronts: not only that it
will help Trump regain the White House, but also that its own policies
preserve and promote the very plutocracy that Americans despise.

~ HAROLD MEYERSON

Follow Harold Meyerson on Twitter <[link removed]>

[link removed]

Inside the Teamsters' Historic Contract at UPS
<[link removed]>
The union's new leadership used effective messaging and rank-and-file
organization to win significant gains. BY LUIS FELIZ LEON

The Junk Fee Fight Spreads to Rental Housing
<[link removed]>
Transparency in rental costs and action at the state level are bringing
new vigor to attacking landlord rip-offs. BY DAVID DAYEN

Big Tech's Relentless Influence on Trade Policy
<[link removed]>
How even Biden's best officials are subject to insidious corporate
pressure BY ROBERT KUTTNER

After Securing State Contracts, Wind Developers Demand Subsidies and
Higher Rates
<[link removed]>
Facing inflation and permitting hurdles, wind developers are turning
around to ask for more cash. The immediate headwinds may conceal
longer-term problems in wind energy. BY LEE HARRIS

[link removed]

 

To receive this newsletter directly in your inbox, click here to
subscribe.  <[link removed]>

Click to Share this Newsletter

[link removed]


 

[link removed]


 

[link removed]


 

[link removed]


 

[link removed]

YOUR TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION SUPPORTS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
<[link removed]>

The American Prospect, Inc.
1225 I Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC xxxxxx
United States
Copyright (c) 2023 The American Prospect. All rights reserved.

To opt out of American Prospect membership messaging, click here
<[link removed]>.

To manage your newsletter preferences, click here
<[link removed]>.

To unsubscribe from all American Prospect emails, including newsletters,
click here
<[link removed]>.