From xxxxxx <[email protected]>
Subject Manchin's Means-Testing and Work Requirements Are a Recipe for Building Back Worse
Date October 17, 2021 12:00 AM
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
[Democrats must resist the demands for work requirements and
means-testing, if they truly want to build back better. They must
resist the idea that government should only help the most destitute
among us, not the working class or the middle class. ]
[[link removed]]

MANCHIN'S MEANS-TESTING AND WORK REQUIREMENTS ARE A RECIPE FOR
BUILDING BACK WORSE  
[[link removed]]


 

Nancy J. Altman
October 13, 2021
Common Dreams
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ Democrats must resist the demands for work requirements and
means-testing, if they truly want to build back better. They must
resist the idea that government should only help the most destitute
among us, not the working class or the middle class. _

"More Please",

 

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S BUILD Back Better legislation would bring the
United States into the 21st century, finally enacting programs that
other industrialized nations have had for a very long time. These
include children's allowances in the form of tax credits, paid family
and medical leave, free post-secondary education, expanded Medicare,
home and community-based services, and so much more.

The bill would be among the most transformative in American history.
It would cement Biden's legacy alongside Presidents Franklin Roosevelt
and Lyndon Johnson. But not if Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who claims
[[link removed]] that
the bill would promote a so-called "entitlement society," forces work
requirements and means-testing.

Manchin's demands for work requirements and means-testing would save
money largely by making federal programs inaccessible to many who need
them, including those who need them the most. Those most in need often
have the most trouble navigating complicated and burdensome
eligibility requirements, because they generally lack the necessary
time, resources, and family support. Experience teaches that much of
the money saved on benefits would be spent on wasteful and intrusive
administration.

Moreover, limiting eligibility to a small group who must prove to the
rest of us that they really deserve the benefits will make those
programs far more politically vulnerable. Knowingly, the late Wilbur
Cohen, known as the father of Social Security and Medicare, remarked
[[link removed]],
"a program that is only for the poor—one that has nothing in it for
the middle income and the upper income—is, in the long run, a
program the American public won't support." For all these reasons,
Cohen understood, as he often succinctly phrased it, "Programs for the
poor make poor programs."

At first glance, Manchin's demands for stringent means-testing and
work requirements may seem like a responsible effort to target limited
resources. But a close look at the history of social welfare policy
reveals that the restrictions are the latest chapter in an ugly
history of treating some as less deserving than others.

While our Declaration of Independence, as well as virtually every
religion, asserts that all of us are created equal, that has not been
the view of some of the most powerful among us. Andrew Carnegie
[[link removed]] and John
D. Rockefeller
[[link removed]], two of
the richest men in human history, believed in what was called Social
Darwinism, where some people are inherently worthier than others, due
to "better" genes. They saw themselves as the fittest, and the poor as
inherently unworthy and lazy people who needed their "betters" to push
them to make something of their lives. 

Throughout American history, some people, whether simply down on their
luck or different from the majority, have been stereotyped as immoral,
lazy, shiftless—in short, undeserving. Carnegie stated that "It were
better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the
sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the
unworthy." 

Nor is that simply the view of a few wealthy and powerful individuals.
The notion that some people are undeserving is a strong undercurrent
of conservative, anti-government thinking. It is embodied in
government action and inaction whenever conservatives have their
way.  

This view demands hypersensitivity to ensure that those who receive
government benefits do not take advantage of the rest of us. It
insists that the only people worthy of government assistance are those
can who surmount the obstacles government places in their way. 

That attitude can be seen in the harsh, inhumane workhouses and
poorhouses that used to be common features of life in Great Britain
and the United States. These institutions have been described as
[[link removed]] "designed
to punish people for their poverty and, hypothetically, make being
poor so horrible that people would continue to work at all costs."
More succinctly, a nineteenth century activist against these
institutions called them
[[link removed]] "prisons
for the poor."

The attitude can be seen in the nineteenth century debate over free
public education. John Randolph, a wealthy Virginia slaveowner and
politician, expressed his horror at the idea of universal free public
education with words that echo sentiments one still hears today: 

"Among the strange notions that have been broached since I have been
on the political theatre, there is one which has lately seized the
minds of men, that all things must be done for them by the government,
and that they are to do nothing for themselves."

In 1935, when President Roosevelt proposed the creation of Social
Security, opponents made similar arguments. Despite the fact that
Social Security is earned, the opponents still claimed it would create
dependency. As part of their fearmongering, they employed a new
frightening epithet as shorthand for all of their concerns. Social
Security, its opponents claimed, was socialism. 

Nor has that attitude disappeared. We see it in talk of
"entitlements," and "makers" and "takers,"
[[link removed]] 
as well as in claims that government spending creates dependency and
that the Democratic agenda is socialist.  

Democrats must resist the demands for work requirements and
means-testing, if they truly want to build back better. They must
resist the idea that government should only help the most destitute
among us, not the working class or the middle class. In arguing for
this more expansive help, they must remind those opposing them how
much government has always helped the most advantaged among us.

Those who object to universal government help, who see themselves as
having made it on their own, are often those who have been born with
privilege, who benefit from government on a daily basis. They turn a
blind eye to the highways, courts, police, military, and all the other
public expenditures from which they disproportionately benefit.  

In a 1938 radio address
[[link removed]], President Roosevelt
compellingly explained the reality that it is the wealthy who
government has always benefited the most:

"The first to turn to Government, the first to receive protection from
Government, were not the poor and the lowly—those who had no
resources other than their daily earnings—but the rich and the
strong. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the United States passed
protective laws designed, in the main, to give security to property
owners, to industrialists, to merchants and to bankers….Because it
has become increasingly difficult for individuals to build their own
security single-handed, Government must now step in and help them lay
the foundation stones, just as Government in the past has helped lay
the foundation of business and industry."

FDR understood that government involves all of us coming together to
protect each of us against risks over which we have no control.
Democrats need to heed FDR's words and pass a Build Back Better Act
that reflects his view of the world: A view that work requirements are
unnecessary in a world where good paying jobs are available to all. A
view that universal programs that encourage work and prevent people
from falling into poverty are far preferable to means-tested programs
that are demeaning and trap those already in poverty. 

The answer to concern that the wealthy will receive benefits they
don't need is to bring back a truly progressive income tax and a
substantial estate tax. The problem is not the wealthy receiving the
same benefits as the rest of us, but rather our dysfunctional tax
system that absolves them of the responsibility to contribute their
fair share towards the common good. 

Our nation is highly polarized. But one issue that unites us is Social
Security. Democrats, Republicans, and independents all support
protecting and expanding benefits. That is because Social Security
embodies Roosevelt's world view and the understanding he learned from
his devastating experience with polio. 

FDR saw clearly that all of us face risks. He believed that government
should help us address those risks together. He was physically
dependent on others, and understood how demeaning it was to have to
continually prove your need. He knew how crushing it is to the spirit
to feel like a failure, unable to get by without help. 

FDR understood that we are at our strongest when we recognize our
common humanity. Having suffered from polio and succeeded in spite of
it, he understood how important it was to design government programs
to be uplifting.  

Today's Democrats should embrace Roosevelt's insight. They ignore his
wisdom at their peril. The right-wing activist Grover Norquist
once expressed
[[link removed]] his
desire to reduce government to "the size where I can drag it into the
bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." If Manchin forces work
requirements and intrusive, demeaning means tests, it will be
substantially easier for Republicans to drown Biden's legacy in the
bathtub once they are back in control. 

To resist that fate, Democrats must convince Manchin to build back
better for everyone. 

_Nancy J. Altman is president of Social Security Works and chair of
the Strengthen Social Security coalition. She has a 40-year background
in the areas of Social Security and private pensions. Her latest book
is "The Truth About Social Security: The Founders' Words Refute
Revisionist History, Zombie Lies, and Common Misunderstandings"
(2018). She is also the author of "The Battle for Social Security"
(2005) and co-author of "Social Security Works!" (2015)._

_COMMON DREAMS IS NOT YOUR NORMAL NEWS SITE. WE DON'T SURVIVE ON
CLICKS. WE DON'T WANT ADVERTISING DOLLARS. WE WANT THE WORLD TO BE A
BETTER PLACE. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We
need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size
matters—please do. WITHOUT YOUR SUPPORT WE SIMPLY DON'T
EXIST. DONATE NOW_

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]
Screenshot of the email generated on import

Message Analysis

  • Sender: Portside
  • Political Party: n/a
  • Country: United States
  • State/Locality: n/a
  • Office: n/a
  • Email Providers:
    • L-Soft LISTSERV