social security

Dear Congress Member Woolsey:

We have just learned that there are two bills pending that would repeal provisions of the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). Both the GPO and WEP penalize workers who paid into Social Security during their working lives, and are prevented from receiving full Social Security benefits on their earnings by GPO and WEP.)

Social Security is an insurance program. The premiums (payments)  are deducted from a worker’s paycheck, matched by the workers’ employer, and sent to our government  by the employer. Payments are based on percentage of total wages paid up to a yearly limit mandated by law. These payments are held in a government Trust Fund until they are returned, monthly, to the covered employee in an amount determined by law. The amount is based on the age said employee began to pay into Social Security and the age of his or her retirement. The retirees are prevented from receiving all benefits by two laws.

Both GPO and WEP penalize retirees unfairly by reducing Social Security benefits they have earned and paid for during their working lives.

Two bills have been introduced in the Congress to remedy these injustices. They are: H.R. 235, which would repeal provisions of the GPO and WEP as applied to Social Security. Introduced by Rep. Howard Berman on January 7, 2009, it is co-sponsored by 194 members of the House of Representatives and  is now in t he House Ways and Means Committee.

Respectfully,

O.G. Grimes and Elizabeth E.  Grimes
Petaluma, CA 94954

The Federal Courts and Elections

Introduction

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg discovered that she had cancer of the pancreas. Although apparently  medical care has restored her to health, we continue to be concerned for her and, importantly, what kinds of decisions any replacement for her might make.

The average American pays little attention to the justice system until he gets a traffic citation or a summons to jury duty. He may be somewhat more interested in decisions of the Supreme Court, if only because the high court’s decisions are reported in our major media. Perhaps we should be more mindfulof the impact the decisions of federal judges can have on our lives, our freedom and our families.

          Picture a United States without such long-established protections as child labor laws, social security, freedom to organize labor unions, and reproductive rights. Picture an America which no longer guarantees the civil rights of minorities, the employment rights of the disabled, the right of workers to a minimum wage, the right of every child to a free public education. None of these existed at the beginning of the twentieth century. All of them are in danger of being lost.

          The goal of reversing the national government’s role as a centralizing progressive force has long been  part of the conservative agenda. President Bush turns to the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies in evaluating prospective judges. Supporters of the Federalist Society are well-known for their opposition to change and their orthodox views.

          The early Federalists were an eighteenth century political group which advocated a strong central government. Alexander Hamilton was notable among their supporters. They were opposed by the Democratic Republicans, exemplified by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.The two groups – Federalist and the Democratic Republicans – both supported “liberty,” but described liberty in differing ways. While Alexander Hamilton stressed the secure rights of property as defining freedom, Madison and Jefferson attached equal importance to the rights of the individual to act in accordance with his own individual values and to be free to participate fully in society.

          In 1803, John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed by Federalist President John Adams, made the claim for the first time that judges possess the power to strike down any law they believe to be contrary to the Constitution. In effect, Marshall contended that the law meant whatever the Court said it meant.  Jefferson and Madison disagreed. They saw the Court as one of three co-equal branches of government answerable ultimately to the voters. But Marshall’s claim persisted and the Court still enjoys the privilege of interpreting out of existence any act of Congress, or portion thereof, that they see fit.

          What is worse, justices of the Supreme Court, together with all judges of federal courts, are appointed for life and are not required to justify their decisions. Nor can they be removed from office except by impeachment, unlike members of Congress or the President who can be replaced by election.

          Franklin D. Roosevelt who became president three years into the Great Depression, proposed a series of initiatives which came to be called the New Deal. It was during the New Deal era that unions achieved legal status,; a minimum wage and a 40 hour week was set; child labor was outlawed; and the Social Security Act was passed. The New Deal was designed to boost the economy, put Americans back to work and use government regulation to curb the excesses of laissez-faire economics.

          By 1935, the first laws of the New Deal had been challenged and had come to the Supreme Court. The justices struck down the National Recovery Act, the Farm Mortgage Foreclosure Act and other components of  Roosevelt’s recovery plan. While the public supported FDR’s initiatives, the justices viewed them as dangerous. During his time in office, however,  FDR had the opportunity to appoint nine justices. In the long run, the major components of the New Deal were upheld and the government’s right to act on matters of national concern were no longer questioned.

          Until now.

          George W. Bush has appointed young judges to the circuit courts and it is from these courts that justices to the Supreme Court usually come, having now been vetted by the Federalist Society. Seven of the twelve circuit courts are presently dominated by conservatives who uphold the administration’s agenda on everything from religion to reproductive rights. Since some of these circuit court judges have been elevated to the  Supreme Court, they have joined Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in controlling direction of the high court not only for our own lifetimes, but for those of our children.

          To understand the seriousness of the present threat, we need to realize how gains in the fields of civil rights, health, education, family planning and environmental protection could be lost in a few decisions by a majority of these “new federalists.”

          In a 1995 case, United States v. Lopez, the five justices who decided Bush v. Gore ruled that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce did not allow it to pass the Gun Free School Zones  Act of 1990 which forbade possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. In Lopez, then chief Justice Rehnquist stated that his intention was to make certain that such a solution to the problem of school violence did not establish a precedent for “direct federal regulation of the educational process, such as a mandated federal curriculum for local elementary and secondary schools.

          Another decision which underscores the way an ultra-conservative federal judiciary can affect our lives is Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett. This one disallowed the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act to state employees on the grounds that the federal government cannot intrude on state sovereignty in order to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. They also invalidated parts of the Violence Against Women Act and a portion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

These decisions seem to indicate that the conservative majority is philosophically inclined to preserve states rights by limiting what the national government can do and that the “new Federalism” differs from the “old Federalism” of the early days of our nation in that instead of approving increased control for the national government, it turns back more authority to the states.

However, the majority was and still is inconsistent. In Bush v. Gore, the five member majority reversed the order of the Florida Supreme Court that under-votes be counted, effectively handing the election to George W. Bush. In other actions, they invalidated Massachusetts law which regulated tobacco advertising in areas frequented by kids and an Illinois law providing for an independent medical review of denials of benefits by HMOs.

So much for states rights. As Richard Briffault, vice dean at Columbia Law School put it, “the preemption cases indicated that the Court’s commitment to federalism is highly erratic.” And writer Cass Sunstein, the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School, stated that, “On the central issues of the day, many conservative judges seem to think that the Constitution should be interpreted to overlap with the latest Republican party platform.”

Former Chief Justice Rehnquist has been replaced by John Roberts, who is at least as conservative as Rehnquist. Sandra Day Connor, who was somewhat more moderate and respectful of precedent than the other conservatives, has retired. In her place, is Samuel Alito. Both of the new members of the court were appointed by George W. Bush who, true to his ideology, picked two more right wing jurists. The court majority has become even more strongly tilted rightward.

Liberals fear that the ascension of two more Federalists – or whatever they are –  together with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy will roll back many of the laws that have improved the lives of ordinary citizens for the past sixty years.

Liberals are appalled when we contemplate the damage – the radical destructive changes – this kind of majority is causing. As we could have predicted, the changes have the most severe impact on those most vulnerable – poor people, minorities, women, the very old, the very young – the already powerless and disenfranchised.

FEMINISM MADE SIMPLE

In considering any issue, the first thing we need to do is define our terms. The bottom line on feminism is simply this: women are human beings. It’s no more than that. It’s no less than that.

Stereotypes of feminism abound, so let’s deal with a few of the main ones. The image of a feminist as a rude, ball-busting woman with hairy legs is so absurd that it hardly needs attention. Unfortunately many misogynists promote that image. Women seeking justice should not have to spend time defending themselves against it with such statements as “I’m not a feminist, but … ” before they go on to state that all they want is to be free of restrictive sex roles, to get equal treatment in employment and pay. To receive the same respect men receive.

Another more benevolent but equally pernicious image is that of nurturing mother – the vision of the self sacrificing, all giving woman who asks nothing for herself and seeks only the welfare of her children. And by extension the welfare of others less fortunate than she, whose needs she feels she should address before any consideration of her own.

Woman as sex object. Let’s not go there. Maybe in another commentary.

To get back to our bottom line: women are human beings. That’s the axiom. The corollary is that women’s rights are human rights. Women do not ask for “special rights.” Women just need the rights enjoyed by men.

Most women love men. It’s time men returned the sentiment  — with  respect and support.

End of rant.

There really is enough for everyone’s need …

… but not for everyone’s greed.

There are two classes of people in our country:  the majority of us who do the work which creates the wealth and pays the bills, and the tiny minority that has control of most productive assets and the wealth the rest of us have constructed with our labor.

It is in the interests of that minority to keep us divided so we cannot organize to oppose its policies. The means they use are racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia and religious conflict.

If we work together to end the prejudice, hate and fear that separate us, just imagine the kind of world we could have.

By: Beth Grimes, Another Advocate for equality.

The Present

LABOR HISTORY MONTH

Never heard of Labor History Month? You’re not alone. Few Americans have. But the first day of May is International Workers Day. Never heard of that either? No surprise. You won’t learn about it in a school classroom, in your newspaper, on a radio station or the TV news. The day commemorates an event that happened right here in the USA. On this day in 1886, 180,000 working men went on strike for an eight hour work day. Although little noted in our nation, International Workers Day is celebrated in countries throughout the world.

We have come to take the eight hour day for granted, together with the two-day weekend. These are now legally mandated limits on how long an employee can be forced to work without being paid overtime. They didn’t drop from heaven. Organized workers fought long and hard to gain both. At the time the May Day strike of 1886 occurred, ten hours daily, six days a week were usual. Sometimes as much as sixteen hours.

May first, 1830, was the birthdate of a remarkable woman, Mary Harris, widely known as Mother Jones. It is fitting that she should be born on the anniversary of the beginnings of our own labor movement, for this feisty woman was a dedicated union organizer.

MOTHER BASHING

As Mother’s Day gets closer, we see countless ads urging us to honor our moms on their “special day”. But beneath the officially encouraged reverential attitude toward those who gave us life, is a deep layer of contempt. The syrupy verse on the Hallmark card presents a romanticized vision of maternity which disguises the disrespect – even hostility – for mom, the person, hostility that exists in both men and women.

Child-bearing and child care continue to be the occupation our society expects women to choose. This is a choice most women do make. Maybe it’s time to ask ourselves why.

The creation of a new human being is a complex process. Pregnancy and childbirth are physically arduous, emotionally intense, and exhausting. We are culturally conditioned to speak only of the joy of having a baby and to celebrate each birth. What is not acceptable is any discussion of labor pain, which is almost always severe, or the “skid marks” childbirth leaves on our bodies. And we are in deep denial of the fact that women still die having babies.

Once a child is born, its mother begins the challenging, difficult work of meeting its every need. Few first-time parents avoid being overwhelmed by the number of tasks required to care for a baby. Few are prepared for the degree of sleep deprivation involved. Both parents are affected by the arrival of a newborn, but it is the mother who is usually the primary care giver.

As the baby becomes a toddler, mother must be constantly vigilant to keep the child safe – without discouraging his or her natural need to explore and learn. She is the child’s first teacher. It is mostly her responsibility to socialize, train, and ease him into the ways of the world. The school years bring a new set of maternal responsibilities, the child-centered volunteer chores moms perform – PTA, Little League, field trips, baking cookies for school events.

We couldn’t love our children more. But make no mistake. Mothering is hard work. It is a 24/7 responsibility – every hour of the day, every day of the week. It is also unpaid, undervalued, unrespected. The woman who stays at home to care for her kids is seen as “not working”even though she is responsible for all domestic chores, errands and almost 100 percent of the parenting. Anyone who says she “doesn’t work”should try spending a week running a household in which there is a toddler and a new baby.

Then once her children are grown, she will discover that the long range effect of her time-out-for-mothering years will be a reduction in her lifetime earnings, lower social security benefits and thus the increased likelihood of old-age poverty.

The woman who combines child-rearing and work outside her home has a different set of problems. She’ll learn that reliable child care is scarce and expensive. She will live with ongoing pressure to be a good employee, maintain the family home, get dinner on the table every night, keep everyone in clean clothes and still find the time and energy to provide the care and guidance needed by her children. She will be tired all the time and live with the constant stress of having to “do it all”.

When we consider the physical price women pay giving birth, contemplate the thankless hard work of child-rearing, count the considerable economic costs in terms of lower pay as a result of choosing motherhood, we are left wondering why it is that women continue to bear children. And why it is that our society looks at mothers and mothering with scorn, even resentment. For men and women alike are quick to blame their mothers for everything that went wrong in their lives. One would think gratitude a more appropriate response.

We live in a relentlessly pro birth society. The media, the politicians, the religious leaders all give lip service to “family values” and blather on about the miracle of life and the glory of motherhood. But they balk at supporting adequate funding of good education and adequate health care for kids, or the kinds of social supports provided in other industrialized nations.

Our culture displays a “penalized-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t” attitude toward motherhood. Before any woman makes the decision to give the country a child, a new contributing citizen, maybe she should demand something in return – something of value. Respect, appreciation and the end of mother-bashing would be a start, but only a start. Economic justice, in the form of government assured health care for kids, free high-quality education for all children in a modern school and a crime-free neighborhood, an affordable, healthy food supply for families with youngsters, and social security credits for child-rearing, should be the norm.

Our National Credit Card

by Beth Grimes

We Americans carry a lot of credit card debt. Of course, we’re required to pay it back or at least keep the finance charges paid.The nation’s credit card is also over-loaded and our nation, too, must pay finance charges. Our  national debt is in the neighborhood of nine trillion bucks. That’s trillion with a “t,” folks. A billion is a “one” followed by nine zeroes, a thousand millions. A trillion is a one followed by twelve zeroes. Most of us have trouble wrapping our minds around a billion, let alone a trillion.

Will that ever be paid off? We’ll see. We’ve faced a worse debt problem.  Presidents Truman Kennedy, Johnson and Carter eliminated most of the WWII debt. Republicans Eisenhower and Nixon did their part, but their Republican administrations were dominated less by right wing ideology than is the present one.So how did our leaders get us in hock up to our ear lobes? It was easy. The government just spent more money every year than the revenue it received, creating annual deficits. Our debt is the total of those deficits.

Actually the 12% paid by corporations comes from the consumers of the corporations’ products, because the tax is packed into the price of their goods as a cost of doing business. The part of the budget not obligated to be spent for a specified purpose is called the General Fund. It is the money pot from which Congress and the White House spend your income taxes and those of profit making enterprises. Its budget is called “Discretionary,” meaning that Congress and the Administration get to decide how to spread it around.

Wounded Veterans

Beth Grimes 

The first of a two-panel newspaper cartoon shows a stocky, elderly man waving an American flag.  On the front of his T-shirt are the words “Support Our Troops.” In the second panel, on the back of the same T-shirt are the questions “Veterans? What veterans?” Sadly, too many Americans say they support the troops, but forget about them once they come home.
As of March 27, 4004 American soldiers had been killed in Iraq. Multiples of that  number are injured for every fatality. The official count of wounded by the Department of Defense is 29,451, but that number is probably higher when we count those injured in service related accidents and disease. It also does not include the toll taken by post-combat suicides.
Our soldiers’ wounds include losses of arms, legs, faces. They often suffer damage to their brains from the impact of the improvised explosive devices used so often in this conflict. Others come home with unfamiliar diseases of the Middle East, such as leishmaniasis, a nasty infection transmitted by the bite of a sand flea. Many have health problems caused by radiation from depleted uranium weapons. The Army thinks DU munitions are just dandy, because they’re so effective at penetrating enemy tanks. But DU rounds create radioactive dust when they explode, contaminating the air soldiers breathe.
Of course, our country gives wounded warriors the best medical  treatment possible, sparing no expense. Doesn’t it? We wish! Although most of us believe they are entitled to the best care a grateful nation can provide, they are not getting it. The VA has admitted that 33,858 more Iraq war vets showed up in the first three months of 2006 than were expected for the entire year. The shameful treatment of soldiers returning from Iraq came to public attention when reports of substandard conditions at Walter Reed Hospital hit the news. But the scandal at this once excellent facility is just the tip of the iceberg. Inadequate medical treatment for too many of our injured soldiers is the norm right now.
How can that be? You may well ask.
The Veterans Administration is badly underfunded.  A former Republican National Committeeman presently heads the Department of Veterans Affairs and, together with VA political appointees, opposed increasing funds for our wounded fighters’ health care. Waving the banner of lower taxes and smaller government, they testified  that more money wasn’t needed, because the agency has increased “management efficiency.” Why did anyone think “management efficiency” needed to be increased? That the VA was inefficient is disputed by the Government Accountability Office. The VA has been quite efficient and its care conforms to the highest standards of medical services. It is a system that works well when it has sufficient resources.
Perhaps the Veterans Administration works too well to suit those who would like to privatize it. Privatization would be profitable for those corporations that want to take over the VA.’s mission of providing medical care and administering disability claims for veterans.
Politicians who want to privatize every service government provides never give up, do they?

We Americans should be ashamed that our political leaders look away from the myriad problems so many of our injured vets bring home with them from war. According to a report in USA Today, veterans are 25% of the homeless but only 11% of the adult population. Even higher percentages exist in cities across the country. In the San Francisco Chronicle of  December 9, 2007, columnist C.W. Nevius quoted the regional manager for homeless programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, as stating that there are about 2,100 homeless veterans out of the 6,000 shelter less people in San Francisco. If you think this is as bad as it’s going to get, just wait.
And homelessness is just one of the difficulties they face. Another huge problem is post traumatic stress disorder and government is now adding insult to injury by telling sufferers from PTSD that what they have is a “personality disorder,” a problem they had before enlisting. Why do government spokesmen say this? Because defining it as a pre-existing condition lets Uncle Sam off the hook.
Politicians love to blather about the nation’s debt to those who bravely fought for their country, but the actions of these politicos say, “the only good combat veteran is a dead combat veteran/” A dead hero can be eulogized and his memory used to motivate young people to join, and risk their precious lives in, the military. Those who are injured may come home to demand healing and medical services. Sheesh. That would cost barrels of money. The pols would rather get those dollars into the hands of corporations that helped them get elected.
 “Support Our Troops” magnets are all very well, but we could slap one of them on every vehicle between New York and San Francisco and they wouldn’t do ­ as they haven’t done ­  a damn thing for the troops that come back damaged.
Combat leaves a lifelong impact. Those who go through it carry the memory inside them like an unwanted, uninvited guest who refuses to leave. Injured in body, mind and spirit, they need all the support a grateful nation can give them. They haven’t ­ and they won’t ­ get it from a VA with insufficient resources, doled out grudgingly by a soulless Administration and a Congress that didn’t hesitate to send them into an unnecessary, seemingly endless war.

Racism in America

Each January, we celebrate the birthday of a great African American, Martin Luther King, Jr., a leader of the civil rights movement. “He was treated as an icon, but his vision of a nation in which black and white kids went to school together seemed to effaced. Dutiful references to ‘The  Dream’ are inevitably seen in school brochures and on wall posters during February, when  “Black History” is celebrated in the public schools, but the content of the dream was treated as a closed box that could not be opened without ruining the celebration” From Savage Inequalities, page 3, by Jonathan Kozol.

We Americans should brush aside the syrupy, sanitized, reduced-to-sound-bite version of Dr. King’s work, a version which characterizes much of the media coverage of his birthday, and try instead to know the thinking of the real Dr. King.  We should to remember his dream, the dream which lives on in his books and speeches, and in the memory of his courageous actions. We need to be inspired and re-motivated to continue the work he began and finally bring an end to the evil of racism.