I am in agreement with both of your views.
Yet, its a dilemma to decide whether it is progressive to support Clinton's proposal or to oppose it.
As Tom said, the working public is get the bad end of the stick, but then if it happens, it will accelerate the crash and speed up the revolution. On the other hand, if the proposal is defeated, the power to be is going to use that as a pretext to sink the whole SS program.
Doug's economic arguments, though rational, is dependent of the establishment wanting to make SS work as it is currently constituted. Yet the incentive to do that is now greatly discounted.
Tom, a similar situation in involved with Fast Track. Denying the White House FT authority will not protect your union members, because the Administration will find ways to go around it. It will give the Adm, however, an excuse to make bad deals that really screw labor.
My advice to American Labor is to push for the following legislative programs:
1) 3% prime rate 2) moderate inflation 4-6% 3) 20% flat income tax with no deductions, with a high no tax threshold, say $40,000 annual income 4) Mandatory triple pay for overtime 5) Constant job levels by location; jobs can be relocated only if equal number of jobs are re-created in the original site, coupled with a "portable" minimum wage regime. This permits upgrading without shut downs. 6) Negotiate capital/labor ratio by industry. When market capitalization increases through rise in share prices, wages and compensation will increase to keep c/l ratio constant. 7) Equal depreciation allowance for labor as for capital investment. Depreciation deductible for income tax purposes.
Henry
Tom Lehman wrote:
> Dear Doug,
>
> As far as the unions go, what I'm telling my pals is that Clinton's
> plan for Social Security is like NAFTA. Clinton will promise all of
> the protections and safeguards, but, after he and the Republocrats get
> done we will have nothing. Same deal as NAFTA.
>
> The first time we can say it was his fault, the second time it will be
> our own fault.
>
> Your email pal,
>
> Tom L.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> James Baird wrote:
>>
>> >Is it just me, or this something new? A Fed chairman coming out
>> against
>> >a presidential initiative the day after its proposed? I think that
>>
>> >Greenspan has begun to believe his own press.
>>
>> He's said this before. Republican capital seems not to want any
>> federal
>> money in the stock market; Democratic capital likes the idea.
>> (Unions and
>> philanthropies already have big stock portfolios.) Greenspan is a
>> Republican. On top of that, it could be that the central banker in
>> him gets
>> nervous about injecting big public funds into an already frothy
>> market. It
>> looks like all the liberals, from the think tanks to the AFL-CIO,
>> are all
>> going to line up behind Clinton's softer privatization.
>>
>> Doug
>