And "much easier than many people think" to extend universal social contributory programs? Really? 2009 was the best shot we are going to see in a long while to get universal Medicare. Health care reform was at the top of the agenda. A purported liberal was in the White House. The Democrats had control of both houses of Congress. And what happened? A quick rush to HR 676? Hardly. Medicare for all was quickly identified as the one and only option that was ruled out. Even the public option, we now know, was quickly bartered away in back room deals. Social Security, meanwhile, is much closer to being cut back than it is to being expanded.
When you are as fucked as we are fucked, you don't throw away what little you have.
----- Original Message ---- From: Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Wed, February 23, 2011 8:17:06 AM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Lind on the post-union future
[WS:] Hold your sticks for a while. I do not think that he is arguing for dismantling public sector unions. His argument is different - he takes it as a given that the public sector unions and employer-based benefits will go south whether liberals like it or not and offers a "what next" strategy. And I think that his assumption is more or less grounded in reality, so it makes no sense to attack the messenger who bring bad news.
His argument for a universal benefit is also fundamentally sound. A universal benefit is more likely to get broad public support than benefits targeting narrowly defined groups. The only question whether implementing a universal benefit is realistic in today's political climate.
It appears to me that it is much easier than many people think. Fundamentally, it would require expansion of two existing and popular contributory programs - Social Security and Medicare. Social Security can be expanded by offering a voluntary second tier program above the existing mandatory one. Medicare can be expanded along the lines proposed by Alan Grayson. To be sure, both approaches will face stiff Repug opposition but they are more viable and more likely to survive legal challenges than Obamacare. Of course, both would require a strong liberal Democrat presence in the house and the senate - which is also attainable.
>From a hindsight, liberal support of Obamacare appears to be a strategic
mistake, as its provisions are likely to be significantly watered downed by
a combination of legal challenges and Repug foot dragging. Pushing for
modest but more water tight approaches, such as one proposed by Grayson
would have been far more effective in a long run. I do not see why this
strategy cannot be pursued in the future. From that pov, Lind's piece
offers an interesting strategic vision in the times when everyone is
preoccupied with short term tactical issues (Wisconsin.)
As to Robert Wodd's comments that Lind misrepresented the significance of trade unionism - I do not think there is anything in his piece that writes off the union potential for political organizing - in fact he specifically affirms this. He just says that the unions will not be able to deliver what they used to in the past - social protection schemes. That is a different argument - and I may add a quite realistic one - than a call for scrapping the unions.
Wojtek ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk