SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
cost of living
Progressives Say 2.5% COLA Increase Is a Reminder That Social Security Is on the Ballot
"Older Americans should pay close attention and make sure they support candidates who will protect the benefits they have earned—and even increase them—in the fast approaching November elections," said one advocate.
Oct 10, 2024
The cost-of-living adjustment announced Thursday by the U.S. Social Security Administration for more than 72 million senior citizens should serve as a reminder, said economic justice advocates, that the monthly Social Security payments—the "bedrock" of financial security for 58% of recipients—are on election ballots this year.
The administration announced a 2.5% cost-of-living adjustment, commonly known as COLA, for 2025. People who get retirement benefits through the broadly popular New Deal-era program will see their payments adjusted starting in January 2025, and people with disabilities who rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) will receive increased benefits starting in December.
To Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works (SSW), which advocates to protect and expand the program, the COLA announcement underscored the vast differences in how Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are likely to approach the Social Security program should they win the presidency in November.
Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, both co-sponsored legislation to update the COLA formula to better reflect the cost of living for seniors and people with disabilities, noted Altman.
"Republicans have a different perspective," she said. "The Republican Study Committee (which comprises over 80% of House Republicans) proposes annual budgets that include Social Security cuts. Page 104 of the Fiscal Year 2025 Republican Study Committee Budget calls the automatic nature of COLAs a 'problem' and implies that they should be subjected to annual Congressional approval. It also claims that the current COLA formula is too generous. Social Security beneficiaries likely disagree!"
The authors of Project 2025, the right-wing policy agenda co-written by dozens of people who worked in the Trump White House from 2017-21, have also endorsed increasing the full retirement age from 67 to 69, which would cut benefits for nearly three-quarters of Americans.
The current formula for the COLA is based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), but advocates have called for the Social Security Administration (SSA) to instead take into consideration the CPI-E, which measures the spending of Americans 62 years of age and older.
"The formula currently used to calculate annual COLAs under-measures the expenses that Social Security beneficiaries face," said Altman. "Seniors spend a greater proportion of their income on medical expenses―and the Social Security COLA should reflect that."
For beneficiaries who last year received $1,870 per month, the 2.5% increase will give them an additional $46.80 each month, Social Security and Medicare policy analyst Mary Johnson toldNewsweek.
"That's only going to buy about 14 gallons of gasoline per month at today's prices, or maybe enough groceries for one to last two or three days," she added.
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said the group welcomes the COLA, but warned that "many older Americans struggle to make ends meet and afford even the most basic necessities like housing, food, and prescription drugs."
"We need a COLA that better reflects how seniors spend their money," said Fiesta. "Strengthening Social Security and increasing benefits must be a national priority. If billionaires and the top 1% pay their fair share into the system, we can afford to increase benefits across the board and ensure Social Security is there for our children and grandchildren."
"Raising the retirement age, slashing benefits and privatizing the program are among retirees' top concerns," he added. "Older Americans should pay close attention and make sure they support candidates who will protect the benefits they have earned—and even increase them—in the fast approaching November elections."
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) pointed to the Social Security 2100 Act, legislation that would apply federal payroll taxes to earnings above $400,000 to ensure millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share toward funding and expanding Social Security.
"There is an urgent need to act to not only protect Social Security from the cuts that my Republican colleagues have proposed [but to] enhance benefits," said Larson.
Ahead of the elections, said Altman, "the bottom line is that Democrats want to make annual COLAs more accurate and generous, while Republicans want to make them stingier."
"Democrats also support other policies that would lower costs for Social Security beneficiaries, including Harris' recently released plan to expand Medicare to include home care, hearing, and vision benefits," she said. "Older voters should bear that in mind this November."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The UK Left Sent Labour a Message on Austerity and Palestine
If the party wants to secure another victory at the next election, it must think very carefully about its stance on issues like Gaza, the NHS, and the cost of living crisis.
Jul 06, 2024
Incoming U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s election victory has given Labour a firm grip on power—but a closer look at the results shows a party facing stiff opposition from the left. Many candidates standing on anti-austerity and pro-Palestine platforms have achieved impressive results, which could spark a wider political movement.
Across most of Great Britain, support for the Labour Party did not actually increase. It is thanks only to the U.K.’s First Past the Post electoral system that such a big landslide was possible.
With two seats still left to declare, Labour has won 9.6 million votes—around 33.7% of all votes cast. This is far less than the 12.8 million votes (40%) the party secured in 2017, when Jeremy Corbyn was leader.
Many independent candidates succeeded. Their message resonated with the public. So what would have happened if they had worked together on a left-wing platform of fighting injustices, both in the U.K. and further afield?
Since the last election in 2019, Labour has increased its overall share of the vote by less than two points. Polling expert John Curtice says this was “entirely as a result of a 17-point increase in support in Scotland,” following a collapse in SNP support.
Starmer’s victory, Curtis explains, was not so much due to a rise in support for the party, but “largely on the back of a dramatic 20-point decline in Conservative support.”
The Labour leader’s allies will, no doubt, use the result to show that the party can win elections only from the center ground—and will continue to push out any opposition from the left. But yesterday’s vote also represents a major shift in support for left-wing candidates.
At the last election, no independent candidates won a seat. This time around, independents secured an impressive share of the vote and inflicted a series of major blows to Labour, winning in five constituencies in England. Many such candidates had stood on pro-Palestine platforms, highlighting Starmer’s support for Israeli atrocities in Gaza.
Independent Shockat Adam defeated Labour shadow cabinet minister Jon Ashworth in Leicester South, which was meant to be a safe seat; Ashworth had won by more than 22,000 votes in 2019. After the result was announced, Adam said: “This is for the people of Gaza.”
Elsewhere, IT consultant Iqbal Mohamed pulled off a landslide victory against Labour in the constituency of Dewsbury and Batley in West Yorkshire, winning by almost 7,000 votes.
A solicitor called Adnan Hussein, who stood as an independent candidate in Blackburn, secured a narrow win over Labour, in what the BBCdescribed as a “stunning victory.”
And another pro-Palestine independent candidate, Ayoub Khan, beat Labour in the constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr.
Meanwhile, Corbyn—who also stood as an independent after being forced out of the party—won his seat in Islington North by more than 7,200 votes. This was despite Labour pouring significant support into the constituency, including visits from party grandees like Tony Blair’s former chief adviser, Peter Mandelson, and former deputy leader Tom Watson.
Corbyn, of course, benefited from being so well-known and having served the constituency for more than 40 years. But the scale of his victory was certainly not guaranteed. Shortly before the election, the constituency was described in the media as “marginal.”
Other independents came a close second or third. They include 23-year-old Liane Mohamed, who was within touching distance of kicking Labour’s shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, out of his seat in Ilford North. She lost by just 528 votes.
In Chingford and Woodford Green, the Labour Party scored a spectacular own-goal by ditching its popular local candidate, Faiza Shaheen, in a last-minute deselection that split the left-wing vote and allowed former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith to retain the seat with 17,000 votes. Shaheen—whom Starmer previously campaigned with and described as “a fantastic candidate”—stood as an independent and won almost 12,500 votes—only 79 less than Labour.
Even in Starmer’s ultra-safe central London seat of Holborn and St Pancras, an independent candidate emerged out of nowhere to land a considerable blow. The Labour leader lost nearly 18,000 votes (more than 17%) from the last election, falling from 36,641 to 18,884. His rival, the anti-apartheid campaigner Andrew Feinstein, came second with 7,312.
All of these wins should worry Labour. Although its victory is clear, the party faces a significant electoral and political threat from left-wing and pro-Palestine opponents. If it wants to secure another victory at the next election, it must think very carefully about its stance on issues like Gaza, the NHS, and the cost of living crisis.
There are reasons independent candidates often struggle to win seats at a general election. They receive little airtime from the media and lack the big financial donations that larger parties rely on.
The First Past the Post system also greatly benefited Labour in this election, when compared to the Green Party and others. This will reignite calls for proportional representation.
But despite these systemic obstacles, this time around, many independent candidates succeeded. Their message resonated with the public. So what would have happened if they had worked together on a left-wing platform of fighting injustices, both in the U.K. and further afield? The results today could well be very different in many areas.
If there was ever a good time for them to consider a new party, it’s now. Nigel Farage’s Reform U.K. has shown that a new party can burst onto the stage and win seats in Parliament. Given the success of many left-wing independent candidates, and the purge of left-wingers from the Labour Party, could the left learn something from this in time for the next election?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Should Be Clear: Corporations Are to Blame for High Prices
Biden has not condemned specific corporations publicly, or threatened them with specific actions unless they lower their prices.
Jun 15, 2024
I’ve analyzed every poll and survey over the last two months, and they all tell the same basic story:
Voters’ top issue is high prices and the cost of living—not jobs, not abortion, not immigration, not U.S. President Joe Biden’s or former President Donald Trump’s age, not even the survival of democracy.
Voters still don’t believe Biden will get prices down, but they believe Trump will. A significant number appear willing to vote for Trump and risk the future of democracy because they believe he will do better job lowering prices.
Consumers are getting shafted, as corporations tell Wall Street they expect to be able to keep their prices and profits in the stratosphere.
Which is why Biden’s approval rating on the economy is deeply underwater while perceptions of Trump’s handling of the economy when he was president (marked by low inflation but huge job losses from Covid-19) are positive.
What should Biden do?
Put blame for high prices squarely where it belongs: on big corporations with monopoly power to keep prices high.
And take those corporations on: Condemn them for price gouging. Threaten them with antitrust lawsuits, price-gouging lawsuits, even price controls. Criticize them for making huge profits and giving their top executives record pay while shafting consumers.
And name names: PepsiCo, Tyson's, Kroger and Albertsons, Exxon-Mobil, and others.
To be sure, the Biden administration has brought down the prices of prescription drugs like insulin and inhalers, reduced bank overdraft and credit card fees, and cracked down on “junk fees” levied by airlines, concert promoters, and more.
Its Department of Justice has launched a lawsuit to combat price-fixing in the meat industry. And the FTC is suing to block the Kroger/Albertsons grocery mega-merger that would send grocery bills even higher.
“We’re taking on corporate greed to bring down the price of gas, food, and rent, eliminating junk fees,” Biden told a crowd of 1,000 supporters in Philadelphia recently.
But Biden has not berated hugely profitable corporations for keeping their prices and profit margins sky high—unlike Sens. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who have made corporate price hikes central to their campaigns and are outrunning Biden in polls. Biden has not condemned specific corporations publicly, or threatened them with specific actions unless they lower their prices.
Brown, who represents a state that Trump won handily in 2020, has cut several web ads proclaiming he is “cracking down on the companies that rip off Ohio.”
Casey released a campaign ad showing corporate executives in suits sneaking into a grocery store under cover of night and switching out cereal boxes for smaller replacements. He has introduced a bill that would crack down on “shrinkflation”—a term for companies’ reducing the size of their goods but not cutting prices (Biden praised that legislation during his State of the Union address).
Senate Democrats in tight races, like Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Jacky Rosen of Nevada, are making similar pitches.
Why isn’t Biden?
Partly, I think, because he’s uncomfortable attacking corporations directly.
It’s also because some economists close to his White House (such as Larry Summers) disagree that a major driver of inflation is corporations’ raising prices to juice profits. (Three years ago, Larry and I publicly debated a wealth tax on hugely profitable corporations. I was in favor; he against.)
But the fact is, corporate profits have surged to record levels. Shares are trading at record levels. Corporations are buying back their stock at record levels. CEO pay is at record levels. Corporate concentration—monopoly power—is higher than ever.
Concentration has increased in over 75% of U.S. industries since the late 1990s.
Consumers are getting shafted, as corporations tell Wall Street they expect to be able to keep their prices and profits in the stratosphere.
Is It Inflation? Or Is It Greedflation? | Robert Reichwww.youtube.com
Most voters agree that big corporations are largely responsible for inflation. Nearly 6 in 10 say corporations’ being “greedy” is a major cause of inflation, including a majority of independent voters, according to a poll by Navigator Research.
The Biden campaign’s internal polling has found similar results.
With less than five months to go—and the cost of living being the No. 1 issue on voters’ minds—Biden should let ‘er rip.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular