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
social safety net
'Austerity Is Labour's Choice': Outrage as Starmer Cuts Winter Fuel Allowance
"Cutting winter fuel allowance is not a tough choice," Jeremy Corbyn said. "It's the wrong choice—and we will not be fooled by ministers' attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they don't have to take."
Sep 11, 2024
Progressive critics and lawmakers are expressing outrage after the U.K. Parliament on Tuesday voted to cut a winter fuel allowance for millions of Britons, calling the move by the ruling Labour Party, which took power in July, a continuation of the Conservative Party's austerity policies.
The measure turns the allowance, which provides £200 to £300 ($262 to $293) per year to senior citizens for heating bills, into a means-tested program in which only the poorest will qualify. It's expected to reduce the number of people receiving the winter payment from 11.4 million last year to 1.5 million this year. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it a "tough choice" that was necessary because of the poor state of the British treasury.
A vote to overturn the cut lost 348 to 228 on Tuesday after Labour successfully whipped enough its members of Parliament into supporting the cut. Fifty two Labour MPs abstained, at least 20 of whom had expressed opposition to the plan, and one voted in opposition.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who now represents voters as an independent, condemned Starmer's move.
"Cutting winter fuel allowance is not a tough choice," Corbyn wrote on social media. "It's the wrong choice—and we will not be fooled by ministers' attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they don't have to take."
"Did he get permission from the Tories to reuse their trademark slogans?" he asked of Starmer in an a Tuesday op-ed in Tribune.
Under the headline, "Austerity Is Labour's Choice," Corybn railed against Starmer and his allies for falling back on the kind of neoliberalism that has dominated the U.K. for decades. He wrote:
It is astonishing to hear government ministers try to pull the wool over the public's eyes. The government knows that there is a range of choices available to them. They could introduce wealth taxes to raise upwards of £10 billion. They could stop wasting public money on private contracts. They could launch a fundamental redistribution of power by bringing water and energy into full public ownership. Instead, they have opted to take resources away from people who were promised things would change. There is plenty of money, it’s just in the wrong hands.
The winter fuel payment was introduced as an unconditional cash transfer in 1997 under then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. Some economists have argued that U.K. pensioners are in better position today than than were then, and thus the payment no longer makes sense; others have noted that in real terms, the payment is far lower than it used to be, due to inflation, and thus had become a relatively insignificant benefit anyway.
However, progressives have called the cuts, which were first proposed after Labour took office and weren't mentioned during the election campaign, far too drastic, given the roughly 10 million people they'll effect. Meanwhile, Corbyn and others have argued that Labour's move marks a loss for universalism and could auger more cuts to come:
A universal system of welfare reduces the stigma attached to those who rely on it, and removes barriers for those who find it difficult to apply (both are reasons why the take-up of means-tested payments is so low). What next for means testing? The state pension? The NHS [National Health Service]?
Some commentators have objected to rich pensioners receiving benefits such as the fuel allowance. Progressives have responded that the money should simply be clawed back through higher tax rates on the wealthy.
"In my view the government should be looking to raise revenues from the wealthiest in society, not working class pensioners," Jon Trickett, the only Labour MP to vote to nix to the cut, said in a statement issued on social media.
Universal programs make it easier to reach all those who need help, progressives argue. The new winter fuel payment will be set up so that only those who receive a Pension Credit or other similar government benefit will be eligible for it. But only 63% of pensioners who qualify for the credit actually receive it, government statistics show. The government has announced a campaign to try to increase uptake of the credit.
Trickett said that he feared it would lead more senior citizens to fall into poverty during what he predicted would be an "extremely difficult" winter for his constituents in West Yorkshire. "After years of obscene profiteering by energy companies, they are hiking bills yet again," he wrote.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the cut would save the treasury £1.4 billion ($1.8 billion) this year. She argues that the Conservatives, who held power from 2010 until July, initially as part of a coalition, left the national finances in a dire state and Labour must fill a £22 billion ($28.7 billion) budgetary "black hole."
Labour hasn't released an official impact assessment of the winter payment measure. Reeves, like Starmer, has said she didn't want to make the cut, but two weeks ago a video clip of her proposing to cut the allowance as an opposition MP in 2014.
Rachel Reeves has repeatedly said she didn't want to cut the universal winter fuel allowance for pensioners but it was a tough decision forced on her because of the financial black hole left by the last govt
Here's Reeves 10 years ago: pic.twitter.com/1BAIL4racv
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) August 28, 2024
Reeves and Starmer have long tried to establish their fiscal prudence and distance themselves from purportedly free-spending progressives in their party. A progressive commentator on Novara Mediacalled their winter allowance cut an "incredible political fumble."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Debate Tip for Biden: Attack Trump on Social Security
At Thursday’s presidential debate, Trump should be questioned about his Social Security statements and actions, and Biden should be given the opportunity to explain what Democrats will do.
Jun 26, 2024
At this week’s presidential debate, U.S. President Joe Biden should talk about Social Security whether asked directly about it or not. Biden’s and former President Donald Trump’s positions are radically different. As are the positions of the parties they lead. But the mainstream media fails to report the stark difference. Consequently, the American people are left in the dark.
It is crucial that the American people know where the candidates stand before the November election. The most recent Social Security Trustees Report projects that in 2035, the then-nearly 81 million beneficiaries will experience a 17% overnight cut in their monthly benefits—under the unimaginable scenario that Congress does not act to prevent it.
There is absolutely no question that the president and Congress will act. It would be political suicide to do nothing.
Biden should promise that if reelected, he will push to expand benefits while requiring the uber-wealthy to pay their fair share.
For about half of seniors, Social Security provides the majority of their income; for one in four, it provides virtually all of their income. There is no way that they and their families would quietly accept an almost 20% cut. If the president and Congress failed to act, not only would those politicians be voted out of office, they would not be able to show their faces in public without getting accosted and chased down the street.
Again, the question isn’t whether the president and Congress will act. The question is what they will do, when they act.
Biden and his fellow Democrats have a plan. It is to expand benefits and eliminate Social Security’s projected shortfall by requiring those with incomes in excess of $400,000 to pay their fair share. The Social Security actuaries have already determined that the numbers work. Every indication is that Biden and his allies are ready to act on it, in the open, next year. If Democrats regain the House of Representatives, the Speaker will be Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) who has cosponsored Social Security expansion legislation and will bring it up for a vote next Congress.
In sharp contrast, although Trump claims that he is the one Republican who will not cut benefits, he opposes raising additional revenue. That only leaves cutting benefits—either legislatively or automatically, when Social Security’s reserves are depleted in 2035. Indeed, not only is Trump against increased revenue, he has made clear that he plans to cut his own and other billionaires’ taxes, if he once more becomes president.
Biden has stated plainly that he will veto legislation that cuts Social Security’s benefits. Notably, Trump has not made a similar promise. Moreover, there is no question that the Republican Party wants to cut benefits, but also doesn’t want to say so directly. The party’s most recent platform, in 2016, states: “As Republicans, we oppose tax increases and believe in the power of markets to create wealth and to help secure the future of our Social Security system.” That implies–though doesn’t state explicitly–that the Republican Party is advocating benefit cuts and privatization.
Republicans in Congress are even clearer. The Republican Study Committee, which includes 80% of all House Republicans and 100% of House Republican leadership, every year releases a budget with deep, draconian cuts and radical, transformative proposals for Social Security. Its FY 2025 budget slashes Social Security’s already inadequate benefits by $1.5 trillion in just the first 10 years.
Those are much deeper cuts than are necessary to eliminate Social Security’s projected shortfall. And they would occur much sooner than if Congress did nothing whatsoever. Even worse, the Republicans have plans to end Social Security as we know it. They are using the excuse of a projected shortfall to undermine Social Security, their true goal.
And despite his rhetoric, that is Trump’s goal, as well. Every one of his budgets as president included Social Security cuts. In an unprecedented move, he unilaterally sought to defund Social Security’s dedicated revenue, which would have led to deeper automatic cuts. Fortunately, Biden became president before the lost revenue could be made permanent.
Tellingly, Trump surrounded himself with a vice president and cabinet full of Social Security arsonists, and appointed a no-show crony to head the Social Security Administration.
Trump’s true attitude about Social Security should not be a surprise. Before running for president, Trump trashed Social Security, calling it a Ponzi scheme. He supported privatizing Social Security and raising the retirement age, with the condescending remark, “How many times will you really want to take that trailer to the Grand Canyon?”
But he also showed he understood how deeply unpopular his positions are even with Republican voters. In 2011, Trump told Sean Hannity that Republicans “are going to lose elections” if they “fall into the Democratic trap” of advocating cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without bipartisan cover.
At the presidential debate, Trump should be questioned about his Social Security statements and actions. And Biden should be given the opportunity to explain what Democrats will do, if he is elected to a second term.
If past debates are a guide, though, the moderators may not ask a question about Social Security. If they do ask about it, Biden should be prepared.
If the question calls Social Security an “entitlement,” Biden should explain that Social Security is an earned benefit, not a government handout. If the moderators talk about Social Security running out of money, he should explain that unless Congress were to change the law, Social Security will never run out of money. It is current-funded, which means that as long as people are working and contributing to Social Security, there will always be money to pay benefits.
If they challenge the idea of providing, and indeed expanding, benefits to those who don’t “need” them, he should explain, again, that these are earned benefits, just like people’s salaries. Indeed, they are deferred compensation. It is well past time that our policymakers vote the American people a raise.
Even if not asked directly about Social Security, Biden should talk about it. If asked about the deficit, for example, he should make the point that Republican politicians claim that they want to cut Social Security to reduce the deficit—even though Social Security does not and, by law, cannot add even a penny to the deficit. And proceed to point out the stark difference between the two parties on Social Security.
Biden should make the point that whether to expand or cut Social Security is a matter of values, not affordability. He should explain that Democrats want to expand Social Security, while Republicans want to cut it. Democrats want billionaires to pay their fair share; Republicans want to throw more tax giveaways at billionaires.
Biden should promise that if reelected, he will push to expand benefits while requiring the uber-wealthy to pay their fair share. Indeed, he should let the American people know that protecting and expanding Social Security will be a top priority in his second term. And he should warn the American people that Donald Trump is lying to them when he claims he won’t cut their earned benefits.
President Biden has been the most pro-seniors president in at least half a century. Donald Trump was a disaster for seniors, and would be even worse next time. The American public deserves to know this, so they can vote accordingly.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Imagine If the Fight Was Over How to Improve and Expand Medicare and Social Security—Not Destroy Them
If we help families survive rocky times rather than fall deeper into poverty, all of us benefit as a society; if we don’t, then millions of stories like mine won’t be possible.
Jun 02, 2024
Life is unpredictable. And sometimes, no matter how hard you work, life throws curve balls that hit you in the gut.
That’s what our tax dollars are supposed to be for—a helping hand when we’re most in need. More than once in my life, the social safety net came through for my family. And thanks to that help, we’re able to give back today.
My mother worked hard as a carpenter and educator for most of the years I was growing up. But her income just wasn’t enough to pay for rent, food, childcare, and other basic needs.
Imagine what our nation would look like if we fully invested in the programs most of us need at one time or another rather than constantly fighting to keep the little we have.
Thankfully, she kept us fed with WIC (the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition assistance program), SNAP (then called “food stamps”), and frequent visits to food pantries. And after living in a shelter for the first three years of my life, we were able to get Section 8 housing.
But life continued to throw curve balls.
My mom suffered a stroke while pregnant with my brother, who was born prematurely in 2002. She had to relearn how to walk and talk—and my brother needed serious health interventions due to complications of his premature birth. Thankfully, we got some help from Social Security and Medicare.
All of these supports enabled me to get an education, get into college, and help my family.
When my mother’s health failed to the point that she was on dialysis, my 10-year-old little brother needed to be cared for. So I moved him halfway across the country to live with me. Suddenly, I was a student, a worker, and a young single caretaker.
My mother recently passed away. But thanks to her hard work and the help we got from public programs, I was able to get a master’s degree. After experiencing the vital importance of those programs, I knew I had to devote my life to helping others access the same assistance that had been life-saving for me and my family.
I now work at an organization in Indianapolis, where I help residents achieve their family goals through basic needs support, community engagement, and case management. Ultimately, we explore the barriers keeping families from economic stability and work with them to find solutions.
My little brother, meanwhile, is 21 and a trade school graduate. He’s gainfully employed as an aircraft cleaner at the local airport and a production associate at a manufacturing company. I’m so proud of all that we’ve been able to accomplish because help was there for us when we needed it.
Yet even as I tell my story, there are lawmakers who would cut affordable housing and rental assistance programs. They would slash nutrition programs and Medicaid. There are even lawmakers and cities who seek to criminalize homelessness, which has now gotten the attention of the Supreme Court.
The deep cuts to social programs the House majority has proposed would slash investments that are already insufficient. Due to the lack of affordable housing in this country, only 1 in 4 eligible families actually receive housing vouchers like my family relied on. These cuts would make it even harder.
Thanks to the help we got, we give back as good as we received and more—that’s how a healthy system works. If we help families survive rocky times rather than fall deeper into poverty, all of us benefit as a society. If we don’t, then millions of stories like mine won’t be possible.
Imagine what our nation would look like if we fully invested in the programs most of us need at one time or another rather than constantly fighting to keep the little we have. We shouldn’t be cutting our public programs—we should be expanding them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular