Open Left

Freedom from Fear: Using the Social Security Act to Rebuild America’s Social Safety Net (David Kaib)

In a new report, Steven Attewell [pdf] argues the the SSA can be used, from both a policy and political perspective, to "to finish the job it began and create a truly universal and comprehensive social welfare state."

When we remember America's landmark achievements in social policy, we tend to think in "big bangs." The First Hundred Days, the Great Society, and other similar moments draw attention because we recall them as sweeping transformations, the creative moment in the history of public policy. Yet the success or failure of these grand initiatives is often decided not in the moment, but in the less noteworthy process of amendment and oversight that follows, gradually expanding the boundaries of social protection.
Today we are in desperate need of solutions that cover everyone. How do we get from here to there? One option would be to try to cobble together a new system of social protection through a succession of major bills on health care reform, financial regulation, and the like, hoping that the outcome will be a harmonious alignment of programs that work side by side to provide systemic security. Yet by running the gauntlet of the legislative process again and again, a master push for reform could lose momentum halfway through, leaving gaps that may create vulnerabilities in the next recession.
After the original Social Security Act was passed into law, a different strategy was at work. The basic framework of legislation was laid down, so that public servants and experts only had to add onto the existing infrastructure. Over the decades, the Social Security system was repeatedly reformed to be more inclusive, more generous, and more progressive.

Equal personhood and universal rights to social insurance - what a concept!

great idea

Expanding the existing infrastructure (a proven success in the past), using a highly popular program that is deeply embedded in the political culture, and that would clearly distinguish the two parties for another generation ("we protect and expand, they attack and dismantle") is a sensational idea. Similarly, Medicare expansion on the way to Medicare for all was in my judgment a great way to proceed on health care reform if we concluded that a direct leap to single payer was not possible.

Unfortunately, as you well know, there is presently a chasm between what makes sense morally, economically, socially, and politically, and what the cowed and corporatist leaders in the Dem party are willing to permit on the agenda, much less consider seriously.

Viewed in the long arc of history, the great social democratic/democratic socialist turn in Europe post WWII was a monumental achievement. One I have viewed as a worthy placeholder on the way to even more equitable and just societies in the industrialized world, hoping the halting steps in that direction here in the US could be accelerated. But the pressures are in the negative direction on most of the continent. The collapse of a viable model (or the perception of the collapse) will be devastating, though social misery, for all the pain it causes, can be a great educator. But as the Washington Consensus is increasingly imposed on Europe by their elites and ours, those in the overexploited world may see the writing on the wall and their elites will incorporate the periphery on even more regressive terms as the entire world is dragged down.

In 50-70 years it is quite possible, at least I fear it in my worst moments, that local variants of the Chinese model will be generalized across the world: An autocratic, largely unaccountable, surveillance state, effectively run by a single party populated with only those allied to moneyed elites permitted to rise to power, allied to their rapacious and oppressive corporate masters with a boot coming down on the face of all those who complain or just get in the way.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?

by: T. Jacobsen @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 05:18:29 AM CST

Yes, but...

Unfortunately, as you well know, there is presently a chasm between what makes sense morally, economically, socially, and politically, and what the cowed and corporatist leaders in the Dem party are willing to permit on the agenda, much less consider seriously.

This is true, but it's also true that many people that do really want significant change look to "comprehensive legislation" as the best way to do it. In addition, the problem of not talking about the various elements of social security (the idea, not the program) as part of a piece goes well beyond the elite neoliberals. Until we make better sense of what we should be demanding, we have little hope of influencing that agenda, which is largely shaped, but not controlled, but those leaders. It's important to reconnect with both the justifications for these earlier successes, as well as the strategies that achieved them.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

by: David Kaib @ Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 16:15:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]