Suchergebnisse

This book explains the history and principles of the social security system. It explains why social security is sound and documents the covert war against social insurance that dates back to the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935, explaining how the opposition emerged with a vengeance.

"Dedication" -- "Contents" -- "Chapter 1: Introduction" -- "Twentieth-Century Successes" -- "A Disturbing Development" -- "The Importance of National, and Presidential, Action" -- "Notes" -- "Chapter 2: Pandemic Influenza" -- "Influenza Is Not to Be Taken Lightly" -- "Influenza at Its Most Horrendous—So Far" -- "Notes" -- "Chapter 3: Misguided Responses to Public Health Emergencies" -- "The Tragedies of Kalaupapa and Carville" -- ""The Magic of the Marketplace" and Public Health Emergencies" -- "Militant Passivity from the Left Hand, Authoritarianism from the Right" -- "Ideology, Incompetence, but Some Thoughtful Planning" -- "Notes" -- "Chapter 4: Appropriate Responses to Public Health Emergencies" -- "Presidential Action and the San Francisco Earthquake" -- "Presidential Action and Hurricane Betsy" -- "Presidential Action and the Alaskan Earthquake" -- "Notes" -- "Chapter 5: President R. Gerald Ford" -- "Vigorous Action to Defend Against a Threatened Pandemic" -- "Fair Game: The Politics of Piling On" -- "Notes" -- "Chapter 6: President Ford's National Influenza Immunization Program: A Special Case" -- "The Background: Widespread Agreement" -- "The Launching of Ford's NIIP" -- "Obstacles Emerge" -- "No Pandemic Plus Health Risk Must Mean Fiasco: A Confused Discourse" -- "Turning from Talking Points to Analysis: NIIP as a Learning Experience" -- "Assessment of NIIP" -- "Notes" -- "Chapter 7: Conclusions" -- "Emergency Management" -- "Lessons to Be Learned" -- "Notes" -- "Bibliography

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- 1 Myth Versus Reality in Social Security: It Ain't What People Don't Know -- 2 The Gospel of Wealth Amid Acres of Diamonds -- 3 FDR's Plan and Its Enemies Emerge -- 4 From Mrs. Fuller's First Check -- 5 Frightening Facts? Or Persistent Politics? -- 6 The Enemies Regroup: Rallying 'Round Reagan -- 7 Presidential Attitudes Toward Social Security: Only Desperate Men with Their Backs to the Wall -- 8 The Special Problem of Health Care: The Fortunes to Be Made -- 9 Some Final Words -- Appendix -- Notes -- Suggestions for Further Reading -- Index.

AbstractThe controversy over a woman's "right to choose," as opposed to the numerous "rights" that abortion opponents decide should be assumed to exist for "unborn children," has always struck me as incomplete. Two missing elements of the argument seem obvious, yet they remain almost completely overlooked. The first is that there is virtually no consideration whatsoever for the pregnant person herself. Her rights, if she is even assumed to have any at all, do not in any way enter into consideration, unless possibly if the pregnancy appears to threaten her life (to be sure, some more humane anti‐abortionists do concede, often grudgingly, that no one should have to carry to term a pregnancy caused by rape, but the point remains). Second, and most paradoxically, opponents of abortion appear also generally to be opposed to "big government," yet all the while they refuse to recognize any rights at all that belong to the person who is pregnant and to be comfortable with complete control over her. The opponents seem oblivious to the clear fact that stripping pregnant adults of all ability to determine their future requires an enormously powerful, virtually totalitarian government. So, I argue that it is not correct that the United States has had a tradition of abortion prohibition while simultaneously being a "free country." The association of anti‐abortion policies with right‐wing authoritarianism is definite. Whether there is a cause‐and‐effect relationship is irrelevant. All repressive and dictatorial policies need to be opposed. The Republican Party now continues its merry way to suppress votes, subvert democracy, and attempt to ensure that women are stripped of their autonomy and serve only as incubators for the preservation of the human race and for male pleasure. I conclude that looking at abortion from the viewpoint of informed common sense is long overdue. This article provides that overdue look, along with my apology for not having given the warning sooner.

AbstractAbortion suddenly dominated politics when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a half‐century of constitutional protection for reproductive choices. The issue varies around the world but is especially powerful in the United States because Protestant fundamentalists and Catholics cooperated to capture one of America's two major political parties. That Republican Party has now packed the courts. The result is the decision that melded political and religious ideologies into the radical Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. This article contends that anti‐abortion arguments are flawed and that an effective anti‐abortion policy requires a harsh authoritarian, if not totalitarian, government, fueled by misogyny and disregard for human rights. Such policies force pregnant women into what must be described as a condition of slavery. With Dobbs, the restrictions on individual freedom immediately began. There have been significant counter‐reactions, also, such as the referendum in Kansas on August 2, 2022, that overwhelmingly rejected a church‐led effort to strip abortion protections from the Kansas State Constitution.Related ArticlesCarmines, Edward G., Jessica C. Gerrity, and Michael W. Wagner. 2010. "How Abortion Became a Partisan Issue: Media Coverage of the Interest Group‐Political Party Connection." Politics & Policy 38(6): 1135–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2010.00272.x.Doan, Alesha E., and Corinne Schwarz. 2020. "Father Knows Best: 'Protecting' Women through State Surveillance and Social Control in Anti‐Abortion Policy." Politics & Policy 48(1): 6–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12337.Medoff, Marshall H. 2010. "State Abortion Policy and the Long‐Term Impact of Parental Involvement Laws." Politics & Policy 38(2): 193–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2010.00235.x.

Abortion is an issue around the world, varying in intensity by location. In the United States, it generates enormous controversy, especially because Protestant fundamentalists have joined Roman Catholics in strenuous opposition and have essentially captured one of the two major political parties. This extended commentary essay contends that anti‐abortion arguments are flawed and that an effective anti‐abortion policy requires a harsh authoritarian, if not totalitarian, government, fueled by misogyny and disregard for human rights. Such policies force pregnant women into what must be described as a condition of slavery.

This article directly and bluntly challenges traditional thought by casting aside conventional wisdom regarding the national economy, replacing it with Modern Political Economy and Public Policy. American national policies, I argue, should always, whenever possible, be universal, not targeted toward specific groups. Moreover, policies need to be crafted to achieve their goals, not to fit within budgetary constraints. The least government is the worst, not the best, and a miserly approach to spending is not "wise use of the taxpayers' dollars." The national government controls the currency, paying its bills in dollars. It issues dollars as needed, in whatever amount it chooses, and is unrestrained by the need to "find the money" or "pay‐as‐you‐go." Taxes are useful for purposes of regulation and control of income inequality, but are not relevant to expenditures. "Anything that is technically feasible," I claim following Kelton and coauthors, "is financially affordable," and there is no need to fear inflation so long as spending does not exceed the productive capacity of the economy. Despite conventional wisdom to the contrary, and regardless of the widely used jargon of politicians, when government spends, it is not using "The Taxpayers' Money."

AbstractEditor‐in‐Chief Max J. Skidmore introduces the fourth issue of the year, completing the first decade of Poverty and Public Policy. This issue, 10:4, is his final issue as editor‐in‐chief. He also includes more comment from "Peter the Citizen," providing conservative support for social programs; he describes the issue's content; and he discusses the special section that includes the papers from the 2018 American Political Science Association panel from the Caucus on Poverty, Inequality, and Public Policy. The papers all relate to a single theme: the special obstacles to securing social legislation in the United States.

Historical circumstances and ideological factors combine to obscure the presence and severity of poverty in the United States. Moreover, in recent years, America's two‐party system has become increasingly nonsymmetrical, with a significant segment of the political system devoted to privatization, deferring to demands from religious fundamentalists, and draining power and authority from the government (with the notable exception of police and military powers). The result is continual pressure to shrink government, minimize taxes, reduce or eliminate regulation, enhance the power of private commercial interests, and rely upon citizens to care for themselves without assistance. This has led to a demonization of the "welfare state," an enormous increase in income inequality, a concentration of wealth upward, a significant effort aimed at largely withdrawing government from the provision of health care, and the retreat of a major political party from acceptance of any obligation to promote the general welfare.