This page was last updated on January 29, 2012.
Social Security needed; Jerry Miskulin; Beaver County Times; January 22, 2012.
I encourage you to review Mr. Miskulin’s body of work in the archives. Mr. Miskulin has written at least 78 letters since 2004 (I didn’t critique all of them.). Most (all?) are illogical and full of falsehoods (not just wrong).
Mr. Miskulin expressed displeasure with the tea parties (here and here), proclaimed
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“With cuts to Social Security and food stamps presented by the Republicans as a possibility, I have to go back to the 1930s when Social Security was enacted.”
[RWC] You won’t be surprised to learn Mr. Miskulin’s “WABAC (Wayback) Machine” has foggy windows.
“Social Security means just that, social security. Up until its enaction, the economic philosophy of the U.S. was laissez-faire or the philosophy of Adam Smith and Ricardo’s Invisible Land. Consequently, the U.S. had depressions all the way up to the enaction of Social Security.”
[RWC] I hope Mr. Miskulin meant “Invisible Hand,” not “Invisible Land.” Though Mr. Smith used the term “invisible hand” in different contexts, when he used it in “Wealth of Nations” David Ricardo was only four years old.
I was always taught the main goal of SS to provide some retirement income. I don’t recall ever hearing SS was supposed to do something about depressions/recessions. Even if the goal of SS were to eliminate depressions/recessions, I think it’s fair to say SS failed.
“Roosevelt wanted to provide security against the boom and bust periods of capitalism. To do this he had to threaten to pack the Supreme Court for those he inherited on the court always blocked his social agenda.”
[RWC] I’d like to hear Mr. Miskulin explain how a Ponzi scheme allegedly intended to provide some retirement income would “provide security against the boom and bust periods of capitalism.”
The only way to guarantee an economy will not have ups and downs is to eliminate the ups by implementing more and more policies whose effect is to limit individual freedom. Government can easily guarantee everyone will be poor (Cuba, the former Iron Curtain countries, etc.), but cannot guarantee everyone will be prosperous. Therefore, when people say they want to eliminate income/wealth disparity, they really mean they want “the rich” to be poor.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into Mr. Miskulin’s comment, but did he appear to justify FDR’s court-packing proposal on the basis the Supreme Court ruled some New Deal programs were unconstitutional?
“If we need food stamps to the degree we do now, maybe we have to ask is capitalism working for us. If we can’t feed a large segment of our population, then maybe it should give us some food for thought. The only sad thing about the Social Security and food stamps mess is that we no longer have a Franklin Delano Roosevelt around any more [sic].”
[RWC] Mr. Miskulin seems to forget what got us here. It was the subprime mortgage mess and that had nothing to do with capitalism. We’re here because of government meddling in the mortgage market and spending too much.
In many respects, we do have an FDR. His name is Barack Obama and he appears to be using the same failed playbook as FDR.
“The maggots on the Republican ticket, they never think for themselves for they never give their theories a second thought. Seems like they have all been bought and sold.”
[RWC] At least Mr. Miskulin held off on the name-calling until the final paragraph.
Note Mr. Miskulin provided no alternatives for evil capitalism.
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.