In light of Dana's posts on health care regarding immigration and the concessions the administration is making behind the scenes, I think it's important to read Paul Begala's op-ed today, which offers a little context on the history of that landmark progressive legislation, Social Security:
No self-respecting liberal today would support Franklin Roosevelt's original Social Security Act. It excluded agricultural workers -- a huge part of the economy in 1935, and one in which Latinos have traditionally worked. It excluded domestic workers, which included countless African Americans and immigrants. It did not cover the self-employed, or state and local government employees, or railroad employees, or federal employees or employees of nonprofits. It didn't even cover the clergy. FDR's Social Security Act did not have benefits for dependents or survivors. It did not have a cost-of-living increase. If you became disabled and couldn't work, you got nothing from Social Security.
Begala adds, "If that version of Social Security were introduced today, progressives like me would call it cramped, parsimonious, mean-spirited and even racist. Perhaps it was all those things. But it was also a start." There's already general agreement about some of the bill's most important elements, such as expansion of coverage to 90 percent of legal residents and an end to discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Begala's ultimate point is this: Social Security was improved over time, and health-care reform can be too. But only if something passes. If nothing passes, it's the 1990s all over again.
-- A. Serwer
