There are many ways to push for change. Letters to the Editor are one way to get your views in front of thousands of readers. Scott Weikart of Occupy Palo Alto has developed ways to get his letters consistently printed by newspapers. Scott writes:
Here’s some good advice about writing a letter to the editor on political economy (e.g. Occupy) issues:
http://www.cepr.net/letters/sample_letters_to_the_editor_ss.pdf
Excerpt:
Most papers do not print letters that are more than 150 words. They are far more likely to print letters that are shorter. A letter that is 90-110 words has a much better chance of getting printed. …
It is important that letters be timely. This means use e-mail, and if at all possible, send the letter on the same day the original article/editorial/column appeared or the the television or radio story aired. Occasionally they will run letters that they get two or three days later, but that is pretty much the limit. Also, once they run a letter or two in response to a particular piece, they will very rarely run additional responses.
Letters should always be polite and focus on the factual issue in dispute. This is important both for getting the letter published and also for the impact it will have on readers. Readers are not likely to care that you don’t like privatization – they might care that the news story misstated the financial condition of Social Security or the potential returns from the stock market.
It is also appropriate to send copies of the letter to the reporter who wrote the story.
The sample letters in the CEPR document are a bit dated, unfortunately. For example, the date when the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted is about 10 years earlier, because the big banks trashed the economy, and the timid Fed and do-nothing Republican Congress aren’t doing what’s needed to get us out of the Lesser Depression (i.e. the number of employed people dropped substantially in 2008 and has barely increased at all, which means FICA revenue is way down). But, it’s probably still correct that Social Security can still pay increased benefits forever (it just can’t continue to do COLA increases). And, as of last year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported a good way to fund Social Security forever: drop the cap on the income that’s taxed (i.e. change FICA from a regressive tax to a flat tax).
Here’s my pithy “petition comment” message about political economy issues, written recently:
Social Security taxes are regressive; if you removed the cap on taxable income, Social Security would be saved forever.
The CBO reported that Medicare is substantially cheaper than private insurance; it’s best to increase Medicare taxes and not cut benefits.
If we allow the expiration of Bush’s tax cut for the highest marginal rate, we’ll have plenty of money to pay for Medicaid.
I appended my lengthier “letter to Congress” (the supercommittee, to be exact), which I wrote last year based on the latest CBO reports. Here is is:
When we consider recent CBO reports, we find that we don’t need to cut services anywhere except defense. And, because of rising inequality, we need to tax the rich more, and use the revenue to provide services/investment for middle and lower income families.
Last month’s CBO report on income inequality showed us that the Bush tax cuts for the rich were a big mistake. The CBO’s tax history from 1979-2007 showed us that the richest 1% gained an extra 9.6% share of after-tax income in 28 years. And the CBO’s December 23, 2008, report to Max Baucus showed us that the richest 0.01% got a third of this gain, and the rest of the richest 0.1% got another third; we clearly need more tax brackets.
The CBO’s report on Ryan’s budget showed us that Medicare is cheaper than private insurance: we should increase Medicare taxes, not postpone the retirement age.
The CBO report on Social Security showed us that we can _completely_ solve Social Security’s long-term budget problems by eliminating the cap on income taxed; this would switch the payroll tax from regressive to flat.
And, finally, as we exit Iraq and Afghanistan, we can eliminate Bush’s 40% defense buildup, the same way we eliminated the Viet Nam defense buildup afterward, and eliminated Reagan’s defense buildup after the Soviet Union collapsed.
Occupy Palo Alto 