What’s The Difference Between Economist Robert J. Samuelson and a Bucket of Spit?

July 29, 2011

Older Americans do not intend to ruin America,
but as a group, that’s what they’re about.
Robert J. Samuelson
Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid.
Washington Post, July 28, 2011

Answer: The Bucket.  Mr. Samuelson, a right-wing economist, in yesterday’s Washington Post POSTOPINIONS column didn’t bury the lede: Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid.  This (unfortunately) memorable title tells you where this is going, and Samuelson does not disappoint, except one does walk away from his screed a bit more disappointed than usual in how right-wingers think. They relish attacking those who live one crisis away from poverty. Samuelson gives those weakened geriatric gray hairs a good beatdown, like Seinfeld‘s Kramer when he thrashed those prepubescent youngsters in the karate dojo, “I’m dominating the dojo. I’m class champion!” Or the man who plotted to throw his mother off a train, but in that case, decided against it. Samuelson did not.

Jihad Grandpas & Grammas

You may not have known that your seemingly sweet Granny and Gramps were on a jihad bent on burying you and their other children and grandkids under mountains of nationalized debt. I would’ve never suspected my own grandparents, they were always good for a hug and a cookie. (There are exceptions, however. My Aunt Ruth, for example, for my ninth birthday, gave me the 670 page 1955 edition of Emily Post’s Etiquette: The Blue Book of Social Usage. Obviously, by that act alone, she proved that she’d do anything to anyone. Thus, she, now at 89 years, remains suspect of burying us all under mountains of public debt.) 

Samuelson’s point is obvious, a lot of those rampaging elders are gaming the system, many do not need the benefits they receive, especially from Social Security and Medicare. He ignores the fact that a national social welfare program ought to embrace all the elderly; after all, well-off elders may, during their retirement, lose everything. (And don’t be fooled, Samuelson believes that poor Americans in any age group don’t deserve their benefits either.) Statistics show that the majority of elders need social security to live any kind of decent life at all. Medicare to live a healthy life at all.

Of course, Obama and the Democrats are Samuelson’s villains de jour, but he includes his own companions:

“the shunning [of even discussing entitlement cuts] is bipartisan. Tea Party advocates broadly deplore government spending without acknowledging that most of it goes for popular Social Security and Medicare.”

Thus he proves that he is worse than Tea Partiers. He forgets that the vast majority of retirement aged Tea Partiers collect Social Security and Medicare, (rightfully) believe they earned it, are therefore “entitled” to it, and would smack you with their canes should you try to even discuss cutting benefits. Of course, they also believe that other groups of elderly persons do not deserve what they have; funny how that works, eh? Samuelson doesn’t understand politics very well, doe he?

It’s the Social Contract

The social contract which we have includes income and health security, and yet does not eviscerate free enterprise. It’s benefits are for all citizens. Samuelson is no friend of our social contract:

“By now, it’s obvious that we need to rewrite the social contract that, over the past half-century, has transformed the federal government’s main task into transferring income from workers to retirees.”

To him, and the GOP/TP when it suits them, the federal government ought to have few mandates, i.e., foreign relations, border protection, building a national armed forces, and, most of all, cutting taxes paid by those who, by and large, are already doing quite well. For people like Samuelson, doing well is always the best revenge on those whose paths through life are rocky and dangerous. Tea Partiers, in particular, detest those they consider lazy welfare queens and kings, despite the fact that many Tea Partiers collect what the call “welfare,” within which they have been known to include Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. When this wrongheaded enmity is pressed against the elderly, especially those who rely upon those programs, on those who have lived long enough to achieve old age, it’s akin to saying to them, “Thanks for your hard work, and drop dead.”

Robert Samuelson’s Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid proves he’s comfortable warring on the nation’s elderly. Period. Paragraph. Throw him off a train . . .

White House Debt Summit Tomorrow – Will Obama Cave or Pave?

July 6, 2011

Tomorrow morning President Obama hosts some friends and enemies at his big white house. They’ll powwow about bills for this and bills for that. Who will pay for them?  Will we pay for them at all? Can we even afford a weekend summer vacation in Arlington, Virginia, just across the Potomac River? The big question, though, suggested by an unsettling report by WaPo tonight, is whether President Obama is ready to sell the ranch, lock, stock, and barrel.

Cave Or Pave?  The Washington Post reported tonight that “President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue. . . As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal.”

My fondest hope is that he doesn’t really want to put much of Medicare or Social Security on the table, if at all.  I can’t believe – I must not believe – he’d cave again as he did last December.  Or will he pave the way to GOP humiliation?

My gentler angels suggest that the Medicare/Social Security talk is a political gambit designed to highlight the GOP anti-tax jihad, and to further isolate them as the stumbling block to a budget (and debt ceiling) agreement. The President may be betting all-in that he can win on his home field when he meets congressional leaders at the White House tomorrow. 

There, afterwards, he can roll out the bully pulpit and go directly to the American people. Tomorrow, if the GOP resists even the slightest amount of tax revenue increases, he can herald it to a nation where many cannot understand why the wealthiest among them should not pay a fair share. GOP stickiness on taxes is well-known, of course. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), for example, agreed to discuss the elimination of tax breaks like the one for corporate jets, yet – remarkably – he refused to do so if an eliminated tax break resulted in any increase whatever to federal revenues. Here’s how much he’s willing to budge on increasing tax revenue: “If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes . . . we’re not for any proposal that increases taxes, and any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.”

How generous of him.  In any event, even that “concession” – worthless as it is – was kiboshed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch “We look a lot like Greece already” McConnell (R-KY). 

The hypocrisy stuns, as always. Remember – as a commenter at Political Animal did:

“John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, John Kyle, etc.all voted for multiple debt limit increases and multiple budgets that included deficit spending (before we had a Democrat in the White House). If Mitch thinks we are like Greece, then he can look in a mirror and see the reason.”

Mirror, mirror, on the wall . . .