[We have always known that the real intentions of the "Reagan Revolution" (and Obama has proven to be more like Reagan than he is like Bush), has been to escalate the perceived military "threat" to this country (and the accompanying burden of defending against that threat) so high that military budget cuts would seem like national suicide. The military lunatics behind this plan understood that the costs of this plan would bankrupt the country--that was what they wanted. By waging war upon the American economy, the crazed ideologues of the Reaganites would justify massive budget slashing, but only upon social programs, because of the military threat. It was reckless suicide for our Nation, but it was deemed a price worth paying by the Reagan gang. The economic, legislative and military policies of the Reagan Administration have wrecked America, destroying the former American economic powerhouse that could have turned it all around for the good of all mankind, if only there had been the will to do so.]
By Carl Bloice, BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board
They’re at it again. Who are they? They are called many
things: “the Establishment,” the “power elite,” the “central
committee of the ruling class,” the “people who really run
this country,” the “political leadership,” and so on. What
are they up to? Having, through willful greed or gross
mismanagement, brought the nation’s economy to a precipice
they have decided, under the rubric of “reform,” to make
somebody pay to put things right again. It’s not just in
this country; it’s behind this business in Greece. In each
and every country in the European Union there is talk of
“austerity” (we tend to avoid the word in our country). And
in every one of them it means attacks on easy access to
healthcare and social security for those in their golden
years. They call such programs, secured after decades of
struggle, “entitlements.” These reform policies are known of
as “neo-liberal,” although there is nothing liberal about
them. They are efforts to renew the project that Lady
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan launched but couldn’t quite
finish. In the U.S. that means eviscerating, and eventually
doing away with, Medicare and Social Security.
Often when these people are divided amongst themselves as to
how far to go, and not wanting to take personal
responsibility for advocating a specific course of action,
they propose a “commission.” You see, cutting back on, or
eliminating, Medicare and Social Security is fraught with
political peril, if for no other reason than old folks vote.
The idea behind the commission is that a “blue ribbon” body
is formed – so many Republican, so many Democrats, a couple
inserted by the White House – and they deliberate. Whatever
proposals they come up with are then debated in congress and
then voted up or down – with no amendments.
You get the picture; nobody gets hurt.
When the proposal to set up the commission–opposed by many
liberal groups, including the AARP, NAACP and the AFL-CIO–
came before Congress in January it was defeated. I’m ashamed
to say it but both California senators, Democrats Barbara
Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, support this scheme.
Opponents of Medicare and Social Security don’t need an
excuse to go after the two programs. They’ve been at it
since the programs were enacted. Right now the backdrop is
the hysteria over the federal deficit. Somebody should pay
to bring it down. Why not those expecting to take advantage
of Medicare and receive the Social Security they have been
paying into all these years? Of course, nobody has the
temerity to suggest looking at the military budget; most of
it is unnecessary (whatever happened to the “peace
dividend”?) and the rest is often inefficient and pork
laden.
So far Congress has failed to come up with the requisite
commission, but don’t hold your breath. What we’re
witnessing is mostly political posturing and positioning.
Some politicians are proposing that the commission consider
tax increases in addition to cuts in social services; some
want taxes off the table, especially any targeted at those
who are profiting most in today’s economic climate. Dollars
to donuts says they will find common ground before you know
it.
The White House has chosen to break the apparent deadlock
but through establishing a commission by executive order
without congressional action. It is said that the Obama
commission would be less of a threat because Congress would
not be obliged to vote its recommendations up or down
without amendments. But there is a caveat: The Democrats
could decide to institute that provision themselves and,
given the spineless crew in charge of the Senate, it’s not
unthinkable that they would do so.
“So an executive commission is better than the alternative,
but also means the fight against the austerity posse is far
from over, ” Bill Scher of the Campaign for America’s Future
wrote after the vote in Congress. “We still need to make
sure any commission does not fire at the wrong targets of
Social Security and Medicare, which are not causing any
long-term fiscal threat. The broader issue of skyrocketing
healthcare costs is the main concern.”
Meanwhile the neo-liberal media drumbeaters and spear
carriers for “reform” are hard at work placing the blame for
delaying the sought for action on seniors.
On February 1, the seniors as selfish freeloaders line got a
full exhibition by New York Times columnist David Brooks.
“Far from serving the young, the old are now taking from
them,” he wrote. They are taking their “money,” ”freedom”
and “opportunity.” He had to have been holding his tongue in
his cheek as he wrote the column, full as it was with praise
for the abilities of the elderly, and issued a call for
“generativity revolution – millions of people demanding
changes in health care spending and the retirement age to
make life better for their grandchildren.” Notice he didn’t
suggest an effort to bring down healthcare costs, but
spending (hint: Medicare) and though he didn’t specify how
many more years he wants seniors to work before retiring he
clearly means beyond 65.5 years old. Maybe in a future
column the 48 year old independently wealthy Brooks will
explain how with unemployment at 10 percent and rising, and
which forces people to work longer, makes any sense. You got
to admit the man’s got nerve.
Actually, there is something quite illogical about Brooks’
argument. There are not two groups involved, the young and
the old. It’s a continuum starting from entrance into the
workforce until retirement. While he says he speaks in the
interest of the young, if there is a severe curtailment of
Medicare and Social Security those hurt most will be the
youngsters when they reach the age where they need them
both.
Brooks is not the only pundit out there spreading the idea
that spending for the elderly is bankrupting the nation.
There been an epidemic of such muttering across the
political spectrum. Columnist George Will has upped the ante
considerably, arguing that Medicare spending could cripple
the nation’s defense and handicap its ability to compete
economically with – you guessed it – China. Writing in the
Washington Post February 4, Will cited an article by
economist Robert Fogel, published by the rightwing American
Enterprise Institute, warning that healthcare expenditures
in the U.S. can be expected to surge because, “By living
longer, Americans will become susceptible to more health
problems. By becoming richer they will be able to purchase
more biotechnologies that make health interventions more
effective…This demographic destiny might entail starving
every other sector of society — including national defense,
at great cost to America’s international standing,” Will
wrote. Then, echoing Vogel’s comment about the increase in
Beijing’s spending on education Will concludes, “While China
increasingly invests in its future, America increasingly
invests in its past: the elderly.”
Meanwhile, on the way-far-out-there right, Star Parker, is
arguing on her web list that African Americans would be
better without Medicare and Social Security (my grandma
Strickland just rolled over in her grave) and the each
program “reflects the inevitable failure of social
engineering.” It time, she write to “Restore an American
retirement system based ownership rather than socialism.”
“Brooks doesn’t specify the exact reforms necessary to
correct this cancer on society, but we all know what they
are,” James Ridgway wrote recently in Mother Jones magazine,
” We need only reduce the entitlements .. That can be
accomplished by setting up an Entitlement Commission,
impartially hand down ‘fast-track’ cuts to old-age
entitlement programs, tell Congress what it has to do, and
get the economy back on course.”
“In other words, when Obama sees the happy-times oldster
lolling about on his houseboat in the Florida Keys, he ought
to react the way Reagan did when he observed the ‘welfare
queen’ who was supposedly ripping off taxpayers: Cut off
the supply of federal funds, and stop letting the Greedy
Geezers feed at the public trough,” wrote Ridgway.
“In the long run, the Myth of the Greedy Geezer also serves
one of the most cherished items on the conservative agenda:
permanent cuts to core social safety net programs that date
back to the New Deal and the War on Poverty,” wrote Ridgway.
“This is not a good time to be old in America,” Ridgway
wrote in his blog, UnSilent Generation February 10. “In
addition to dealing with the usual burdens of aging-our
aches and pains, and our worries about senility and death-we
now have to contend with a backlash against the supposedly
greedy geezers who insist upon clinging to life in defiance
of the public good.’
“Why should we expect a government handout just because
we’ve worked and paid taxes all our lives? (Never mind that
Wall Street has already decimated our retirement savings
and home values.),” continued Ridgway, “On the other side
we have the champions of age-based care rationing led by
`ethicists’ like Daniel Callaghan, trying to convince us to
go gently into that good night, while our corrupt system of
medicine for profit goes on unrestrained. How would you
like would to be denied a kidney transplant or even a new
hip, on the grounds of enlightened `cost- benefit
analysis,’ while the drug and insurance companies continue
to rake in their profits?”
Economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research wrote: “It should be evident that the granny
bashers don’t care at all about generational equity. They
care about dismantling Social Security and Medicare, the
country’s most important social programs. It is important
that the public recognize the granny bashers’ real agenda so
that they can give them the respect they deserve.”
“My guess is that there will be a lot of yelling and they’ll
end up coming up with nothing,” Baker said in a recent
interview. “The whole point is to find some back door way to
cut Social Security and Medicare, because they know such
cuts are hugely unpopular. This is one area where the
Internet has been tremendously helpful in getting the word
out, in preventing this kind of backdoor manipulation that
can fool even well-informed, educated people.”
Commenting on the rightwing “granny bashers,” Ridgeway says:
“This quest just got a potentially big boost from David
Brooks and his `Geezer’s Crusade.’ I just hope we geezers
don’t fall for it.”
[BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member Carl Bloice is
a writer in San Francisco, a member of the National
Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence
for Democracy and Socialism and formerly worked for a
healthcare union.]
Like this:
Like Loading...
NUCLEAR WASTE: Will fast breeder reactors solve the issue of nuclear waste?
Where there is no trust, it is difficult to work together 
