"Run-away entitlements" a letter to a Dispatch Columnist
Hey Folks,
If one accepts the "givens" of the ruling class, their arguments make sense.
Unfortunately, the unexplored foundations of their positions are almost always slanted and self-serving. Convincing oneself that Africans were less than human, made slavery seem sensible. Assuming that women were the "weaker sex" justified not letting them vote. Believing that "our god is bigger than their god" has justified historical and contemporary Crusades and Jihads.
All such "intellectual" absurdity eventually sinks into the shit upon which it is built. Reality is slow but inexorable.
Below is a response to a column that, like the examples above, makes sense only as long as one doesn't notice what's at the bottom of the porta-potty.
- Uke Man
Dear Mr. Riskind,
Often when folks discuss something, at the very start of it, a number of assumptions are already in play. These assumed matters push the matter forward but are never themselves examined; a fact that can often lead to a faulty resolution of the actual matter at hand.
I respectfully request that you examine some underlying assumptions present in your Sunday, June 11 column.
I find the term “entitlements” presupposing. Everyone uses it. I can hear you asking, “What else would I call it?” and I understand that. Yet, it is a derogatory term on the face of it as well as in its common usage. I think it deserves deeper scrutiny.
In your column “entitlements” specifically refers to Social Security and Medicare, but I think we can agree that the term “entitlements” is usually aimed at those governmental services intended to help the masses: Medicaid, food-stamps, unemployment compensation, and the like.
Orally, the term “entitlements” is generally delivered with a sneer at worst and a sigh at best. What does that reflect?
You write: “lawmakers can’t be relied on to make the tough decisions needed to overhaul the nation’s tax system and rein in runaway entitlements such as Social Security.”
Beyond the general assumption (not just your column’s) of negativity regarding “entitlements,” a large segment of “opinion makers [what a term]” assert that “entitlements are exploding or “running away.” I believe that neither view is accurate.
We don’t call snow removal an “entitlement”; nor tax abatements for business; nor a new aircraft carrier, nor a war in Iraq. If these and similar expenditures balloon or even “explode,” we hear excuses and slogans; critics are “socialists” or they “hate America.” Those who attack Social Security and Medicare or call for a reduced tax burden on the wealthy are “courageous.”
How does all this fit with "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"?
Please. There is no “financial crisis” looming in Social Security (it has been demonstrated that removing the “cap” – letting the wealthy pay the same as everyone else – would solve the problem). The cost of social services isn’t “spiraling upward as the population gets older.” There are a number of reasons: profits of insurance companies, drug-makers, hospitals, rest homes, and others; and the “Boomers” are heading into retirement, increasing the numbers. But that doesn’t establish either a “financial crisis” or “runaway entitlements.” It is a problem of priorities, will, and oligarchy rather than of means.
The fact of the matter is that the power structure sees taxing the wealthiest among us a little more to care for the least enabled among us as an unacceptable solution, but reducing the help we provide to those same people is – to them - an obvious and morally-sanctioned approach – much like the situation in Haiti.
So steeped is our “culture” in this nonsense that even an honorable columnist such as you isn’t stopped in his tracks when implying that congress lacks the “courage” to cut the programs that don’t need cutting.
It’s obvious to me that Senator Voinovich is attempting to address “fiscal responsibility,” but it’s just as obvious that he and his commission will be addressing problems felt by the powerful few rather than the vast many who will suffer at their hands.
If that is ever to change, it will take people in the media attacking such propaganda rather than praising it. Do you think I should hold my breath?
- Uke Man
If one accepts the "givens" of the ruling class, their arguments make sense.
Unfortunately, the unexplored foundations of their positions are almost always slanted and self-serving. Convincing oneself that Africans were less than human, made slavery seem sensible. Assuming that women were the "weaker sex" justified not letting them vote. Believing that "our god is bigger than their god" has justified historical and contemporary Crusades and Jihads.
All such "intellectual" absurdity eventually sinks into the shit upon which it is built. Reality is slow but inexorable.
Below is a response to a column that, like the examples above, makes sense only as long as one doesn't notice what's at the bottom of the porta-potty.
- Uke Man
Dear Mr. Riskind,
Often when folks discuss something, at the very start of it, a number of assumptions are already in play. These assumed matters push the matter forward but are never themselves examined; a fact that can often lead to a faulty resolution of the actual matter at hand.
I respectfully request that you examine some underlying assumptions present in your Sunday, June 11 column.
I find the term “entitlements” presupposing. Everyone uses it. I can hear you asking, “What else would I call it?” and I understand that. Yet, it is a derogatory term on the face of it as well as in its common usage. I think it deserves deeper scrutiny.
In your column “entitlements” specifically refers to Social Security and Medicare, but I think we can agree that the term “entitlements” is usually aimed at those governmental services intended to help the masses: Medicaid, food-stamps, unemployment compensation, and the like.
Orally, the term “entitlements” is generally delivered with a sneer at worst and a sigh at best. What does that reflect?
You write: “lawmakers can’t be relied on to make the tough decisions needed to overhaul the nation’s tax system and rein in runaway entitlements such as Social Security.”
Beyond the general assumption (not just your column’s) of negativity regarding “entitlements,” a large segment of “opinion makers [what a term]” assert that “entitlements are exploding or “running away.” I believe that neither view is accurate.
We don’t call snow removal an “entitlement”; nor tax abatements for business; nor a new aircraft carrier, nor a war in Iraq. If these and similar expenditures balloon or even “explode,” we hear excuses and slogans; critics are “socialists” or they “hate America.” Those who attack Social Security and Medicare or call for a reduced tax burden on the wealthy are “courageous.”
How does all this fit with "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"?
Please. There is no “financial crisis” looming in Social Security (it has been demonstrated that removing the “cap” – letting the wealthy pay the same as everyone else – would solve the problem). The cost of social services isn’t “spiraling upward as the population gets older.” There are a number of reasons: profits of insurance companies, drug-makers, hospitals, rest homes, and others; and the “Boomers” are heading into retirement, increasing the numbers. But that doesn’t establish either a “financial crisis” or “runaway entitlements.” It is a problem of priorities, will, and oligarchy rather than of means.
The fact of the matter is that the power structure sees taxing the wealthiest among us a little more to care for the least enabled among us as an unacceptable solution, but reducing the help we provide to those same people is – to them - an obvious and morally-sanctioned approach – much like the situation in Haiti.
So steeped is our “culture” in this nonsense that even an honorable columnist such as you isn’t stopped in his tracks when implying that congress lacks the “courage” to cut the programs that don’t need cutting.
It’s obvious to me that Senator Voinovich is attempting to address “fiscal responsibility,” but it’s just as obvious that he and his commission will be addressing problems felt by the powerful few rather than the vast many who will suffer at their hands.
If that is ever to change, it will take people in the media attacking such propaganda rather than praising it. Do you think I should hold my breath?
- Uke Man
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home