"Entitlements" "Runaway entitlement programs"????
Hey Folks –
It’s a scam. Propped up by lying propaganda as displayed in the David Broder piece below. The “problem” was invented and created by the rich and powerful to serve their own ends, and - now that the payments are soon due – to escape their responsibility.
For decades, to fund their pet military adventures, to reward their wealthy benefactors, to cut taxes for the wealthy while preening over their not having “raised taxes,” the politicians have been raiding the excess funds collected from working people’s payroll taxes. Now that the excess will cease in 2018 – that is, in 2018 instead of the money coming in being more than what is sent out, it will be less – suddenly there is a “problem.”
Well, the problem is simply that the fuckers who spent the working peoples’ excess donations to the payroll tax don’t want to pay up as the bill comes due. Plain and simple. Bush, himself, has called Treasury Bonds “worthless IOU’s." Right! Tell that to China and our other creditors.
Having commandeered the people’s savings, they now want to welsh on the loan and balance the books by increasing the age of retirement, decreasing the payments, and increasing the percentage of working people’s “contribution” (payroll tax). Steal from the people - then pay them back by stealing from them again.
Then there’s the crap about “ENTITLEMENTS.” These social programs are supposedly just so much swill for greedy “special interest” groups. Well, folks, all of us can be put in some group. These fat slugs have called poor, uninsured children a “special interest group.” Everybody except themselves are “special interest groups” who arrogantly feel “entitled” to special consideration: old people, sick people, hungry people, kids, the handicapped – scum like that.
But, of course, the rich are never labeled that way, nor are their entitlements ever identified. They get special treatment because that’s how god wants it, not because they own government. God wants working people to have payroll tax deductions on EVERY CENT they earn; but he doesn’t want the wealthy to pay a penny on anything they make over $97,000. Now who would call that an “entitlement” supplied by a fiscally irresponsible government to a “special interest group”?
Finally, there’s the notion that this is a thorny, difficult, nearly impossible problem to solve. Broder argues at length how a certain proposed committee would guarantee everyone a voice, but that’s bull. Early on he claims that all involved “clearly see” the “problem.” What he doesn’t spell out for us is that the rich and powerful are the problem because they are welshers; and the politicians – of both parties – are the problem because they are dependant on the welshers. It's only a "problem" because those responsible want out of their responsibility.
Economically, there is no problem – that is, no problem beyond the oligarchy demanding that they not contribute to the well-being of others, but only vice-versa.
Soon I will be posting an article on this topic written by Jim Hightower that will comment on this in finer detail.
Come the revolution !!!
- Uke Man
Bipartisan effort to tame entitlements needs support
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:30 AM
By David Broder
If I had the power to summon all 16 of the people running for president to be in one place, I would want them in a Senate hearing room for a session that is taking place today.
The hearing has been arranged by Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Republican ranking member.
They have invited David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States and the head of the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress; William Novelli, the head of AARP, the senior-citizens lobby; Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader; and Leon Panetta, the former White House chief of staff, budget director and former congressman.
What brings all these worthies together is an effort to revive the idea of a bipartisan effort to head off the bankrupting of America by runaway entitlement programs.
They and others, including Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, clearly see that unless ways are found to reform the financing and benefits of Social Security and Medicare, the demands imposed by the retirement of millions of baby boomers will consume the federal budget and blight the prospects of the next generations.
Because neither party can solve this problem by itself, Conrad and Gregg have proposed the creation of a bipartisan task force, whose recommendations to the president and Congress chosen next November would be guaranteed quick consideration.
The idea was greeted favorably by leaders of both parties in the Senate, and Paulson found support for it in the White House. But it has encountered criticism from the opposing flanks. Vice President Dick Cheney objected publicly to any consideration of tax increases, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw cold water on the idea. Apparently, she does not trust the administration to deal fairly or she may want the Social Security issue saved for Democrats in the coming campaign.
So Conrad and Gregg backed off and decided to begin again, making the case through expert testimony that a policy of inaction is dangerous to the country's fiscal health.
As Gregg has noted, the first of the baby boomers filed for Social Security benefits this year, and millions more soon will follow. By most official estimates, Medicare and Social Security by 2034 will eat up 20 percent of the gross domestic product -- equivalent to the entire federal budget of today.
To Gregg, that flashes a clear warning: "The next president, if he or she serves eight years, will find themselves in very dangerous waters. There is no way to support this system as it is constituted."
Conrad, who says he inherited a fear of debt from his Depression-era ancestors in North Dakota, said he laments that the government has added $500 billion to the national debt this year, just as those boomers are starting to retire. "You see the dollar going down, and interest rates going up," he said. "And there's more to come."
Neither man expects a quick fix, but both insist that delay is the most costly and wasteful strategy. The task-force idea that they developed during a congressional trip to South America this past winter is an effort to assure all parties a voice and a fair process.
It would have 16 members, equally balanced between Republicans and Democrats. Fourteen would be members of Congress, chosen by the leadership and presumably representing the major economic-policy committees. Two would be from the administration, with one of them, the secretary of treasury, serving as chairman.
It would take 12 of the 16 votes to submit a report, guaranteeing each party a voice in the outcome. And the report would be translated into bill form and given a fast track to a final vote in the House and Senate, with a requirement of 60 percent support for it to go to the president -- again, protection for the minority.
Despite all these safeguards, neither Cheney nor Pelosi is satisfied, and without their backing, its prospects seem dim. But the issue will haunt the next president unless at least the first steps to deal with it are taken now.
That is why those candidates ought to be at this hearing.
David S. Broder writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.
davidbroder@washpost.com
It’s a scam. Propped up by lying propaganda as displayed in the David Broder piece below. The “problem” was invented and created by the rich and powerful to serve their own ends, and - now that the payments are soon due – to escape their responsibility.
For decades, to fund their pet military adventures, to reward their wealthy benefactors, to cut taxes for the wealthy while preening over their not having “raised taxes,” the politicians have been raiding the excess funds collected from working people’s payroll taxes. Now that the excess will cease in 2018 – that is, in 2018 instead of the money coming in being more than what is sent out, it will be less – suddenly there is a “problem.”
Well, the problem is simply that the fuckers who spent the working peoples’ excess donations to the payroll tax don’t want to pay up as the bill comes due. Plain and simple. Bush, himself, has called Treasury Bonds “worthless IOU’s." Right! Tell that to China and our other creditors.
Having commandeered the people’s savings, they now want to welsh on the loan and balance the books by increasing the age of retirement, decreasing the payments, and increasing the percentage of working people’s “contribution” (payroll tax). Steal from the people - then pay them back by stealing from them again.
Then there’s the crap about “ENTITLEMENTS.” These social programs are supposedly just so much swill for greedy “special interest” groups. Well, folks, all of us can be put in some group. These fat slugs have called poor, uninsured children a “special interest group.” Everybody except themselves are “special interest groups” who arrogantly feel “entitled” to special consideration: old people, sick people, hungry people, kids, the handicapped – scum like that.
But, of course, the rich are never labeled that way, nor are their entitlements ever identified. They get special treatment because that’s how god wants it, not because they own government. God wants working people to have payroll tax deductions on EVERY CENT they earn; but he doesn’t want the wealthy to pay a penny on anything they make over $97,000. Now who would call that an “entitlement” supplied by a fiscally irresponsible government to a “special interest group”?
Finally, there’s the notion that this is a thorny, difficult, nearly impossible problem to solve. Broder argues at length how a certain proposed committee would guarantee everyone a voice, but that’s bull. Early on he claims that all involved “clearly see” the “problem.” What he doesn’t spell out for us is that the rich and powerful are the problem because they are welshers; and the politicians – of both parties – are the problem because they are dependant on the welshers. It's only a "problem" because those responsible want out of their responsibility.
Economically, there is no problem – that is, no problem beyond the oligarchy demanding that they not contribute to the well-being of others, but only vice-versa.
Soon I will be posting an article on this topic written by Jim Hightower that will comment on this in finer detail.
Come the revolution !!!
- Uke Man
Bipartisan effort to tame entitlements needs support
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:30 AM
By David Broder
If I had the power to summon all 16 of the people running for president to be in one place, I would want them in a Senate hearing room for a session that is taking place today.
The hearing has been arranged by Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Republican ranking member.
They have invited David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States and the head of the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress; William Novelli, the head of AARP, the senior-citizens lobby; Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader; and Leon Panetta, the former White House chief of staff, budget director and former congressman.
What brings all these worthies together is an effort to revive the idea of a bipartisan effort to head off the bankrupting of America by runaway entitlement programs.
They and others, including Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, clearly see that unless ways are found to reform the financing and benefits of Social Security and Medicare, the demands imposed by the retirement of millions of baby boomers will consume the federal budget and blight the prospects of the next generations.
Because neither party can solve this problem by itself, Conrad and Gregg have proposed the creation of a bipartisan task force, whose recommendations to the president and Congress chosen next November would be guaranteed quick consideration.
The idea was greeted favorably by leaders of both parties in the Senate, and Paulson found support for it in the White House. But it has encountered criticism from the opposing flanks. Vice President Dick Cheney objected publicly to any consideration of tax increases, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw cold water on the idea. Apparently, she does not trust the administration to deal fairly or she may want the Social Security issue saved for Democrats in the coming campaign.
So Conrad and Gregg backed off and decided to begin again, making the case through expert testimony that a policy of inaction is dangerous to the country's fiscal health.
As Gregg has noted, the first of the baby boomers filed for Social Security benefits this year, and millions more soon will follow. By most official estimates, Medicare and Social Security by 2034 will eat up 20 percent of the gross domestic product -- equivalent to the entire federal budget of today.
To Gregg, that flashes a clear warning: "The next president, if he or she serves eight years, will find themselves in very dangerous waters. There is no way to support this system as it is constituted."
Conrad, who says he inherited a fear of debt from his Depression-era ancestors in North Dakota, said he laments that the government has added $500 billion to the national debt this year, just as those boomers are starting to retire. "You see the dollar going down, and interest rates going up," he said. "And there's more to come."
Neither man expects a quick fix, but both insist that delay is the most costly and wasteful strategy. The task-force idea that they developed during a congressional trip to South America this past winter is an effort to assure all parties a voice and a fair process.
It would have 16 members, equally balanced between Republicans and Democrats. Fourteen would be members of Congress, chosen by the leadership and presumably representing the major economic-policy committees. Two would be from the administration, with one of them, the secretary of treasury, serving as chairman.
It would take 12 of the 16 votes to submit a report, guaranteeing each party a voice in the outcome. And the report would be translated into bill form and given a fast track to a final vote in the House and Senate, with a requirement of 60 percent support for it to go to the president -- again, protection for the minority.
Despite all these safeguards, neither Cheney nor Pelosi is satisfied, and without their backing, its prospects seem dim. But the issue will haunt the next president unless at least the first steps to deal with it are taken now.
That is why those candidates ought to be at this hearing.
David S. Broder writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.
davidbroder@washpost.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home