Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Rules America? Retired People.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who Rules America? Retired People.

    Who Rules America? Retired People. - Newsweek

    Who Rules America? Retired People.
    In the deficit crisis, we’re held hostage by the senior lobby.


    The great question haunting Washington’s budget debate is whether our elected politicians will take back government from AARP, the 40 million–member organization that represents retirees and near retirees. For all the partisan bluster surrounding last week’s release of President Obama’s proposed 2012 budget, it reflects a longstanding bipartisan consensus to not threaten seniors. Programs for the elderly, mainly Social Security and Medicare, are left untouched. With an aging population, putting so much spending off-limits inevitably means raising taxes, shrinking defense, and squeezing other domestic spending—everything from the FBI to college aid.

    Power is the ability to get what you want. It suggests that you control events. By these standards, AARP runs government budgetary policy, not presidents or congressional leaders. Obama says we must “win the future,” but his budget (and, so far, the Republicans’ too) would win the past and lose the future. The massive federal debt would keep growing because, without restraining spending on retirees, there’s no path to a balanced budget. Our aging infrastructure (highways, bridges, airports) wouldn’t get needed repairs. The social safety net for the growing ranks of poor Americans would be further strained. We would cut defense while China’s military expands. All this is insane. It’s not the agenda of a country interested in its future.

    But it’s our agenda. Look at Obama’s budget. Under his proposals, annual federal spending rises from $3.7 trillion in 2012 to $5.7 trillion in 2021. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (the three major entitlements) account for 60 percent of the projected $2 trillion increase. Higher interest payments on the debt—mainly reflecting our inability to control big entitlements—account for an additional 31 percent. Altogether, that’s 91 percent of the increase; the rest of government accounts for 9 percent.

    Indeed, when corrected for expected inflation and population growth, the rest of government shrinks. A table (S-6) in Obama’s budget shows this clearly. From 2012 to 2021, annual spending on defense and homeland security would drop 21 percent after inflation and population adjustments. Nonsecurity discretionary spending (a catchall including air-traffic control, space exploration, regulation, and much more) would fall 24 percent. Other “entitlements” (food stamps and the like) would decline 4 percent. Meanwhile, Social Security would rise 27 percent and Medicare, 32 percent.

    AARP sends its representatives to Capitol Hill and think-tank seminars, where they pretend to be reasonable while frustrating needed Social Security and Medicare changes. Higher life expectancy and growing private savings mean that eligibility ages could have been gradually raised and benefits curbed for wealthier retirees. The age for full Social Security benefits did go from 65 to 66 (and to 67, much later). Little else was done. As a result, any effort to control spending must focus on a relatively small part of the total (from a seventh to slightly more than a third, with defense). House Republicans have cut many programs sharply—some sensibly, others not. Obama is doing the same, though less dramatically. But AARP sets overall priorities.

    It won’t work. The budgetary math doesn’t compute; too much is left out. Consider Obama’s projected budget for 2021. Despite higher taxes—about 10 percent above the 1971–2010 average—and deep cuts in defense and domestic discretionary spending, the deficit is estimated at $774 billion, or about 3 percent of the economy, albeit down from 2010’s 8.9 percent. And that assumes “full employment,” a 5.3 percent jobless rate.

    No one wants to strip needy seniors of essential benefits; but Social Security and Medicare have become, for many relatively healthy and economically secure Americans, middle-class welfare. As a society, we need to re-define what’s in the public interest and what’s not. That’s the job of our political leaders. President Obama repeatedly pledges to deal with “entitlements”—and does nothing. He made the promise again last week. At the same time, congressional Republicans committed to proposing entitlement changes. We’ll see if that happens—or if power continues to be forfeited to AARP.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  • #2
    No one wants to strip needy seniors of essential benefits; but Social Security and Medicare have become, for many relatively healthy and economically secure Americans, middle-class welfare. As a society, we need to re-define what’s in the public interest and what’s not. That’s the job of our political leaders. President Obama repeatedly pledges to deal with “entitlements”—and does nothing. He made the promise again last week. At the same time, congressional Republicans committed to proposing entitlement changes. We’ll see if that happens—or if power continues to be forfeited to AARP.
    If this means means testing with a ceiling set where the payments decrease to zero I am ok with that. If you are talking about raising the retirement age for full benefits I am ok with that. Only problem is that it keeps older people around longer and the younger generation complains that they are hanging around too long. It also creates a possible window where a older employee is dismissed, most likely age discrimination, and then can't find another job. What do they do in the interim if they have another 5 years to go? Medicare would be even tougher as everybody loses their health insurance when they retire or gets dropped the moment they hit 65 by their private company. At that age private insurance is prohibitively so expensive that not even a whole Social Security check would make a dent in it for many. No one wants to limit what is covered lest be called in favor of death panels ala Sarah Palin putting it out there now.

    As far as blaming AARP I think that is a stretch. Every industry has their lobbyists in Washington to work in their own special interests. So why shouldn't seniors have a voice just like corporations. Seniors are people just like corporations are now. I'm pretty sure corporations outspend AARP by what 878.9 billion dollars. What makes seniors potent is not the money but the fact that they will turn out in mass to vote and their vote would make or break anyone as a block.

    Now if our growth stays in the mid 2% range per year then we will never see a balanced budget no matter what we do. If the country can get GDP up into the high 3% range then the deficit would shrink to a low of what, 120 billion a year over the rest of the decade and the debt to GDP ratio would decline. In short it is going to take a three pronged attack to lower the deficit and no one wants to consider it. Cuts, taxes and growth.

    Comment


    • #3
      As a young person, I have the perfect solution: Deport everyone over the age of 60! :)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by joshduck541 View Post
        As a young person, I have the perfect solution: Deport everyone over the age of 60! :)
        They'll vote against that.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #5
          I find myself questioning the basic premise of Social Security; coming from a country where there is none. If someone has not saved enough for retirement; or has had no children; why should they be supported by the Government in their old age?

          Also how true is it that SS works as a ponzi scheme; i.e. the amount one pays into the system over their working career is nowhere near the amount they will take out; especially if they live into their 80s or beyond?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by InExile View Post
            I find myself questioning the basic premise of Social Security; coming from a country where there is none. If someone has not saved enough for retirement; or has had no children; why should they be supported by the Government in their old age?

            Also how true is it that SS works as a ponzi scheme; i.e. the amount one pays into the system over their working career is nowhere near the amount they will take out; especially if they live into their 80s or beyond?
            Both are excellent questions. The liberals will tell you that we have a social obligation to help those who can't help themselves.

            The cynic in me will tell you that FDR created social security to get the American people hooked on socialism, almost like a drug pusher getting his clients hooked on his product. In turn, the government (drug dealer) can control the people.

            It's all about control. Medicare in the 1960s; Obamacare just last year...
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • #7
              inexile,

              If someone has not saved enough for retirement; or has had no children; why should they be supported by the Government in their old age?
              if you look at the historical premise of SS, it was because of lot of elderly people had their savings wiped out by bank collapses during the Great Depression. you surely cannot blame those people for the mistakes of others.

              Also how true is it that SS works as a ponzi scheme; i.e. the amount one pays into the system over their working career is nowhere near the amount they will take out; especially if they live into their 80s or beyond?
              the system works quite well if you have a large youth population and a very small elderly population. this was true in the 30s. however, as the age limits have not caught up with technological advances and combined with the naturally aging population, we now have a medium-sized young population and a large side elderly population.

              these factors will continue to worsen as the years go by, although SS will automatically decrease its payments as its funds decrease. it's not an issue in the current deficit debate. much more serious is the issue of medicare.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • #8
                SS has worked fine. With only minor adjustments it's good for the next 75 years whichis as far out as we plan. The problem is between 2001 and 2003 we blew out the bank. We were collecting far more in SS taxes than we were spending and instead of maintaining fiscal sanity we blew it. We fought two wars financed entirely by debt and excess SS taxes. We gave out massive taxcuts which even then the CBO said would lead to massive deficits this decade. Our fiscal situation is not a surprise the sane people were just ignored and the "starve the beast" folks ran us into the ground. If we had put in place modest taxes on gas to deny our enemies funding in the wars we were fighting as well as generate some of the cost through shared sacrifice and never put in place the ruinous Bush tax cuts or demanded if we were creating a massive prescription drug entitlement we pay for it we'd be fine today. The reason I have zero faith in the credibility of the Republican leadership on fiscal issues is the last time they had the checkbook and complete control of the goverment they drove us into a fiscal bridge abutment. Social Security has massive amounts of IOUs that no one wants to pay now. Shouldn't the folks who paid those SS taxes be a bit pissed that monied interests raided them? Money runs the America not old people. Media wins elections and media takes money.
                Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                ~Ronald Reagan

                Comment


                • #9
                  That is so enlightning. I did not know that in the space of 2 years(2001-2003) the Republicans caused all the problems that SS is experiencing. Are they clever or what?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by battleshipcpo View Post
                    That is so enlightning. I did not know that in the space of 2 years(2001-2003) the Republicans caused all the problems that SS is experiencing. Are they clever or what?
                    No, they also needed to throw in that unpaid for prescription drug plan as well and lead us into an optional war in iraq.

                    Bush taxcuts cost to date 2 trillion
                    Iraq cost to date 750 billion
                    unpaid for entitlement 550 billion over ten years


                    IOUs that SS holds that would keep it fully solvent the next 40 years 2.5 trillion

                    I am not sure I would use the word clever.
                    Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                    ~Ronald Reagan

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Rosie,

                      It was a little bit more than what you state.

                      It took more than the last 10 years to screw SS up. And there is plenty of blame on both sides of the isle. Reagan was the last President to raise the SS tax. No one now will touch that subject.

                      Maybe if we went back to the base purpose of social security we would be fine. Its suppose to be Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. Somewhere along the line, social security started giving block grants for welfare, maternity and child health care and a whole list of other things not envisioned back in the day.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        no, I agree it was more than Bush and the Republican house. Reagan raised the taxes and we merrily spent them and filled a cabinet with IOUsw no one wants to pay now. We had righted the ship by 2000 and the Republican controlled goverment decimated it. My point was the total cost of the social security shortfall is contained in the Bush tax cuts alone. I'm all for means testing. Why should someone making 100k in retirement recieve the same check from the goverment someone living solely on that check recieves?
                        Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                        ~Ronald Reagan

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by joshduck541 View Post
                          As a young person, I have the perfect solution: Deport everyone over the age of 60! :)
                          No need with the wealthy retirees as usually they escape to the Bahamas, renouncing their citizenship to escape death tax ;)

                          Originally posted by InExile View Post
                          I find myself questioning the basic premise of Social Security; coming from a country where there is none. If someone has not saved enough for retirement; or has had no children; why should they be supported by the Government in their old age?
                          Yeah, i hope the day never comes when they put in place something like this.

                          I have no problems seeing the poor & beggars on the street. Half of which are pro's anyway. They actually make more this way.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                            I'm all for means testing. Why should someone making 100k in retirement recieve the same check from the goverment someone living solely on that check recieves?
                            I agree, IMO, this assistance should not go to people who can get by without it.
                            sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                            If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                              I agree, IMO, this assistance should not go to people who can get by without it.
                              The argument is that social security is an "individual retirement account" maintained by the government. The rich paid money into it. They will want their money out of it. Just like a savings account. I put money into it. I want my money back at some point. Don't tell me I'm rich so I don't need my money.
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X