I’ve been weighing the pros and cons of the Wisconsin effort to end collective bargaining for public employee unions, and have arrived at the conclusion that the Conservatives are right, at least in principle. Where I differ from the Conservative viewpoint is in how much importance they apply to the Wisconsin situation. While the principle is sound, the amount of funds recovered by effectively ending public employee union influence is small when compared to the much larger, national, and even less sustainable debt generated by collective bargaining.
So I ask you, the Not Conservative Americans, to consider the Conservative viewpoint, see that it is the correct prescription, and apply it to the task of reducing our national debt.
Now that we agree a like-minded group of self interested citizens can collectively negotiate systemic costs that become unsustainable debt, let’s apply that principle at the federal level. What group has collectively bargained us into an unsustainable national debt?
After some research, I have come to the Conservative conclusion that we must immediately put an end to the collective bargaining rights of federally elected and employed Conservatives.
As the chart shows, after World War 2 the debt that ballooned to 120% of GDP began to be paid down. This happened during Democratic and Republican administrations alike. Through boom times and recessions, the trend was ever downward, the debt less a share of GDP.
In 1981, America began what is a continuing 30 year experiment with Conservative economic principles. Working collectively, the Conservatives drove our country into unsustainable debt through the Conservative principle of Borrow and Spend.
On the Graph above, the Reagan+Bush debt is the gap between the red line and Clinton's green line at the bottom. As it shows, if America had not had to pay the Reagan-Bush interest, Clinton's budget balancing would have nearly paid off the remaining debt from WWII--and we would have been in fabulous shape when the Great Recession struck.
Given these deficit and debt facts, here’s the Conservative deal I propose to our collective bargaining federally elected Conservatives.
- Before being involved in any collective participation in budget decisions, you must first pay back the 12 trillion dollars you have stolen from the treasury.
- You can’t take this money from the citizens you stole it from, but the ones to whom you gave the proceeds of the theft.
- If you complain, or fail to try, we’ll also demand repayment of the trillions of private, hard working American’s dollars you stole through deregulating financial fraud.
- After that task is accomplished, we’ll restore your right to collectively bargain on budgetary matters. We’ll even listen to your opinion on state employee unions without laughing so hard.
So, Conservatives...do we have a deal?
Let's Make a Deal photo -- TVTropes.org
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ted Frier
The Flylooper
Ben Sen
mishima666
Paul Nevins
Ron Robinson
Salon.com
Comments
-R-
True, but you're leaving out a key fact; debt accrued by Republicans doesn't count because it has a higher purpose. For instance, Gov. Walker achieved the budget crisis in Wisconsin by giving tax breaks and other *incentives* to big business; the higher purpose, of course, is that said crisis affords him the opportunity to rein in the opulent lifestyles led by prison guards and school teachers and other hedonists. It is high time the working and middle classes begin to carry their own weight for a change, and I for one salute the Republican commitment to fiscal responsibility which began the day Obama was inaugurated.
This point of view leaves the spectrum of possible options to balance the recently proposed FY12 budget without tax increases somewhere between cutting all discretionary spending (while cutting no mandated spending) and cutting 65% of all mandated spending (while cutting no discretionary spending). Neither one of these extremes is practical or politically realizable.
However, any realistic point between these extremes means entitlement programs must be cut. . . . significantly.
The problem only gets worse and harder to solve the longer the delay in making these cuts. Only the naïve believe that the budget will be balanced during FY12. On the other hand, only the obtuse fail to understand that balancing the budget as soon as possible has now become critical to recovering this nation’s fiscal welfare.
Blame whom you wish to blame. Cast dispersions all you wish. However, the time has come. . . .
If you want, then we can talk about which Presidents instituted Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid . . . the three biggest entitlement programs. I am uncertain what good that would do, though.
They do stumble across an occasional fact, but they never know what it means. They only know what they want it to mean, and that it means everything. See below.
nanate,
I also admire that the Conservatives have decided to follow Deficit Jesus. It's like rewinding the Bible Story and seeing Fiscal Judas coming back into the fold. I am touched.
This is starting to remind me of the GOP winning again in '04, and suffering from Schiavo Syndrome hubris. 2/3rds of the public supports the Wisconsin workers, yet Walker has walked himself into a box canyon. I'm sure he doesn't give a crap, as his reward will come later...probably a cushy job with Koch.
This can't be helping the getty-electy-Repubbie-in '12 thingy.
They do stumble across an occasional fact, but they never know what it means. They only know what they want it to mean, and that it means everything. (See UncChri above)
nanate,
I also admire that the Conservatives have decided to follow Deficit Jesus. It's like rewinding the Bible Story and seeing Fiscal Judas coming back into the fold. I am touched.
huh? I know he gets to vote but I am just plain running out of things to say in response anymore.
As a matter of fact, the groups most usually denigrated by Conservatives are the least likely to benefit from SS. Even after paying into the system for a lifetime, a black male is unlikely to collect on SS since he is likely to be dead by 65, according to actuarial tables.
Given that, you'd think it would poor black males raising a ruckus about Social Security. Instead, it's NeoLibs -- who statistically do collect -- and clowns like John McCain, who called SS a disgrace. No, John it's you that is the disgrace, since you draw $28,000 in SS in addition to your $48,000 military pension and your $175,000 Senate salary and your other income that amounts to a total of roughly half-a-million a year.
If NeoLibs and other Conservatives want to make and example, why not start with guys at the top of the heap like McCain, instead of people who don't have a pot to piss in? That's a rhetorical question.
Allow me to dismiss your comment in reverse order. Social Security has not contributed to the debt. It, along with Medicare programs was in place well before the Conservative ideology debt fest began. You cannot blame those programs for the profligate debt mongering Conservative ideology used to deplete our treasury. Obviously, in a fiscal responsible sense, whatever restructuring...or elimination...of the programs should have occurred BEFORE the destructive Conservative spending.
The one reality you almost blindly run into is that the debt problem can be described as a healthcare cost problem. The Conservative answer? Do nothing about healthcare.
Just as serial killers are not permitted to capitalize on their crimes, Conservatives cannot use their irresponsibility to advantage their argument.
Besides, taking economic deficit and debt advise from a Conservative is like having Bernie Madoff teach us about honesty and thrift.
"We f-ed it up, now let us show you how to fix it!" Chutzpah on wheels, that. Funny, even.
As to your now Standard Reply -- the pasted and re-pasted first part of your comment that has now made at least 3 appearances on various blogs -- have you noticed that you, as a member of the "independent thinking" Conservative onespeak chorus...have no better ideas than the liquidation of America?
The new Conservative script...which you respond to on cue...is that debt is the problem, and slashing "entitlement" spending -- not recovering revenue or pumping up consumer spending by reversing stupid Conservative policies -- is the only answer.
Conservatism promised more, but has delivered less--a constant insistence that America must keep accepting a dismal future...for the sake of "liberty."
I could go on, but let's just leave it, for now, with my observation that you are an ideologue, and don't have the depth to asses the entire situation. The fact that reality is more complex and doesn't align with your dogma might be pushing you towards having an irrelevant opinion on the total set of issues. The cut-paste comment fits that assessment, as it's just a longer form of the same type of scripted, ideological reply I'd expect to hear from a Bolshevik.
The thrust of my post is that Conservatives are incompetent stewards of our country and economy, and you have buttressed my argument.
Now, if you have some ideas...maybe even your own...about how to repair the economy...let's see them. Not in a comment, though...make a post. (I have 20 cyber bux that says you'll tell us slashing "entitlements" will restart economic growth...I double dog dare you to "prove it.")
Thanks for regurgi-commenting.
Those are significant causes of wasteful spending. I think we should have the transnational conglomerates that profit from those wars pay for them.
I don't need to add to your comment, but I will ask another rhetorical question:
At what point of mass impoverishment does America arrive at Conservative-Libertarian "liberty?"
The Conservatives are responding to an Alter Call...if reality exposes them as bungling incompetents and hypocrites...they alter the reality.
You libidinous Liberal!
You have uncovered something that I have NOT endeavored to keep secret. In so doing, you have dissuaded me from concluding that Liberals are slow learners and unable to make observations of reality. Congratulations!
It’s true, with minor variations, I have posted my original remarks about the federal FY10, FY11, and FY12 fiscal years in several places on OS. The mission I have accepted from my handlers in the Alaska-based Tea Party headquarters is to insure no Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, or Communist misses the facts associated with our current budget(s) (just completed, current, proposed). These orders are verified, since they are the only messages capable of penetrating my tin foil hat. Thus, I know that they are not only valid, but imperative.
In this vein, it is incumbent upon me to point out that your post offers no solution, other than getting rid of Conservatives, or their philosophy, to our nation’s economic crisis. Just where did you want to put them, Paul, so they won’t do any more harm, as you perceive it? In concentration camps? Perhaps you have a ‘Final Solution’ in mind? If so, we would like to hear it.
I wonder what part of my partial solution to this economic crisis, a large component of which is the fiscal disaster of our federal government’s finances, you missed when I stated:
“However, any realistic point between these extremes means entitlement programs must be cut. . . . significantly.”
I know those who share your philosophy don’t want to hear such news; but I hate to inform you of the fact that this conclusion arises out of nothing more complicated than checkbook arithmetic, coupled with the presumption that tax rates will not be raised during the aforementioned fiscal years.
Look back all you want; and blame all you want. Such ranting does not propose realistic solutions and does not lead to realistic solutions.
Further, saying that Social Security has made its own way thus far not only omits the significant truths that it won’t any longer do so in the very near future, and that it will be bankrupt before 2040, unable to meet all of its obligations. It also sidesteps the simplicity of the fact that it is an expense outside of the apportioning authority of Congress (unless the underlying Social Security Act is changed), which adds to the problem of balancing the budget with collections that fall far short of outlays.
It’s really . . . just . . . that . . . simple. . . .
Same with all other entitlement programs.
I don’t know what drugs Tom is taking these days when he makes the claim that Social Security is not an entitlement program. However, what does it matter if it is, or is not?
It still cost $754.1 billion during FY10. It will cost more during FY11 . . . and . . . even more than that during FY12, unless something is changed.
It’s really . . . just . . . that . . . simple. . . .
You know, Paul, sometimes the problems, and the solutions, aren’t as complicated as you might like to believe. However, it takes courage to admit, and face, such facts. This is a courage not yet in evidence in either the federal legislative or executive branches, or in your blog.
I'll take you up on the 20 cyber bux bet. . . and . . . raise you 80. For a preview of my post, see my latest reply to Jambo's comment in my blog. . . .
With the greatest respect,
Your simple-minded, unclassifiable, polar opposite, friend
I don't offer a solution because this post was not about a solution. It's about conservative hypocrisy. I guess one can infer one element of a solution from this -- observe what destruction conservatism has done to America...and don't DO that.
The 12 trillion and the other trillions from destructive conservative policies is already gone, yet you carp about the most solvent thing in America -- Social Security -- then shout a warning of its imminent demise in a few decades. Surely you wouldn't think somebody pointing out how silly that is in light of far more pressing problems is out of line.
Conservatives might hold to a philosophy, but whatever it is, it's not conservatism, as it is not, nor has it ever been a philosophy. It's a mindset, or it can describe the ruling system of nobles, aristocrats and religion. In other words, Conservatism is what the Founders fought against to gain our liberty...and it's what Americans should be fighting against today if we want to keep it.
Soc Sec didn't cost anything that it didn't pay for itself, so using it in a discussion of FY deficits is, quite plainly, preposterous.
If you were to do an honest assessment, you'd zero SS out and leave it out of your analysis. But then you couldn't carp about "entitlements," and your trite regurgitation wouldn't be as chunky as you like.
It takes courage to offer up such a myopic and irrational budgetary viewpoint, but only if you insist it has the relevance you say it does. I don't need such "courage,"in fact, I don't want it, as it's really just a defense of a weak argument. What I'd like to see from you is a hint of independent thought, or an idea that wasn't so shopworn that I know what you're going to say from the first syllable.
I read your comment.
First, the balancing a checkbook analogy is silly. The proper analogy is running a business. A wise man doesn't start liquidating assets in a slump, he figures out how to change and/or invest to regain income. You ass/u/me there's only one column in the ledger, and only a down escalator in the building. A very sound conservative idea, though, as we have seen conservatives see America only in the sense of a break-up value. Liberty demands liquidation and purchase by foreign capital.
The other hoo-ha in your comment was the fantasy of What If..the government had never stepped in...that all would have more money and not need to enable themselves by acting in a shared best interest.
I don't know if anyone has explained this to you, but America went through such a time. The decline that happened then is happening now -- the new Gilded Age. Workers were forced to accept lousy working conditions, ever lowering wages, monopolized markets, child labor, etc.
Charity could not handle the problems this created, and thus the Progressive Era came about. That's somewhat simply put, but for here it's adequate.
Anyway, I could go on, but why bother?
You have a simpleton's argument, which is to blame "government" for the problems, and insist that by eliminating "government" the problems will solve themselves. I say it's simplistic because the record suggests it's wrong, and any half wit libertarian wannabe jackass...even a partially trained zoo chimp...can make that argument. It's meaningless. Therefore, I don't know why you think that every written political piece should include a "solution," when any conversation that works towards a solution would be one without your input. Your voice can be represented by a few simple phrases that have no particular value.
I notice you also assume my political beliefs are as rigid and simplistic as yours. That I must be as intellectually lackadaisical as you are, and therefore we are on an equal but opposing level. You don't know my politics beyond my ridicule of poor political thinking, but I promise you it has more depth than yours. There are several reasons for that, but the primary one is I am not an ideologue -- but I do know Conservatism is a destructive, dis-American fraud, and I take some joy from pointing that out as often as I can.
With love and charity towards the ideologically crippled,
Paul
Just to prove to you readers that you are correct in your accusations of my lackadaisical intellect, I will simply copy my reply to Jambo’s response here for the benefit of those who might be interested in the rest of the story.
========
To extent you can close your eyes while reading this, I want you to visualize a country whose government never took anything from its citizens in exchange for an implied promise of an entitlement. No one took from your salary under FICA; and, in turn, no one promised you that the government would provide for you during any disability or retirement. No one took from your salary under FUTA; and, in turn, no one promised you that the government would provide for you during any period of unemployment. No one took from your salary for Medicare; and, in turn, no one promised you that the government would provide for you during any period of illness. Same for hunger; same for housing; etc.,.
The absolute result of all of this would be that, when there are no entitlement programs, the arguments about them, their costs, their frauds, and their oppression, as we know these consequences today, would cease. We might always discuss what makes a better society, one with such collectivism, or one without such collectivism. The background of such debates will always be that humankind lived millions of years without governments addressing such social ills; and thus there is ample reason to believe that our species would survive without such governance now.
The second absolute result of all of this would be that you would have more money in your pocket to provide for your needs, as you saw fit. You could better provide for your own retirement, or not. . . . You could better provide for your own healthcare, or not. . . . You could better provide for your own food, clothing, shelter, etc., or not. . . . . Those choices would be much more yours than they are now.
These choices would not made for you, to one degree or the other, by the government. When the government enters these matters, it takes from its citizens some measure of their freedom of choice, by taking from them the treasure with which they otherwise would have had to make such choices. Again, this refers to individual ‘entitlements’. It does not refer to the ‘general welfare’ of the country as a whole.
Our federal government should certainly do some things for us with our tax dollars. It should defend our country and secure our borders. It should coordinate things like an interstate highway systems and interstate commerce. It should manage federal assets including lands, natural resources, and, to a certain extent, the ecological environments, both flora and fauna, in which we live.
However, when we become more responsible for our outcomes, our persons, and our own communities, then we become more bound to each other. When one in our community suffers, then, without the government option, it becomes incumbent upon each of us to support those who are in need. Local charity is always more effective than the government charity which treats the citizens of Wyoming (average population density 3 per square mile) the same as the citizens of New York City (average population density 27,000 per square mile).
Without explaining all the details, my hope is that you see that THIS mechanism regulates in favor of a MORE egalitarian society. Without the government option, it is less likely that the human spirit is corrupted by the ease with which one is fed, when one is hungry; sheltered, when homeless; doctored, when ill; supported, when disabled; supported, when retired; or clothed, when naked. Government facilitation of the solutions to these problems leads to huge inequities, huge costs, huge shortfalls in expectations, huge fraud (on both sides), and huge numbers of those who believe they are entitled to something at the expense of others.
Socialism is, as Communists in the USSR and Cuba, European socialists, and benefactors all over the world have discovered, a self-fulfilling prophesy – of misery for all. Winston Churchill, a man I admire, had a couple of quotations on this point.
In one case, he said:
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
In another, he said:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
============
Your lazy lover,
Chris
First, I note you don't believe in the foundational principle of our Constitution. You see government as separate from We, the People, and thus can dismiss the idea that a majority can have self serving policies enacted. The "majority" in your whackassed analysis...are the oppressors. This is hilarious, and truly debases whatever follows, even though it is so full of logical holes it's self-debasing anyway.
Again, Captain Ignoritall, the reason we have those "entitlements" is because people want them and they are constitutionally proper, which is enough to justify, and they work better than private alternatives.
I can see the attempt you make to sound as if you're constructing a logical argument, but that effort is self defeating. If you knew how to form a logical construct you wouldn't be offering up the presumptive reasoning that forms the mid-air foundation of your argument.
This is really funny, and serves as typical of how you plump up a simplistic thought with superfluous language--
"The absolute result of all of this would be that, when there are no entitlement programs, the arguments about them, their costs, their frauds, and their oppression, as we know these consequences today, would cease."
Yes, if there were no programs we wouldn't talk about them because they wouldn't be there. Thanks, Socrates! You have revealed a great truth which will be enshrined in the Hall of Stating the Obvious. (see also your previous paragraph ending with: "recovering this nation’s fiscal welfare...same thing)
Then you use the obvious as a springboard to what you call a second absolute--
"The second absolute result of all of this would be that you would have more money in your pocket to provide for your needs, as you saw fit."
You base this absolute on what empirical evidence? That you feel there would be a surge of corporate altruism? That there are no motivations to pay lower wages? That, absent worker and employer contributions the "extra" money would find it's way into the worker's pocket?
My point here is you declare an absolute without the slightest hint of evidence it is even true, much less absolute. That is not an "intellectual" or logical argument--it's puffoonerous piffle.
And you wonder why some people dismiss you out-of-hand....
More hilarity ensues--
"These choices would not made for you, to one degree or the other, by the government. When the government enters these matters, it takes from its citizens some measure of their freedom of choice, by taking from them the treasure with which they otherwise would have had to make such choices. Again, this refers to individual ‘entitlements’. It does not refer to the ‘general welfare’ of the country as a whole."
Again, a complete rejection of American principle. For shame!
Substitute "We, the people" or "citizens" for every time you say "government," and you'll see how "absolutely" obtuse that paragraph is. Those "entitlements" help provide for the general welfare.
And you wonder why some people dismiss you out-of-hand....
Then more yawners follow......gubbermint should do this, but not that. That without gubbermint charity would fill the gaps. Yada yada and pure presumptive claptrap.
Yes, in spite of historical...and we're talking centuries here...evidence, if we eliminate the people's power to govern themselves, it will provide us with a more egalitarian society.
A tough row to hoe there, Chris. Perhaps you will provide the evidence that refutes a significant thrust of world and American history. What you feel is, again, of no importance in any argument except the one about how you feel (I hope you feel well, but spare me the details).
Then the standard Chris ending....socialism!
The Founders were socialists; the Greatest Generation were socialists. JP Morgan, even, in your book...was a socialist. Most Americans are socialists.
The UncleChris standard, all-inclusive, suitable for any situation argument:
Gubbermint, gubbermint.
Oppression, oppression.
No gubbermint - no problems.
Charity will fill the gap.
Socialism! Socialism!
Misapply the word
Then quote Churchill.
You tend to argue ideology, Chris, which is what ideologues do. You labelbabble, and consider it some sort of relevant philosophical argument. Ideology ignores philosophical epistemology, just as you casually ignore empirical evidence. Anyone can argue ideology, as it doesn't require a reasoned construct, and usually those who make such arguments don't have a reasoned construct--they, like you, have emotional presumptions.
If I have done nothing more than at least plant the seed of thought that you -- who frequently accuse others of 'intellectual dishonesty"-- have no real ability to form an intellectual argument...then this wasn't a total waste of time.
You haven't done that here.
And no, I'm not interested in how you feel.
"Our federal government should certainly do some things for us with our tax dollars. It should defend our country and secure our borders. It should coordinate things like an interstate highway systems and interstate commerce. It should manage federal assets including lands, natural resources, and, to a certain extent, the ecological environments, both flora and fauna, in which we live. "
Conservative defense of our country is two lost wars. The borders are wide open, the conservative built fence inoperable. The highways we have are crumbling (8 years of conservative rule in the Islands and ours are at their all time worst). But, and for this naturalist the hypocrisy foments this comment, the idea that the Feds under conservative rule protect the environment (from James Watt to the Kochs) is, in a word, laughable.
First time I've come across this guy's "opinions" here; kool-aid drinker with blinders on and not an original thought.
ps- thanks for your firm words with me earlier, they have encouraged me to re-read Hayek (college was long ago) and, more hypocrisy, his so-called adherents conveniently leave out his strong support for the social net, including annual stipends for the unfortunate.
Funny post! Hilarious comments ...
Maybe if the Conserves had a little Mr Natural dropped in their coffee, they could form a coherent argument....using the same theory that says a bad hitter can hit a knuckleball pitcher better than a good one. Dual anomalies produce positive result.
Hayek was once the champion of conservative's borrowed libertarian-as-Austrian economics. Hayek, like Goldwater, for example, stood still while Conservatism moved to a right extreme...and has now suffered the same treatment the Soviets gave Stalin. That is, except among the lower IQ conservative-libertarian riff-raff. The un-intelligent conservative intelligentsia hasn't liked Hayek since 1960, when he wrote an essay: Why I am Not a Conservative. If you haven't read that, Google it up.....very relevant, even in today's context of conservatism.
What Hayek was saying, I think, is that you can, and maybe should have, certain programs to strengthen the underpinnings of society and economy. The "free market" will adjust to that reality and perform in other ares, and perform better because of that strengthened foundation. The dullards who become right-libertarian economic ideologues, like Chris, reject that idea out of misguided principle, and sans any consideration of how it functions.
So, bad capitalists...maybe even stupid capitalists.
One thing is sure -- we've seen how their ideas f-ed this country up.
Should we consider their opinion at all it can be represented by a Chatty Cathy doll with no more than 6 programmed responses chosen at random when you pull the string.
They are more useless distraction than anything else.
Conservatives--shut up! We're trying to think...
Winston Churchill- a man whose works I have actually READ- strongly favored national health and social insurance programs. He was (as you would say if you were not being either dishonest or ignorant) talking about "real" socialism: state ownership of the major means of production, collectivism. He was a strong advocate for progressive reforms (the 8 hour workday, government mandated minimum wage, employment exchanges, public works and infrastructure development, and public health insurance). He would never have seen social insurance programs like social security (or Medicare) as "socialism". Churchill was a classic liberal- in his own words.
The fact is that Social Security, since inception, has not added a dime to the debt. It is insurance, for which we pay premiums. It differs from private insurance only in that it is much more efficient, delivers more of its premiums as benefits, and is, for most, mandatory- like paying for police or fire protection is mandatory. When it did not exist, crushing poverty of a kind you have never seen in this country was common.
You need to read up on the basic contribution of insurance to economic development- you are NEVER going to be able to save enough to cover the potential risks, except by pooling those risks with a larger society. That enables entrepreneurship and economic growth.
The fantasy world you describe- with everyone caring for each other in perfect responsibility- never existed, and would be impossible outside of simple, non technical societies.
I can see that we have another know-nothing libertarian on our hands. His comments and blog posts are so dumb that it’s not even funny. No wonder the debt sky rockets when people who espouse that philosophy are in power.
I am reluctant to hijack Paul's post; but your comment seems directed at my comment, and not at his content. I'll go one round here in the interest of argument; and with the hope that Paul's readers will become more accustomed, and thereby less afraid, of chatting with those who believe and think as I do.
Congratulations on being an actual READER of Sir Winston, by the way. We seem to share a common interest in that pursuit.
========++++++++========
Let me address your remark about Social Security first. It's not that you are wholly incorrect. Your remarks are simply irrelevant to the discussions about current budgets.
It’s true. Social Security has generally (but not always) collected more than it has dispersed over the course of its history. These over-collections have almost exclusively gone to finance our national debt, as required by law.
However, current projections indicate that collections under FICA will exceed disbursements under OASDI, permanently (according to the SSA), in 2016 – a year earlier than predicted in the Social Security Trustee’s report last year. This means that Social Security will be drawing from its reserves from thence onward towards its predicted insolvency, now estimated to occur in 2037, four years sooner than predicted last year in the same Trustee’s report.
You can read all about this here: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee09-pr.htm
I often reiterate these points because advocates for social programs, which I presume both you and Paul are, consistently omit these outlooks. You may not like the generalization that Social Security is just like all social programs, doomed to failure; but that doesn’t make this particular historical observation any less true.
However, as mentioned above, all of the foregoing about Social Security is irrelevant insofar as points about the federal FY10, FY11, and FY12 budgets are concerned. These points are, perhaps, best summarized in the following rhetorical question:
“WHAT PART OF ‘BROKE’ DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?”
Social Security is (approximately) an $800 billion annual outlay of the federal government within the category of $2.3 trillion of non-discretionary spending for these three budget years. We will be spending about $1.2 trillion annually in discretionary outlays over these same three fiscal years. Our annual deficits have exceeded, are exceeding, or will exceed $1 trillion over these three federal fiscal years.
Simply, that leaves either cutting all discretionary spending, or between 53% and 65% of all non-discretionary spending, or something in between, as the only alternatives to balance the budget without raising taxes. Of course, since Congress does not apportion mandated spending, reducing it implies amending the underlying statutes of these programs to eliminate or to diminish benefits.
The option to ‘cut’ all discretionary spending is as unrealistic as zeroing the deficit by ‘cutting’ $1.2 trillion out of non-discretionary spending. The only debate is where we are all going to meet in the middle to avoid a national bankruptcy – if, in fact, we are determined to avoid such a catastrophe.
Consequently, you can look all you want at the water of Social Security that has long passed under the bridge. You can brag how solvent Social Security has been, what it has accomplished, and what lofty ideals it sought to achieve. However, Mr. Churchill is also known for another quotation regarding socialism that seems particularly relevant here:
“Socialism is like a dream. Sooner or later you wake up to reality.”
========++++++++========
That’s about as good a segue as I can muster to your second point about Churchill having “strongly favored” national health and social insurance programs. In this regard, again, you are correct insofar as you have explained what Churchill often had in mind when he railed against socialism. However, Winton’s thinking on such matters was never one of unqualified, strong support for a progressive agenda; and it was always clearly and unalterably opposed to the welfare state.
Nevertheless, it’s true. Churchill’s references to “socialism” almost certainly implied the ‘dictionary definition’ to which you and Paul like to refer in order to avoid tagging programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, etc., with ‘that word’.
Many dictionary definitions require “state ownership of the . . . means of production” as a component of any government socialist enterprise; and, in Churchill’s day, real efforts had to be mounted to oppose those who favored the nationalization of all aspects of an economy. Hence, his comments on socialism were often made, for example, while envisioning the perils of Communism.
Paul and I have debated the use of this word ‘socialism’ several times. I remain insistent upon applying this term to any attempt by government to address social ills.
I become opposed to this type of ‘socialism’ whenever government seeks to address the problems of limited classes of individual citizens. Such applications, in my view, violate the “General Welfare” clause of the Constitution, which was always interpreted by the founding fathers and most courts (until recently) to imply a limitation on government action to the nation as a whole, and never to certain citizens in particular.
So, call me “dishonest”, if you want. However, in my opinion, I am merely being slightly disingenuous in attaching Mr. Churchill’s condemnations of the dictionary definition of socialism in his quotations to the current social and progressive agenda so often associated with current liberal thinking in America. In truth, Churchill’s thinking on the “welfare state” went well beyond what he saw as the abject failure of the experiments in National Socialism of his day.
Let me illustrate these points:
========++++++++========
Mr. Churchill began his political life as a member of the Conservative party for four years before he switched his allegiance to the Liberal party for the next 20 years. However, he rejoined the Conservative party for the remaining 40 years of his life, and served both his terms as PM while a member of this party.
I will quickly admit that being conservative and liberal in England was not then, nor is it now, the same thing as being conservative and liberal in America. Nevertheless, Conservatives in England generally have had more faith in free markets and economic liberalization, than do their Labour and Liberal counterparts. Further, they were often markedly less enthusiastic about trade unions than the loyal opposition they faced during the 57 years Conservatives ruled the House of Commons during the 20th century.
Shallow readers of Winston Churchill will miss the fact that he frequently wrote about his opposition to the “welfare state”. They will miss the fact that Sir Winston generally did not align with FDR’s views and actions in the “New Deal”. They will miss Mr. Churchill’s frequent allusions, within references to a welfare state, to the fact that the citizens of a State should not be enslaved by it, under any single, or set of, governmental social programs.
========+++++++========
Since you didn’t mention any specific incident or writing involving Mr. Chruchill that provides proof of his unqualified, general, life long, support of a progressive agenda, allow me to end with a reminder of a time during which Churchill was clearly not as much a supporter of these programs as others were:
During his first term as PM, as victory in Europe seemed daily more assured, Winston Churchill well understood that returning soldiers would be concerned about housing, jobs, healthcare, and the general welfare of their families. The war had wrecked England in many ways: her economy, her infrastructure, and, in places, much housing.
Churchill foresaw what domestic issues would be of concern. During the war, his administration, in cooperation with his Labour allies, had commissioned the Beveridge Report. This report identified five “Giant Evils” societies should eradicate, much like FDR identified the “Four Freedoms” every society should enjoy.
The Beveridge Report went on to propose widespread reform of the social welfare system in the United Kingdom. It incorporated the ideas of a welfare state including expansion of England’s National Insurance (largely unemployment, disability, and retirement benefits) as well as the institution of what is now known as its National Health Service.
Churchill, in his younger and more radical days, had worked with Beveridge, the man who greatly exceeded the charter for this report in writing a comprehensive manifesto of social reform. After reading the report, Churchill began to refer to Beveridge as a “dreamer” and “windbag”.
Winston immediately knew that England was “too poor” to take on the reforms, social programs, and (continued) government control of large sectors of the economy envisioned by this report and incorporated with the Labour Party platform. He frequently made this point; and he argued against adoption of much of what Beveridge had proposed on the bais that much of it was the “socialism” against which he had often railed.
In this vein, many people wonder why Winston’s Conservative Party lost to Attlee’s Labour Party in the 1945 election after VE Day. One of the significant reasons, often cited by historians, for this stunning defeat of a popular wartime PM, was voter concern over Churchill’s perceived opposition to the tenets and denier of the promises of social programs proposed by Beveridge and embraced by the Labour Party.
In this political environment, Winston addressed the nation in a BBC election broadcast on 4 June 1945. I offer the following text of the first sentence of Winston's speech for all the socialists who are still tuned in at this point:
"My friends, I must tell you that a Socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom."
========++++++++========
This leaves us with the final point about my "fantasy world".
First, I am here to break the sad news to you, that no world will be perfect -- especially one full of social programs and progressive policies. I never claimed the secret to a perfect society; but you have nevertheless characterized by vision as such.
Second, what do you believe existed in developed countries since before the advent of government assuming the obligations to the ill, retired, homeless, hungry, and disabled? Were such societies so repulsive?
========++++++++========
It's been real. . . . .
Chris
Nobody is afraid of arguing with you. The word is tedious.
"Insolvent" seems to be yet another Uncle Chris term of art. The actual statement is that by ---insert year here-- social security will only be able to pay out 80% of benefits.
Soc Sec can be "cured" by a number of minor tweaks -- means testing or expanding the cap on taxable income as two examples.
You say:
"You may not like the generalization that Social Security is just like all social programs, doomed to failure; but that doesn’t make this particular historical observation any less true."
Nor does it make it a historical observation. You're so full of shit it IS funny. Examples? Oh, I forgot. We're dealing with emotions, not facts. My bad. Carry on...
You say:
"Paul and I have debated the use of this word ‘socialism’ several times. I remain insistent upon applying this term to any attempt by government to address social ills."
We don't debate this. I am right and you are wrong. I don't debate this with you, I..and Firsk...correct you.
You use the wrong meaning because you think it enables you to associate social programs with the dreaded "socialism!" This is as obvious as it is moronic. You degrade the meaning of political words because you don't have an intelligent argument-- you have emotional kvetching. Social Security = Red Hordes paratrooping onto Main Street, USA. It's childish.
You say:
I become opposed to this type of ‘socialism’ whenever government seeks to address the problems of limited classes of individual citizens. Such applications, in my view,..."
(I'll pause here, and note you finally use a qualifying term--"in my view..." It's a good thing you used "in my view" because you're wrong, but it is your view.)
" ...violate the “General Welfare” clause of the Constitution, which was always interpreted by the founding fathers ..."
(Always? Bzzzzt! Wrong, Captain Guessatit! Founders? Which one? Hamilton or Madison? In the context of your statement, that difference doesn't matter. For what it's worth, Hamilton's more expansive view won out, and Madison's was set aside.)
and most courts (until recently)....
(Which courts? Certainly not the Supreme Court, which has never given a meaning to general welfare. Do you often see imaginary court decisions? Have you consulted a doctor?)
" .....to imply a limitation on government action to the nation as a whole, and never to certain citizens in particular. "
(end quote)
Well, Chris, maybe the fact that some general welfare actions are pointed towards a certain group to benefit the whole of General Welfare has caused you to make such a garbled statement. The Founder's federal, single payer health care law only applied to privately employed sailors, but was enacted to benefit the general welfare of the nation. It must suck to be so adamant in your assessment only to have the Founders prove you so wrong, so quickly. It's obvious that you're popping off without knowing WTF you're talking about. I see a trend developing.
If Firsk wants the tedious task of arguing Churchill with somebody who blithely ignores his errors and will drone on until Jesus comes as a way of never having to admit he's arguing WAY out of his league, then let Firsk have at it.
Lastly, as far as my response---you say:
"Second, what do you believe existed in developed countries since before the advent of government assuming the obligations to the ill, retired, homeless, hungry, and disabled? Were such societies so repulsive?"
Yes, they were. You again use "government" as separate from citizens, which is, I guess, how you express your deep resentment of the American system. You could move to another country if you're so disgusted with this one.
Have you considered there are other hobbies besides politics?
Nobody is afraid of arguing with you. The word is tedious.
"Insolvent" seems to be yet another Uncle Chris term of art. The actual statement is that by ---insert year here-- social security will only be able to pay out 80% of benefits.
Soc Sec can be "cured" by a number of minor tweaks -- means testing or expanding the cap on taxable income as two examples.
You say:
"You may not like the generalization that Social Security is just like all social programs, doomed to failure; but that doesn’t make this particular historical observation any less true."
Nor does it make it a historical observation. You're so full of shit it IS funny. Examples? Oh, I forgot. We're dealing with emotions, not facts. My bad. Carry on...
You say:
"Paul and I have debated the use of this word ‘socialism’ several times. I remain insistent upon applying this term to any attempt by government to address social ills."
We don't debate this. I am right and you are wrong. I don't debate this with you, I..and Firsk...correct you.
You use the wrong meaning because you think it enables you to associate social programs with the dreaded "socialism!" This is as obvious as it is moronic. You degrade the meaning of political words because you don't have an intelligent argument-- you have emotional kvetching. Social Security = Red Hordes paratrooping onto Main Street, USA. It's childish.
You say:
I become opposed to this type of ‘socialism’ whenever government seeks to address the problems of limited classes of individual citizens. Such applications, in my view,..."
(I'll pause here, and note you finally use a qualifying term--"in my view..." It's a good thing you used "in my view" because you're wrong, but it is your view.)
" ...violate the “General Welfare” clause of the Constitution, which was always interpreted by the founding fathers ..."
(Always? Bzzzzt! Wrong, Captain Guessatit! Founders? Which one? Hamilton or Madison? In the context of your statement, that difference doesn't matter. For what it's worth, Hamilton's more expansive view won out, and Madison's was set aside.)
and most courts (until recently)....
(Which courts? Certainly not the Supreme Court, which has never given that meaning to general welfare. To the extent the Court has ruled on general welfare, it was to take Hamilton's view, and reject Madison's. However, that ruling had nothing to do with programs directed at a certain class of citizen. Do you often see imaginary court decisions? Have you consulted a doctor?)
" .....to imply a limitation on government action to the nation as a whole, and never to certain citizens in particular. "
(end quote)
Well, Chris, maybe the fact that some general welfare actions are pointed towards a certain group to benefit the whole of General Welfare has caused you to make such a garbled statement. The Founder's federal, single payer health care law only applied to privately employed sailors, but was enacted to benefit the general welfare of the nation. It must suck to be so adamant in your assessment only to have the Founders prove you so wrong, so quickly. It's obvious that you're popping off without knowing WTF you're talking about. I see a trend developing.
If Firsk wants the tedious task of arguing Churchill with somebody who blithely ignores his errors and will drone on until Jesus comes as a way of never having to admit he's arguing WAY out of his league, then let Firsk have at it.
Lastly, as far as my response---you say:
"Second, what do you believe existed in developed countries since before the advent of government assuming the obligations to the ill, retired, homeless, hungry, and disabled? Were such societies so repulsive?"
Yes, they were. You again use "government" as separate from citizens, which is, I guess, how you express your deep resentment of the American system. You could move to another country if you're so disgusted with this one.
Have you considered there are other hobbies besides politics?
As to taking on the vast swamp of decidedly non Churchillian verbiage Chris left here, I'm far too busy being a capitalist, running a business and building new technology that will help grow the economy- the best, and possibly the only, way to get our fiscal house in order. Suffice to say that all through his career Churchill advocated for social policies like public heath insurance and unemployment insurance that would today get him tagged (wrongly) as a "socialist" by ideologues like Chris.
But one thing struck me as being tellingly unhistorically aware and willfully ignorant:
"Second, what do you believe existed in developed countries since before the advent of government assuming the obligations to the ill, retired, homeless, hungry, and disabled? Were such societies so repulsive?"
Chris, are you serious? Would you want to live in that sort of society, really? Do you have any conception of what that would be like? In so far as prior to progressive social programs a large percentage of the population lived in crushing poverty and malnutrition and all were subject to infectious disease, you wouldn't call them "developed". What conditions do you think brought about the progressive social reforms of the early to mid 20th century? Do you have any historical perspective at all?
As it turns out, you just don't develop a technically sophisticated, safe, modern democracy without "we the people" providing a safety net and some support for social mobility- particularly public education. Note that this is NOT what your phrase "assume the obligations" implies- people are still responsible for themselves, but we as a people provide a minimal level of support to prevent them falling off the edge altogether, an insurance policy against catastrophe. Some classes of people, like children, we give extra support to. You can make an entirely self-interest based argument for such social programs (Adam Smith did), since we all suffer from poor public health, and all stand to gain from economic growth. Entitlement programs of the 30's and 40's, like Social Security, electrification, aid to education, and the GI bill had significant economic benefits to the country as a whole- even the rich. They more than paid for themselves in increased productivity, freedom from disease, and the innovation and entrepreneurship they enabled. You are a beneficiary as well, in ways you obviously do not appreciate or understand.
I've told this story here before, but perhaps Paul will forgive some repetition. My own father grew up as a subsistence farmer, ploughing fields behind a mule. If they didn't grow enough, probably their neighbors didn't either, and all went hungry. Almost nothing in his life would have seemed unfamiliar to a farmer of four thousand years earlier. He had rickets- a disease of malnutrition- and had never seen a doctor or a dentist until he was inducted into the Army in WWII. But because of FDR's entitlements and the GI bill, he got to go to college. Before these changes pretty much the only determinant of who got higher education was the wealth of their parents. These programs changed that. So instead of scratching out a living as a dirt poor farmer, my father played a key role in the first (top secret) space based radar mapping programs, became a lead designer on the Space Shuttle, and ended his career helping put up the GPS satellites. That's just one personal example of the return on social investment. Very many of the Nobel prizes Americans won for work in the years after WWII were won by individuals who would have never been able to get an education but for those social entitlement programs. Entire industries- the computer industry for instance- were spawned as a result of those investments.
"We the people" support public programs because in the long term they help us all to be more secure and prosperous. They "promote the general welfare". We have to pay for them, true- and as Paul points out (and as pretty much every economist on the face of the earth has pointed out) we can pay for them in perpetuity with very modest changes, such as slightly raising the income cap, IF we make the changes in time.
We do not have a debt crisis, we have a moral and political failure to meet our obligations to the future.
Someone pass the popcorn!
UC is a poster child for the entire conservative movement, which is ignorant of history and disingenuous in its goals.
Actually, there is far more support for those kind of ideas than the media conversation would indicate. A majority aren't nearly as concerned with deficits as they are with economy-job issues.
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
The GOP, as I point out, again, above, are the Masters of Debt Disaster. However, they can't do "spend into economy" to create jobs, as that is "socialist" (using the Chris definition)...even though they have deficit spent to create those GOP "good economies" all along (really, they are Keynesians at their core, but also are prone to gross contradiction).
They really can't do anything but tear down, so, after tearing down US fiscal strength, they must now find something else to tear down -- and blame-- for the damage they've done.
That there is somewhat an illusory perception that most are primarily concerned with the debt is yet another example of Dem/Obama reactive-to-GOP issues instead of proactive to majority concerns politics.
My guess is the strategy is to play Rope-a-Dope with the GOP, as the Obama program cuts will always be less onerous than the GOP desire to slay "conservative" Great White Whale programs.
So, the debt issue hasn't captured a majority of American's focus...it's just the only issue the pols and media are pushing.
Why? Good question, but perhaps, given that most Americans would like to see top marginal tax rates raised...those who fund the media and pols want it to be the "big issue." Ignore that unsustainable wealth distribution monster behind the curtain....
There's that, and that it's a very easily recognized and understood problem. If they can convince Americans it is "The" problem, then they can be said to be addressing "The" problem. That's easier than addressing "the problems." If they can maintain that disconnect, and nobody offers the populist issues...then the next election will be about the issues the pols/media/fundraisers WANT it to be about. If the choice isn't offered it's easier for all involved, and the problems perpetuate...but so do the pol's terms in office.
To turn this around, those who don't pay attention have to be offered something that gets their attention and motivates them to participate in a much more involved way. We can write-off the perhaps 1/3rd of "conservative" Americans who are too indoctrinated to think, and concentrate on the 65% who aren't ideological cripples.
I have an idea of how that might be accomplished, but I'm just a guy with a computer. I will, soon, put that idea out there and we can debate its worth.
Thanks for commenting.
I am glad to know that there are those who support the statement I yell at the television EACH time I hear a politician call SS and Medicare "entitlements." (That statement being, "THEY ARE NOT ENTITLEMENTS YOU $%&*^(#$^ idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) I paid INTO THEM. Had the money paid in been left alone for what it was intended, it would not be an issue. However, because the conservatives see it as free money (like their dollars from lobbyists and corporations and you scratch my back I'll scratch your when you return to the private sector that they wouldn't touch in a New York minute) and want to use the REST of it. Even when I was disabled and received a settlement a HUGE amount of that settlement went into Social Security. The term from the movie "Hollywood Homicide" comes to mind, when they began "comingling funds" and spending more than was taken in they did dangerous things to the pot. These are not entitlements and the sooner that is established the less I will worry about losing the measly $680 dollars a month from SS and $56 dollars in foodstamps I am expected to live on because I paid in such a short time. SS needs tweaked like it was before. As for medicare, there was a hundred dollars on top of that $680 that I would receive except that after paying for it all those years, I still PAY for it every month. I am TECHNICALLY homeless (I am all ready using up too much space to elaborate). A freeloader if you will.
An aside I liken to what should have been done over the years with the collected SS from employees and employers. My grandfather had black lung from coal mining (which my representative wants to revive, another issue). They had to remove one of his lungs and gave him six months to live, told him to get his affairs in order. He had been an alcoholic most of my life and all of my mother's. I lived in the town near him where he chose his funeral home. He visited me one afternoon after making his final payment on his pre-arranged funeral. He had been such a poor father he didn't want his children to have that burden. When he died NINE YEARS later, I was working for hospice and knew a bit about pre-arranged funerals. I happened to be within earshot when they told my mother and uncle that they needed more money due to inflation. I let my mother, uncle and step-uncle know that night that by pre-arranging a funeral, you trust the funeral director to hold that money like an insurance policy or say an escrow account where it grows to where it needs to be and if any is left it goes to the estate. I went with them when they queried the director about this. His amnesia suddenly cleared and by God, he had put it in escrow and enough was there. Probably more but who wants to argue before a funeral. Entitlements my a$$!
You want entitlements, look at prisoners, they are in country clubs if you look at incarceration in other countries. I don't know if it still holds true but 20 years ago in Japan they had a 7% recidivism rate on release. It was quite simple, if you were arrested, you were dependent on the charity of your relatives for clothes, food, smokes, etc. Forget about TVs and the like. And in that country, if you shamed your family -- too bad, so sad! I forget what it costs to house a criminal, but should they be entitled to live off the taxes with no input?
None of these are offered solutions, but I just can stand the UCs in the world that talk about SS and Medicare as if they know firsthand how it really is! And when John McCain can pull down the kind of retirement he does, from the government, and SS, the sytem has mucho places to be tweaked.
It may not make much sense or stay on topic, but wow, it felt good to type all that!!!!
The conservative view is obsolete and destructive and it is unsustainable.
RATED
_______
rated