About This Blog
On Monday, right on schedule, the Beacon reprinted Robert Samuelson's Washington Post piece on why it is that the baby boomers need to be treated unfairly moving forward.....
...neither political party seems interested in reducing benefits for baby boomers. Doing so, it's argued, would be "unfair" to people who had planned retirements based on existing programs. Well, yes, it would be unfair.
But not making cuts would also be unfair to younger generations and the nation's future. We have a fairness dilemma: Having avoided these problems for decades, we must now be unfair to someone. Baby boomers....and their promised benefits are the problem. If they're off-limits, the problem is being evaded. Together, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid represent two-fifths of federal spending, double defense's share.
I don't think that I've ever agreed with a column by Robert Samuelson. This one is no exception. The AB Journal, apparently, loves the guy....because they reprint more of his columns, in my reading experience, than any other writer.
I want readers to focus on the attitude revealed in the words...."Having avoided these problems for decades, we must now be unfair to someone."
Samuelson doesn't want to be unfair to the "children" and the "grandchildren".......oh, wait.....unless we're talking about borrowing from China to keep tax rates low on billionaires here....unless we're talking about unfairness like that,...then Big Bob is all for being unfair to the "children."
Or when the President and the Congress keep paper shuffling and dividend check cashing tax rates obscenely low while simultaneously borrowing more money to pay for them,...again, for the sake of the top 1%.....that's not being unfair and guys like Samuelson don't rush out a column complaining about how unfair it all is to the "children."
But when it comes to abiding by the social contracts made with all Americans in the Social Security and Medicare programs.....it's only then that Samuelson, and his "anything for the rich" brethren, want to be unfair to someone.
To Samuelson....that "someone" who should be treated unfairly is the retiring boomers,....because.....well.... it's "their promised benefits (which) are the problem."
I have a geat idea on who we should be "unfair" to in order to straighten up our unbalanced budgets and our long range debt.
I claim as a source....the Lord Christ himself....who said, "To those given the most, the most will be expected." You want to argue about unfairness with someone, argue with God.
Have the top 1% been doing fairly well during the last 30 years or so? Quite. Think it would be "unfair" for the government to impose a few higher taxes on the top 1% to avoid f*cking over the bottom 99% on their long-promised retirement programs?
How about this one....
Do you think it would be oh-so-unfair to the top few if they were made to pay a bit higher tax rates than they have been paying for decades. Would that be unfair, do you think?
While we're determining, you know, fairness.....think it's fair to the "younger generation" Samuelson wants to spare to have placed such a huge long range deficit on the younger generation's back in order to reward the top 2% with the lowest tax outlays in 50-60 years? I mean, Big Bob....how fair is that...to the "children?"
Now I'll tell you what's really unfair. Americans bombarded with the boot-licking-for-the-rich done by the likes of Samuelson, Gergen, Mrs. Alan Greenspan, and Chuck BigHead Todd....among a cast of thousands. That's what's unfair.
As predicted, and right on schedule.....the Village millionaires have begun spouting off everywhere about the unfairness of not cutting retirement programs for the boomers. They lie that the SS fund is bankrupt. They lie that the Treasury bonds in the Trust Fund are worthless IOU's. They lie that SS adds to the deficit. In short....they lie.
Then they have the goddamn gall to wimper about how unfair it is if boomers get all that they have been promised the last 40 years.
Robert Samuelson and his ilk can GF themselves.
Perhaps I'm being unfair.