Greek food, America! Better get used to it, becuase we'll have to swallow what the Greeks are swallowing we can't find some leaders with courage.
Failure is now all but ensured by the so-called Super Committee, a gimmick designed by our leadership-averse President and his pathetically inept legislative counterparts in Congress (both parties, now) to provide themselves with bi-partisan political cover when they again ducked their obligation to solve the nation’s fiscal mess. For those of you who, like me, have wondered how Greece and Italy could reach their current miserable status when the fiscal disaster now facing them was obvious years ago, the answer is plain. They tolerated a fatal combination of selfish interest groups, pampered and lazy voters, and elected leaders who distorted, dithered and ducked their duties, until it was too late. And that is exactly what happening here.
There is no need to waste invective on the committee itself, which is beneath contempt. What they have come to was predictable, and I, along with many others, predicted it. But the predictions still did not have to come true, if, for example, these hostages to toxic ideologies really cared about the country as much as keeping the power to ruin it, or if President Obama hadn’t calculated that his best chances of re-election would be to let the committee founder with him being able to claim no role in its betrayal. rather than to do his job—leading–and try to make sure it succeeded at the risk of failing himself…again.
Betrayal is the word that I use, and that is what it is. David Walker, a former U.S. comptroller general who leads the Comeback America initiative, has written that if the committee makes no progress, the leaders of both Houses, Democrats and Republicans, should resign their seats, and every member of the committee should resign as well. He is as right about that as a person can be. It is time for accountability and courage, and what the nation is seeing is excuses and cowardice.
There are other villains as well, however. A good representative for all of them is the AARP, which did its best to scuttle a fair resolution of the immediate fiscal crisis by sending a “we-can-ruin-you-so don’t-cross-us” letter to the committee last week, a letter that was dishonest, irresponsible, and despicable in every way. The message, as I would translate it, is “We don’t give a damn about the country, future generations or even our grandchildren: don’t touch our entitlements!” Of course, it is impossible, literally impossible, to keep the U.S. from Greece-like catastrophe without reforming those entitlements, and quick.
By 2035, the 65-and-over population is projected to double, and health care costs continue to climb uncontrollably: remember, Obamacare does little if anything to curb costs, only to address coverage of those costs. This double whammy will automatically expand federal spending on seniors as a share of the economy by about 30% over 2005 levels, making some combination of the following inevitable:
- Crippling taxes, and not just on the 1%, either
- The elimination or substantial cutbacks in government services, and not just jujubes like PBS, but stuff we will really miss, like medical research, National Parks, information services, law enforcement, and more.
- A level of disarmament that will make Ron Paul happy, but that will make the world a far more dangerous place, and increase the dangers to America as well
- Deficit and debt levels that will have us eating Mousaka.
As Robert Samuelson, in my estimation one of the very few truth-tellers among opinion columnists, wrote this summer:
“On average, the federal government supports each American 65 and over by about $26,000 a year (about $14,000 through Social Security, $12,000 through Medicare). At 65, the average American will live almost 20 more years. Should these sizable annual subsidies begin later and be less for some?”
Although the AARP denies it, the President ignores it and the public doesn’t know it, the unavoidable answer is YES YES YES. Samuelson again:
“True, some elderly live hand-to-mouth; many more are comfortable, and some are wealthy. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports the following for Medicare beneficiaries in 2010: 25 percent had savings and retirement accounts averaging $207,000 or more; among homeowners (four-fifths of those 65 and older), three-quarters had equity in their houses averaging $132,000; about 25 percent had incomes exceeding $47,000 (that’s for individuals, and couples would be higher).”
Of course the entitlements can be adjusted and means-tested. Of course they should be. And the third “of course” should be that the seniors who don’t need the maximum benefits should be willing to accept less, just as every American should be willing to pay more and take less do that this nation can reverse the damage caused by decades of greed, stupidity, corruption and incompetence.
Is the fourth “of course” “Of course, they won’t,” and the fifth, “Of course our elected leaders will never have the courage to make them”?
If so, I think I know what the sixth “of course” is.
Of course we’re doomed.
Ethics Alarms 
This is only common sense, Jack. But it’s not POLITICAL sense if your base voters believe that they are entitled to taxpayer largesse and keep you in office on that basis. And where those entitlements and privileges have long since been implemented through this kind of politics, those who have become dependent on it (as those politicians SOUGHT) will go to any lengths to maintain them. This has led to a vicious circle that can only end one of two ways: By a return to constitutionalism and the principle of personal fiscal independence… or a collapsed system that must, by default, turn to heavy-handed federal socialism just to keep the blighted populace above the starvation level. This latter, some maintain, is what a number of politicians intended from the onset. That, then, is the choice. The Shining City on the Hill or Oceania. Thomas Jefferson… or Max Headroom!
Excellent article,Jack. I read the other day that the middle class are eligible for welfare. There are places to cut corners if we’re willing to do it.
Jack, another cheap shot at Ron Paul is unwarranted. Please explain, “a level of disarmament that would keep even Ron Paul happy” when Ron Paul has more support and contributions from military and ex-military than ALL OTHER CANDIDATES COMBINED. Also, please explain why, if this fiasco comes to fruition, ALL members of Congress should not be replaced, except those one(s) who warned of this problem since 30 years ago, and actually voted as if he meant it.
1. I left the shot at Ron in because I messed hearing from you, and just wanted to hear your “voice.” Happy Thanksgiving!
2. It isn’t cheap. Paul’s view of the appropriate level of military capability and involvement by the US is, I think, demonstrably ahistorical and dangerous.I’m not sure what the support of the military personnel means. Maybe they want a vacation.
3. I wouldn’t disagree that the entire Congress and Senate should be given the boot for their feckless conduct on this issue.
1. Et tu Jacque, bonus dies gallipavi to you (courtesy of Ms Rounds, and Wiki Answers)
3. You still pass this part of the mental status physical exam.
2. With due respect for your father’s memory, and his military service, you can do better than that. Also, Paul’s position is for DEFENSE of the US, not the entangling engagements, marauding adventurism and colonialist nightmares we have gotten ourselves into because we didn’t recognize the vested money and corporate power interests that got us there. Please read up on what’s on HIS website, not the mainstream press if you’re going to say stuff like this.
2.Opposing the attack on the Taliban after 9-11 is per se insanity. Any leader who would accept an act of war without armed response is untrustworthy. Now Paul proposes reasoning with Iran, an irrational power…Obama’s naive approach, and worse. It’s indefensible.
1. You know I don’t speak French!
3. Your numbering is as bad as mine!
Oh, That would be the Taliban that had received covert funding from the US government during the 1990s and the early 2000s? And this Taliban-al Qaeda connection again? 9-11 is still unresolved as to the instigators, but there is substantial evidence that it was an inside job, and that the Patriot Act and other such legislation was waiting in the wings to be passed within days of such an event. Act of war, yes. But war by covert intragovernmental forces against the American people is the more likely explanation.
Yes; as I said: insane.
The issue is not cowardice:
The fundamental problem is that both parties have diametrically opposing views on what needs to be done.
The Republicans, thanks to the Tea Party, believe they were elected to rein in entitlement spending. Obama and the Democrats believe they were put in place to double down on the social spending of the Great Society.
It’s not cowardice. It’s just that the two sides view compromise as the greater evil than digging in and fighting.
No, it’s cowardice. They lack the courage to buck their constituency for fear of being defeated. They are mostly not pure ideologues; they just posed that way to get elected. Politicians, by definition, are utilitarian..the good ones, anyway. Simplistic positions are fine for getting elected, but only if realism becomes the priority after. That takes leadership and courage.
I reply that it also comes down to values… which are in limited enough supply as it is. Some support the principles and spirit of the Constitution and some don’t. The philosophical gulf between the two is not only wide, it’s unbridgeable. Only one can prevail. And the evidence is building- even among the voters who lack historical perspective- that anti-constitutional big government politicians are not only NOT the answer to America’s problems, but the very source of them.
Maybe to you… but for instance, what sort of compromise is possible between the religious right and the gay community on gay marriage?
Same deal here. One side sees the need to seriously curtail federal spending on social programs. The other side is determined to expand and double down on them. We’re not going to get a sense of the answers for another year, and even then, those who do not prevail will refuse compromise because they see it as a fundamental question of right and wrong.
Their duty, IM, is to get the job done. Period. “We couldn’t agree” isn’t an option, nor is ideological purity. They had a duty to the nation, and refused to do it because they didn’t have the courage to do what had—HAS–to be done. I don’t want to hear about their varying theories—two doctors who argue about treatment theories while the patient suffers and dies are utter failures, with no redeeming virtues. They are there to govern, not take stands that prevent governing.
The Democrats have agreed to cuts, so long as they are 1:1 match with tax increases. That’s not doubling down on and expanding social programs.
Only one side is demanding ideological purity.
That’s not true–not as long as the Democrats refuse to cut back on entitlements. Getting Medicare and Social Security under control can’t be done with raising taxes, and getting the deficit reduced requires reducing the biggest portion of the budget.
Entitlements? What a loaded term.
Anyway, it’s my understanding that the only sacred cow on the democratic side was healthcare, which actually saves money over the voucher system proposed by the Republicans in the Supercommittee. Am I wrong?
I agree,tgt. I think having a public hanging of these a$$holes who,along with the banksters and robber barons who destroyed America is in order.
You forgot the smiley face.
Oops! 🙂 I don’t really wish anyone dead…Actually I’m hoping this nightmare can be rectified without resorting to bloodshed.
Getting Medicare and Social Security under control can’t be done with raising taxes
What do you mean by “Under control.” The budgets absolutely can be balanced by raising taxes. Hell, the social security budget itself isn’t a problem. It was the rest of the Government robbing it that was an issue.
getting the deficit reduced requires reducing the biggest portion of the budget
This is fallacious, no matter what the biggest portion of the budget is. I sure hope the supercommittee doesn’t use logic like that.
Betrayal is the word that I use, and that is what it is. David Walker, a former U.S. comptroller general who leads the Comeback America initiative, has written that if the committee makes no progress, the leaders of both Houses, Democrats and Republicans, should resign their seats, and every member of the committee should resign as well. He is as right about that as a person can be. It is time for accountability and courage, and what the nation is seeing is excuses and cowardice.
More blame both sides BS? Idealogically, the Democrats want tax increases and the Republicans want spending cuts. The Democrats will agree to 1:1 ratio of cuts to revenue, you know, meeting the other side half way. The Republican proposal? 170:1.
The Democrats are willing to compropise on their idealogy, even though cuts during recessions are stupid. The Republicans? Not at all. Clearly, this is a failure by everyone.