Gino Piroli – 5/16/05

This page was last updated on May 22, 2005.

Never a good idea to remain silent; Gino Piroli; Beaver County Times; May 16, 2005.

This is a rehash of Piroli columns of January 24, February 28, and March 21, 2005. This column offers no new insights.

I take exception with the column title. When you can’t contribute intelligent input to a discussion, it’s a good idea to remain silent.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject column.

“I’ve written before about my disappointment in AARP and the veterans organizations in the last presidential election. Although they knew that the present administration’s plans would adversely affect their members, they remained silent - in effect endorsing the policies of those in office.

“They should have used their political clout and protected those they were elected to represent.”

[RWC] “Elected?” I don’t know about “veterans organizations,” but AARP is simply a business selling products and services to “seniors.” Members pay $12.50/year in dues and don’t elect any AARP officers.

“AARP has displayed its political clout in its campaign against changes in Social Security. Its opposition has made the present administration pause and rethink its proposal.”

[RWC] What did President Bush rethink? In his most recent press conference, President Bush made it clear personal accounts were a key part of his proposal.

“In a letter to its 35 million members, AARP acknowledges that the system needs to be fine-tuned to guarantee the retirement security of future generations, but denounces the ‘proposed radical changes as risky and short-sighted.’”

[RWC] As I noted in a previous critique, AARP has a conflict of interest. You see, AARP offers its own investment products in conjunction with Scudder Investments. I believe AARP considers personal accounts in Socialist Security to be competition for its own business.

“Fine-tuned?” We’ve been “fine tuning” Socialist Security for nearly 70 years and it’s still insolvent. That’s the way it is with Ponzi schemes.

“The government’s own estimates of the new proposals project a shortfall of $2 trillion that would have to be paid for in benefit cuts, new taxes or the incurring of more debt.

“AARP also disputes that the program is going broke.

“The organization reports that the current program, without any changes, will be able to pay 100 percent of the money guaranteed to beneficiaries until at least 2042. After that, nearly 75 percent of the benefits can be paid until the end of the century.”

[RWC] These figures don’t come from AARP. They come from the Socialist Security Administration and are the same figures quoted by the Bush administration.

If you could pay only 75% of your bills, would you not be broke? The inability to pay your bills fully is what gets businesses and individuals into bankruptcy court.

“We think of Social Security as only for seniors, a program that keeps 40 percent of them out of poverty. But the program also benefits 4.8 million widows and widowers, 5 million disabled workers and 3.8 million children of deceased workers.

“Our concern should be to reduce the financial burden on those still working and to produce a healthy and viable retirement program for generations to come. Many who advocate changes in Social Security probably have other retirement plans.”

[RWC] Reducing “the financial burden on those still working and to produce a healthy and viable retirement program for generations to come” is a nice sentiment, but how? Money to fund Socialist Security benefits doesn’t grow on trees. It must come from taxes and/or benefit cuts, and those of us who are not retired pay the vast majority of taxes.

“Many who advocate changes in Social Security probably have other retirement plans.” So what? Anyone who doesn’t have other retirement plans is beyond irresponsible.

President Bush’s proposal doesn’t mandate workers opt in to personal accounts; it merely provides workers with a choice. As his fellow travelers, Mr. Piroli doesn’t explain why he opposes giving workers a choice. If it’s a bad idea for a worker, he simply will not opt into a personal account. Does Mr. Piroli believe workers aren’t smart enough to make this decision?

“Although I’m pleased that AARP has finally taken a stand, I can’t forget its support of the 2003 Medicare Plan. In an article in The New York Times, Thomas Krugman says the plan has serious problems, especially in the prescription drug program.”

[RWC] Mr. Piroli likely hopes you are not familiar with Mr. Krugman. First, Mr. Piroli didn’t even get Krugman’s name right. The columnist to whom Mr. Piroli refers is Paul Krugman, not Thomas. Second, Krugman writes opinion columns, not news articles. Third, Mr. Krugman is about as far left as Karl Marx. Fourth, Krugman is probably more anti-Bush than even Mr. Piroli.

Let’s be clear. Folks like Messrs. Krugman and Piroli oppose the Medicare prescription drug plan for two reasons. First, it doesn’t make drugs completely “free” for Medicare beneficiaries. Second, it was pushed by a Republican president and passed by a Republican-controlled Congress. If exactly the same bill had been pushed by a Democrat president and passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, Mr. Piroli would be telling us it was a wonderful first step to “free” drugs for the elderly.

If you follow my critiques, you know I oppose Medicare in general, and that includes the prescription drug plan. I believe the government has no business being in the healthcare business and its interference is responsible for the higher-than-it-should-be price of healthcare.

“He claims that pressure was put on members of Congress to change their votes and parliamentary procedures where [sic] violated to pass the bill. Congress didn’t find out the true cost of the program until after the vote.”

[RWC] Oh no, “pressure was put on members of Congress to change their votes!” That happens for all legislation. Does Mr. Piroli expect us to believe members of Congress aren’t always lobbying each other to support their pet bills?

Oh no, “parliamentary procedures where [sic] violated!” Even if it were true, who cares? We should only care that no laws were broken.

Regarding “Congress didn’t find out the true cost of the program until after the vote,” all members had access to the Congressional Budget Office estimate before they voted.

I don’t believe for one second Mr. Piroli really cares the cost estimate went up. After all, his probable ideal bill – completely “free” drugs for the elderly – would have cost far more.

“The real scandal is that Medicare is not allowed to negotiate lower drug costs; those are determined by the pharmaceutical companies.”

[RWC] Don’t most businesses set their own prices?

“Most countries negotiate drug costs and in our country, Veterans Affairs has negotiated discounts of more than 50 percent for its members.”

[RWC] Countries don’t “negotiate” drug prices. When countries “negotiate,” they make it clear you either accept their offer or they will remove patent protection for your drug. That’s not negotiating; that’s blackmail.

“According to Krugman, Billy Tauzin, who spearheaded the drug bill when he was a member of Congress, now heads the powerful pro-industry Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and receives an estimated $2 million salary.”

[RWC] I hate to break the news to Mr. Piroli, but an awful lot of former government workers end up working as lobbyists. When they do, more often than not they end up as lobbyists in an area where they have experience and contacts.

“Many veterans organizations who said little about this administration’s proposed and widely anticipated cuts in veterans programs before the last election are now speaking up.”

[RWC] I’ll be kind and merely state that Mr. Piroli’s “facts” are in error. As in the previous four Bush budget proposals, the 2006 budget proposed a funding increase for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

“In the April issue of Veterans of Foreign Wars Magazine, National Cmdr. John Furgess writes, ‘It’s clear that the proper funding of veterans health care and other programs is not an administration priority. That is shameful during a time of war.’

“I’ll expand on this in greater detail in the future, especially the prescription drug program and the reaction to Undersecretary of Defense David Chu’s statement ‘that Congress has gone too far in expanding military retiree benefits.’”

[RWC] If you expect the expansion “in greater detail in the future” to be anything more than unfounded accusations, you will be disappointed.

“How? This session of Congress increased the Veterans Affairs budget by only 0.4 percent.”

[RWC] I couldn’t find this figure anywhere, but let’s assume it’s correct. It ignores the fact that funding for veterans in the first four Bush budgets increased 37.6%. That’s 38% in five years compared to 31.6% during Clinton’s eight years.

“If you care to respond, address the issues, not the messengers.”

[RWC] This is his fourth column since January 24^th whining about “personal attacks.” If I read any more about Mr. Piroli claiming people attack him personally for his opinions, I’m afraid my head will explode. I believe Mr. Piroli should seek professional help for his persecution complex. <g>