BCT Editorial – 2/15/06

This page was last updated on February 19, 2006.

Reform now; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 15, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The need to reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is now.

“Business Week magazine reports that if those three programs go on as they are now, they will eat up nearly 20 percent of America’s gross domestic product by 2040. That’s roughly the percentage of the GDP the federal budget consumes now.

“Trimming around the edges won’t cut it. Reform means ending automatic cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security, linking Medicare payments to income, taxing Social Security of high-income retirees and raising the eligibility age.”

[RWC] Note that all of the editorial’s suggestions boil down to tax increases and benefit cuts. It was careful to avoid suggesting individuals should have any say in how their Socialist Security taxes are invested.

Regarding “taxing Social Security of high-income retirees,” the editorial fails to note half of Socialist Security is already taxed. The half of SS taxes you see on your pay stub counts as taxable income on your federal and state income tax returns. Therefore, taxing SS benefits would result in some double taxation.

“Don’t be fooled by the procrastinators in Washington, D.C. It’s not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when.’”

[RWC] In case you wondered why the editorial didn’t get into direct Bush-bashing, here’s a likely answer. You probably recall during his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush said, “Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security, yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.” Democrats stood in unison, applauded, and cheered in the middle of Mr. Bush’s statement that Congress had done nothing regarding Socialist Security.

Never let it be said the Times lets itself be hamstrung by consistency. Editorials constantly lobby for more government spending, yet here we have an editorial allegedly lobbying for its idea of “reform.”