BCT Editorial – 5/4/06

This page was last updated on May 4, 2006.

Generation gap; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 4, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The United States must take drastic measures to curtail spending on entitlements

[RWC] You’ll note the editorial doesn’t mention all so-called entitlement programs. You’ll find no mention of Medicaid, welfare, farm subsidies, et cetera.

“Another year and another prediction that Social Security and Medicare are going to collapse in the very near future.

“So it goes.

“On Monday, the trustees of those two programs cut a year off their previous prediction as to when both entitlements would go belly up. They now forecast that if no major changes are made, Medicare will go broke in 2018 and Social Security will follow it a little more than two decades later.

“The reason is basic: The programs, which are straining to meet current obligations, cannot handle the demands the 78 million strong baby boom generation will place on them.

“The day of reckoning is here. The oldest boomers turned 60 this year, and they can start collecting Social Security at 62.

“It’s not as if this impending doom scenario came out of nowhere. It’s been talked about for years.

“Ignoring the warnings was irresponsible enough. But Congress and the Bush White House made the situation even worse when they created Medicare D, the prescription drug plan that went into effect this year.

“This plan, which marked the biggest expansion of the welfare state since the 1960s, makes no fiscal sense at all. It’s going to cost more than $760 billion over the next 10 years. That’s money the federal government doesn’t have. How is it being paid for? By borrowing.”

[RWC] As I’ve written before, this is a bogus position. First, I believe if a Democrat Congress and a Democrat president had passed exactly the same program, we’d probably be reading the program’s praises. Second, editorials constantly lobby for “universal healthcare.” Wouldn’t “universal healthcare” cover prescription drugs? Also as I’ve written before, I believe the government has no role whatsoever in providing healthcare.

“Increasing the payroll taxes to address these programs’ financial shortfalls is not an option. Today’s ‘me’ generations - the boomers and their parents - have already heaped tons of debt on future generations of Americans to finance their spending spree. It is morally wrong to force them to pay for our fiscal sins.”

[RWC] Folks, let’s remember who “we” are. I believe you’ll find conservatives – the real kind – opposed these misguided programs from the beginning and ever since. While we’re all in this mess together now, we need to remember who got us here and how so we don’t repeat these mistakes.

“What is to be done? For starters:

“- Ax the prescription drug plan. It’s a luxury our nation cannot afford.”

[RWC] This is incredible. Times editorials have lobbied for “universal healthcare” for years, and a recent editorial asked, “So why isn’t the VA’s approach [to providing healthcare] being taken national?” Does today’s editorial finally mean the Times no longer supports “universal healthcare?” Don’t bet on it.

“- Eliminate automatic cost-of-living increases.

“- Raise the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security benefits to 70.”

[RWC] This is a combination of benefit reduction and tax increase. It’s a benefit reduction because you receive benefits for five fewer years. It’s a tax increase because you’ll pay Medicare and Socialist Security for an additional five years, assuming you live that long.

“- Make Medicare premiums subject to means testing and tax Social Security benefits.”

[RWC] “Means testing” means making better off people pay more. That already happens because employees pay 2.9% of their wages into Medicare and there is no maximum on the wages taxed. If you earned twice as much as another person, you paid twice as much in Medicare taxes.

Taxing Socialist Security benefits means double taxation. You see, neither Medicare nor SS taxes are deducted from your gross income when you calculate your taxable net income. As a result, you pay income tax on your Medicare and SS taxes. The Times recommendation means you would be taxed “both coming and going.”

Now that I’ve explained the double taxation, it’s time to tell you SS benefits are already taxed depending on the amount of SS benefits you receive and the amount of your other income. Is it possible the Times editorial author didn’t know this?

“- Bring deficit spending under control through a combination of spending cuts and income tax increases.”

[RWC] I’d like for someone to show me one case in which “tax increases” ever brought “spending under control.”

“Drastic measures? You bet.

“Will they lead to a diminished quality of life for today’s ‘me’ generations? Absolutely.”

[RWC] I disagree, at least for me and other forward-looking people. I decided many years ago I would not rely on someone else for my “quality of life” in retirement.

“But this short-term inconvenience will be nothing compared to the lower quality of life our children and grandchildren will have long term because of our profligacy. We have a moral obligation to close this generation gap by cleaning up the financial mess we have made.”

[RWC] One thing I noticed was the editorial’s use of “our” and “we.” If you recall, recent energy editorials referred to “the American people,” “the American public,” “Americans,” “they,” et cetera. Not once did those editorials use the pronoun “we.”

Also, I’d like to acknowledge the editorial provided recommendations. They may be too little, too late and some may be politically motivated, but at least they are suggestions.