BCT Editorial – 10/11/06

This page was last updated on October 15, 2006.

Now or never; Editorial; Beaver County Times; October 11, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The United States must revamp entitlement programs within the next five years

“When the fiscal disaster that is this nation’s entitlement programs hits the U.S. economy, the American people can’t say they weren’t warned.

“In fact, plenty of experts have been warning of the devastating impact Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs are going to have on the federal budget unless serious reforms are undertaken, and soon.”

[RWC] If you’ve read my critiques, you know I believe neither Medicare nor Socialist Security should exist. Despite that position, I don’t know how you refer to Medicare and Socialist Security as entitlement programs.

Why? Because despite their Ponzi scheme model, Medicare and Socialist Security are insurance programs. Throughout our working lives we pay premiums (15.3% of our wages) into these programs.

Programs like Medicaid, PACE, welfare, housing subsidies, the earned income “tax credit,” et cetera are so-called entitlement programs. Let’s also not forget “entitlement” programs for businesses, including tax breaks, price supports, “economic development” grants, subsidies, et cetera.

“Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is the latest Cassandra.

“The Associated Press reported the Fed chairman told the Economic Club of Washington that government spending for Social Security and Medicare alone will increase from about 7 percent of the U.S. economy to almost 13 percent by 2030, and to more than 15 percent by 2050.

“If the government tried to pay for the hike by increasing revenue, the taxes collected would have to rise from about 18 percent of the total size of the economy to about 24 percent in 2030, he said. That’s a huge and wasteful bite out of the economy.

“Cutting spending would require slashing an unrealistic $700 billion in nonentitlement spending, he said. That’s almost one-fourth of the federal budget, and that would wipe out almost all nonentitlement spending. (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and interest on the national debt account for a little under three-fourths of federal spending.)”

[RWC] Why on Earth would anyone put “defense spending” in a list with “Social Security, Medicare, [and] Medicaid?” Remember, to “provide for the common defence” is a constitutional mandate. Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera are extraconstitutional programs that should not exist.

“Bernanke wouldn’t say what kinds of changes are needed.

“However, it’s going to require sacrifices on the part of everyone. Here’s a short list of changes that must be made: ending automatic cost-of-living adjustments, taxing Social Security income, raising the age for full eligibility to 70, reducing Social Security payments to high income recipients, basing Medicare premiums on income and eliminating the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.”

[RWC] I get a kick out of the Times’ jihad against Medicare Part D. At the same time one set of editorials bash Medicare Part D, another set lobbies for a taxpayer-funded healthcare system, which would undoubtedly pay for prescription drugs.

“These are tough, unpopular measures. But as Bernanke said, Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable in their present form. The same can be said for Medicaid.”

[RWC] No kidding. This has been the case since FDR and his Democrat-controlled Congress dumped Socialist Security on us in the 1930s.

“There isn’t a lot of time left. Once the baby boom generation starts to retire, which will start within the next two years, making significant changes in these three programs will be politically impossible.”

[RWC] At least the Times corrected it timing error from the editorial “Voter discontent” of two days ago. That editorial asserted, “baby boomers are beginning to take large bites out of Social Security and Medicare.” This editorial correctly notes “boomers” won’t start receiving benefits from Socialist Security for another couple of years. It’s five years for Medicare.

“If you think today’s politicians kowtow to senior citizens, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. That’s why it’s now or never.”

[RWC] Finally, you’ll note the only changes proposed were to programs into which we pay a premium expecting benefits in return. The editorial proposed no changes to the true entitlement programs.

Don’t get me wrong. Medicare and Socialist Security are fundamentally flawed – as are all Ponzi schemes – and require serious reworking together with a plan to phase the programs out over the coming decades. I just found it interesting which programs the editorial felt need changes and those it didn’t.