Do you think I made that up? The title given to the January 8, 2009 New York Times article, Obama Promises Bid to Overhaul Retiree Spending evokes a strong emotional response. Sounds drastic. Sounds like a knife through the hearts of not only current retirees, but also those millions approaching retirement age. "Overhaul" most often means cutbacks. What will be the first to go? Medicare prescription drug coverage? Social security cost of living increases? Raising the age requirements in the hope that those who have been taxed the most to support Social Security and Medicare will die before they become eligible? What a relief to the system! Those people are better off dead anyhow, than living to see the turncoat politicians bend them over again and again, aren't they?
But wait. Let's see what the so-called 'liberal' New York Times is saying in this twenty paragraph article. Here are the paragraphs that relate to the "overhaul retiree spending" the headline so boldly proclaims as the article's main thrust:
- President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.
- Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.
- Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for. The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run. President Bush failed in his effort to overhaul Social Security, and Medicare only grew larger during his administration with the addition of prescription drug coverage for retirees.
- Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, and his House counterpart, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, said the extensive borrowing by the government could be a disaster if Congressional Democrats and the new Obama administration did not also work on long-term solutions including changes to Social Security and Medicare.
This is the information, contained withing the second quoted paragraph above, that has the greatest relevance: "... he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare... But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month."
What shoddy journalism! The headline makes strong implications that Obama will drastically cut federal spending for retirees. He may, indeed, do just that. And if that happens, it will be bitterly analyzed right here on this blog. But there is not one scintilla of evidence given in the article, not even a possible set of scenarios provided, that may come forth when Obama announces his budget in February 2009. So what gives? Trying to out-sensationalize the National Inquirer?
I caution you. When right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and, increasingly, Lou Dobbs, froth at the mouth about the liberal, radical, left-wing, drive-by, mainstream media, check and doublecheck what they're saying. Their main target is most often the New York Times. Yet, in the article I discussed here today, the Times may have succeeded in planting seeds of doubt not only about Obama's true agenda, but also about whether he can be trusted. Sounds like what the Rush-Sean-Bill-Lou crowd loves to do. And all before Obama takes the oath of office.
Remember - these right-wing goons will never be satisfied with news outlets that don't march in lockstep with them. Even if they succeed in pushing the 'mainstream' media to the right, it will never be far enough right for them. I urge you all to do your own bitter analysis of everything you read and hear.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Good one, Bfoxy! Of course, both our emails/phones/internet usage/and food purchases are being closely monitored now. Ain't life grand?
I agree 100% with the essence of this blog. I wish to comment on the following: "he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades."
Remember, we as workers have been providing funds for Social Security and recently also Medicare, with every paycheck we receive via payroll deduction. We have done our part through blood, sweat, and less take home pay to ensure the funds would be there when we retire.
Our government has been squandering these funds to host a whole plethora of other tag-along feel good entitlement programs which provide no monetary payback as repayment to keep this fund viable.
The government let big business off the hook for retiree medical benefits (aka Medicare), which only helps increase the government funding gap.
Increased government spending should not have been a problem. The problem is that the government ran Social Security like some sort of cash cow, and the cow has now run dry.
Social Security was supposed to be the default pension plan for working Americans whether the employer provided one to you or not.
It is supposed to provide you funds in your golden years so that you would not be a burden on society, so that you could live out the rest of your life with some shred of dignity.
Frankly, I am just disgusted with the whole thing, thank you very much.
I, too, am disgusted. Although you may find it interesting that Social Security still takes in more money each year than it pays out. However, projections show that if no changes are made, starting in 2019 the system will begin paying out more money than it receives. In 2041, according to the current Treasury Secretary, the existing level of benefits will have to be reduced, as funds will be seriously depleted.
I don't see Medicare and Medicaid as letting big business off the hook. The fact is that big business, unless forced by unions to provide retiree benefits, never cared about its retirees (except those execs at the very top).
So I see Medicare and Medicaid as programs created to help those whose employers either never provided retiree health coverage, or flat-out lied about them (refer to Lucent Technologies as an example). Something had to be done. And in our economic system, the government could not force employers to provide those benefits.
The government also let a lot of the big corporations off the hook as to keeping up with the funding of their pension plans so that the plans would remain solvent for present and future retirees.
Just ask the retired folks from the defunct Bethlehem Steel how that worked out.
A lot of companies are now using Medicare and Medicaid as an excuse to phase out medical benefits for retirees when they reach a certain age point.
True, the government can't force companies to provide benefits, but there are/were laws on the books saying that if a company(ies) provided a pension plan the company(ies)had to also maintain a certain level of funding.
When surpluses occurred in pension plans during the good times the government allowed companies to relax contributions, (A VERY BAD MOVE!!!) and a lot of companies just never bothered to maintain a reasonable level of funding.
Of course during not so good times companies said they needed to hold back on contributions until good times returned. Do you see the "got no money for the pension plan" syndrome here???
Or as a certain once giant Ma Bell telco was allowed to modify their pension plan to a cash balance plan to the disadvantage of older workers close to retirement.
We peons don't have paid lobbyists in DC to press our side of the case for fair play on pension benefits.
I am still thoroughly disgusted thank you very much.
I basically agree with all of your points. The trouble with good laws is that they look good on paper but the enforcement provisions are weak, or underfunded, or monies pass from hand to hand and the laws amazingly get ignored.
Companies that promised pensions and health care for retirees had a fiduciary responsibility to properly fund the plans. Employees accepted SMALLER paychecks in anticipation of getting those benefits after retirement. When those benefits disappeared, we should have been refunded the monies that SHOULD have been set aside for us so we could buy those benefits ourselves (not that we would have gotten the same level or quality of benefits).
That was, in fact, deferred compensation! We were robbed - pure and simple.
Post a Comment