Through the newly appointed deficit reduction commission, the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party is preparing for the biggest sell out of the party base since the Clinton Administration’s so-called welfare reform (war on the poor) legislation.  The Tallgrass Activist will be working hard to provide readers with the truth about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  If the U.S. Government honors it debt obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund, and if Congress attacks the greed and corruption besetting the health care system, then we can be confident that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will do just fine financially. 

My previous blog discusses this issue.  I will continue blogging the truth about these programs and the massive deficit.  I know most people don’t want too much to read at any one time.  Hence, I will keep my posts as short as possible with frequent short updates and evidence concerning the real problem.

Please pass this blog around to friends – especially to friends who think they will need all of their promised Social Security and Medicare benefits when they reach retirement age.  I don’t know about you, but I am sick and tired of hearing about what a big problem the health of “baby boomers” will be for the fiscal health of the United States.  Remember, you and your employer are paying 15% of each and every one of your paychecks into Social Security and Medicare until your salary reaches $102,000, at which time you will continue paying 2.9% of your check for Medicare along – no matter how much you make.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DEFICIT REDUCTION COMMISSION IS MORE LIKELY TO ATTACK THE SAFETY NET THAN IT IS TO ATTACK GREED.  With conservative Republican Allan Simpson and conservative Democrat Erskine Bowles leading a commission that is for all practical purposes evenly balanced between Democrats and Republicans, Medicare and Social Security benefit reductions will be a highly probable outcome of the charade that is about to take place.  Why Democrats?  Why?

This is reminiscent of another Democratic Administration, i.e. the Clinton Administration, which cowardly slashed the safety net for poor women and children.  After decades of neo-conservative propaganda disguised as social science, President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and proceeded to prove it by cooperating with Republicans to make life much more difficult for families needing public assistance.  

Yes, I said neo-conservative.  They were around long before they beat the drums for war in the Bush II Administration.  This group of conservative guiding lights, led by the ex-socialist Irving Kristol, populated the conservative, so-called, “think tanks” such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Bradley Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Heritage Foundation and others in and around Washington, D.C.  Their mantra was as follows:  give people public assistance and they will become dependent; kick them off of AFDC (now TANF) and you will be doing them a favor.

This nonsense was spread by, amongst others, Edward Banfield, Irving Kristol, James Q. Wilson, George Gilder, and Charles Murray (one of the authors of the viciously racist Bell Curve).  The neo-cons gained academic respectability through their now defunct journal The Public Interest.  These fraudulent academics were funded by the same bunch of right-wing billionaires that are now funding the tea baggers.

  Make no mistake about it, the mainstream media bought into the idea that budget deficits were due to lazy, shiftless people who needed a jolt of tough love.  Now the mainstream media has bought into the idea – pushed by the right wing – that Social Security and Medicare will cripple the U.S. government.  The New York Times, in a news item rather than an editorial, had the following to say yesterday, February 19^th:

“…Whether or not the commission succeeds in sending proposals to Congress after Dec.1, its deliberations will force both parties to address whether to raise more revenues and make long-range reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security – the tough steps many economists say are essential to controlling a debt growing larger than the economy.”

Which economists are saying this?  It is interesting that the “news” article (“Bipartisan Commission Is Established To Cut Debt”) didn’t say which economists are saying that “reductions in these programs are essential to controlling the deficit.  The following is what Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman had to say in an op ed piece in the very same newspaper on March 28, 2008:

 “The Social Security system won’t be in trouble:  it will, in fact, still have a growing trust fund, because of the interest that the trust earns on its accumulated surplus.  The only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security.”

In future posts, I will be discussing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in depth.  I will present evidence that controlling greed on the part of the Hospital-Insurance-Pharmaceutical-Medical Device-Physician Complex, which funnels massive amounts of money to political campaigns, is the path to a sane health care system for the elderly.  I will discuss the Greenspan Commission’s fix of Social Security and other taxing issues.

Joseph Goebbels understood the big lie.  Make it big and continuously repeat it. As he said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The big lie these days goes as follows:  Ageing baby boomers will put such large fiscal demands on the U.S. budget that the very economic viability of our government depends on containing the pressure they will put on Social Security and Medicare. The generation about to retire is, for no other reason than its sheer numbers,  a dire threat to U.S. security.  This blatantly false and scapegoating mantra has become so widespread that hardly any politician dare question it.

Even Christine Roemer, Chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, was spreading this falsehood on the Charlie Rose show the other night.  She expressed her belief that the biggest fiscal crisis facing the U.S. will be the number of retirees drawing on the Social Security and Medicare system.  She failed to mention that the Social Security problem is not a problem unless the U.S. Congress chooses not to pay back the 2.7 trillion dollars it borrowed to cover wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.  As the Nobel Laureate Economist Paul Krugman stated in a New York Times op ed piece:

“The Social Security system won’t be in trouble:  it will, in fact, still have a growing trust fund, because of the interest that the trust earns on its accumulated surplus.  The only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security” (March 28, 2008).

Republicans and conservatives in general hate Social Security and Medicare.  We can expect them to spread misinformation and negatively stereotype the elderly.  But we should and can expect the Obama Administration and the Democrats to make the case for truth and social justice.  Christine Roemer must know that Social Security is a pension program with a separate trust that is actuarially sound – recipients’ benefits are determined by their payments (payroll deductions) during their time in the workforce.

Medicare is an insurance program paid for through a dedicated tax of 1.45% of every bit of an individual’s pay.  Recipients also pay a premium for Medicare Part B as well as a premium for Medicare Part D.  Furthermore, individuals can purchase other coverage.  There are several causes of the fiscal drain on Medicare, none of which is the fault of the individuals eligible for the benefits.

When Medicare Part D was passed by the Congress, a provision prohibiting negotiation of drug prices was included in the legislation.  Hence, Part D, pushed by conservatives and the Bush Administration, is a huge drain on the Medicare system.  According to Peter Orszag, head of the Office of Management & Budget, Part D will cost approximately 1 trillion dollars over 10 years.  Part D was intended to be a major benefit for Big Pharma and the insurance industry.  Prescription drugs could be provided to the elderly at a drastically reduced cost but Medicare is prohibited from using its massive clout in reducing costs.

Furthermore, the U.S. government and the Medicare system is failing to take simple steps reduce fraudulent billings, which are costing the Medicare Trust Fund 60 billion dollars per year.  It is just a matter of putting controls in place.  There are a large number of other Medicare cost controls that can be put in place without reducing benefits, which are too numerous to discuss in this post but which will be discussed over time.   

Problems with the fiscal viability of Social Security and Medicare are not the fault of “Baby Boomers” – now or in the future.  It is the fault of the corruption that has infected our United States Congress.  However,  propaganda that it is the fault of the elderly serves as an excuse to deny social justice to all age groups – including children.

Ageism is characterized by negative stereotypes of, and discrimination against, people in specific age categories such as the elderly and adolescents (although neither group can be clearly delineated).  Generally, the underlying causes of ageism can be connected to economic restructuring.  When a group is seen as unnecessary, unproductive, or burdensome, its members are stereotyped, caricatured, and blamed for dysfunction in the economic system.

Like a Supreme Court justice said about pornography, I can’t define ageism but I know it when I see it.  The self described neo-conservative David Brooks – a shallow pundit, if ever there was one – provided a sterling example of ageism in a New York Times op ed piece last week.  The column, entitled “The Geezers’ Crusade,” set forth the following three complaints about the older generation (however that is defined): (1) “Far from serving the young, they are now taking from them,” (2)they are taking freedom because, “in 2009 every single penny of federal tax revenue went to pay for mandatory spending programs,” and (3) they are taking opportunity because they are causing higher tax rates, which “mean less growth and fewer opportunities.”

In his vicious attack on older Americans who need Social Security and Medicare for survival, no distortion was beneath this rich, white guy.  For instance, he claims that “the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.”  This is blatantly false and is designed to pit one group of Americans against another – a tactic we have seen employed by reactionaries throughout U.S. history.

Adolescents and young adults are also catching it these days.  Have you looked at The Dumbest Generation by Mark Bauerlein?   This author thinks the younger generation is going to hell in a hand basket due to digital technology characterizing the era in which they have grown up.  I become especially incensed when I see these attacks on youth.  I am around college students on a frequent basis.  What a great group of young people we have coming up these days!

Until very recently, adolescents and young adults played a vital role in capitalist economic systems.  Furthermore, they had to work to help the family survive.  They provided low wage labor while they learned work habits and matured into adults.  As adolescents and young adults are needed less and less in the workforce, they are increasingly seen as a threat.  Hence, they have been the primary target of legislation because of a societal problem such as drunk driving.  I am certain we will find plenty more for which they can be blamed.

It should be obvious to anyone who reads newspapers that the Kansas legislature is extremely conservative and is currently given to introducing anti-national-government legislation.  Paradoxically, this “hate national government” legislation could be the best thing that has happened to sane and rational conservatives (of the Eisenhower type), moderates, and liberals.

The tea bag movement, along with their patrons and promoters, are constantly using demagoguery to warp the “Founders’ intentions” into their own views of government.  I would love to have a debate concerning the Founders’ intentions – as well as Supreme Court interpretations of those intentions – with my tea bagger friends and other extremists on the right.

For instance, Kansas Senate Concurrent Resolution 1615 claims that “Many federal laws are in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”  The resolution doesn’t say exactly which federal laws are unconstitutional.  Nor do they say why these laws have not been tested in the courts – especially in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ironically, the resolution does reference a Supreme Court decision (New York v. United States, 505, S. Ct. 144), which seriously undermines the very argument the conservatives are trying to make.  The decision, written by Sandra Day O’Connor and joined by a very conservative majority of Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and the more moderate Souter, does indeed say that the federal government cannot “commandeer” ( word used in the resolution) a state government.

The case simply held that the U.S. Congress could not, through legislation, force a state to regulate low level radioactive waste.  However, the opinion made it clear that Congress could provide for federal regulation of low level radioactive waste.  In the same vein, the Congress cannot force states to pass occupational safety and health legislation but the Occupational Safety and Health Act is constitutional and employers are bound to adhere to safety standards as promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  One can think of an inordinate number of such laws, passed with good reason, to which employers, institutions, and individuals are bound.

The U.S. society is just too big and complex – with serious problems that span the entire nation – to leave many issues to the States alone.  In fact, in regard to the constitutional framework intended by the founders, Justice O’Connor wrote the following in New York v. United States:

“This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government.  The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities.  Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough for the expansion of the Federal Government role.”  (Page 157)

I am hoping that this resolution and a pending constitutional amendment (about which I will blog at a later date) make it through the legislature.  LET’S BEGIN THE DEBATE! This is a discussion I would love to have.  I would love to engage my extreme-right-wing-libertarian friends in an argument about the benefits of federal programs.  The following is a list of just a few of the items I would like to see on the agenda for discussion:

• What has the intersection of two interstate highways done for the City of Salina?
• Why did the entire Kansas delegation fight for the bio-terrorism facility coming to Manhattan, Kansas?
• Do the conservatives in the State and National legislatures want to introduce bills that would repeal Medicare and Social Security?  Do they want the Federal government to stop all funding of grants at our Universities? 

These are just a few of the items that should be up for discussion.  I would definitely like to hear what Congresswoman Jenkins and the other Republicans representing us have to say about them.

If you are not alarmed by the conversation taking place in Washington about Social Security and Medicare, you are not paying attention.  The narrative goes like this:  “The elderly hordes are about to descend upon the Social Security and Medicare systems and this will be a budget buster.” Of course we are hearing nothing about the five trillion dollar Iraq war or the multi-trillion dollar Afghanistan war.  We are hearing nothing about the massive tax benefits awarded to the upper ten percent income/wealth stratum.  We are hearing nothing about the blatant rip off of the Medicare program by pharmaceutical companies.

What we are seeing before our very eyes is a set up for reducing the budget deficit by reducing benefits for the elderly.  Here is how it works:  set up a commission to study the issue and make recommendations for cost reduction.  Politicians like this idea because it takes them off the hook. Senators Gregg (Republican) and Conrad (Democrat) attempted to do just that by introducing a bill that would set up a commission, the recommendations of which would be fast-tracked through congress.

Amongst all kinds of other schemes, this commission could recommend a cap on Medicare benefits, a raise in the age for eligibility for Social Security, increase Medicare premiums, or, even worse, renew the push for privatization of  Social Security.  Thanks to progressive Democrats in the Senate, this bill did not fly.

President Obama, being upset about the failure of the Judd-Conrad scheme has said that he will set up a commission by executive order.  Recommendations of that commission would not carry the weight of a commission legislated into existence.  Nevertheless, it is something that we must closely watch.

I would have some questions for a commission – as well as for my senator or congressperson.  Where is the 2.7 trillion dollars owed to the Social Security Trust Fund?  This is money borrowed by the U.S. Treasury to pay bills resulting from war and to cover for loss of tax revenues due to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  With the return of this money to the SS Trust Fund, there will be no crisis into the foreseeable future. 

What would happen to the cost of Medicare if the provision prohibiting negotiation of drug prices in legislation enacting Medicare Part D were to be repealed?  Senator Dorgan recently introduced a bill to do just that but lost that vote due to some Democrats joining the Republicans in opposition.

I think we need a commission that will come up with recommendations for getting out of costly wars and for staying out of them in the future.  Perhaps another commission could come up with ideas for reforming the tax code.  Can you imagine how much tax loop holes and a low capital gains tax is costing the U.S. treasury?