[Occupymendocino] Ruffled Feathers

[Rick Childs]

Dear OMers,

It seems my post a few days ago ruffled some feathers.  Lots of private and public responses back - some simply saying we shouldn't cut low-income seniors, but some nasty and personal attacks as well.  Came home last night.there a burning cross - with the letters AARP on it - on my lawn.*



And so, this, hoping to share my thoughts in more detail and smooth some of those feathers.

1)      Some seemed to think I was saying cut SS for low-income people (when the fat cats aren't paying their fair share); actually I clearly said:  Put a floor (say $15-20K) under which no reductions would occur.  

 

2)      Can and should seniors (as a demographic component) contribute to closing the Budget/Deficit problem?  I say yes.  What I think many don't realize is the incredible magnitude of the deficit.  It IS real.  The Fed govt is taking in $2.3 T - spending $3.6 T - a HUGE 33% !! shortfall.  

See:  http://www.usfederalbudget.us/ (it also shows the size of SS and Medicare).   Obviously this cannot continue....even liberal economists like Krugman say structural changes absolutely must take place.that no matter how much we raise taxes on the rich/raise corp. taxes and close loopholes/generate more revenue as we come out of the recession, we'll still have a growing, and critical-to-the-country, deficit problem.  Look at the minor dents against next year's $900 B deficit problem we'd get from closing all the oil co subsidies ($5 B), or raising the top 2% tax rates to even 50% (another $35  B) - w/Reps screaming about only a 39.6% rate. 

 

3)      As a country, we've been unfortunately living way, Way beyond our means for decades (borrowing to pay for it).  We've got major structural financial problems that exist beyond those easy fixes; cutbacks in our living standard Are coming.  The Bush tax cuts and the Medicare Part D are the underlying problems that exploded the deficit.  When the recession's over, most economists concede we'll need to raise taxes on almost everyone - probably something close to the Clinton-era rates.  That impacts everyone under 65.  And so...my belief in fairness and morality, why should seniors get a free ride and not contribute to fixing our deficit problem.  Again, no reductions for low-income Seniors -- but above, say $20K, ...should we keep our lifestyle while those under 65 don't? (and as we grow in numbers and longevity, exacerbating the problem?)   Extreme example:  why should Romney making $17 million even get a SS check?  

 

Again, I don't want any struggling seniors to lose benefits (I personally would like to see more Federal funding go to All low-income people.i.e. Headstart).   But there's no reason well-off seniors shouldn't have minor SS reductions.  Thus my plea to us all that we avoid simplistic "No Cuts to SS or Medicare Period" messages to Congress.  

 

Off to the 49ers game.and a Happy Holidays to All!

Rick Childs

 

* kidding.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/occupymendocino/attachments/20121223/1ccf5a88/attachment.html