Here is an editorial by Robert M. Ball challenging the bizarrely well represented idea that social security benefits must be cut. It starts

The Post stated: “It’s no more responsible for Republicans to rule out tax increases [to strengthen Social Security] than it is for Democrats to insist on no benefit cuts.” The Post praised, as a “bipartisan blend,” President Ronald Reagan’s acceptance of a 1983 fix that included both.

I take exception. It’s the essence of responsibility, in my view, to insist on no benefit cuts.

Every pundit endeavors to find some set issues where they can prove their courage and independent thoughtfulness by standing up to entrenched interests. A lot them have come up the idea that social security is some kind menace. Problem seems to be that people identify the powerful and successful lobby (old people), and just assume that their success must come at some proportional awful cost to the public. Of course old people are powerful because they are large part of the public and the great majority of the public will someday themselves be old people.

Sometimes I wonder if the goal these pundits is just to find an issue they continue writing about until they themselves are on social security. I mean it’s remotely possible that we’ll stop giving foreign aid to Israel, or lift the embargo on Cuba, but there is no way social security will ever get gutted the way right wingers want. Also nobody will call you anti-semitic or say you’re in favor of cuddling dictators if say social security needs to be cut. Although some blogs have been known to get all bent out shape and accuse majors newspapers of ageism.

I think another problem is failure to realize that cutting social security is pet project of another powerful interest group high income taxpayers. Of course when you’re the special interest you lose sight of a lot of things



No Responses Yet to “The Washington Post Hates Old People”  

  1. No Comments Yet

Leave a Reply