Nothing but heaven itself is better than a friend who is really a friend.
Plautus
AARP's Dishonorable Straw Man Commercial:
Overt Political Threat to Conservatives
For some odd reason, Fox News, among other media outlets, is playing a rather obnoxious AARP commercial; I did an Internet search to see if I could find any reference to the commercial and finally stumbled across a guest editorial CSM post from the chief economist, Diane Lim Rogers, of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition (thumbs UP!): "AARP's offensive new ad campaign".
Ms. Rogers' opinion begins:
I find this AARP ad campaign so offensive. They threaten policymakers with their 50 million votes if any of them dares to include reforms to Social Security or Medicare as part of longer-term deficit reduction.
[From the AARP website:] AARP’s new national television ad tells lawmakers to cut waste and tax loopholes, not Social Security and Medicare. It urges lawmakers not to treat seniors like line items in a budget and lets them know that 50 million seniors are counting on them to protect their benefits.Ms Rogers quotes former US Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE): "AARP has taken an approach which can only and honestly be described as generational warfare." Director Robert Bixby adds: "[AARP] has chosen to be part of the problem by insisting that all sacrifices must be borne by someone else."
I want to make the following points: about 60% of the federal budget involves entitlement spending, particularly social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the last 3 fiscal years we have AVERAGED over $1.3T deficits, including entitlement spending: keep in mind that our annual revenues are just over $2T; we are spending 40% on the dollar we don't have. The first two programs focus on transfer payments to senior citizens (or their health providers), many of them whom certainly have contributed towards the program but don't need the benefits for a comfortable retirement.
First point: have progressive Democrats made unsustainable promises? Yes. What part of some $50T or so unfunded entitlement liabilities does AARP fail to grasp? Second point: will many, if not most, get benefits over and beyond what they and their employers paid into the system? Yes. We never properly funded these benefits properly from the get-go to accommodate the growing average tenure of retirement. Where does AARP think this gap gets funded by? The Treasury fairy? The next generation of beneficiaries, of course. It is the same principle behind any Ponzi scheme: to pay off generation zero, you skim from the investments of generation one. What do you think happens to the benefit payments of generation one, which got ripped off from generation zero? Even if they didn't get ripped off, would their own contributions be enough to sustain the rest of their lives? Probably not.
What is particularly obnoxious about this straw man argument is AARP KNOWS that entitlement spending is different from discretionary federal funding; entitlement spending is essentially on autopilot. If you thought the debt ceiling increase is hard, just ask how many American politicians have the balls to touch the third (electric) rail of American politics?
The Washington game of budget cuts is all about gimmicks--they do not discuss "real" baseline budget cuts (unlike me). They talk about reductions to planned INCREASES. It's not unlike the stereotypical spendthrift housewife whom assures her husband that she saved him money because all of the items were on sale. The husband is not impressed with how she got a $200 pair of shoes for $160; he doesn't understand why she's paying $160 for a pair of shoes when she already owns lots of shoes she rarely wears.
When we are looking at $1.3T deficits PER YEAR, and recent negotiations ended with a still higher budget this fiscal year and the super-committee is arguing over trimming the annual deficit by just over $100B per year, where in the world do you draw the conclusion if and when they take on budget cuts it, it will be in the face of a politically powerful special interest groups? OH, PLEASE. If and when I've heard of cuts, it's in terms of adjusting increases, phasing in higher retirement ages, etc.
The embedded video below is the product of AARP and is presented here solely for the convenience of blog readers and constitutes fair use. (Although they may disagree with my point of view, I somehow don't think AARP minds my presenting it here free: they're paying Fox News Channel to run it.) NOTE: This video was available as of post publication date. Some videos, like political ads, are temporal in nature and are subject to withdrawal without notice.
The Bill O'Reilly/Rick Perry Interview on 'The O'Reilly Factor'
Before proceeding, I have to comment about the bizarre Herman Cain web ad. I was going to publish a commentary on the GOP candidates, but there's just something about him that annoys me, like teacher's nails scraping against a blackboard. Since when does running a pizza business qualify a person to be President of the US--no lawmaking experience, no relevant competencies (e.g., defense and diplomacy), no public sector administration experience? So what do you get from a gimmicky 9-9-9 plan? Are we going to elect Presidents now because they come up with sales pitch like 'where's the beef?'?
I'm somewhat annoyed Krista Branch is letting Cain use her signature hit 'I Am America' which I've licensed for a download and promoted on this blog. I'm not sure how to take the commercial: we have this middle-aged white guy blowing cigarette smoke at the camera, and then a grinning black man, while the opposition has a black smoker blowing smoke at America, with a grinning white man (Joe Biden).
Rick Perry made an appearance on O'Reilly's show this week to promote his flat tax proposal. I'm puzzled listening to O'Reilly's segment about the interview with some people thinking Perry did well. No way! For me, Perry's performance was so bad--like his earlier debates, I don't see him winning the nomination. He had the equivalent of a Sarah Palin movement. O'Reilly had one question about funding, and Perry just ignored the substance. He had a distinct deer in the headlights moment. But--and I haven't checked all the conservative blogs to see if they caught O'Reilly's gaffe--but O'Reilly seemed to infer that Texas was a no-sales-tax state. Wrong! The last time I checked we had something like a 7 to 8%. But what's really weird is how Perry responds to this. He has to know Texas' sales tax is significant, but he doesn't quite admit it. It's almost as if he doesn't want O'Reilly's audience to know Texas has a sales tax.
O'Reilly's real motivation is because he FAVORS a small sales tax which he wants to dedicate to Medicare--plus he thinks it recaptures taxes for illegal businesses that don't pay tax.
This reminds me of Cain's proud admission that he favors a sales tax, not a value-added tax. One point here: a value-added tax looks to most like a sales tax. A big advantage of the VAT: favorable treatment for export goods.
Political Humor
"As you know, President Obama is here in Los Angeles He's raising money for a huge disaster relief project.
[It's for ongoing Democrat relief efforts following the 2010 mid-term elections: Obama lost his House.]
"Moammar Gadhafi was found hiding in a storm sewer with a gold-plated gun. That's me in retirement, ladies and gentlemen." - David Letterman
[Why did it take so long to find him? I thought that sewers were a natural habitat for rats...]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
CCR, "Lookin' Out My Back Door"
