On Social Security And Medicare, Old May Throw Young Under The Bus

By Manifesto Joe

To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't old, sick people who recklessly crashed the world financial system or got the U.S. embroiled in two (or three) wars without figuring out how to pay for them. Nor was it they who kept cutting taxes for big corporations and wealthy individuals, to the point where a record surplus became record deficits.

But, as the congressional "supercommittee" tries to figure out ways to slash the deficit and national debt -- well, it's been said that they aren't supposed to have Social Security and Medicare in the equation. Don't bet on that.

Since the Republicans took control of the U.S. House, with many of the freshmen members coming directly from the Tea Party "movement," the House agenda is rigidly right-wing. That means that taxes stay just where they are, a joy ride for the rich. Since these are generally pro-military hawks, don't look for defense spending to take many hits. Corporate welfare will probably continue, because these folks know where their campaign contributions come from.

So, where is there left to go for spending cuts? Only one place -- the so-called "entitlements." That means, for the most part, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. All campaign rhetoric aside, when the dust settles, that's where the scalpel will be drawn.

When I said that old, sick people didn't do any of the things that racked up so much debt, I meant that they weren't the direct instigators. But their consent was necessary, and a sad, just plain ridiculous number of people 65 and older vote Republican. They've been giving their consent for over 30 years.

In that time, the U.S. economy has doubled in size, but wages and salaries have remained stagnant. Want to guess who's been the big beneficiary of this?

As the U.S. economy has been thusly restructured, the middle class has been having a long war waged on it, and in large part its members, especially the older ones, seem unaware that this has even been happening. Now we're getting down to what conservatives and libertarians have long meant, in realspeak, by smaller, limited government.

It means government similar to the one the U.S. had in 1890. There was no federal income tax, and the concept of busting trusts was in its infancy. A startlingly small number of people held about half of the wealth in the country. U.S. senators were not directly elected, but rather were chosen by state legislatures. (Texas Gov. and presidential candidate Rick Perry apparently would like to see us go back to doing that.) In the Senate, it was common for the lawmakers to be referred to as "a silver senator" or "a textile senator." They were put there to represent very specific financial interests.

And about half of America's elderly lived in poverty, according to the contemporary definition. That compares with about 10 percent today.

In short, "limited government" means a plutocracy in which the limitations are one-dimensional. It's OK to dole out vast land grants to railroad companies to lay cross-continental tracks. It's not OK to do anything to help old, sick and/or poor people. In the spirit of social Darwinism, those people are supposed to just die off and leave the world to "the strong."

The appeal to selfishness

I turned 55 this year, so I'm in sort of a gray area regarding the U.S. welfare state, or what's left of it. I'm at least a decade away from qualifying for any "entitlements," but they are definitely not an abstraction to me now. They are within sight.

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, put forth a plan this year that pretty much telegraphed the punch that's coming. For people my age and older, there's not that much to worry about -- Social Security and Medicare will be there for people our age, albeit with some "strategic" trims here and there.

Anybody out there in America who's much younger than me, have your Vaseline handy. You're going to get it, and you should know where.

Clearly, the right-wing's strategy is to assure older people, usually the biggest Republican voting bloc, that the "entitlements" will be there for them. What they are moving us toward is a sort of "phase-out" of America's already-meager welfare state. I'm actually glad now that my wife and I decided not to have kids -- I would hate to have left young people behind to deal with the future that U.S. right-wingers obviously have in mind for them.

When one is in one's twenties, retirement is so far off that it is an abstraction. Besides, at that age, many people about halfway expect to one day make that "big score" that will put them far ahead in the game. Not that many twentysomethings expect what usually happens -- that one will have to work so hard just to be middle-class, and just to stay there as one ages.

Having grown up relatively poor, with parents who were young during the Great Depression, I never took very much for granted. But some Americans, including many my age and older, have always taken just about everything for granted.

And when the day comes when Americans are no longer "entitled" to "entitlements," guess who's going to get thrown under the bus? It won't be the older folks.

Where are the hellraisers?

I was just a kid during the Sixties, but I remember the era quite well enough that I felt a sense of having missed a lot while I was in college in the 1970s. By the time Gerald Ford was president and the Vietnam War was over, there was a lot less to raise hell about. We had to look for things, like maybe legalizing pot or establishing co-ed dorms, to stir shit about.

It seems to me that the young have their own nasty Vietnam going on right here, right now -- and they don't seem to be, as a generation, doing much about it. It's pretty standard that when reporters interview younger people about their financial future, they will say that they expect to work until they are 70 or 80. Retirement, to them, is becoming an obsolete concept.

I would warn those now 25 about what things are going to be like when you are 55. You don't sleep as soundly. Odd aches and pains start to emerge. Some days it's hard to gather the self-discipline to make it to that middle-class job that, you realize, is what stands between you and homelessness.

At 55, retirement starts to sound awfully good, and it will to you, too, twentysomethings. And in 30 years, when you're in my shoes, and I'm gumming Jello in a nursing home if I'm even still alive, retirement will definitely not be an abstraction for you. And the Paul Ryans, the people you're not taking much action to stop right now, have a much grimmer future in store for you.

My advice is to get out on the streets and raise some holy hell now, while you've got the energy. For your own future, it's imperative now for you to put the fear of God and organized labor into the likes of Mr. Ryan.

Twentysomethings, this is your crucial time, and you won't be able to depend on many Florida retirees to fight any battles for you. Either fight for control of the bus, or be thrown under it.

Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.

Cornyn Watch, Update: Senator Cornhole Changes To The Other Side On Medicare

By Manifesto Joe

But the question is, will he change back?

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, was one of several Republican senators who finally decided to vote against the Bush administration's Medicare cuts Wednesday, when the Senate cast another vote on the bill. Could it be that Senator Cornhole has carefully considered the ramifications for his re-election campaign?

Both Cornyn and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, were among the 40 who earlier kept the Senate from reaching the 60 votes to invoke cloture the last time this bill came to a Senate vote. It was 58 for, 40 against. This time, enough of the GOPhers switched to make it 69-30, seemingly a veto-proof majority for H.R 6331, the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.

But what if Il Doofus comes through with the anticipated veto? Will Senator Cornhole, or for that matter, 1962 edition UT cheerleader Kay Bailey (H), stick with the majority, or cave? (Cue in cheesy organ music.)

This may be interesting to watch. As mentioned on this blog before, Cornyn has a very credible challenger in his bid for a second Senate term. State Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston, trails by only single digits in most Texas polls -- pretty good for a Texas Democrat in recent years.

"Go Team" Kay has a rep for being almost a "moderate" Republican by contemporary standards, so her switch in time wasn't shocking. Senator Cornhole has been a more of a reliable water boy for Il Doofus' team, so that switch actually surprised me a bit. But of course, he wants a second term. And when the Texas Medical Association withdrew an endorsement of him after the first vote, that probably made an impression.

Let's see what he does when this comes to brass tacks. But no matter what Cornhole does, if I were Rick Noriega, I wouldn't let the old people or the medical establishment of this state forget about that first vote. Stay tuned.

Postscript: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was absent for this vote.

Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.

Cornyn Watch: Losing The Doctors AND Older People Could Prove Terminal For The Senator

By Manifesto Joe

There are two constituencies that right-wing Republicans have generally been able to count on in Texas: doctors and other medical professionals, and people 65 and older. This election year, most of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate, including Texas Sen. John Cornyn, have managed to royally piss off both groups.

This is not unimportant for Cornyn, who is facing surprising opposition in his bid for a second term in the Senate. State Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston, trails Cornyn, but only by single digits in most polls. He's within striking distance of Cornyn.

You Texans out there: Our glorious senator was one of 40 who kept the Senate from reaching the 60 votes needed Thursday night to invoke cloture and end Republican obstruction of a bill to avert the Bush administration's 10.6% cut in Medicare payments, set to go into effect tomorrow. (Sen. Barack Obama showed up and was one of 58 who voted yes; Sen. John McCain was one of two senators who did not vote.)

This bill, to forestall the cuts by 18 months, had passed in the House by a vote of 355-59. Only the most kook-right Republicans there opposed it. But just enough Senate Republicans caved in to the most loathed administration in U.S. history to kill what could have been an easy veto override.

In response, the political committee of the Texas Medical Association has rescinded its support of Cornyn for re-election to the Senate. ("Senator Noriega." I like the sound of it.)

The San Antonio Express-News reported Friday:

Medical association officials said the cut, which is set to take effect July 1, will force them to choose between their finances and their elderly patients.

Cornyn said he voted against the measure because it was a partisan ploy and "election year grandstanding" by Democrats rather than a real effort to solve the problem.

The physicians group began the day criticizing both Cornyn and senior U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for their votes against the bill on Thursday. Association President Dr. Josie R. Williams of Paris said they "chose to protect insurance companies profits instead of protecting our patients’ health."

By the end of the day, the association’s political committee, TEXPAC, had withdrawn its backing of Cornyn, saying its board was "outraged."

"That (planned Medicare cut) will force physicians into an impossible choice: face financial crisis by continuing to see their Medicare patients or protect their practice and cut off those patients," the political committee’s chairman, Dr. Manuel Acosta of El Paso, wrote to Cornyn in a letter made public by the association.

"We expect our elected officials to show leadership and do the right thing," Acosta said. "Absent that, TEXPAC has rescinded our endorsement of your candidacy."

Noriega didn't pick up an endorsement, but the challenger's campaign had a rapid response. The Express-News again:

"Cornyn has failed Texas families again and again - from rejecting health care for children to medicare votes that prioritize big insurance companies over doctors and seniors, to cutting veterans’ benefits and health services," said Noriega spokeswoman Holly Shulman. "Texans are ready for a change from a senator that continues to choose to vote with special interests instead of Texas families."

The Bush administration had threatened a veto because the bill included payment reductions to Medicare Advantage, which some senior citizens use as a private, fee-for-service alternative. Yep -- somebody's profits were being affected. For the Bush administration, it's business as usual.

But in this state, as in others, medical professionals and senior citizens are two groups that show up on Election Day. They also sign checks. Both of our GOP mannequin senators -- Kay Bailey Hutchison also voted no -- may live to regret this vote. But in an election year in which Cornyn is no shoo-in according to the polls, it could cost him everything politically.

Postscript: This is also one vote McCain may wish he hadn't missed.

Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.