Six Old Men on Entitlement Reform

Not the Real Signers

This blog entry is an user-submission by a reader (Brad Stroup).  I must relay the fact that Brad is generally of the liberal persuasion … as are most of his friends.  But this areopagitica is very conservative in its tone and purpose.  I will not divulge the other five signers of this pledge other than to indicate that their first priority is their country.  Here is their argument for entitlement reform: 

We six old men [all from Tucson, Arizona)] oppose the “me first” culture of the elderly who demand no reforms in entitlement especially in “retirement” states like Arizona.  Most of us over 65 have been guaranteed subsidies in the form of Social Security and Medicare for the rest of our lives that far exceed our contributions.   If we include the “baby-boomers” retiring in the next few years, we elderlies have more annual income than people our age have ever had, and yet we expect the rest of you to take care of us in our leisure years.  Thanks to the profligate generosity of our nation over the past 50 years, we have created an approaching train wreck no one wants to face.  

The AARP’s lobbying efforts to protect old people at everyone else’s expense make no moral or economic sense.  The nation simply cannot afford Medicare and Social Security without some cost reductions.  Medicare co-pays to patients should be increased; Social Security retirement ages should be increased to 67 or 70.  Both entitlements should be means-tested so that those who have more do not take from those whose needs are great.  If we don’t reform these programs now, they won’t be there when younger people go to the window for benefits.

To my amazement, most of the return-e-mail dissenters to this pledge were usually liberals … often radical (and semi-famous) liberals … offering lots of AARP-inspired me-first excuses ranging from “I paid for this benefit and don’t you dare touch it” to “when defense spending is brought under control, then our entitlements will be affordable” (thinking defense spending represents “over 55% of Federal spending" – a liberal chimera.)  For the real facts, see: Heritage Foundation Analysis).  And, if you want to see how an uber-liberal mind works, please see the link I received back as justification for this original outrageous statement: War Resisters League Rationales.  I guess [too] many Americans believe Obama when he said [to Boehner], “[government] spending is not a problem.”

I have volunteered to Brad to be added to the “List of Six.”

Palin Paradox

Sarah Palin was ridiculed when she was on the John McCain ticket as his V.P. candidate for failing a Katie Couric question about what newspapers she regularly read.  Perhaps a better word was "castigated." The opinion makers painted her as a boob ... if you'll excuse the expression ... for fumbling this one question.  Obviously she was a rube, a hick of the first order, and didn't deserve to be one heartbeat away from being President.

That was then and now, two years later, she is again being taken to the woodshed by these same media darlings for being a primary cause of the Tuscon (alleged) shooting spree by Jared Loughner that killed six and wounded more than a dozen including Representative Gabrielle Giffords.  This was because Palin had "targeted" Representative Giffords seat in the recent elections as being one that the Tea Party should focus on winning.

Now additional poison darts are being directed at Ms. Palin for using the term "blood libel" Tuesday on her Facebook page, decrying the treatment she was receiving. Apparently, this term has an historic connotation in that it was once (falsely) used to condemn Jews for using the blood of Christian children in their rituals (see blood libel).  Also, more apparently the Wall Street Journal had used this same term on Monday to describe this same media kerfuffle (see WSJ use) over the Tuscon-shootings aftermath.  Now here is the paradox -- if Sarah Palin is so stupid and buffoonish, how does she know the historic "blood libel" reference when this author, whose been around the block more than a few times, knew not of it?  And, if she picked this reference out of Monday's Wall Street Journal, at least we know she learned something from the Couric interview.

One last thought ... why isn't the Wall Street Journal also being excoriated for this term's usage by these same prancing princes of the privileged pedantic press?  Perhaps because it buys ink by the barrel?