Monday, January 28, 2013

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.”

5 comments:

DEN said...

Are all you old affluent farts sending back your SS entitlement? Or are you patriots suggesting we reform someone else's benefits?

George W. Potts said...

DEN is obviously a taker ... and a liberal. (Isn't it funny that the national media always paints conservatives as the takers.)
Signed,
George Potts (still working at 74)

DEN said...

Yeah, I guess my 6 hr a week volunteer job doesn't count as "work" in your conservative lexicon. How many hours are you "working"?

The real funny thing is that conservatives rant and rave about the takers, yet they are first in line for unemployment & disability benefits, subsidies, and exploiting tax loopholes.

George W. Potts said...

So there ... !

Unknown said...

Unlike my contemporaries, I do not receive social security.