The one percent turns class war into generational war
from Dean Baker
Major news outlets like the Washington Post and National Public Radio constantly bombard us with news pieces on the budget deficit. Invariably these stories focus on the cost of “entitlements,” which most of us know as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The story pounded home in these pieces – often explicitly – is that these programs, that primarily benefit the elderly, are creating the basis for a generational war between the young and the old.
The media focus both contributes to and follows the Washington policy debate. At the moment, we have the congressional “supercommittee” scheming to produce a deficit-reduction plan that will almost certainly involve large cuts to all three programs. There is a commonly repeated view in Washington policy circles, based on no evidence whatsoever, that there will be a disaster if the supercommittee comes up empty handed. This means that members of the committee are feeling great pressure from the 1 percent to produce a package with big cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
It is truly impressive how the Washington elite have managed to make these modest protections for the country’s working population (the 99 percent) into the greatest problem facing the country. The obsession with cutting these programs is occurring at a time when we have more than 25 million people unemployed, underemployed or who have given up looking for work altogether. One might think that Congress would convene a supercommittee to get people back to work rather than figuring out a way to undermine programs that people need, but it’s the 1 percent that pay for elections, not the 25 million workers suffering from their greed and incompetence.
Since almost no one can be immune to the hysteria that the media have created around the cost of these programs, it is worth putting it in some context. Starting with Social Security, the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that the program can pay all benefits through the year 2038 with no changes whatsoever.
Even if we never did anything, the program would be able to pay more than 80 percent of scheduled benefits well into the next century. Since the value of benefits is projected to rise through time, 80 percent of the projected benefit in 2040 is considerably higher than the average benefit received by retirees today. Therefore the often-repeated comment that there will be nothing there for our children or grandchildren is a telltale sign of ignorance or dishonesty.
The cost of making the program fully solvent for its 75-year planning horizon is projected at 0.58 percent of GDP. By comparison, the increase in annual spending on the military as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is 1.7 percent of GDP, almost three times as much. The upward redistribution from the rest of us to the 1 percent over the last three decades was 6 percent of GDP or more than 10 times as much as this shortfall. But it is only shortfall in Social Security that the media want us to see as a crisis.
The health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, pose more of a problem, but this is because the U.S. health care system is dysfunctional. We pay more than twice as much per person as do people in other wealthy countries with little, if anything, to show in the form of better outcomes. (We rank near the bottom of wealthy countries in life expectancy.)
If we had the same per person health care costs as people in Germany, Canada or any other wealthy country, we would be looking at long term budget surpluses, not deficits. But controlling costs involves reducing the income and profits of the 1 percent. It means reducing payments to insurers, drug companies, medical equipment manufacturers and highly paid medical specialists.
Rather than control costs, the folks in Washington would rather make people pay even more for health care. This is why we see proposals like raising the age for Medicare eligibility to 67 or turning the program into a voucher system. Both plans are likely to protect the income of health care industry, while making it even more difficult for current or retired workers to cover their health care costs.
The public should realize that “generational warfare” is an agenda that was deliberately designed by the 1 percent to distract the rest of us from the class war that they have been successfully waging over the last three decades. Rather than have a public debate on the policies that have redistributed so much income upward, the 1 percent want to pit children against their parents and grandparents, forcing them to fight over crumbs.
In this context, the only victory that the supercommittee can hand to the 99 percent is a blank sheet of paper. People will have enough things to worry about this Thanksgiving without adding a congressional plan to slash their Social Security and Medicare.
Real World Economics Review
- graccibros on Professor James K. Galbraith’s statement on the Ministry of Finance Working Group convened by former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis
- Dave Taylor on The Keynes-Ramsey-Savage debate on probability
- Garrett Connelly on An $18.42 Minimum Wage? (graph)
- dnburgess on An $18.42 Minimum Wage? (graph)
- Egmont Kakarot-Handtke on Why Real Business Cycle models can’t be taken seriously
- jeff1089 on The Keynes-Ramsey-Savage debate on probability
- Mike Hall on I agree
- Michael John on Death of a Great Australian: Hugh Stretton 1924–2015
- macroambiente on The guessing game
- Michael John on Death of a Great Australian: Hugh Stretton 1924–2015
- Norman L. Roth on Why Real Business Cycle models can’t be taken seriously
- Pavlos on Why Real Business Cycle models can’t be taken seriously
- Egmont Kakarot-Handtke on The guessing game
- Dave Taylor on On rational expectations and playing games of whack-a-mole (wonkish)
- Garrett Connelly on The guessing game
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————
—— Paul D. Egan and Philip Soos —–
————— Herman Daly ————
————— Richard Smith ————
————— Steve Keen ————–
————— Jorge Buzaglo ————
————— Asad Zaman ———–
—————– C. T. Kurien ———
————— Robert Locke ————
Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Top Posts and Pages- last 48 hours
- An $18.42 Minimum Wage? (graph)
- Professor James K. Galbraith’s statement on the Ministry of Finance Working Group convened by former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis
- Statement by Yanis Varoufakis on the FinMin’s Plan B Working Group & the parallel payment system
- Why Real Business Cycle models can’t be taken seriously
- Sweden's 30 years of income redistribution
- The guessing game
- The Keynes-Ramsey-Savage debate on probability
- Death of a Great Australian: Hugh Stretton 1924–2015
- On rational expectations and playing games of whack-a-mole (wonkish)
- Summary of the Great Transformation by Polanyi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
- Lewis L. Smith
- Kevin P. Gallagher
- Steve Keen
- Deniz Kellecioglu
- David F. Ruccio
- Peter Dorman
- Edward Fullbrook
- Jim Stanford
- Mark Weisbrot
- paul davidson
- Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra
- Peter Earl
- paul ormerod
- Peter Earl