This will be a short diary, that explains briefly why seniors need to consider carefully giving yet more votes to Republicans. The short-sightedness of their doing so in the past is already setting in motion a process that will hurt them in the future. If they continue to do so, it will only make their own situation and that of future seniors worse. Much worse. This diary is based on a single column: David Brooks' NYT column from today, entitled, disrespectfully, but oh so tongue-in-cheek of course, "The Geezers’ Crusade". I don't believe it is particularly well written. It contains no new ideas. But it does present the basic argument that will be made to take away benefits that seniors believe they have paid for. You will see this argument made more and more in the future.
In the column, Brooks says:
One of the keys to healthy aging is what George Vaillant of Harvard calls “generativity” — providing for future generations. Seniors who perform service for the young have more positive lives and better marriages than those who don’t....We are naturally inclined to serve those who come after and thrive when performing that role.
And he says that in their private lives, this is what seniors tend to do. However, he goes on...
... when you turn to political life, we are living in an age of reverse-generativity. Far from serving the young, the old are now taking from them. First, they are taking money...the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.
Second, they are taking freedom. In 2009, for the first time in American history, every single penny of federal tax revenue went to pay for mandatory spending programs... As more money goes to pay off promises made mostly to the old, the young have less control.
He then concludes:
It now seems clear that the only way the U.S. is going to avoid an economic crisis is if the oldsters take it upon themselves to arise and force change. The young lack the political power. Only the old can lead a generativity revolution — millions of people demanding changes in health care spending and the retirement age to make life better for their grandchildren.
I'll briefly restate the obvious. Social Security has been the biggest factor in providing a safety net keeping seniors out of poverty. It doesn't provide a cushy retirement, but it does ensure that there will be no seniors eating dog food to survive. Medicare has allowed seniors to receive medical care that enables them to live longer lives, with a much better quality of life than they otherwise would have. Both were enacted because they were sorely needed. Both were originally opposed by Republicans, and their arguments at the time uncannily echoed those they make today: the programs were "socialist"; they would "take away our freedom". Both are now an intrinsic part of our society, and held nearly sacrosanct by Democrats and Republicans alike. Nearly, but not completely.
Brooks is correct that 60% of the federal budget is devoted to mandatory spending programs. And the trajectory of future budgets relentlessly push that number towards an unsustainable 100%. Discretionary programs are dropping left and right. The latest, that I care about, but I'm sure many other here don't, is the space program. We will now leave returning to the moon and moving on beyond that to China. It will not be us. If Americans are involved in the manned space program, it will be as grateful hitchhikers on rides provided by others. The presence of Americans in all of those science fiction movies that we believe might happen in some form some day (like 2001, to date me) will soon be an anachronism. But it doesn't have to be that way (and anybody who thinks that private industry will take up the slack is a fantasist).
Now, I have a weakness. It is hard for me to avoid saying "I told you so." But back before Bush was "elected" in 2000, I warned seniors in conversations that the policies he would implement would make it impossible to sustain the benefits that they have come to expect. If Republicans regained the Presidency, they would cut taxes, creating large deficits. Their wrongheaded economic program would cut economic growth that is needed in order to be able to provide for seniors. All of this and more has indeed come to pass. In fact it was worse than I ever would have believed. Bush's tax cuts, first prescribed to "return the surplus", and then, after the surplus was long gone "to stimulate the economy", dug a deep, deep hole. And they were totally unneeded! Nobody complained about being overtaxed during the Clinton years! Nobody, that is, except Republican politicians. When you add two unpaid wars, and the worst recession since the Great Depression, we've gotten to the point where seniors indeed will have to give back something, and they've brought it on themselves.
And in the latest self-inflicted injury, many seniors voted for Scott Brown in Massachusetts, trying selfishly to avoid Medicare "cuts" that were really cuts only to insurance company profits. Their votes are helping to set a trajectory where their medical benefits will ultimately be severely cut, or taken away completely.
Everybody knows the present situation cannot continue. Medical costs have to be brought under control. It must be done by everybody giving something, insurance companies, medical providers, and yes, seniors, helping to make sensible changes to end-of-life care. We are living longer, so reasonable changes to retirement age could also be considered for Social Security. None further were needed when President Clinton left office, but we have squandered much since then.
But seniors, if you obstinately continue to help elect Republicans, they will continue to avoid real health care reform, keeping Medicare on a trajectory that will bankrupt it in a few short years. They will continue to cut taxes for the wealthy, including inheritance taxes that will never benefit your family, unless you happen to have more than 8 million bucks. On the contrary, they will take away from your family to give to more to insecure trust fund brats.
Seniors, in the future, you will hear more and more David Brookses, Republicans all, asking you to sacrifice for the benefit of future generations. When you hear Republicans lament "wasteful spending", they are ultimately looking at you! If you make the ultimate sacrifice, that is, if you keep voting Republican, you can ensure that the hugely growing share of entitlements will continue to grow towards 100%, until there is a rebellion, and you are thrown out in the street. Republicans will have achieved their goal without the need to ever democratically put it before the voters.
Of course, this is not meant for most Daily Kos readers. You know all this. But share it with a conservative friend. If they have counter-arguments that are serious, I'd sure like to know what they are! I apologize that I have no time this morning to stick around for comments, if any. Also, if anybody has the time to do a well-researched version of this hasty screed, including correcting any inaccuracies, that would be great!