Category: News and Opinion

“Key lawmakers from both parties (but one generation) have held tentative talks about overhauling the Social Security system,” the Washington Post reported. A likely plan would “include lower benefits for wealthy Americans, a higher retirement age and additional revenues.” Action is needed because “projections show that the system, which has brought in more money than it pays out, will begin to need at least small infusions of cash from the rest of the government.” And those in power presumably want Social Security to continue to bring in more that it pays out, so the money can be used to cut other taxes and increase spending elsewhere, as it has been since the last deal to “Save Social Security” in 1983.

Now I’m a realist about this. I know that no matter what the numbers are in the Social Security “trust fund” all the additional dollars collected in the past have been spent in the past, that older generations have made out on the deal (some more than others), and that younger generations are screwed, and something must be done. The details are summarized here.  But the attitude of those planning to repeat the 1983 generational betrayal is galling nonetheless. Americans, Senator Lindsay Graham said, “are ready to make some hard decisions for the benefit of future generations." For the benefit of future generations! Almost makes it sound like current generations, older generations, are going to the ones making the sacrifices, doesn’t it?

The most telling chart in the Mayor’s budget presentation does not concern public policy or government finance. It is the chart on page nine that shows the U.S. personal savings rate. And it shows that the generations recently retired and now in their peak earning years, unlike the “Greatest Generation” that went before them, have been unwilling to save for their own personal futures. The majority wanted what they wanted when they wanted it, and didn’t concern themselves with the consequences. Is it any surprise, then, that in their collective choices they also were unwilling to make any of the changes needed to free the United States from energy dependency? That they raised the payroll tax on the less well off to “save Social Security” for the next generation in 1983, and then spent all the extra money on themselves in the years since? That they awarded themselves richer public employee pensions, deferred the cost, and when money got tight cut wages and benefits for future hires? That they ran up massive public debts, and allowed the infrastructure to degrade? And getting back to their personal lives, that so many were unwilling to put up with the obligations of permanent family relationships for the benefit of the children? And that those who could drained public corporations of their futures by extracting undeserved money in the present in excess executive compensation?

Guess what sort of people are in the New York State legislature, from which our current Governor and former Governor Pataki emerged? For two decades, since I didn’t share the values implied that chart, I looked at the actions of politicians such as Pataki, Silver, Bruno — not to mention George Bush and the Republican Congress — with growing outrage. And since no one bothers to vote in elections that (aside from a few higher offices) in reality don’t take place, I assumed “the people” weren’t making those choices would also be outraged that their future was being destroyed if only they knew. Perhaps I was wrong.

No sooner had Mayor Bloomberg released his budget than objections were raised by those who, like Bloomberg, cannot bring themselves to challenge the most privileged of the privileged interests. Reported The Daily Politics, Comptroller Bill Thompson, released a statement opposing a proposed sales tax increase as “regressive,” which is to say falling harder on the less well off, and proposing an additional local income tax increase (on top of the state tax increase) on higher earners instead. “Amid this recession, no one should be immune, and we must ensure that any financial burdens are spread more equitably.” No one should be immune? Spread equitably? Well, the New York state and local income tax on public employee retirement income is zero, and for others over age 65 Social Security income and other retirement income up to $20,000 is also exempt from both state and local income taxes, no matter how high the household’s total income is. Bloomberg himself qualifies for tax-free retirement income. Why won’t Thompson, Bloomberg, Quinn, anyone talk about that?

Sales tax opponents “argue low-income people spend a higher proportion of their disposable income on necessities they can't do without, and so get hurt more than the rich when sales taxes are hiked.” Actually, low income people spend a higher share of their income of food and rent, neither of which is subject to the sales tax. Rental property, however, is subject to the property tax, at a far higher rate than one-family homes people like myself are well off enough to own. Perhaps the real problem is that senior citizens, poor or not, might end up paying those higher sales taxes.

Yes I’m disgusted with Mr. Smith and the rest of the State Senate. But remember, HE JUST GOT THERE, and is trying to convince people to vote and act like grown ups and allocate pain after 15 years in which others handed out benefits and shifted the cost to a future they didn’t care about. I’m far more disgusted with those others, some of whom have conveniently left the scene, and our culture of pacifier sucking two-year-olds, which has yet to “change” in New York. Smith deserves blame, but he’s far too convenient a fall guy for others who deserve to be blamed more.