The Entitlement Society

by Jackson Dave

Many would say that our sense of “entitlement” began with the social programs of The New Deal in the 30’s. But Social Security is the only “alphabet” program that survived the war. Most were not necessary, or couldn't be sustained during the war. Roosevelt did what appeared to be necessary to move the nation forward after three years of floundering under Hoover.

Propelled by robust industry and the Marshall Plan, America became an industrial and financial giant after the war. America “worked” and prospered during the fifties and even the sixties. In the seventies, cracks appeared in our superstructure with the energy crisis, and were highlighted by President Carter in his call to the nation to move in a new direction.

As for the budget, President Eisenhower was a relatively conscientious steward, and even Richard Nixon produced one balanced budget. The weight of our unfunded war in Vietnam, along with the social programs of the 60’s fell upon President Carter, who faced so-called “stagflation”, a term coined to describe high inflation coupled with increasing unemployment.

The clarion call of "modern" America was sounded in 1981 by Ronald Reagan, with “Morning in America”. Under his vision, prosperity would just happen! We didn’t have to pay for it; in fact, the lower he could drive taxes, the greater would be our prosperity! Reagan ushered in a dramatic increase in government programs and spending, doubling the “defense” budget and cutting back on nothing.

Through our history, multiple world wars, social problems and all, we arrived at the dawn of Reagan with public debt under a trillion dollars (it is now over $12 Trillion!) So who let the cat out of the bag? Common (Republican) wisdom tells us that it’s “tax and spend” Democrats who bust the budget. That makes no more sense than the multitude of other Republican canards, since “tax and spend” would tend to keep the books straight.

Reagan campaigned on fiscal prudence (don’t they all), and backed it up with his record as California Governor, where he raised taxes and balanced the budget. But this was the new Gipper! Now his policy was “borrow and spend”. Even though he raised taxes in his second term to slow the ballooning debt, by then he was the “Teflon president”, and his minions ignored it. Reagan increased government debt by three and a half times to $3.1 Trillion; the residual of his policy added two additional trillion in the four years of George H. W. Bush. Bush raised taxes in mid-term, was called to task for what was ignored from Reagan, and thus lost his bid for re-election.

Meanwhile in the 1984 presidential campaign, Walter Mondale, without “getting it”, spoke fiscal truth. "After four years of Reagan profligacy, the budget required a tax raise!" Mondale told us straight out that he would be a prudent steward of our legacy. He lost 49 states. After that, we all got it!

What had happened between even the 70’s and 1984? Ronald Reagan showed us the path to power. He told us we could have it all: limitless oil, lower taxes, all the government services we wanted. This was not a plan for good government; this was a ruse for getting elected. This is what Republicans venerate him for, and it has worked! Prior to Reagan, presidents (and aspirants) made the assumption that the American public wouldn't tolerate irresponsible government.

Reagan gave us the sense of entitlement. Who cares about the budget? We glorify consumption over responsibility. Would we demand responsibility from our government when we run our own households on credit card debt? Why would we vote for higher taxes when we're offered the alternative of 'all for nothing'?

Now the public simultaneously demands and rejects government commitment to programs that might deal with deficits, healthcare, unemployment…you name it! We want our government services, but we have been taught that we don’t have to pay for them. 67% favor balancing the budget even in recession; yet an even greater margin rejects the kind of spending cuts that would deliver this objective.

The public doesn’t watch CNN, or listen to public radio---or even Glenn Beck! We watch American Idol. We live in Playland. The most successful politicians are those who can offer the impossible with a straight face. Scott Brown, our new darling from Massachusetts, is going to balance our budget and cut taxes even more by "cutting government waste". (Have we heard this before?) Here's what we have not heard: “I’m going to cut military spending by 45%, legalize drugs, eliminate the tax exemption for mortgages over $85,000, eliminate farm subsidies, clean up the prescription drug fiasco, re-regulate and tax the financial services industry, stop water projects…”

Instead, Republicans reiterate their mantra of “tax and spend Democrats”, assuring us that any contrary messages come from “liberal media”. "Liberal media", Hah! There’s a serious disconnect when the “liberal media” is owned by a handful of rich, Republican industrialists. But it's enough to bamboozle voters. (A liberal media would have mobilized enough public skepticism to head off our recent wars by exposing the lies behind that mess.)

If we are going to turn this country around, we must realize that our childish expectations are what drive our politicians to treat us like children. We vote for irresponsible government, and we get what we demand. Some think that Democratic majorities in both houses of congress should be expected to push forward responsible legislation; but we now have 15 “new” (corporate) Democrats in the senate, and about 55 in the house. The far-right is on the march, propelled by middle America, to support policy that’s contrary to their own interests. (See What’s Wrong with Kansas.)

Republicans continue to run on promises of lower taxes, decrying “tax and spend Democrats”. To achieve endorsement, the party has a "No New Tax" pledge that all faithful are expected to take. I hear friends and acquaintances claim: “I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal”. What does that mean? Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending….(straight from Wikipedia). “Tax and spend”, my friends, (long-ago discarded by all parties) may be political liberalism, but it is fiscal conservatism. Borrow and spend, by any definition is fiscal “liberalism”, for lack of a more descriptive term. Those who utter this mantra probably voted for Reagan, if not Bush. Yet both of these men were "fiscal liberals and social conservatives."

Let’s take a look at some figures:

Removing politics from the equation, the entitlement figures for the next 30 years are staggering. Even from President Obama we find a disturbing lack of candor. Assuming full economic recovery, the shortfall of receipts for the next ten years is expected to be $8.5 Trillion! 43% of the budget during this period will be consumed by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (health insurance for the poor). The mass retirement of "baby boomers" propels this sea of red ink and will drive it higher. Essentially the budget will be set up to transfer wealth from young workers to retired boomers. This dilemma cannot be managed without draconian tax increases or large cuts in other government programs.

The irony, as so often is the case, is that reality lies 180 degrees from "common knowledge". "Conservatives" rage over "tax and spend" Democrats. They point their fingers at programs for the poor and indigent, while oblivious to corporate welfare and "welfare for the rich". The primary responsibility goes to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who lied their way to power promising "tax cuts" for the rich and "voodoo economics". But the real onus falls on us, voters from Kansas and 49 other states, who returned these two men to office even after we could see what they were doing. The programs that we all expect and receive threaten to bury us. We tolerate political hacks who pander to greed by telling us they'll cut taxes "by eliminating waste" in government, while we drive our own families to the precipice on credit card debt.

Do-nothing Republicans and scared Democrats are not moving at this time of economic emergency. But the longer we delay real budget reform, the greater will be the stress on our beleaguered currency. At some point we will no longer be able to sell debt on the world market. Then, look out! The ensuing crisis will compel abrupt measures that make today’s choices look like a bunny slope. Good luck.

Jackson Dave is a staff writer for Robbinsense

Funny Figures and Mad Money

There were some interesting comments last month about budgets and debt, including: “Mr. Obama quadrupled our debt”, (a line that we had previously heard from a zealous Republican partisan in “rebuttal” to the State of the Union address.) Obviously, Tom took that statement and ran with it Robbinsense sent our staff scurrying to find the source of this dubious statistic.

Pull up this website to follow along. There it is, bigger than life. (First, this graph is not charting debt, it’s charting the government deficit. Avowed "conservatives" are frequently loose with specifics.) Bush deficit in 2008: about $450 Billion; Obama deficit in 2009: a whopping $1.85 Trillion! Case shut!

I have a problem with this, having lived through the period: the statistics don't jive with my memory. Where do these figures come from? Who is “The Foundry”? If we look a little closer and uncover hidden details, it turns out this is The Heritage Foundation, a group that by its own description:

“Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles.”

This looks suspicious. $400 Billion in 2008---that’s odd. Why would the figures projected for 2009 before Mr. Obama took office be three times higher?

· Deficit when Obama took office: By the time Obama took office, the black ink (of the Clinton years) had turned to gushers of red. "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion," CBO said in its "Budget and Economic Outlook." That was released Jan. 8, 2009, only days before Obama’s inauguration. Update Feb 5: The $1.2 trillion projection would have been $966 billion had CBO been accounting for mortgage losses then the way they were eventually treated in the official deficit figures. See clarification below.

In all fairness, Mr. Obama was off also in his State of the Union address. He claimed that Bush left him a $1.3 Trillion deficit. Well, no one’s perfect.

After expanding the "Foundry" chart for clarity, let’s add the figures from the chart:

(2000: ($237) Billion SURPLUS---Clinton’s final year in office)

2001: ($120) Billion SURPLUS---left over from Clinton budget

2002: 140 Billion deficit

2003 380 “

2004 410 “

2005 310 “

2006 230 “

2007 150 “

2008 430 “

Tot: 1.930 (Trillion)

According to this graph, and The Heritage Foundation, the total debt accrued from the eight years of Bush presidency is $1.93 Trillion! Very interesting, since there’s little dispute that Mr. Bush entered office with $5.6 Trillion in government debt and left with about $10.5 Trillion, an accumulation of roughly $5 Trillion, not $1.93 T. Who are these people? Given that the Bush deficit figures are obviously cooked, we can assume the Obama figures are cooked also to corroborate anything that The Heritage Foundation wants to “prove”. (“Reliable” sources put the 2009 figure at about $1.45 Trillion.)

Cross-check these figures with a chart from Wikipedia. This is usually a pretty reliable source, as it is largely assembled by web-users. When figures or information is unconfirmed or disputed, Wikipedia posts a disclaimer.

Clearly Tom wasn’t talking about growth of government debt. Mr. Obama entered office with total debt of approximately $11 Trillion. It’s now about $12.5 Trillion (not $40 T!)

If one wants to look for real spend-thrifts, we must look to Republicans. Ronald Reagan almost quadrupled government debt, in eight years: $0.9 Trillion in 1981 to $3.1 Trillion in ’88. With inertia from the Reagan budget, George H. W. Bush piled on another $2 Trillion. We see from the figures above that George W. Bush doubled government debt during his tenure. These were both periods of prosperity for this country. Isn’t that when we’re supposed to rein the budget in? But Republicans continue calling Democrats the big spenders. It’s a war of words for the GOP…they make up their own facts.

The internet is an awesome tool. Funny Figures & Mad Money can be traced by anyone with a small dose of skepticism. Check your figures.

Whither Goest, GOP?

by William Jellick

Well, we now know we can't even use the Republicans as a source of occasionally-valid Obama criticism. Even I, a certified Republican-hater, was astonished at the depths and extent of brazen, shameless hypocrisy exhibited by Alabama Senator Shelby as he acted like a puppy caught in a bear-trap in lashing out over the administrations announcement to close some 'gubbmint' facilities in his home state of Alabama. Although he's been 'tight-lipped' about it, his office nonetheless proclaimed, in a hissy fit of pique, that he will 'block' ALL of Obama's nominees. Not because they may be unsuitable, but just because they are HIS nominees. This is sure starting to seem like SOP for the GOP. If so, when, if ever, can we tell whether they have a VALID argument when their game-plan is to block, obstruct or defeat ANYTHING that comes from the administration? Any normal, sane human being knows that EVERYTHING Obama says or proposes can't be all bad. Surely there must be at least ONE thing that hasn't come directly from Satan.

Reading of this, yet another lapse of common sense coming from a Republican, I grew even more despondent over the fall from sanity that this party has taken. It's just too easy now to simply ignore them when you realize that ANYTHING that comes from their mouths, whether truthful or not, is too poisonous for normal, uncritical consumption. Forget for the moment Senator Shelby's hypocrisy over objecting to cutting government expense because it happens to come in his own back yard (including one which was one of his own EARMARKS (gasp!)) and his shameless use of calling the cuts tantamount to aiding the terrorists: we have, through his claim to block EVERY appointee, an elected official who has simply abdicated his duties as a US Senator. He might as well have said that he's decided never to speak again, because his words, truthful or not, will be dismissed as not worth the air used to form them. Like a schizophrenic in a mental ward, we'll never know if he speaks from a point of clarity or not. Yes, I'm glad that I no longer have to spend time fact-checking Republican claims, but honestly, I'd much rather do that than admit that they are now certifiably, unequivocally - irrelevant.

As Sarah 'her badself' Palin might have commented, 'Say it ain't so, Joe'!

Bill Jellick is a senior correspondent for Robbinsense

Going Rogue, a Book Review

GOING ROGUE

An American Life

by Sarah Palin

413 pp. Harper/Collins.$28.99

Amazon/Kindle.$9.99

"Going Rogue," the title of Sarah Palin's book, refers to a remark made by an anonymous McCain aide late in last year's presidential campaign. It was used to describe the vice-presidential candidate's efforts to break free of her campaign constraints and go “off-script”. In particular, it referred to her reaction to the decision to pull out of the Michigan race. But the term seemed to catch on with the race in general, and with Palin in particular. She clearly sees herself as a self-propelled agent of her own will.

This book, reasonably well-written we assume by an un-credited ghost writer, is not a political treatise; it’s an autobiography. The first half deals with her life leading up to the 2008 presidential election. Palin’s fans and followers will savor every page of this quick-reading work. Critics will rush straight to the meat---the campaign.

Through it all, Ms. Palin emerges as a new style of feminist: a politician who took on the Ole Boy network and won; a wife with a supportive husband whose career takes second place to hers; and a mother who, unlike working women of an earlier age, isn't shy about showcasing her family responsibilities. She writes with sensitivity and affection about her gay college roommate, and she confesses her anguish when she found out that she was carrying a baby with Down syndrome. That experience, she says, helped her to understand why a woman might be tempted to have an abortion. This is not the prejudiced, dim-witted ideologue of the popular liberal imagination.

This woman, who’s captured our national imagination, is a walking package of “Americana”, by her portrayal a combination of Norman Rockwell, Garrison Keillor, Shirley Temple, Davy Crockett, William Jennings Bryan (sorry but Bryan was a pacifist,) and Annie Oakley on a snowmobile. Palin appears to be a dedicated public servant, eager to improve life for all of her constituants. She is scrupulous in her public dealings, instructing her daughter not to accept even a bottle of Gatorade from a car-pooling mother who happens to be a lobbyist.

It’s clear from day one of the campaign, however, that she’s under wraps. Though extolling praise for McCain, she chafes at her confinement, secluded even from the friendly, Alaskan press. When one of her aides asked McCain headquarters for permission for her to go to the rear of the campaign plane to talk to reporters, the response was swift: "No! Absolutely not—block her if she tries to go back." She rails about being prepped for her debate with “non-answers” to questions: “Why wouldn’t I want to answer the question?”

It’s all here. Every morsel that emerged during the campaign; from the announcement of her daughter’s pregnancy to the phone call from the French President, it’s all here, eagerly explained:

“Wardrobegate” was thrust at her without her endorsement. She was not delighted by her unwed, teenage daughter’s pregnancy, but would make the most of it. “Book-banning” was a misunderstanding, and over-blown by the (liberal) media. “Hunting wolves from choppers was photoshopped.” Troopergate was spawned from a false report made by a local blogger. (Public Safety Commissioner, Walt) Monegan was fired because of insubordination, not because he wouldn’t fire Mike Wooten, Palin’s ex-brother-in-law. Fortunately we learn that in her admittedly weak interview with Katie Couric, she said Russia could be seen from Alaska, not from her front porch. The poor performance resulted from getting a bit flustered and a poor briefing by the campaign staff. “Hi, do you mind if I call you ‘Joe’?” was not a gesture of flippant informality, but from fear that she’d call him “Senator O’Biden”, and she didn’t know the mic was hot.(?) Randy Scheunemann, a well-known Washington lobbyist was assigned to Palin’s staff by the campaign, not Sarah herself. Engagement in a lengthy phone call from a comic in Montreal, claiming to be French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, was the natural result of having received so many previous calls from foreign leaders. Of course. Wardrobegate II, the family returned 30 boxes of clothing. Allegations of corruption in her administration? Well…

And here we get to the beef. A great deal of speculation swirls around the decision to resign the governorship. Going Rogue presents a full capitulation of the circumstances. Returning to “normal” life, leaving the bubble of protection of the campaign, the Palins were pummeled by the full thrust of celebrity: paparazzi, intrusion and wackos galore. It’s easy to see how this could make governing troublesome. Even in back-woods Alaska they were inundated by prying people stalking the family. The prying included “inquiry” into public records, which in Alaska is free. FOI inquiries require attention and resolution from the government, and from Palin’s personal resources.

Yet her airy resignation speech of July 3^rd seemed evasive at best…interesting that this issue was skimmed over in a very short paragraph. The usual culprits, of course stand behind all of this: liberals. Paparazzi, liberals? Tabloid readers, liberals? Intrusive wackos, liberals? Sarah is a bonafide celebrity. Our society produces a host of people obsessed by celebrities. Digging into a personal life, scratching for any morsel of life or character to make an impact on their lives is a consuming pursuit for these people. Republican reality, and Palin’s reality, however, is that liberals and Democrats are responsible for all things bad. No “liberal” that I know would have the slightest notion of engaging in this kind of stuff. Watching Fox News, Rush, Beck and the others, however, we see and hear anger-baiting pundits inflame their audience with validation of victimhood. Does anyone suspect that Scott Roeder or Joe Stack were Democrats? (These were good American, right-wing terrorists, now applauded by many right-wingers.) Do we contend that Sarah’s own constituency was responsible for this disruption? Not necessarily. But it seems likely that intrusions into the Palin family came from the spectrum of people obsessed by Sarah, rather than liberals.

Rogue is part travelogue, with many references to the majesty of the Alaskan landscape---“We stopped amidst the fjords of Kodiak where emerald green mountains plunge straight down into brilliant blue waters surrounded by picturesque---” always with a smattering of scorn to all who would suggest that pristine wilderness be preserved. It should be exploited for the benefit of all U. S. citizens, and particularly for Alaskans. BTW, Alaska is not owned by Alaskans, per se, (unless we speak of the Inuits.) Alaska was bought by the government and people of the United States.

Aside from covering all bases, the book is a well-spring of Republican sloganeering. Every trite sop that has been sounded for the last forty years, one would think, came from Sarah. Here we find half a dozen lectures on the propriety of “fiscal responsibility” (from one side of her mouth). From the other side she makes thirty-four references to Ronald Reagan, extolling the benefaction of his great presidency. Does Palin not know that Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president we’ve ever had? Doesn’t matter; her legions don’t know or care.

Palin seems to see the world through the prism of politics: “I had more administrative and executive experience than either Obama or Biden.” Fascinating that she did not include McCain on the list.

Indignation over the “book burning” allegation: “Suddenly I was the book-burning evangelical extremist sweeping down from the North on her broomstick. Reporters didn’t bother to find out the facts and print the truth.” What about “Death Panels", Sarah?

“I reminded Americans that it hadn’t been so long ago that the pundits had written John off…..determination, resolve and sheer guts of Senator McCain…” No mention here that his opponents had imploded, leaving him the only man standing; or that he was considered so marginal that no one bothered attacking him.

Rationalization and “spin” flow like a fire hose. We find long-winded descriptions of her voracious reading as a child (in a home with no television)…vindication for silly remarks to Katie Couric? When offered three opportunities to name “one” periodical or news source that she used for information, she couldn’t do it. “Oh, I read them all” is ingenuous beyond the belief of any but the most ardent Palin supporter. Contending that she naively thought that she and Couric were just going for “girl-talk”, even if that’s true, who, engaged in our politics, can’t spontaneously come up with “Time” or “Newsweek?”

When this is backed up with: Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." (Sarah Palin, August 7th, 2009) , we have a long way to go to find credibility. This catchy canard has been ranked the biggest lie of the year 2009 in a poll of fact-checking pundits. It’s clear that Ms. Palin plays fast and loose with facts, if not reality.

(“Death panels” are a far-fetched image based upon proposed insurance coverage for private conferences with personal doctors. This was not 'fashioned' by President Obama. The disgusting reality, ignored by Palin and Republicans, is that “death panels” exist…now. They exist in the executive chambers of insurance companies, making the decision to rescind coverage for sick policy-holders.) But politically, this works beautifully. When Andrew Breitbart, the founder of BigGovernment.com, introduced Ms. Palin by describing her as “the first person to tell us about the death panel,” the partisan crowd cheered wildly. Can we believe, then, any of the rationalizations presented here?

Page after page of plaints---liberals!

“In those days, ACLU activists had not yet convinced young people that they were supposed to feel offended by other people’s free exercise of religion.”(?)

“90% of the newspeople covering the debates were liberal.” Really?

“The time has come to acknowledge that it is counterfeit objectivity the liberal media try to sell consumers.” and “…beware the left’s attempts to silence these…('informative' talk-show hosts.)”

“…[Horowitz’s] book explained the stark difference between the left’s expert use of the weapons of political warfare”….used (as an example) to bring down Newt Gingrich, “…and the right’s high-minded but ineffective approach.” (Gingrich was brought down by a vote of 395 to 28 in a Republican-controlled house.)

We are offered (only) one specific: ….hateful and “distorted images over Trig’s pretty face…" by "...the official Alaskan blogger for the Democratic National Committee…”

Note that there is no reference here. In fact there are no footnotes, not a single reference in the entire book. The reader is to accept all claims as fact. It’s odd that a book covering a political period or life would appear without footnotes. Even Robbinsense provides references for all “facts” and sources regarding material or claims that the publisher thinks readers might find suspect. Palin supporters require no validation of her “facts”---they are not skeptical of anything that supports what they want to believe.

As a political work, at best this book serves as a manifesto of the political “right”. Going Rogue is an entertaining and worthy book, as Sarah Palin is an interesting and entertaining personality. Literature? Well…. But for a committed Republican or the 25 million or so Sarah Palin fans, this is cotton candy.

In The Way Forward, we hope to find clues as to what might be on the horizon. But at a mere 13 pages, The Way is another tour through the GOP slogan book. [“We (America) don’t go looking for fights, but we’re ready to face them if necessary.” Like Iraq?] In a rare moment of candor, Palin admits that we cannot expect to get more than slogans even from Republicans. The reader is left lurching for some leader who can bring this country out of the wilderness…...Sarah?