On
April 17, conservative columnist Ross Douthat wrote on the
opinion page of the August New York Times:
Historically,
the most successful welfare states (think Scandinavia)
have depended on ethnic solidarity to sustain their tax-and-transfer
programs. But the working-age America of the future will
be far more diverse than the retired cohort it�s laboring
to support. Asking a population that�s increasingly brown
and beige to accept punishing tax rates while white seniors
receive roughly $3 in Medicare benefits for every dollar
they paid in (the projected ratio in the 2030s) promises
to polarize the country along racial as well as generational
lines.
There�s
no reason to think that this supposed northern latitude
dependence on �ethnic solidarity� is anything other than
a figment of Douthat�s confused mind, but it is a way of
leading into his erroneous and demagogic thesis. Take the
business about the beneficiaries of Medicare being �white.�
As one of darker hue in the program, I can refute that.
The many elderly single or widowed African American women,
who retired with little or no savings income and whose numbers
grow each day, might find the assertion insulting. Actually,
black and brown people are more likely than others to need
Medicare.
And,
if there is any reason to anticipate polarization along
racial or generational lines it might be found in resentment
among future African American and Latino working people
retiring � as they do everyday � without Medicare (or Social
Security) as a result of decisions hatched in 2011 by special
�deficit� commissions meeting in secret, or by some all-male,
all-white and all-prosperous �gang� of six politicians.
As
far as �punishing tax rates� are concerned, Douthat got
it all wrong. The figures he cites in the column are wrong
and nobody is proposing any significant tax increases on
the wages that most black and brown working people receive
now or in the future.
�Douthat
overstated the median income for a family of four by more
than 25 percent,� wrote economist Dean Baker April 17. �But
hey, it's for a good cause, he wants to keep taxes low.�
About
Douthat�s �bizarre racial politics,� Baker wrote, �Given
the wealthy's control over the media and its ability to
promulgate untrue information, they may be able to direct
racial hostility against retirees getting Social Security
checks of $1,100 a month and who have access to decent health
care. However, the more obvious direction of resentment
would be against the wealthy who have rigged the deck to
ensure that such a large share of the country's output comes
to them.�
At
Solon.com, columnist Joan Walsh called it �Ross Douthat's
racial paranoia,� noting that his column �is often such
a dizzying combination of purported rigorous logic and proud
conservative bias as to be unreadable,� but �Every once
in a while, though, he gives you a scary but important peek
into the conservative psyche.� Referring to the word that
began this column, she wrote April 18, �There's so much
bias wrapped up in that paragraph, it's hard to unpack.�
�I
think President Obama is smart to begin to talk more about
our social compact with one another, as he did in his budget
speech last Wednesday,� wrote Walsh. �Douthat seems to be
saying we can't have a real social compact in a multiracial
society; it only works in monochromatic Nordic societies.
I think it would be the ultimate example of American exceptionalism
to prove him wrong.�
True,
but it�s not a done deal. I too found President Obama words
on preserving Medicare and Medicaid and strengthening Social
Security to be somewhat reassuring. However, those who would
decimate these vital social programs in the name of deficit
reduction haven�t given up. They plot at night while most
of us are asleep.
This
is what the President said February 25:
�We�ll
have to bring down health care costs further, including
in programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the
single biggest contributor to our long-term deficits.�
I believe we should strengthen Social Security for future
generations, and I think we can do that without slashing
benefits or putting current retirees at risk.�
Not
much wrong with that, assuming he means bringing down the
expense of Medicare and Medicaid and not the programs themselves
and that �I think� is not an expression of doubt.
The real problem here is the way they do things in Washington
these days and the way the White House has handled some
important matters recently.� The question is whether standing
up for these programs is something Obama and his party is
willing to go to the mat for or is the statement merely
a negotiating position.
Here
is what Obama said April 13:
Part
of this American belief that we are all connected also
expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves
some basic measure of security.� We recognize that no
matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or
bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike
any one of us.� �There but for the grace of God go I,�
we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs
like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us
health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime
of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us
against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides
care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children,
and those with disabilities.� We are a better country
because of these commitments.� I�ll go further � we would
not be a great country without those commitments.
�
This is who we are.� This is the America I know.� We don�t
have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and
one where we forfeit investments in our people and our
country.� To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to
make reforms.� We will all need to make sacrifices.� But
we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in.�
And as long as I�m President, we won�t.
Strong
words. But there is still the threat of a deal. With public
opinion across the political spectrum clearly opposed to
slashing the healthcare and retirement programs, any negotiated
settlement would be undemocratic. But that doesn�t seem
to deter the plotters. From the beginning their strategy
has been to force through a �bipartisan plan� that will
allow both sides immunity from attack from the other for
undermining Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Last
week, economist Robert Reich warned against the push to
achieve the �middle ground� between the Ryan Republican
plan and the Administration�s approach. ��We continue to
hear that the Great Budget Debate has two sides: The President
and the Democrats want to cut the budget deficit mainly
by increasing taxes on the rich and reducing military spending,
but not by privatizing Medicare,� he wrote. �On the other
side are Paul Ryan, Republicans, and the right, who want
cut the deficit by privatizing Medicare and slicing programs
that benefit poorer Americans, while lowering taxes on the
rich.
��The
Republican plan shouldn�t be considered one side of a great
debate,� continued Reich. �It shouldn�t be considered at
all. Americans don�t want it. Which is why I get worried
when I hear about so-called �bipartisan� groups on Capitol
Hill seeking a grand compromise, such as the Senate�s so-called
�Gang of Six.��
To
the consternation of many Senate Democrats, one of those
pushing the notion of splitting the difference in the search
of a �middle ground� is Sen. Dick Durbin (D. Ill), a member
of the ill-fated Simpson Bowles deficit commission and a
�gang� member.
A
deal is still what the powerful elite wants and expect to
engineer. Douthat�s comment indicates how far some of them
will sink to achieve it and Durbin�s equivocations
are indicative of the lingering threat. As does what George
Packer described in a recent New Yorker as Obama�s
record of �giving things up before sitting down at the table.�
Keep
in mind that this back room wheeling and dealing isn�t about
a ten or 20 cent an hour raise or a percentage point tax
increase. The negotiators themselves admit it�s about renegotiating
the �social contract,� about curtailing or eliminating social
gains it took centuries to achieve and ushering in a new
era wherein the lives of working people become more precarious
and the wealth of the well-to-do more secure. That it hasn�t
happened yet is primarily the result of people pushing back.
Keep on pushing.
BlackCommentator.com Editorial
Board member Carl Bloice is a writer in San Francisco,
a member of the National Coordinating Committee of
the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and
formerly worked for a healthcare union. Click here to
contact Mr. Bloice.
|