Entitlement Hysteria
(cross-posted from The Progessive Pulse)
Question: If you are conservative, what do you call your government's future obligations?
Answer: Unfunded Liabilities.
If we've learned nothing else from George Lakoff and the "Death Tax," we should recognize the importance of framing the debate. The Right is constantly in a froth over the projected 75 year costs of Social Security and Medicare. As long as they are going to get all hysterical about our government's future obligations, we should ask them why they conveniently forget to include our largest "unfunded liability"...national defense. A plausible argument is made here that military expenses for the federal government are greater than non-military expenses.
Is the cost of life-long care for an Iraq War veteran with TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury...the "signature wound" of the Iraq War) any less of an unfunded liability than the care of Grandpa Joe in a vegetative state after his stroke? Or...are the future military pensions of today's Iraq War veterans any less of an unfunded liability than our obligation to pay baby boomer Social Security checks? I don't think so.
As Robert Kuttner says in his superb new book The Squandering of America:
Nobody doubts that the Pentagon will continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to defend (and occasionally jeopardize) America's security. Project this assumption forward seventy-five years, and you have an "unfunded liability" in the tens of trillions of dollars. But as long as the U.S, government is in business, there is little doubt that taxes will be collected and the Pentagon will be paid. Likewise for the mandated payouts under Social Security and Medicare.
So, the next time one of your right-wing friends is afflicted with Entitlement Hysteria over Social Security and Medicare, just tell them the programs are at least as secure as the mother of all entitlements...national defense. We could shore up the finances for Social Security and Medicare in a heartbeat with a simple nip and tuck from the defense budget. Another way of looking at it is that the projected long-term shortfall for Social Security is exactly equal to the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
Our government's future obligations are an ideological argument...not a financial disaster.
Addendum: Our North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole is so bullish on the future of our national defense entitlement that she has proposed a joint resolution that requires a minimum of 4% of GDP be used for defense spending. When there's a will, there's a way.
- S Turner's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Excellent!
I'm tired of allowing them to frame the debate....and we are allowing it. I prefer this framing quite frankly.
If national defense is the mother of all entitlements
What does that make Liddy Dole?
Maybe the great grand mother of all entitlements? Lord knows, she sure thinks North Carolina owes her a cushy DC lifestyle.
Who is suckling on the mother of all entitlements?
Politicians, that's who. Since 1990, the defense industry has contributed more than 123 million dollars to various campaigns. You can find the details here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=D
59% to Republicans
41% to Democrats
Just follow the money to see how laughably transparent are Elizabeth Dole's legislative "accomplishments."
Excellent post!
Good day for blogs in NC.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Another question America should ask itself...
Do we want to be in the business of making nothing but war for the next century? Well if weaponry is the number one export of the US and the Pentgon's budget is entitled to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars then you can bet that's what we're gonna get. Okilly-dokilly America?
Not quite the same
I appreciate the argument comparing social programs to defense programs, but there is probably a big difference in many people's minds, especailly conservatives.
Just about everyone would probably agree that, if nothing else, a duty of the federal government should be to protect us from the bad guys. One can certainly argue as to the priorities and effectiveness with how it is currently being executed, but most agree it should be something Washington does to some extent. In one way or another, the federal government has been providing for defense since 1776, before we fought off the Redcoats and gained independence.
On the other hand, you have "new" programs like social Security and Medicare that have only been around for 50-70 years. Many would argue that the government should not be offering social insurance or at least not at these levels.
So, most people agree the government should provide for the common defense, but promoting the general welfare gets a bit trickier to define.
Respectfully, SPLib, the conservatives have "framed" you...
This is the type of framing of an issue that I'm talking about. SPLib makes a reasonable observation. Two points I would make in rebuttal.
1. Our defense budget has nothing to do with the "common defense" of the U.S.A. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. We have over 700 military bases in 130 countries. That doesn't include the 6000 military bases we have in the US and in our territories. Our defense budget funds an American empire of bases with the objective of global military domination. Frankly, our military mission has more to do with protecting American business interests than it does for common defense of our homeland. For an excellent summary, go here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
2. SPLib writes, "Many would argue that the government should not be offering social insurance or at least not at these levels."
To the contrary, very few would argue against Social Security or Medicare. I would offer that these programs have more impact on maintaining "the American way of life" than our network of foreign military bases. And I would defend the budgets of Social Security and Medicare at least as vigorously as I would our defense budget.