Seniors, Guns and Money - By PAUL KRUGMAN

[kpete]

Seniors, Guns and Money
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 12, 2011

................

Anyway, the truth is that older Americans really should fear Republican budget ideas — and not just because of that plan to dismantle Medicare. Given the realities of the federal budget, a party insisting that tax increases of any kind are off the table — as John Boehner, the speaker of the House, says they are — is, necessarily, a party demanding savage cuts in programs that serve older Americans.

.........................

Here are the numbers: In 2007, there were 20.9 Americans 65 and older for every 100 Americans between the ages of 20 and 64 — that is, the people of normal working age who essentially provide the tax base that supports federal spending. The Social Security Administration expects that number to rise to 27.5 by 2020, and 31.7 by 2025. That’s a lot more people relying on federal social insurance programs.

Nor is demography the whole story. Over the long term, health care spending has consistently grown faster than the economy, raising the costs of Medicare and Medicaid as a share of G.D.P. Cost-control measures — the very kind of measures Republicans demonized last year, with their cries of death panels — can help slow the rise, but few experts believe that we can avoid some “excess cost growth” over the next decade.

Between an aging population and rising health costs, then, preserving anything like the programs for seniors we now have will require a significant increase in spending on these programs as a percentage of G.D.P. And unless we offset that rise with drastic cuts in defense spending — which Republicans, needless to say, oppose — this means a substantial rise in overall spending, which we can afford only if taxes rise.

..................
the rest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

[MannyGoldstein]

1. And don't forget the $56,000 cut in Social Security, per person, that

Obama's commission voted to recommend. A 22% cut, $56,000 over an average lifetime.

The war on seniors is bipartisan.

[DURHAM D]

2. The commission didn't "vote" did they?

They just recommended without consensus.

[mmonk]

3. They were created to sway the debate to only look at cuts,

even our safety net, and not defense, security state, or taxes.

[geckosfeet]

4. the people voted...

Seniors, Guns and Money

Last year, older voters, who split their vote almost evenly between the parties in 2008, swung overwhelmingly to the G.O.P., as Republicans posed successfully as defenders of Medicare. Now Democrats are pointing out that the G.O.P., far from defending Medicare, is actually trying to dismantle the program. So you can see why those Republican freshmen are nervous.

But the Democrats aren’t engaging in scare tactics, they’re simply telling the truth. Policy details aside, the G.O.P.’s rigid anti-tax position also makes it, necessarily, the enemy of the senior-oriented programs that account for much of federal spending. And that’s something voters ought to know.

And now they realize that they were badly used.

Obama said 'not on my watch' to the repupubliclan plan (see my sig). The commissions plan just kind of withered and died because republicans did not like the idea of defense cuts and 'effective' tax increases.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. They voted 11-7 in favor of their recommendations

Not the 14 were needed to trigger an automatic vote in Congress, but it's still a recommendation that the majority voted to recommend.