Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Real leeches in America are the obscenely rich
By Greg Cusack |
July 3, 2013, Wednesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
SHANGHAI Daily of June 24 carried an opinion piece by Mr Shawn Mesaros, titled, "America can create more by giving fewer handouts."
I agree with this, except that Mr Mesaros targets the vast majority of Americans with the charge that they are accepting "handouts," while the real leeches on the body politic are the 1 percent who are so greedy that they wish to cut assistance to America's hungry, poor, sick and elderly in order that their possession of 35 percent of America's total wealth can continue expanding.
It is they who have created the false panic about "the deficit" in order to shore up their demand that "spending must be curtailed," all in the hopes that no one will look behind the curtain at the mounds of wealth upon which they are sitting. And just what do these elite "do" with their money? They spend it on themselves.
Overwhelmingly, they do not create jobs, expand businesses (especially within the US), or donate to the arts, the poor, or larger community needs. This tiny elite is the true "entitlement class" of America, not the struggling, often underpaid, workers, nor the ill, the elderly, or the unemployed.
In any event, what are the actual facts about those Mr Mesaros calls "the takers?" He claims that "a large portion of the population choose(s) not to work [even though] there are many jobs available."
This myth of a large number of voluntarily idle persons is one that has gathered steam since former President Ronald Reagan first began his attacks on "welfare queens." (The rich love kicking the poor around.) In truth, there are not many jobs available now for whom many people can apply.
Permanently unemployed
Many employers ? as some have admitted ? no longer bother interviewing those who have been unemployed for a long time (six months to a year or longer); the pool of those desiring jobs is large enough that they can ignore these longer unemployed who thereby become, de facto, permanently unemployed.
What about the "data" cited by Mr Mesaros in his essay? There are two major problems with them: first, they lack context, and, second, they are devoid of moral assessment.
He denigrates all "entitlement spending" as if it represents some kind of moral weakness of people steadily becoming more dependent upon government and less upon their own initiative. "An alarming number of people," he asserts, "choose to become wards of the entitlement/welfare state rather than captain their own destiny."
This is a misrepresentation; his use of "entitlements" does not include any reference to the economic and tax structures that continue to funnel wealth disproportionately to the already obscenely rich.
Why costs increase?
There are two primary reasons for the growth in the kind of "entitlement spending" he snorts at.
First, the number of retired persons continues to grow, fueled by the aging of the large demographic of "baby boomers" (those born between 1946 and 1964), and through improvements in longevity.
Second, persons 65 and older (and younger persons with disabilities) for the first time gained access to affordable health insurance in old age with the introduction of Medicare in 1965.
Since Medicare-covered persons are basically the same demographic as those receiving Social Security, it is logical that both programs would see increases in cost as that demographic segment grows.
As both Social Security and Medicare are financed by deductions from wages throughout a person's working lifetime, they are not "free" entitlements.
Mr Mesaros then declares that these developments "seemingly [threaten] the supposed self-reliance that has long characterized the American national psyche."
Yes, before Social Security and Medicare people were "self-reliant," and, accordingly, the average person lived a much shorter life and had little, if any recourse outside family, should illness strike them.
So, to "restore self-reliance" the logical solution supports returning to the brave days of yesteryear, in effect throwing our elderly, ill, and disabled to the dogs?
In effect, then, we must sacrifice the average person's old-age minimal support security in order that we not touch one little penny of the obscenely wealthy who rule us?
America has become a land where the political discourse of the elite is totally devoid of compassion and of any sense of moral justice.
Not all of us who live in the US agree with this immoral point of view, nor condone the false authority or presumed status of the elite who want us to march to their orders.
The author has been a college teacher of American history and political science, the director of the US National Catholic Rural Life Conference; he served as a member of the Iowa State House of Representatives, and retired from public service in the Iowa executive branch in 2004. Shanghai Daily condensed article.
I agree with this, except that Mr Mesaros targets the vast majority of Americans with the charge that they are accepting "handouts," while the real leeches on the body politic are the 1 percent who are so greedy that they wish to cut assistance to America's hungry, poor, sick and elderly in order that their possession of 35 percent of America's total wealth can continue expanding.
It is they who have created the false panic about "the deficit" in order to shore up their demand that "spending must be curtailed," all in the hopes that no one will look behind the curtain at the mounds of wealth upon which they are sitting. And just what do these elite "do" with their money? They spend it on themselves.
Overwhelmingly, they do not create jobs, expand businesses (especially within the US), or donate to the arts, the poor, or larger community needs. This tiny elite is the true "entitlement class" of America, not the struggling, often underpaid, workers, nor the ill, the elderly, or the unemployed.
In any event, what are the actual facts about those Mr Mesaros calls "the takers?" He claims that "a large portion of the population choose(s) not to work [even though] there are many jobs available."
This myth of a large number of voluntarily idle persons is one that has gathered steam since former President Ronald Reagan first began his attacks on "welfare queens." (The rich love kicking the poor around.) In truth, there are not many jobs available now for whom many people can apply.
Permanently unemployed
Many employers ? as some have admitted ? no longer bother interviewing those who have been unemployed for a long time (six months to a year or longer); the pool of those desiring jobs is large enough that they can ignore these longer unemployed who thereby become, de facto, permanently unemployed.
What about the "data" cited by Mr Mesaros in his essay? There are two major problems with them: first, they lack context, and, second, they are devoid of moral assessment.
He denigrates all "entitlement spending" as if it represents some kind of moral weakness of people steadily becoming more dependent upon government and less upon their own initiative. "An alarming number of people," he asserts, "choose to become wards of the entitlement/welfare state rather than captain their own destiny."
This is a misrepresentation; his use of "entitlements" does not include any reference to the economic and tax structures that continue to funnel wealth disproportionately to the already obscenely rich.
Why costs increase?
There are two primary reasons for the growth in the kind of "entitlement spending" he snorts at.
First, the number of retired persons continues to grow, fueled by the aging of the large demographic of "baby boomers" (those born between 1946 and 1964), and through improvements in longevity.
Second, persons 65 and older (and younger persons with disabilities) for the first time gained access to affordable health insurance in old age with the introduction of Medicare in 1965.
Since Medicare-covered persons are basically the same demographic as those receiving Social Security, it is logical that both programs would see increases in cost as that demographic segment grows.
As both Social Security and Medicare are financed by deductions from wages throughout a person's working lifetime, they are not "free" entitlements.
Mr Mesaros then declares that these developments "seemingly [threaten] the supposed self-reliance that has long characterized the American national psyche."
Yes, before Social Security and Medicare people were "self-reliant," and, accordingly, the average person lived a much shorter life and had little, if any recourse outside family, should illness strike them.
So, to "restore self-reliance" the logical solution supports returning to the brave days of yesteryear, in effect throwing our elderly, ill, and disabled to the dogs?
In effect, then, we must sacrifice the average person's old-age minimal support security in order that we not touch one little penny of the obscenely wealthy who rule us?
America has become a land where the political discourse of the elite is totally devoid of compassion and of any sense of moral justice.
Not all of us who live in the US agree with this immoral point of view, nor condone the false authority or presumed status of the elite who want us to march to their orders.
The author has been a college teacher of American history and political science, the director of the US National Catholic Rural Life Conference; he served as a member of the Iowa State House of Representatives, and retired from public service in the Iowa executive branch in 2004. Shanghai Daily condensed article.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
