k wrote:
The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them.
And cut they will. I've said before that one of my disappointments in the Bush years is that you had a Republican Congress and President and yet nothing could be done about this problem.
[ I'm not disappointed as much as furious... this was purposeful. The Right doesn't approve of social welfare, by and large, but can't easily just come out and say so when it comes to powerful demographics (like the elderly, for example). By creating a situation in which payment will prove completely impossible, they get to dismantle Social Security and Medicare without nearly as much political liability because the hard choice will be left to someone in the future.
I'm not saying everything was peachy before Bush came to power, but it's gotten much much worse, and I do not consider that either coincidental or surprising. ]
Nothing will be done, and my generation will be left holding the bag. When I am an old man there will be tens or hundreds of thousands of people my age who are functionally homeless. Having lots of kids is beginning to sound like a good idea.
[ That may work, I guess. We're pretty screwed in this country, in a lot of unfortunate ways. -k]
Of course it was purposeful. As Grover Norquist famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Well, how that works is you make it so the interest payments are so enormous that the only thing the government can do is the pay the interest and nothing/very little else.
