On today’s front page, under the headline “Deficit Divisions Likely to Grow After Election,” New York Times reporter Jackie Calmes writes this lead:
WASHINGTON — A midterm campaign that has turned heavily on the issue of the mounting federal debt is likely to yield a government even more split over what to do about it, people in both parties say, with diminished Democrats and reinforced Republicans confronting internal divisions even as they dig in against the other side.
It is difficult to know what to make of this; the Times recently noted that the public doesn’t spend much time thinking about the deficit. (“The deficit barely registers as a topic of concern when survey respondents were asked to volunteer their worries,” was how the paper put it.) It’shard to figurehowa non-issue could be so important to the campaigns–other than as a useful talking point for some Republican politicians.
Calmes goes on to talk about possible spending cuts post-election, referencingthe “unsustainable combination of fast-growing entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare and inadequate tax revenues.”
Reporters often lump Social Security and Medicare together asunaffordable entitlements. But the programs face very different budgetary pressures.Graphs that plot the estimated costs of both show that Social Security’s expansion over the next several decades (measured asa share of the total economy) is modest compared toMedicare, which is poised to grow substantially (and thus is the far more important story by any standard). But many in the corporate media dwell on Social Security instead, often presenting it as a test of Democrats’ political courage:
Democrats are also split on fixing Social Security’s long-term solvency. Mr. Obama had wanted to tackle the issue early, and he created the debt commission by executive order–after Senate Republicans blocked legislation–partly in the hope that it would propose future benefit and payroll tax changes he could embrace. Some Democrats say he will have all the more reason to lead that charge after the elections, to signal a more centrist, fiscally conservative course. Yet liberal groups have already formed a big coalition to lobby against any such move.
That would have been the right place to quote someone who wouldexplain that “fixing Social Security’s long-term solvency” is at best a minorissue.
The non-issue that can be easily repaired is the stock and trade here. A real test of courage would be the lowering the retirement age to reduce the permanent unemployment.
Jackie Calmes wrote for the Wall Street Journal for 18 yrs b4 joining the NYTimes 2yrs ago. You have to be aware of these columnists’ backgrounds when you parse their reports. The deficit is a right-wing issue.
It may surprise many right-wingers, but the NYTimes does present points of view other than progressive or liberal.
Merrylib…..”The deficit is a right wing issue”?Your half right. Actually the right is only a little better at putting the brakes on this trillion pound runaway fright train that is gonna flatten the united states as we know it.The issue as it were is an issue………for people who have an ounce of sanity.And that might not be to many polits on either side.
@merrylib “The deficit is a right-wing issue ONLY WHEN THEY’RE NOT IN POWER.”
better?
Two unfunded wars plus tax breaks for billionaires: the Bush legacy. Not to memtion cuts in regulations! Not to mention missing millions in Iraq. Not to mention Halliburton over charges in Iraq. Not to mention Hallibuton elcectrocution of GI’s in Iraq.
Talk about the Bush legacy!
Frank
Aint no poor Dems as far as the eye can see.How are the Clintons,the Gores,John Kerry,the Obamas???All worth hundreds of millions.Bush Legacy??????????Tax breaks for who??????Ever see the stats on which side has the wealthiest legislators.Hands down the Dems.By a country mile.People who live in glass houses Frank