The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    Leave My Parents Alone, Bill Keller!

    By Michael Maiello on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 4:42pm | Politics

    In the Times today, Bill Keller has a longish column about how selfish the Baby Boomers are for wanting their Social Security and their Medicare and even their Medicaid.  I'm not sure why he lumps Medicaid into it, as if poor people have a choice, but he does.  Keller's argument isn't novel.  He links to a Paul Begela Esquire article that made the esthetic anti-boomer case at the turn of the century.  The Begala piece, now 12 years old, is a fun read, if only to see how much has changed and how little has changed in more than a decade.

    Keller's economic argument is all about cutting entitlements, not for future generations, but for the generation retiring now.  He doesn't mention that this generation has scant savings over Social Security and pensions (to the extent that they still even have pensions).  Instead, he prefers the Alan Simpson method of making it seem as if these people are all financially secure and that their promised Social Security and health care benefits (which, let's not forget, they've been taxed for throughout their working lives) are luxuries rather than necessities.

    The Boomers are not, of course, some sort of massive leisure class.  This is a generation that has worked decades as globalization sprang up around them, eroding their wages and demanding every greater productivity for every hour worked.  If the Boomers were rich, we'd probably all be better off.  But, it turns out that the Boomers are just normal, working people.  Their sin, it seems, is that they have grown old (though I doubt anybody asked them if they wanted to age).

    Are the Boomers selfish for wanting the benefits they were promised (and that they paid for?)  To say yes, you have to take a pretty wide view of selfish where it is always selfish to take what was promised to you.  People who believe that the Boomers are selfish will tell you that by taking what they have been promised now, they are robbing their children and grandchildren.

    Well, if the Boomer answer is that they get their benefits but all future benefits are cut then, yes, that's selfish.  But if their answer is, "no cuts," it's not selfish at all.  Instead of thinking of a Boomers as a great grazing beast out to clear the field of grass, what if we think of them as a labor union?  Because, when a labor union makes concessions now, that is not always good for future generations of workers in that field.  Those concessions become baked into the industry.  To prevent the erosion of working standards over time, sometimes a union has to refuse to make concessions right now.  Sometimes the union has to say, "No... there are minimal standards and we have reached them."

    In short, the best way to protect Social Security for the children of the Boomers is for the Boomers to reject cuts right now.  As the great Boomer starship Captain Picard said in a fictional future: "The line must be drawn... hee-yah!"

    Because we have been down this road before.  We cut Social Security benefits in the 1980s.  The result of that was supposed to prevent the discussion we're having now.  And yet, here we are.  It kind of makes you suspect that any cut now will simply lead to suggestions that we cut more in the future.

    And the truth is that Social Security will be more important to successive generations than it was to the Boomers because of the death of pension plans.  Those of us born after the Baby Boom are truly on our own when it comes to retirement.  If anything, the current level of benefits is too low to meet peoples retirement needs.  That's the crisis that needs addressing.  Cuts aren't going to help with that.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    The first thing someone should tell Bill Keller is that AARP is not an advocacy group. It is an insurance company pretending to an advocacy group so that old folks will buy their insurance.  To use them as an example of a lobbying group fighting for their membership is ludicrous.  They bailed on their members when it didn't serve their corporate purposes and they always will.

    As a boomer I'm tired of these kinds of stories, which always end up with some writer pretending they are the all-knowing beacon of truth, telling us that it's our fault we didn't fix the entitlement problem.  The entitlement problem would not be a problem if we hadn't been under-taxing the rich and the corporations for more than 30 years. 


    by MrSmith1 on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 6:02pm

    There are far too many "boomers" who had life handed to them on a silver platter and act like selfish, spoiled pricks. Bill Keller is one of them.

    Worst of all many call themselves liberals and democrats.

    All these clowns need to be spending the rest of their lives in the streets.


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 7:19pm

    You ungrateful jerk. If it weren't for Bill Keller, who would scold America into the complacent subservience that we need to thrive as a nation? He's a hero, I tell you, bless his smug little soul. And also bless the New York Times for having the courage to continue to print his columns even though reading them is like eating the 12-year-old saltines that you found in Grandma's cellar but wtf, you were hungry and fresh out of nutterbutters.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 9:05pm


    by Donal on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 9:10pm

    Carlin could see the future. Somebody comment on another blog that he must have had connections.

    Sorely missed.......


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 9:17pm

    I'd like to try an experiment, see if I can deflect a thread bound to become another one of thousands on the internet on the topic of "boomers, fer or agin?"

    to an even more popular meme for endless debate:

    blame Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan & the Supremes, not the boomers; the majority chose to continue the real boomer ethos, not start with an anti-boomer from the same generation:

    What part of lockbox don't you understand? cheeky


    by artappraiser on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 9:29pm

    Kay, I'll bite on the goin' off on a tangent experiment. Speaking of Nader.

    I don't see much hope for our democracy unless we get instant run off voting. We need third parties we can vote for without feeling we have to throw away our vote to do it. How many people would  have voted for Nader, Perot, Ron Paul or many others if we knew if they didn't win our vote would be switched to a democrat or republican? Some third party candidates, at least locally, state wide, or for congress would probably win. Even if a third party candidate didn't win the presidential election or any election a significant showing would sure be a wake up call for our major parties.

    Ok you all. You can stop laughing now. I know it will never happen.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 10:47pm

    I like the idea.  And I don't think of it as so very unrealistic if voter registration as Independents continues to grow. But then I have a glass half-full attitude on this ever since Perot went, numbers wise, where the "experts" of the time claimed wouldn't ever be possible in modern times

    Also, I have an inkling that the shock awe and horror about Citizen's United may prove to be overblown, and that it instead may cause counter-reaction that finally gets some changes to our campaign system. Even though many American voters (and I purposefully say voters, leaving out those who usually don't vote, as I think those are the majority of the mostly poorly informed) may be woefully unable to keep up with political information, and may be subject to the influence of echo chambers of their own choosing on that front, one thing I think all but the very aged do have is a relatively good ability to decode advertising. Simply owing to savvy from a gazillion hours of being subjected to it and testing its accuracy thereafter. Testing with their own hard-earned dollars, learning Cynicism with a capital C the hard way.

    Plus Citizens United may eventually move us more away from people supporting two parties and more towards individual issues,;we already see that trend in the blogophere before the ruling. As the Citizens United dollars pour towards issue activism, it will mean people discussing those issues, reacting to the ads. Party line voting less and less guaranteed? Party support less and less guaranteed?

    Granted, it's not a good thing if they fall more and more for personality over substance, which may be a side effect.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 3:38am

    How could one really truly figure out if they have cut something/someone's benefits somehow with a system this complex?

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2012/07/social-security-secrets...

    I kin guarantee one thing--boomers in mass quantities are going to take advantage of articles like that one; no more reliance on some 10-page guidebook with funny line drawings from the gummint, like the Greatest Generation relied upon, with gratitude for whatever they ended up getting, and with few questions, no complaints.

    I also believe profound changes will be coming to Medicare coverage in the next couple of decades, and I am talking about changes caused by complaints from the bottom up, not anything top down. I was pretty convinced before, this May 20 article which I only read for the first time yesterday and some of its many comments, convinced me further:

    http://nymag.com/news/features/parent-health-care-2012-5/

    Some call my generation selfish, others might rename that pro-active on one's own account--in the manner of not going to take with humble gratitude whatever life or the authorities-that-be hand out as status quo. Back in the day, the complaint was often that "kids these days have no respect for authority." As if sending them to college was supposed to make them respect "authority" more, rather than teach them that knowledge is power. Poor Dr. Spock got blamed by some by tossing out all those authoritarian child-raising themes (that radical even tried to convince their parents they should trust their own instincts more, authority less.)

    (Examples: not a polite agreement to "you'll dress in a dignified manner and you'll like it, not acceptance of the moral lesson "you'll not have sex until your married," not polite agreement to "you'll listen to the music other generations enjoyed and you'll like it", not polite agreement with "the teacher is always right," not humble acceptance of "a women's place is in the home," not polite agreement to "you'll register for the draft and you'll like it, and if you are drafted, you will be proud to go," etc.)


    by artappraiser on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 3:50am

    Well, DoubleA, that was certainly an edifying article...I don't know how to thank you for the link...As for myself, I plan a glass case with instructions In case of need, break glass, remove contents. NOTE WELL:ROUND END GOES IN MOUTH

    by jollyroger on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 4:08am

    I'm old enough to have Boomer kids and I don't remember any of my generation just sitting back and expecting the gov'mint to fix things.  We fought for union rights, for women's rights, for civil rights; we fought against Viet Nam and against Nixon and Reagan and for preservation and conservation and brought the word "ecology" into the lexicon. 

    My kids grew up, as you might imagine, in a liberal household where they were taught that the world doesn't revolve around them and that compassion for others is a good thing.  I went through two Dr. Spock paperbacks (my son tore the second one into shreds one day, I think when he was still eating baby food, so maybe you're right about Boomers not respecting authority), and I found them invaluable, since I was only 21 when that second one came along.  But contrary to popular mythology, Spock never encouraged parents to give in to every whim.  Just the opposite, in fact.  He encouraged parents to treat their children with respect, but the message was that respect had to work both ways.  And you're right--he did teach young parents to ignore old notions and go with their gut on most things.  That was liberating to most of us, but anathema to those who wanted to maintain order and control.

    As to the article about taking care of elderly parents, I couldn't get past the first page so I don't really know where it was leading, but what I got from it up to that point was that responsible elderly parents should just off themselves before their kids (or the government) have to be saddled with the problems of taking care of them long term. 

    Maybe it's because I'm going to be 75 soon and I'm now being forced to count my remaining life span in years and not in decades, but I don't find articles like that comforting.  Lots of statistics, lots of excuses, lots of apologies for even thinking thoughts of shortening a parent's life. 

    Give me a break.  We work with what we have.  The fact that Boomers will age and swell the numbers of slobbering, infirm, incontinent vegetables already burdening a country not keen on giving aid anyway, is just that--a fact.  It's going to happen and all the navel-gazing in the world isn't going to change it. 

     I get that it might be more humane to end a life no longer worth living, and who knows?  I might even subscribe to that when my time comes, but we as a country should have been preparing for aging Boomers long ago. Universal health care is the only answer, with tax-payers paying more in order to take care of the problem.  We live longer and apparently we take longer to die.  We're going to have to deal with it in ways that go beyond hand-wringing and excruciating discussions about the ethics of prolonging life.

     


    by Ramona on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 10:53am

    Maybe it's all about screwing the hippie movement, that ended the war.

    Ending the war, killed the goose, that laid THEIR Golden eggs and evidently ours too?  

    The system that was used to enrich the war mongers, is overwhelmed with survivors.  Not enough people were killed? 

    Another major war (WW3) and they'll find plenty of treasure to fund the money maker.

    It'll always be YOUR patriotic duty, to die for a country, that'll kick you to the curb. when you're older and become a burden.

    The peasants are useless, unless there's a war?


    by Resistance on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 5:14am

    Every time we fight this same SS battle, we're fighting it not just for us but for our children and our children's children.  It's not charity, it's an insurance plan almost all of us have paid into.  SS should be sacrosanct and above political arguments, not just because it's a lovely historical entitlement that has given some kind of aid and comfort to every family in America, but because it's one remaining shining example of our waning united morality.


    by Ramona on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 12:00pm

    Exactly.  People like Keller like to act like they're realists, dealing with a budget crisis that is more important than everything else.  But what I see, at the heart of this, is an attack on the idea that we should collectively provide minimal standards of living for each other.  We have a $14 trillion economy that grows more years than it shrinks.  We can afford Social Security, we just have to prioritize it.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 12:13pm

    No time to really chew this over now, but...

    We're witnessing what I think it is a stunning change in the country's mindset, provoked, I think, by the crash and the fear it has provoked. Not to mention all the other changes happening throughout the world.

    Suddenly, large swaths of the country are obsessed with "some group of people"--the group varies by speaker--that thinks of itself as "entitled" to things it presumably didn't work for...that doesn't want to work...that doesn't have the old get up and go of previous generations...and so on.

    Medicare and SS sort of get lumped in with welfare in this narrative. You could call it the "welfare-ization" of SS and Medicare. Really, of ALL government programs save the military.

    I recently read an online promotion for a financial newsletter that had the stunning (to me) subhead:

    Why Don't White People Want To Work Anymore?

    (He backs off the obvious racist message here by saying that he's looking at white people because, presumably, they have no excuse not to work or be able to find work.)

    The basic idea is that an overwhelming number of people (white people) will get some form of government assistance over their lifetime. And government is basically printing "free money" to hand out to these people and, in the process, going more deeply into debt.

    Government assistance is sapping people's appetite for work and incentive to work. It is enfeebling them, both in terms of their spirit and their abilities. It is also impoverishing the country.

    There are plenty of jobs, but people won't take low-paying jobs any more (the way the speaker once did). Landscapers seeking to hire people for what amounts to $28,000 go begging, because people can make more on some form of "welfare."

    And so on...

    Keller's article is just a more refined, "liberal" version of this same narrative.


    by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 3:34pm

    Love these complaints from employers who can't find willing takers for hard jobs at low salaries.  It's like, nobody will sell me a Porsche for a price I'm willing or even able to pay.  Do they not want to sell cars or something?


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 4:01pm

    Or why won't they be my slave or indentured servant. 


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 9:25pm

    If you listen to these people talk, you can hear certain things that remain unspoken.

    For example, in this promo, the writer says: "I've made $28,000 and survived."

    The idea is that he went on from there to make much more--in his case, millions.

    But what isn't said is that he made $28,000 when he was young and starting out.

    When he didn't have a mortgage. When he didn't have kids. When he didn't have bills. Before he'd committed to a career. And when his future was ahead of him.

    But this is NOT the life station and situation of those who are out of work nor of the working poor. Nor does it take into consideration a macro view of the economy and the real possibilities for employment and upward mobility.


    by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 08/01/2012 - 12:24pm