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

    Oh No, Tom Friedman Again!

    By Michael Maiello on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 1:13pm |

    Damn you, Red Planet!  I almost forgot to read Friedman this morning.  I was having such a happy day but now I've read this.  Actually, the all-knowing mustache makes a pretty good point that we should seek to compete with China and other economies by encouraging America's well-educated, creative and driven individuals to follow their bliss in new and hopefully lucrative directions.

    In the same column, Friedman argues that doing this there's no way to do this effectively without making some trade-offs.  Fine with me.  We will, after all, have to spend more money on education and that money will have to come from somewhere, right?  Actually, it strikes me that it's only education money that ever "has to come from somewhere."  Nobody ever says that about the Pentagon or bank bailouts.  But I'll grant that this education money has to come from somewhere.

    Friedman says... get it from Social Security!

    That is stupid.

    Friedman wants to have a culture where people's passions are the foundation of the economy.  People are most free to follow their passions when they are economically secure.  Okay, too much economic security can create passions for going to night clubs and being photographed without underwear, a la Paris Hilton.  But not enough economic security means dreams and passions get deferred.  My own personal situation is hardly bad but because my wife and I have a kid we kind of have a moral obligation to make sure that our passions can be followed in a way that at least one of us gets health insurance through work.  Also, to not burden our son in the future (or at least to not have to make him have an awkward "get lost" conversation with us) we'll have to fund our own retirements.

    See, social services that provide health care and some level of retirement security would actually free a lot of Friedman's entrepreneurial geniuses from their ties to big corporations.  What we don't want in our current "fend for yourself and families" system is for everybody to drop out to make that independent film they've been planning since college because we have no good mechanisms for dealing with a whole lot of flame-outs.

    Freedom does extend, to a certain extent, from financial security.  Friedman's right, we should spend more on education.  But Social Security is not where that money should come from -- cutting Social Security is actually counter to his goals.

    Comments

    Friedman's right about one thing: education needs more money; the President, during this Education Week is quoted as saying money isn't as important as Reform.

    Arne's Reform is competition among schools, charter school increases, corporate contributions to charter schools, interference in local districts, merit pay, i.e. a Shit Taco that will provide more heartburn, not less.

    'Freedom does extend, to a certain extent, from financial security.'

    'Nothin' left to lose' is also freeing, in it's way, I hope, because a lot of us will be sharing that sort of freedom.  And plenty of us who thought we'd provided fairly well for retirement will go into it with either nothing, or not much now.

    By the by, you may want to read S Johnson's new column; beats me, but I hope he's right...

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-29/obama-as-comeback-kid-just-needs-lower-dollar-commentary-by-simon-johnson.html


    by we are stardust on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 1:57pm

    If anything is done with the Social Security fund, I want it used to immediately pay down the debt that all the Tea Party blue hairs are supposedly so enraged about.

    I actually proposed this to a conservative friend of mine (like has a Michael Savage license plate frame conservative) who absolutely despises Social Security, refers to it as a Ponzi scheme (which is just stupid because the money is invested), etc.  I thought, hey, one-two punch!  You hate the debt, you hate Social Security - why not just let the two come in contact and cancel each other out in a kind of matter/anti-matter interaction?

    Surprisingly enough, he hated this idea!  Seems he didn't like the idea of all those decent people having put their money in only to get nothing out.  When I pointed out that those same people are the ones who allowed their political leadership to run up such a large debt, the same people who are now vehemently protesting taxes of all kinds, he didn't seem to come around.

    It's really odd to me to hear people twice my age gripe about all of the problems that have developed on their watch, but what are they really willing to do to solve any of these problems?  For many of them, the answer is jack nothing.  They want to cash out and live easy.  Color me shocked.


    by DF on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 1:58pm

    Friedman isn't really putting forth a plan; he's sketching an idea he hopes some really smart leader will emerge to flesh out and implement. So he can suggest vaguely that some services, "like Social Security," might have to be reduced. Notably, he doesn't propose cutting the bloated defense budget in half and ending two senseless military occupations halfway around the world. That would free up some cash.


    by acanuck on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 2:22pm

    If you check the Wikipedia page on Friedman, you will find he married a rich heiress and lives in an 11,000 + sq. ft. residence in Bethesda on 7 1/2 acres, property valued at $9.3 million, and gets paid up to $50k per engagement or speech.

    His financial and living situation gives some perspective on his opinions on Social Security - he for one, won't need it. He is just another rich guy pontificating to the serfs.


    by NCD on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 2:26pm

    Boy, I really though twice about quoting Friedman because I was afraid it would lead into a discussion of the rest of the tripe he wrote today.

    Yes, his Op-Ed is pretty smart, right down to the closing paragraphs. When he, once again, reveals his pre-schooler's grasp of what's at stake.

    Just remember this. When people say that Social Security is in trouble, what they mean, but don't want to say out loud, is that they want the U. S. Government to default on the "trust fund" bonds, which were bought and paid for by American workers over the past three decades, and which have been squandered on foreign adventures and tax cuts for the rich.

    What they mean is that they don't think the "full faith and credit of the United States of America" extends to actual Americans.

     


    by Red Planet on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 2:36pm

    Destor, I despise Tom Friedman, always have.

    I would like to see, sometime in my liife, a debate between Tom and Al Frankin...they both attended the only suburban school the antisemetic minneapolitans could bear.

    Tom always thought he was smarter than everyone else...

    Al always thought: HELL I CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS. hahahahahha

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 7:08pm

    Brilliant.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 7:35pm

    You've hit on something true, Richard. Al Franken is the Antifriedman. He's the kind of authentic big-D Democrat the party needs to save itself. I've never been as impressed by a first-term senator -- and that includes the guy from Chicago.


    by acanuck on Wed, 09/29/2010 - 11:34pm

    Think of him as Tom Fructose - he makes everything seem sweeter, but you're still hungry after you read his column.


    by Donal on Thu, 09/30/2010 - 5:44pm