One the curiouser pension and entitlements arguments in political circles these days is that we have to "cut them...."
Indeed, everyone from NYTimes' Friedman to Dubya etal, are talking about "cutting entitlements."
Yet, no one ever expands on that idea...and says what it really means...net-net.
It means this:
You cut the income of low and middle income people, and "force them" to pay for, or do without, basic services like health care...or living expenses...
And the "savings" thus achieved migrate right down to the corporate bottom lines...and everyone is happy.
But consider:
If a pensioner is already on a tight budget; His "entitlement cut" spent on health care, or living expenses, will simply come out of the bottom line of some other Wall Street company...
If GM cuts health care, and workers "pick up the bill"... There will be less money spent at Walmart, or at the mall or the car dealership...almost immediately!
THIS "CUT ENTITIMENTS" ARGUMENT, USED BY FRIEDMAN AND OTHERS, SIMLPLY TRANSFERS MONEY FROM ONE CORPORATION TO ANOTHER...ie, TOWARD GM, BUT AWAY FROM WALMART...
NOW, CUTS IN GOVERNMENT ENTITLEMENTS ARE NO DIFFERENT. THEY WILL IMPOVERISH THE WORKING CLASSES, EVEN HAS IT ALLOWS MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH...
Somehow the "cut entitlements" argument is not being followed up on...
No one is considering THE MORNING AFTER....
But there is a lot of that going around in high level policy circles these days...
And isn't that really very, very odd?
