The second half of the interview shifted to taxes, with Pelley setting it up: “We wondered whether he thinks the government needs more revenue in the form of higher taxes.” Blankfein’s answer: “In the long run there has to be more revenue,” he said, adding that it is logical that the burden of more revenue will fall disproportionately on wealthier people. In this case, Pelley remembered the “Why” question: “Why is an increase in revenue, in tax money, necessary? Why can’t you just cut your way out of the deficit?” Some people wouldn’t like the society we would have if we did that, Blankfein replied. “What kind of society would it be?” Pelley asked. “The safety net would be more porous and lower to the ground,” Blankfein said, apparently meaning it would have more holes and fewer people would qualify for help.
If Pelley had felt unusually ambitious, he might have touched on an even larger possibility embedded in Blankfein’s candor on CBS. In an opinion piece in The New York Times in October before the election, Thomas Edsall, long-time Washington Post political writer, author, and professor of journalism at Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism, described what he called an “unexplored election theme”:
The conservative political class recognizes that the halcyon days of shared growth, with the United States leading the world economy, may be over. The wealthy are acutely aware that the political threat to their status and comfort would come from the rising popular demand for policies of income redistribution. It is for this reason that the Republican Party is determined to protect the Bush tax cuts, to prevent tax hikes; to further cut domestic social spending; and more broadly to take a machete to the welfare state. Insofar as Republicans prevail in their twin aims of cutting—or even eliminating—social spending and maintaining or lowering tax rates, they will have succeeded in obstructing the restoration of social insurance programs in the future.
In any event, there is lots of stuff for CBS and the rest of the media to explore as the bandwagon for a “Grand Bargain” that would shake the social safety net steams ahead.
Related stories:
CBS story short but not so sweet
- 1
- 2
Cute little post at BJ which contains the links to get to the heart of this push:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/11/26/over-the-fiscal-cliff-for-those-people/
From James Kwack:
"So the real point isn't that we can't afford Social Security and Medicare. It's that some people don't want to pay the higher taxes necessary to maintain Social Security and Medicare. This is a question of distribution, pure and simple.
At first blush, it may appear that young people don't want to pay for retirement benefits and health care for old people. But most of us will be both young and old at different points in our lives, so we're on both sides of the transfer. The real issue is that Social Security and Medicare are risk-spreading programs, which means that rich people** end up subsidizing poor people.
When people say that we can't afford our entitlement programs, they're really saying that rich people won't pay the taxes necessary to sustain our entitlement programs. To be fair, many rich people probably would be willing to pay higher taxes if they knew the facts. But a small number of extremely rich people have successfully spread the myth that we can't afford our entitlement programs."
But there's another angle to this, abstract in the Lee Atwatery sense:
"Of course, later race and gender barriers to entitlements were far less explicit. Between 1960 and 1980 when the full retirement age was 65, black men could theoretically qualify for benefits, but the average life expectancy of an African American male was roughly 62 years old. So Blacks would pay into the program their entire lives and die before they could take any substantive advantage.
Then in the 1980s, when Black male life expectancy had finally increased to 65, it was decided that entitlements needed an overhaul and the age of full retirement was raised to 67.
Currently, Black male life expectancy is finally at 70, and what a SHOCK that Romney/Ryan would have raised the age of Medicare eligibility to 70..."
Race, class, whatever gets you through the night, is alright, is alright.
Also, too.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 27 Nov 2012 at 02:58 PM
Was there more up to date on Germany's social security type benefit within the country from later than 2012? This seems to weaken the overall point to put out data from 12 years ago to make your point. The point is especially weakened when you consider Germany's implementation of austerity measures in 2010, led by conservative German chancellor Angela Merkel
#2 Posted by Brett Solesky, CJR on Tue 27 Nov 2012 at 05:10 PM
"Was there more up to date on Germany's social security type benefit within the country from later than 2012?"
You can look here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-most-entitlement-spending-2011-4?op=1
Meanwhile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3VtwX1eiU
Tim Geithner is heading the negotiations on this thing.
The tax cheat. The guy who used to eat lunch with Pete Peterson and Bob Rubin.
We're not going to see any revenue from rates, we're going to see tax expenditures lowered, ones that had benefited the middle class, used to pay for lowered rates on the rich and corporate.
And we're going to see actual 'attempt' at deficit reduction through spending cuts on entitlements.
And only blood and teeth on the floor will change their minds.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 28 Nov 2012 at 06:18 AM
I wasn't aware that Lloyd Blankfein had any expertise or qualification to speak about retirement issues or Social Security. So I'm not sure what the hell CBS was doing even giving him a platform on the issue. For the record, here's an interesting graphic comparing retirement benefits for various CEOs associated with the Fix the Debt silliness compared to the very lavish average Social Security benefits.
CEO-Retirement-Pay-TALL.jpg (366×1163)
via Ethan Rome: Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein Wants Seniors to Get Less
Really, Scott Pelley is the worst kind of stenographer and CEO fanboy. He's not even credible.
#4 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 28 Nov 2012 at 11:22 PM