A meme that has been bubbling up in the media for months goes something like this: The elderly have it too good. They claim too much of the country’s financial resources and will eat their children’s—and grandchildren’s—breakfast, lunch, and dinner unless Social Security and Medicare are cut. The country can no longer afford to give seniors so much.
Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, is one of many who has given this idea voice. In a pre-Christmas interview on the CBS Evening News he said:
You’re going to have to undoubtedly do something to lower people’s expectations—the entitlements and what people think they’re going to get, because it’s not going to—they’re not going to get it.
In early March, Stanley Druckenmiller, the hedge fund guru, joined the chorus. He told Bloomberg Television, “I am not against seniors. What I am against is current seniors stealing from future seniors.”
There are many others. The Wall Street gods have spoken, and in the past few months, media stories have reflected their opinion, as well as that of the Simpson Bowles Commission, which was appointed by the president three years ago to figure out what to do about the deficit. The commission’s recommendations for cutting Medicare and Social Security have made their way into the press and helped shape a powerful story about generational conflict.
As a result, for the most part, the press has been presenting a one-sided picture of the Social Security situation, quite possibly to the detriment of young and the old alike. From other perspectives, the two generations are not in opposition at all, but natural allies, both with common interests in a strong Social Security system.
But you wouldn’t know anybody thought that way by reading much of the press, and not just the conservative press.
Jonathan Alter, writing for Bloomberg, argued that the last thing the country needed was a majority of House Democrats signing a letter urging the president to oppose benefit cuts to entitlements. He called the retirement of baby boomers “insanely expensive,” and if we don’t start talking about reforming social insurance, “grandpa and grandma and their fellow Grateful Dead fans are going to eat all the food on the table.”
Ronald Brownstein hits the generational issue head on in the National Journal, using the word “ominous” to describe the “budget’s accelerating tilt toward the elderly over the young and toward consumption over investment.” He’s unhappy that the sequester deal exempts Social Security and Medicaid and “only slightly nicks Medicare” with limited reductions to providers.
On NPR’s blog, Alan Greenblatt weights his piece in favor of kids. “Up to this point, young people are on the losing side,” the demographer and consultant Neil Howe told him. Save the Children’s vice president Mark Shriver says, “the sequester again shows that as a country we’re not willing to make an investment in our kids.” Greenblatt at least mentions counterarguments, but comes back home to the Greedy Geezers meme.
While it’s true that today’s young people will eventually grow old themselves, government budgets are about the present. And those who are now old are better protected than children and youth.
Ezra Klein—et tu, Ezra?—ran into a swirl of criticism from his fans when he made a case in his WaPo column that “the most worthwhile kinds of government spending are getting squeezed out.” By that he meant education funding, research and development, stimulus, infrastructure investment, and the military. “The sequester,” he says “cuts deep into medical research and education, but it doesn’t touch Social Security at all.”
Excellent overview by Trudy of the senior bashing skew of the news media and the Beltway elite. Man, this one-sided reporting and punditry has been going on for decades now. I wrote a 1996 article called "Senior Bashing" for Hospitals & Health Networks covering this. It's amazing how out of touch so many media folks are with the lives of ordinary Americans. How can that be? One fallacy Trudy doesn't point out is the senior basher/entitlement cutter suggestion that savings from Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid cuts will go directly to benefit younger Americans through greater funding for education, health care, etc. But there's no reason to think that's going to happen. Republican budget proposals grab those savings to lower taxes, mostly for wealthy individuals and corporations. That money ain't gonna go to children. In fact, Paul Ryan's latest proposal to cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid over 10 years would hugely damage children's health care. So much for that malarkey.
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Thu 14 Mar 2013 at 07:05 PM
That said, good political journalism would also distinguish between Medicare, which arguably is of more concern as part of the bigger issue of health care costs, and Social Security, which is indeed better off. And, I mean that on both "left" and "right"; the fact that Social Security is pretty much OK should not be used as an excuse not to look at Medicare.
#2 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Thu 14 Mar 2013 at 07:18 PM
Martha Phillips' comment about "reading out of our playbook" says it all. It's a game to these paid pundits and lobbyists disguised as "independent research institutes." The public is bombarded by media that has ceased to investigate and report facts. "Reporters" too often just copy the bullet points provided by those that are paid to slant the news. Thank you, Trudy for getting this right. Wish the "mainstream" media would.
#3 Posted by Linda Donaldson, CJR on Fri 15 Mar 2013 at 10:14 AM
The wealthy elite know that children and grandchildren do not want their parents and grandparents to go hungry or suffer. The problem is finding a way to get their hands on the 2 tillion dollars that is in the social security fund and whatever money is in the medicare fund plus they do not want to pay any of their money into these funds. The journalists do whatever they are told to do just like the government officials do.
#4 Posted by oldenuf2know, CJR on Fri 15 Mar 2013 at 11:04 AM
Trudy, among the memes about Social Security, one perpetuated in your article is your comment about the Simpson-Bowles commission, "The commission’s recommendations for cutting Medicare and Social Security have made their way into the press and helped shape a powerful story about generational conflict." There was never a report issued by Commission since they needed 14 votes among the 18 members, 50% from each party, and were unwilling to sign on to the pre-ordained slash and burn agenda of Simpson and Bowles. Whenever I hear the word “Reform” I know it’s time to hold on to my wallet and lock up my few remaining valuables. No report was ever issued by the Commission! The reports by the MSM, and repeated in your article, rarely mentioned this and just parroted the opinions of the two co-chairs as if they were commission findings. One thing I give our President and his inner circle credit for is intelligence, so I always thought the Commission was little more than a fig-leaf once he announced his co-chair appointments. I believe that he had to know in advance what Simpson and Bowles and the Commission would recommend (and Obama wanted too) but he knew it would be politically incorrect to state without alienating his core constituency. He must have believed he could hide behind the expected “non-partisan findings” to get his “Grand Compromise” with the Republicans and it all blew up in his face when the Commission disbanded with no report ever issued.
I repeat: THE COMMISSION NEVER ISSUED A REPORT!
#5 Posted by Ed Goldman, CJR on Fri 15 Mar 2013 at 01:12 PM
Goldman is right. There never was an official report of the Simpson Bowles Commission because its members could not agree. I made that point in several posts over the last few years. The chairs, however, issued their own report and many of the recommendations in that document have had a long reach even to the White House. They have provided a frame for considering solutions to the problems of Social Security and Medicare. That is the point.
#6 Posted by Trudy Lieberman, CJR on Mon 18 Mar 2013 at 07:59 AM
The problem really isn't Medicare, it's our tentire profiteering fee-for-service healthcare system.
The solution is obvious -universal medical insurance. Medicare for All HR 676.
All the other rich industrial democracies have uni versal medical insurance and this larger pool results in much lower costs (er cap or as % of GDP0 and better outcomes. Folks in German, France, etc.pay elss for everything --hospitals, drugs, tests....and live longer, healthier lives than we do.
Don't believe me ! check it out!
#7 Posted by Sam Abrams, CJR on Thu 21 Mar 2013 at 10:38 AM
This article should be required reading in all newsrooms and journalism schools. The whole discussion about Social Security and Medicare always smelled fishy to me. Thanks for taking the time to write this article.
#8 Posted by RS, CJR on Thu 21 Mar 2013 at 02:59 PM
Thanks for the article. It was helpful
According to my figures, SS brings about $12 million a month into the Cambridge, MA economy (9,988 people 65 and older x $1,230 average SS check). Granted some will retire later, or get teacher's or other pensions instead. Still, I think the figure still holds.
Doesn't $12 million a month to a community sound like stimulus money rather than entitlement?
Re Medicare: Most hospital CEOs in this area earn $1million plus a year (twice Obama's salary). So who's the greedy geezer?
Joan Hill
#9 Posted by joan hill, CJR on Sat 23 Mar 2013 at 02:31 PM
The problem with this article is that it is bereft of numbers.
The numbers are horrific.
The U.S.quit funding social security in the 1960s. The left easily won that fight in Congress.
My generation, the spendthrift generation, enjoyed spending the FICA payments on guns and butter. It also refused to fund medicare.
Now my generation wants to force our children and grandchildren to replace the sums we spent.
Economist Laurence Kotlikoff calculates from Congressional Budge Office figures that our actual fiscal gap is $222 trillion (or about $1.9 million per taxpayer.)
See: http://www.worldfinancialreview.com/?p=2240
The fiscal gap increased by $11 trillion last year.
Reducing any entitlement would be monstrously unpopular.
Waiting on hyper inflation to resolve the problem will be ruinous.
#10 Posted by Robert Hoffman, CJR on Fri 26 Apr 2013 at 03:31 PM