Discrediting Liberalism, one "yes" at a time

Last week, when the COLA formula for social security was announced, it was determined that consumer prices had trended downward, which is unusual. The recession, apparently, has made things cheaper. Social Security payments are directly tied to the COLA formula, that is as the cost of living goes up, so too does the amount of social security a person receives.

But in this case, the cost of living has gone down. It was announced that in that event, SS would stay flat for FY2010. But since prices of consumer goods has gone down, the elderly actually have gained buying power against inflation: zero is greater than -1.9%. So in reality, the elderly should be thankful that their SS checks won't decrease, and subsequently they can spend more on Christmas gifts for their grandsons who are amateur bloggers/biomechanical engineers. Or whatever.

Instead, PANIC! President Obama immediately announced a "one time only" gift to everyone receiving Social Security of $250 dollars to help them through the recession (this is the second one of these, ironically). Except, the recipients of said $250 actually are doing better during the recession than the young.

The urge to go crazy with stimulus and take huge, ridiculously huge loans out that the young will have to repay while passing that instant wealth happily along to the elderly is going to discredit the liberal movement, and push a whole generation of 20-somethings into conservative folds in the next ten - twenty years, as we realize that liberal spending has crippled us and only fiscal conservatism can rescue this nation.

Notice I did not say Republican or Democrat once in the above paragraphs. This is not a red/blue issue. This is the government as a whole, who apparently thinks taxing the young to pander to the elderly isn't immoral or foolish. Forward irresponsibility is a disease in Washington. Look at the troubadours in Congress who demand higher emissions standards...in 2050. That way the Congresspeople that ratify the plan will be very old or dead and not be around to blame for the laws they enacted, and in the present they don't anger the lobbyists they depend on for campaign finances.
But fiscal irresponsibility is really going to push my generation conservative. We may be socially progressive, but a reckoning may come (and I mean that without some ominous creepy voice) when my generation realizes our grandparents' generation has indebted us to the hairline to keep themselves prosperous, and economists will publish books saying that the "spend stimulate your way to a better economy" method was a colossal failure.

The elderly are, statistically, the wealthiest generation of Americans currently alive. Per capita, people over 60 have the lowest number of people below the poverty line. Per capita, the elderly have larger savings (excluding retirement accounts, obviously). If anyone needs a $250 check for no particular reason, it is...oh wait, back in 2008, I got a check for no particular reason, from another economically-liberal President. In fact, most Americans got a check for about that much ($300-600), in a foolproof stimulus package that amounted to billions of dollars in Federal debt and a tiny, momentary uptick in the economic downturn. And several of my friends got $4,500 checks for buying a new car, which so far has amounted to a short, fading uptick in the auto industry (you're welcome, Toyota) and over $3 billion more dollars of Federal debt. And one of my friends got an $8,000 check for buying a house, part of a program that cost the government an estimated $787 billion.

Now, I'm not John Maynard Keynes (more like Milton Friedman), and I don't understand macroeconomics well enough to really eviscerate anyone using gritty details. But I do know that I am crippled every month by my massive student loan bill, and that it will take me years to pay it off. In fact I'll pay it off shortly before my daughter heads off to receive her college education, continuing the cycle. And I do have to pay it off.
The creditors will eventually want their money back. Some argue that as the economy grows, our debt should grow too...which seems to me like a great way for a terminally ill cancer patient to live, not a way to run a nation's fiscal policy.
Others argue that our creditors will simply be content to collect the interest and leave the capital floating forever...turning us into basically the national-level equivalent of a person making only the minimum payments on their credit cards. Why does that seem unhealthy, but national debt-addiction doesn't?

President Obama needs to learn to say "no" or the liberal economic policies of this country are going to make a lot of progressive people very angry and very conservative.


_