So I've been thinking about something I heard recently. In a very brief interview with Christiane Amanpour, Tim Pawlenty (former Minnesota governor) suggested that changes to Social Security were necessary, but that obviously they couldn't be enacted in such a way as to affect those already collecting checks or on the verge of doing so. I have to admit, that was the first piece of real sense I'd heard ANYONE speak on the matter.
About a week later, I read an article AARP Bulletin written by the CEO. In it, he talked about the success of grass roots activity in getting Congress to 'back off' on some of its "plans to make draconian changes to Medicare". "The fight would continue", he said, as Congress "continues to debate whether or not to make harmful cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." sigh.
I wondered, how is it that we contend that the deficit is our primary concern but at the same time, we insist that we only want budgetary cuts to affect programs that don't directly affect us. How have people become so comfortable holding these views (which are so clearly at odds) in their heads at the same time? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels the cognitive dissonance here so I have to ask, "How does that work?"
When a household income decreases, everything feels the effects, not just the things we're not so passionate about. One job? Well the cable gets cut or reduced; perhaps you'll have to sell one car; you eat out much less and maybe someone will have to stop going to swim or dance lessons. That's just the way it works. Lifestyles change. They have to. So too should it be for nations. Government income is down drastically, government expenditure will have to be pruned back commensurately and yet, there's all this weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth at the mere mention of cuts to some programs. If you think about it, every program is sacrosanct to some population. But if you insist that only those that are not sacred and inviolable should be cut then really, there's no point to talking about the deficit is there? Clearly, we're stuck with it. In my view, either we go with the status quo or everything's open to discussion. Either we all share the pain or we all do nothing. Be assured though that whatever choice is made, there will be consequences.
I just wish someone would explain to me how the thinking works. This, "Cut yes, but just don't cut mine" principle doesn't really seem to be working. But what do I know? I just live here. Worse comes to worst, I could always return to my island paradise where there is a hammock waiting.
About a week later, I read an article AARP Bulletin written by the CEO. In it, he talked about the success of grass roots activity in getting Congress to 'back off' on some of its "plans to make draconian changes to Medicare". "The fight would continue", he said, as Congress "continues to debate whether or not to make harmful cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." sigh.
I wondered, how is it that we contend that the deficit is our primary concern but at the same time, we insist that we only want budgetary cuts to affect programs that don't directly affect us. How have people become so comfortable holding these views (which are so clearly at odds) in their heads at the same time? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels the cognitive dissonance here so I have to ask, "How does that work?"
When a household income decreases, everything feels the effects, not just the things we're not so passionate about. One job? Well the cable gets cut or reduced; perhaps you'll have to sell one car; you eat out much less and maybe someone will have to stop going to swim or dance lessons. That's just the way it works. Lifestyles change. They have to. So too should it be for nations. Government income is down drastically, government expenditure will have to be pruned back commensurately and yet, there's all this weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth at the mere mention of cuts to some programs. If you think about it, every program is sacrosanct to some population. But if you insist that only those that are not sacred and inviolable should be cut then really, there's no point to talking about the deficit is there? Clearly, we're stuck with it. In my view, either we go with the status quo or everything's open to discussion. Either we all share the pain or we all do nothing. Be assured though that whatever choice is made, there will be consequences.
I just wish someone would explain to me how the thinking works. This, "Cut yes, but just don't cut mine" principle doesn't really seem to be working. But what do I know? I just live here. Worse comes to worst, I could always return to my island paradise where there is a hammock waiting.
No comments:
Post a Comment