Editorials and Opinions

David Post •

Why is age 65 the retirement age?

Legend has it that when Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany in the 1880s, proposed the world’s first retirement insurance program, he asked his advisors, “How long do people usually live?” When told the average life span was 45 or 50 years, he said, “Then, let’s give a pension to everyone at age 65.”

Myths rarely line up with reality. Germany set that first retirement age at 70, certainly no budget buster.

By 1935, when Congress was considering Social Security, Germany had lowered its retirement age to 65. Many states and some large US companies had pension plans with retirement ages ranging from 65 to 70. By then, the average life expectancy was 60 years.

Congress adopted age 65, apparently anticipating that it would not cost much, especially since most people wouldn’t live long enough to receive it.

Thirty years later, Congress passed Medicare. By then, average life expectancy was 70 years.

To offset the cost of these programs, Congress created taxes to be shared equally by employers and employees. Social Security taxes were expected to cover the cost. In 1965, medical expenses didn’t consume 17 percent of the economy as it does today. So, when Congress enacted the Medicare tax, it only covered approximately 14 percent of costs. No tax was enacted to cover Medicaid costs.

After Medicare and Medicaid were passed, federal government spending on health care jumped to 5 percent of total spending.

Today, the average citizen lives to be almost 80. Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs consume more than 25 percent of all federal spending and with projected increases of 10 percent per year, health care will consume 30 percent of the federal budget within five years.

The average cost to insure a family now exceeds $15,000 per year, more than a minimum wage worker earns in a year.

Yes, some of that increase is related to the new health care law. It’s 1 percent of that increase, mostly from allowing children to remain on their parents’ policies until they are 26 years old. The other 9 percent is the inexorable, uncontrollable creep of costs.

The harsh reality is that taxes dedicated to covering health care cover less than 10 percent of the federal government’s costs.

As a nation, we have to ask ourselves: How much longer can we bring in a dime and spend a dollar?
With the average citizen living almost 20 years longer than in 1935 and with 80 million baby boomers over or approaching age 65, ignoring the cost of social security and health care is like following Thelma and Louise – right over a cliff.

The political irony is that both political parties want the same thing: something for nothing. Republicans refuse to consider any new revenue source. Democrats draw the line at changing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

The need for compromise is painfully obvious, but the political cost is equally obvious. Compromise means facing the wrath of voters.

Are there any solutions? No easy ones.

Regulate profits in the medical sector the way utility company profits are regulated by the government. (That’s going to make some enemies.)

Universal health care contains costs in other countries. The U.S. spends double on health care what other countries spend, yet US life expectancy ranks about 40th in the world. Apparently, American citizens prefer to die sooner as long as the government stays out of health care.

Or, take a page from Bismarck’s playbook: Provide benefits for those who outlive the average person by, say, five years. That’s what Congress did when it started Social Security. In other words, with life expectancy approaching 80, begin providing benefits at age 85.

As ridiculous as that sounds, consider that It would be consistent with Social Security’s “original intent.” It would balance the budget. It might even lower life expectancy. And that would further reduce budget pressures.

Is it any more ridiculous than refusing to face the reality that retirement and health benefits for 80 million baby boomers can be provided without a revenue source, without any government regulation, and without a meaningful change in the retirement age?

And, most importantly, without compromise?

Gary Tischler •

When the virulent and high-ranking al-Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed in target drone strike in Yemen last week, most Americans applauded the action, figuring it was another top terrorist out of the picture and no longer plotting terrorist operations against the United States.

There seemed little opposition to the strike, approved by President Barack Obama, and planned by the CIA. Al-Awlaki was considered a key strategist, as well as motivator, for al-Qaeda, calling repeatedly for Jihad or holy war against the U.S. and for the killing of Americans.

He was a key figure in the U.S. war against terrorism, and as such almost as much a prime target for American military and intelligence efforts as Osama Bin Laden, who was killed earlier this year.

Yet Republican Congressman Ron Paul condemned the killing and charged that because Al-Awlaki was born in the United States and therefore was a U.S. citizen, he had been denied due process and a trial. Later, he hinted that President Barack Obama could and perhaps should be impeached for the decision to kill Al-Awlaki. Another GOP presidential wannabe, Herman Cain, suddenly hot after winning a couple of straw polls, also questioned the killing as did some legal scholars and politicians.

But in general, and especially in the ranks of the GOP, the strike was applauded as necessary and successful.

Speaking as someone who’s been opposed to the death penalty most of my life and who’s not too keen on previous attempts by the U.S. to topple governments (Chile comes to mind), or take out political leaders (Lumumba comes to mind), I can only say, due process for what? Al-Awlaki had inspired and worked with bombing suspects, three of the 9/11 terrorists, and helped plan numerous operations. He clearly believed in the holy war against the United States and was an active and prominent player in terrorist plots against the U.S.

Furthermore, while this organization has insisted that it is at war against the United States, sometimes presuming to speak and act for or work with the radical elements in the Middle East, it is not a state. It is a very dangerous, damaged, and violent terrorist organization. Eliminating Al-Awlaki when the opportunity arose—like killing Osama Bin Laden and other high-ranking members of al-Qaeda over the years, was necessary and in the interests of the United States. It would have been irresponsible not to act on the hopes that we could capture him at some time in the future, leaving him free to plot and implement more acts of terror.

It seems to me that Al-Awlaki, with his status as a high-ranking al-Qaeda member, has forfeited any rights given by U.S. Citizenship. He has forfeited his status as a citizen by acting against his country.
Was the killing cold-blooded, brutal and less than admirable? Sure. But let’s consider this: we were all dancing in the streets when Osama Bin Laden was killed, in less than glorious fashion. Should we have given Osama Bin Laden an opportunity at due process?

One might question the use of drones and missile strikes for this sort of thing. In war, all sorts of horrible things happen. Drone strikes, to me, seem to distance us from the seriousness of our actions, and the brutality of our acts. We all recall the use of blockbuster bombs—boom and more boom not to mention shock and awe—in our attempts to kill Saddam Hussein at the beginning of the Iraqi war. Missile strikes are rarely as clean as this one was—there’s always what we so euphemistically call collateral damage.

But this particular act probably saved the lives of American soldiers and may have prevented any number of future terrorist acts.

The less terror, the better. The fewer terrorists there are in the field, the better.

Gary Tischler •

Like witnesses at a traffic accident, everybody remembers that singular, defining day differently yet, at the same time, everyone has similar recollections of that morning in their memories and dreams.
Hard to imagine the thoughts, feelings and memories of those at ground zero and beyond in New York or the people on those doomed planes, flying into buildings, crashing into the green earth, ripping into the Pentagon. We have stories about the events, the people who survived them, those in proximity or close by in shock.

An amazing number of people recall the quality of the morning just before the first plane struck—an incredibly blue sky, here in Washington and there in New York.
All the memories will come back throughout this week and on Sunday when the memorial in New York is dedicated—there will be concerts, the sound of taps, exhibitions, commemorations, marches, and the names of the victims inscribed, recited, going out into the air of whatever weathered day there will be.

I remember a woman who was huddled around a television monitor at the Mayflower Hotel in downtown Washington as one of the towers collapsed in a cloud of improbable dust. There was a collective gasp from the group around the monitor, people were holding their hands to their mouths, or rubbing their heads tilted backward. The woman, who was here for a medical convention was thin and stood ramrod still and said, to no one in particular, “I woke upon in one world this morning, and I’m going to home to a completely different, changed world tonight.”

It was one of the more prophetic, accurate statements—no doubt, thought, felt and said by others all over the world in some form or another—of the day. And here we are, ten years later, and the wounds still bleed, the shocks still come, the understanding not very much enlarged, our casualty list tripled, the danger still there, the war, undeclared but also unending. We—and the rest of the world—remain in harm’s way, vulnerable to the plots, schemes, and attacks of terrorism, terrorists, terror itself, states which support terrorism and terrorist organizations not yet named. They are not Allah’s children, nor the heart and soul of Islam, but rather they come from the most hateful, desperate and fanatic corners and perversions of faith.

We live in a different, still-drastically-changing world. In the aftermath of 9/11, we launched an attack, with the full sympathy of the world, on al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, declared a victory in a war that was just beginning, then proceeded, with much, much less clarity and certainty to invade Iraq. The outcome was muddy: Saddam Hussein was captured and eventually executed; al Qaeda led a bloody insurgency against American soldiers which was eventually quelled at considerable cost, including the public standing of President Bush. Thousands died including, at last count, 4,442 American troops. We are still fighting in Afghanistan, against both al Qaeda and a resurgent Taliban, and at latest count, 1,584 Americans have been killed there.

After years of non-stop efforts, our forces, specifically an elite Navy Seal team, tracked down and killed Osama Bin Laden, the reviled, elusive mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks this year, sparking a soundtrack of celebration, but not much change.

What we have seen are attempted bombings, the massacre in Fort Hood and terrorist acts in London and Spain, India and Indonesia. We’ve seen continued bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan where the roads are lined with IEDs. We have seen entirely too many of our brave warriors coming home, wearing the very latest prosthetics. They are a part of our landscape, our memorial services, and the services for the honored dead.

We have a whole new government department—Homeland Security—we have a new airport security system which takes every ounce of pleasure out of flying and has been accompanied by controversy, argument and politics.

I think we woke up on 9/l2 with the realization that the world was not a safe place, that we as a people were hated by another group of people who characterized us in ways we did not recognize and could not understand to the point that they envisioned the plan they executed. We mourned, we dealt with anthrax, and I remember a young girl across the street from our house sitting by herself with a lit candle one evening.

If you go to the website for the New York memorial, you can call up the dead, the voices of their loved ones, the details of their lives, the faces in their photographs. We individualize our tragedies in this country, even one as large, as devastating as 9/11, savor every face and time lost on earth, as a kind of act of love. It is something the perpetrators of the acts of atrocity that day—the men with the knives and box cutters and screaming commands on the planes—could not do, they rid themselves completely of imagination and empathy and did what they did gripped by a sick, sad vision that they would be rewarded in paradise.

Sunday, their victims will rise up again as ghosts of their lives, the dead of 9/11, still alive, and bringing with them the memories of a lost world.

Georgetowner •

By Deklan

One of the oldest and most defended characterizations of human nature is our innate desire to be hateful for no reason. Racism has been woven into the fabric of our culture, of our upbringing, and has long worked its way into our daily lives. And while racism still rules in smaller cities and communities throughout this great country, in larger, more culturally diverse cities like D.C., the nature of our diversity disproves the beliefs that racism is founded on. Right?

Admittedly, D.C. has long been a city where racial lines run deep enough to tear the city into pieces. But racism, by definition, is the belief that there are differences in people based on race and skin color. The fact that there are so many colors, so many cultures, and so many characters in D.C. makes it impossible to be racist. Sure, you can hate a group of people based on the color of their skin, but the only thing you can prove that they have in common is the color of their skin, and even that isn’t the same from person to person.

Which brings up racism’s brother and sister: prejudice and stereotyping. Prejudice takes racism to a new level, allowing an opportunity to hate someone for whatever reason you can come up with: sexual orientation, obesity, homelessness, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. And our prejudices are often based on stereotypes that we inherit and develop through environmental situations, first-hand experiences, TV and social influences.

As a culture, prejudices and stereotypes will always exist. Attributing them to other people is part of our human need to make sense of the world around us. But it doesn’t have to be negative. George Carlin said about racism that it isn’t the words we use that are bad, “it’s the racist who’s using it that you ought to be concerned about.”

That being said, is it possible to make prejudices and stereotypes funny? For example, when you see an Asian person parallel park, do you watch to see if they can do it on the first try? Are you ever shocked when your North African cab driver doesn’t drive like he’s being shot at? Or have you ever said “Hola” to a Latino person and they reply “Hey, how ya doin’?” in plain English? What about a white man who rushes past a crowd to get to the door first, only to hold it for everyone else?

On another level, D.C. has generally two types of residents: those who live here because they live here, and those who live here because they work here. Still, it often seems like everyone here is on his or her own mission. But with D.C.’s high rent, high gas, high cost of living and horrible traffic problems, who has time to hate, really? Granted there are some nice paying jobs in this city, but seriously . . . most of us are working two jobs (or more) just to pay rent and buy food. Then again, the stress from that can cause anyone to lash out I suppose. Even then, our frustrations and aggression need not be taken out on others.

As Washingtonians, we should be working to set an example to the rest of the world on how cities can function. D.C. has the ability to break stereotypes based on color and ethnicity and race. This city teaches us that we’re all different in ways that should be celebrated instead of degraded. D.C. gives us an opportunity not to judge a book by its cover, a person by his or her skin color, or cultures by the people who represent them—because just when you think you’ve got it figured out, someone will come along and prove you wrong.

Deklan is a writer & photographer living in D.C. by way of the BP oil spill.

David Post • August 25, 2011

Are we in a double dip recession?

Economists hedge their bets using percentage. Most suggest a 30 percent chance we’ll go back into a recession though some go out on a limb and peg the odds at up to 50 percent.
The better question is whether we are out of the one we entered three years ago. Unemployment rose from 5 percent to 9 percent and has not come down since.
I’m not an economist, so what do I know? But the answer is Yes. 100 percent. We are in a recession. My money says the Labor Department will confirm this after it accumulates and analyzes the data in 45 days.

A recession occurs when a country produces less than it did for two prior quarters. Production declines when people stop buying, and the U.S. economy relies upon the consumers buying 70 percent of production. Another 30 percent comes from federal, state and local governments.
Congress is locked in a death spiral to cut federal spending. Federal discretionary spending – dollars not on auto-pilot – will be the lower as a percentage of the economy in over 50 years.
Entitlement spending – those dollars on auto-pilot like Social Security and health care – is rising. Most of entitlement spending is merely a transfer of money from one taxpayer to another. For example, social security takes money from current workers and transfers it to retirees. That’s government spending, but not production.

Increased Medicare, Medicaid, and military health costs are rising because of we are getting older, poorer, and wars have hidden costs.

The federal government’s stimulus two years ago – a continuing source of political warfare – was very small and mostly offset by spending cuts by state and local governments. Teachers, policemen, firemen, and government employees were fired. School budgets and local governments have reduced services. Highways and bridges and other infrastructure needs are not being built or fixed. In the end, the net additional government spending was close to zero.

A fired teacher who starts a new lawn care or babysitting business earns less and buys less.
Consumers buy less for many reasons. Wages haven’t grown in 30 years. Increased gas prices and food costs mean more money goes to the same quantity of goods, so fewer dollars are available to buy other consumer goods needed to pump up the economy.

Home values have declined 30 percent and demand has declined even more. Sellers are receiving less for their property and have less to spend after they sell. New construction is almost non-existent, so construction workers have had not work for years.

Foreclosures are four times higher than just a few years. Banks are nervous that flooding the market with almost 2 million foreclosed houses will push values down further. If that happens, more banks risk becoming insolvent and being taken over by the government.
History teaches that recovering from a recession doesn’t happen when real estate values decline. Jobs cannot grow without a stable real estate market which pulls construction, manufacturing, banking, furniture, materials like steel and concrete and aluminum, and so many other industries with it. These industries that feed construction are suffering. The real estate industry is in tatters – probably the equivalent of a depression.

Banks are nervous about lending because they are afraid they won’t get paid back. Even with historically low interest rates, lending standards make it more difficult for borrowers to qualify for loans to buy a house or start a business. Consumers are buying fewer new cars.
Fewer consumers are using their credit cards that allow them to buy-now, pay-later. For years, economists have scolded consumers for using their credit cards and told them to save more. Nervous consumers are paying down their credit cards and using them less. Fearful about an uncertain future, consumers are saving more.

Stock markets have lost 15 percent of their value – trillions of dollars – in a few weeks. Retirement accounts are lower. Consumers are scared. The U.S. public and world markets have lost confidence in the U.S.’s ability to govern itself. Other countries worldwide have their own economic problems, so they are buying less.

If we’re not in a recession, that is merely a technicality. We went into a recession when unemployment rose from 5 percent to 9.8 percent. Because 90.2 percent of the workforce doesn’t produce and buy what 95 percent of the workforce would, the new goal line for determining growth became the 90.2 percent. So if unemployment drops to 9 percent and the economy rises to 92 percent of full production, that’s about 1 percent growth, though lower than the 95 percent production before the recession began. Only an economist could call that growth.

Are we in a recession? Absolutely. Have we come out of the past recession? No. We all know this. Only the economists don’t.

Gary Tischler •

Last week, I saw a headline in one of the few remaining daily newspapers left in the whole wide world which indicated that the reptile house in Washington would be renovated.

Naturally, I headed to Capitol Hill to see what was going on in Congress. Turns out nobody was home. The guys are out of town, on vacation or running for president. Or just running.

But you know it’s been a weird summer. Heck, it’s been a weird year. Just plain everybody is still embarrassed and ticked about the way our resident politicians from the president to congress to tea party-ers to the media dealt with the debt crisis, which went from a routine yearly thing to political Defcon 3 in about the time it takes John Boehner not to return a call.

Was that a mess or what, and now you know why Eric Cantor was smiling. He for one is not running for president, but the dean of the GOP Young Guns is aiming straight at the speaker’s job. Squeaky wheel, indeed.

The Chinese are mad at us, so mad they picked a fight with the Georgetown University basketball team in China on a good will game tour.

The S&P is mad at the country because of the way Washington—that would be the fools on the hill and at the White House—handled the whole debt mess, so much so that it lowered our borrowing rating to AA, a low-light battery if there ever was one.

The media seems to be mad at Obama along with any number of people who are unhappy about him vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard with rich people. Did you expect him to vacation, I don’t know, Detroit, maybe or on the Texas-Mexico border with the drug lords?

Already, the media is in a kind of frothing frenzy about the GOP primary race, especially now that Texas Governor Rick Perry is in the race. Michelle Bachman won the straw poll in Iowa, whatever that gets you, Tim Pawlenty dropped out, Ron Paul finished second and Newt Gingrich, living up to his first name, finished behind but stayed in for reasons that defy logic, common sense, and Murphy’s Law.
Perry, the dark-eye-brow man who looks like and drawls like a Texas gunslinger, all ominous and mouthy, made his announcement in South Carolina, where all common sense takes flight to destinations unknown. Or as someone said, in South Carolina, Yahoo is a state of mind not a search engine. South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union, and Perry is the only current GOP runner who thought that might be a good idea.

So far Perry has called the Chairman of the Federal Reserve a traitor, and reiterated that global warming is a science community plot to get grants, or something like that. He’s easy to mock if you’re one of those soft liberal commentators, or Bill Maher, but he’s also serious. I’m guessing he’s a pretty good poker player. Bill Clinton called him a handsome rascal, an odd choice of words which indicate he reminded him of another handsome rascally Southern governor of yore.

Almost everything that could happen this year, happened: Japan, the Middle Eastern spring turned into violent summer, the death of Bin Laden, the heightening casualties in Afghanistan, the debt ceiling fiasco, the shootings in Arizona, strikes by high paid athletes, horrible draughts, fires, tornadoes and heat waves, a stock market operating like a whiz bang, atrocity in Norway, the Kardashian wedding.
It’s nice to still be able to feel safe in our own neighborhoods. I mean, it’s not like we could get hit by an earthquake or something.

Oh wait. That happened. Just now, or less.

Cans flew off the shelves in the Adams Morgan Safeway, where a counter girl was in tears. Cars shook on the street; a chimney fell off an apartment building as a 5.8 or 5.9 quake hit the East coast, specifically Virginia. The Pentagon was evacuated. I was walking on 18th street and felt nothing. But the folks at the post office were a little off, feeling dizzy and everyone felt and sometimes saw buildings shake.

Well, there goes that.

A hurricane is coming, and it’s Hurricane Perry.

Veena Trehan • August 10, 2011

-Grr. Swat. Intimidating pose.

A new political animal may be coming to a town and statehouse near you: mama grizzlies. They combine a protective maternal instinct with the power of a large angry animal.

This could be excellent news for kids who have suffered greatly in the recession. Their college funds have been decimated, their homes foreclosed and taken away, their families impoverished from extended periods of under- or unemployment. The innocence of these citizens does not earn them the power to vote, so champions for their wellbeing (beyond their mothers) are more than welcome.

Throughout history Moms have symbolized compassion and self-sacrifice, from renaissance images of the Madonna to the life and works of Mother Teresa. Through their collective efforts to help the world’s children, mothers represent a bridge from a present replete with potential (and problems) to a bright future.

So, Moms log millions of unpaid hours volunteering in schools. Despite incredible hardship, impoverished mothers choose daily to prioritize the health and education of their children and receive a helping hand from microfinance organizations and charities. Neighborhood moms organize drives for disaster victims. Personally and collectively, mothers are a driving force in transforming their communities and the world at large.

This emergence of a potentially powerful and committed ursine species should bode well for kids struggling from the effects of this recession. Republican and Tea Party Senate candidates Carly Fiorina (California), Sharron Angle (Nevada), and Christine O’Donnell (Delaware), as well as South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley – and all of the others anointed “Mama Grizzlies” by Sarah Palin and her followers – claim they will fight for children in their states.

But these “mama grizzlies” seem more like their cousins the black bears, a species known to sometimes abandon their cubs.

“Mama grizzlies” aren’t making children’s health a priority. Many advocate repealing a deficit-neutral
health care reform package that specifically targets benefits for the nation’s youth. The new law prevents insurance companies from excluding preexisting conditions for children and adults alike, extends the period youths can stay on parents’ insurance, and funds state programs for poor children. Advocates of repeal fail to say how they will replace the many provisions that promise to keep kids healthy.

“Mama grizzlies” also support businesses that have been responsible for recent recalls of poisoned
peanuts, spinach, and eggs, as well gross negligence in allowing toxic chemicals into toys. And beyond even these deplorable business practices, our children’s future employment is imperiled by the exodus of manufacturing jobs overseas (one-third alone left during the Bush presidency). But generally these mamas are avidly pro-business. Haley has described placing private sector executives into state regulatory agencies as “a beautiful thing” and suggests wiping out the corporate income tax. These candidates have fallen short in describing how the candidates would build the next generation of jobs and ensure kids eat and play with only what’s safe.

These mamas do not seem particularly concerned about childhood’ education. America has dropped from first to twelfth in college attainment and ranks in achievement close to the bottom of Western nations in math, science and reading. Senate hopeful Sharron Angle once called for abolishing the Department of Education. Others call for performance-based pay and more private schools – piecemeal and ineffective approaches to our children’s education crisis.

These same “mama grizzlies” rarely discuss environmental and public health considerations, despite the asthma and obesity epidemics. One telling example is that Angle dismissed the escrow account for BP’s spill, a monumental disaster that has wreaked havoc on children’s mental health, breathing, and bodies, as a “slush fund”.

The approaching election offers a prime opportunity for moms with a grizzly bear’s strength of will to rise up and whack the oversized bullies that have left our children less healthy and poorer. This is an opportunity to do what Mothers should do: set up strict rules and punishing consequences for those who prey on their brood.

But insurance corporations, Big Oil, and too-large-to-fail banks seem to have co-opted the protective instincts of these potentially influential politicians. These “mama grizzlies” rise up. They grab a microphone to speak to the public, but they have little to say on the issues affecting our children. More than anything their message is, in effect, “Hey! Hands off the big guy.”

Voters have the duty to campaign for and elect candidates who put our kids first, who demonstrate
that they will fight to ensure a better future for the children of the country. While the roar of the mother grizzly is deafening, be sure not to mistake its tenor with the lesser snarl of the black bear.