Greenspan is a Jerk
DKos' Tim from VA had a post today about Alan Greenspan's latest testimony talking about how the government must cut Social Security benefits to deal with the deficit. According to Greenspan, a tax increase would badly damage the economy and so cutting spending was absolutely required in order to get the deficit under control. Whenever Greenspan testifies these days I just steam because he is such a wanker. My comment in response to Tim's post was this:
Last year, Greenspan made the statement that he supported Bush's tax cut flavor of the year but that it should be paid for by cuts in the mandatory entitlement programs. My post on Valentine's day was: Greenspan Thinks You Should Pay For Bush's Prolifigate Spending.
Alan Greenspan weighed in on Bush's tax cuts and the deficit this week. He said that he would support making Bush's tax cuts (for the very wealthy) permanent if spending was cut to make up for the problem. How very nice of him.
Mr. Greenspan, by contrast, urged lawmakers to examine cuts in mandatory entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.
However, Mr Greenspan neglected to note that solving the deficit problem by cutting Social Security benefits would once more rob ordinary Americans in another even more explicit reverse Robin Hood ploy than Bush's dad fostered in the great Savings and Loan bailout. One where the very fortunate can once more feed off the sweat and blood of the "lucky duckies".
Why is that? Well, ordinary Americans have been paying EXTRA into the Social Security Trust Fund for the past 20 years. This extra tax which has impacted lower income taxpayers significantly more than upper income taxpayers has been collected for twenty years to make sure there were enough revenues to provide retirement funds for all Americans. Now Greenspan (and the other compassionate conservatives) want to cut the benefits of those who paid in for so many years. The result of this would be to take every penny of the trust fund and funnel it into the coffers of the wealthy with no IOUs.
Greenspan was for tax cuts when there was a surplus and for tax cuts when there was a deficit, but only if it was paid for by cutting the entitlement programs - including Social Security. Which leads one to ask, why did he recommend the payroll tax increase in '83? Was it because he knew he would advocate defaulting on it when the time came due to start drawing down on the trust fund? He really is a despicable man.