A Question of Entitlements

The other day, Andrew Sullivan wrote, "one party is committed to never raising taxes and the other to never slashing entitlements. "

In response I sent him this e-mail:

Andrew,

In an earlier post you said "one party is committed to never raising taxes and the other to never slashing entitlements." I think you misspoke. You must have meant to say "one party is committed to never raising taxes and both parties to never slashing entitlements." What evidence do you have that the GOP is at all willing to "slash entitlements." It might be willing to avoid granting new entitlements (although the GOP's willingness to increase Medicare entitlements during Bush's presidency calls that into doubt) but I don't hear any leading Republicans actually calling for the cutting, let alone "slashing," of entitlements. When pressed, Republicans love to point out their undying devotion to Medicare; even criticising President Obama for what they think is an inevitable cutting of benefits to pay for new entitlements. Furthermore, the GOP speaks of tax cuts as if they were entitlements. For example, the Bush tax cuts the GOP wants to make permanent. What is more of an entitlement than a tax cut that can never be rescinded regardless of the economic situation. And I think eliminating the estate tax would amount to an entitlement to people such as Paris Hilton who never had to do anything to earn their parents' fortunes.

In short, even taking the GOP at its word, the only person that might have to cut Medicare benefits is a Democrat. What entitlements are the GOP willing to "slash?"

R. Peter Nessen

P.S. - I am posting this on my own, rarely read, blog: www.Itsbetterleftsaid.blogspot.com

David Brooks' False Choice

David Brooks, in his latest column, approvingly cited by Andrew Sullivan, offers this choice:

Is this country going to slide into progressive corporatism, a merger of corporate and federal power that will inevitably stifle competition, empower corporate and federal bureaucrats and protect entrenched interests? Or is the U.S. going to stick with its historic model: Helping workers weather the storms of a dynamic economy, but preserving the dynamism that is the core of the country’s success.

While I don't disagree that those are two of the choices available, I do disagree that anyone in the current debate is actually suggesting we take the latter of Brooks' options. In fact, the choice currently before us appears to be between Brooks' first option and doing nothing - leaving the workers to fend for themselves in an economy spiraling downward. As I e-mailed Andrew:

What we need is a comprehensive plan that lets the Big Three fail but protects their workers (and the workers from the related industries; and the workers affected by the possible depression) from the economic hurricane.

But it seems to me that what Brooks and Sullivan actually dislike about the bailout is not the "slide into progressive corporatism" but the additional spending. If that's the case, then they should say so, and then add "Let them eat cake."

Why "We" Haven't Been Attacked

Andrew Sullivan wonders why we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Here is my e-mail to him:

What amazes me about the analysis of why “we” haven’t been attacked since 9/11, is the limit of what “we” means. No, the US hasn’t been attacked, but Spain, Great Britain, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and probably more, have been attacked. It is a fallacy to think the Islamofascists are at war only against the US. They are at war against the modernist way of thinking. So “we” have been attacked.

Why has the US not been attacked on its own soil? Hard to tell. But don’t start thinking that the pause is somehow a first-time happening. Remember that between the two attacks on the World Trade Center, seven years went by with no Islamofascist attack on our soil. I am still waiting for the great outpouring of thanks to Bill Clinton for his ability to protect us. And perhaps the admission that, given Clinton’s Bush-like record defending the homeland, torture and warrantless wiretapping are not necessary.

AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!

There is nothing more annoying to a novice and unknown blogger than having your great idea independently spewed forth by a well-known blogger, and having him get recognition for it.

Moment of Silence or School Prayer

Andrew Sullivan is upset that an atheist and his daughter are suing a school over a moment of silence. He asks for "mutual respect." Two points:

1. I'm not an atheist, but I suspect the atheists out there would say that they will give respect to what Andrew calls "Christianists" when there is any sign that Christianists will reciprocate. For example, one movie made from one successful fantasy series that might be read as having atheistic themes sends the Catholic League into spasms of distress and offense. the Catholic League's leader worries that the books "sell the virtues of atheism." But I guarantee if someone had said that the Narnia books were offensive because they were "selling the virtues of theism" the Catholic League would have a fit.
Similarly, when an atheist suggests he shouldn't have to have God thrust at him everytime he goes to the Courthouse, visits Congress, or looks at his legal tender is ridiculed and told to grow up and show some tolerance. In other words, tolerance has to go two ways, and usually it is the majority who needs to show tolerance before we should expect it from the minority.

2. As we saw during the "Intelligent Design" debate, atheists and other supporters of the separation of Church and State are legitimately worried about ulterior motives of the Christianists. As the federal judge in Pennsylvania said about the "Intelligent Design" curriculum: "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom." Some, like me, remember when the same people now advocating moments of silence were pushing for school prayer. And that raises an interesting question - what purpose does the "moment of silence" serve? Obviously, it is a method of formalizing a time of prayer. The kids aren't stupid. As one Seventh Grader said: "It’s a time to thank God for my day." But even without the Illinois law requiring a moment of silence, that Seventh Grader has time to thank God. Before lunch. During study hall. Before she goes to sleep. And without the moment of silence no one should be told he cannot pray in school. There just won't be a time set aside for it. No harm, no foul.

Sunnis vs. Iran and Iraq

Andrew Sullivan has a very good post suggesting that Bush and Cheney are preparing for a potential invasion of Iran. He says:

It's back to the 1980s. Instead of backing Saddam against Iran, we're now in danger of backing the Iraqi Sunnis, in league with Egypt and Saudi Arabia ... against Iran.

I have one addition to Andrew's post. It should read:

It's back to the 1980s. Instead of backing Saddam against Iran, we're now in danger of backing the Iraqi Sunnis, in league with Egypt and Saudi Arabia ... against Iran

and Iraq. We are arming the very people who will, as Andrew points out earlier in the post, fight the Shia Iraqi majority as soon as we leave. So, while Andrew is correct that Cheney is always looking for new ways to screw up the Middle East - it is even worse than Andrew concludes.