Rush was lamenting wasteful, frivolous government spending (like Social Security and Medicare). Then he dropped this bombshell on everyone:
Have you heard the story about 700 executives from the Social Security Administration on a party junket to Phoenix?...Claiming they need "to learn how to reduce stress because of a growing number of death threats made against them, nearly 700 executives from the Social Security Administration," 700 executives! It cost $700,000. That's one hundred thousand dollars per attendee.So, according to the Rushbo $700,000/700 people = $100,000 per person. And that, he says, is just too much.
...When this kind of news gets out, ladies and gentlemen, with unemployment news what it is, unemployment continuing to rise, government executives going on retreats for a hundred grand a person for three days, to relieve stress over deaths threats. The American people can't do that right now, the American people are paying for it, but this is nothing. This 700 grand, this is nothing to the pillage that the government as a whole is doing in the trillions on this economy every day.
Only thing is 700,000/700 = 1,000. Thats like what, twice as cheap as Rush said?
Someone on Rushbo's team caught the error and fixed its first instance in the transcript on his website. It appears that was as much journalistic integrity as they could muster, as the second instance remains uncorrected.
You can read the entire transcript here. Unfortunately, you must be a subscriber to view video or to hear the original audio.
Posts
8 comments:
SP,
Rush's mess up aside, how do you propose we pay for the "frivolous" programs of Social Security and Medicare? According to the Peterson Institute and the federal government Medicare Pt. A will be bankrupt by 2020 and Social Security by 2041.
BDR
The answer of how we "pay" for said programs is far less interesting (umm...taxes?) than the answer to how we "save" them.
Medicare's salvation is found in health care reform (though not necessarily the currently proposed plan), and Social Security's salvation is found in...wait...2041? Who cares? That's like, what, 200 years from now?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/hating-on-social-insurance/
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/social_security/
The second link should be this:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/05/the-truth-behind-the-social-security-and-medicare-alarm-bells.html
I've been having technical difficulties so this may be a repeat comment. If so, my apologies.
Interesting links. But how many new taxes? On whom will the new taxes be placed? Can the government really run something efficiently?
As far as Krugman's concerns about global warming--three words--China and India. They are the largest emerging economies with half the world's population. We can "cap and trade" all the live long day and the environment will still be polluted by these two giants, not to mention all the other emerging economies that will not be naive enough to screw up their growth in order to possibly fix a problem that occurs naturally without the aid of evil, polluting homo sapiens.
The two massive entitlement programs are a much larger danger to our well being than Krugman's greenhouse. If the majority of my pay is taken to fund inefficient government programs administered by unelected bureaucrats I am not really going to care about a couple of degrees of warming 50-100years from now. Maybe a nice volcanic eruption can cool us down like it did in the 1800s.
BDR
Can the government really run something efficiently?...
other emerging economies that will not be naive enough to screw up their growth...
entitlement programs are a much larger danger to our well being...
If the majority of my pay is taken to fund inefficient government programs...
Forgive me if I decline to comment. The sampling above represents what I feel to be a dodging of true debate to give way to a conservative talking points mad lib.
If we start from the assumptions that global warming isn't a threat, that all government programs are destructive and inefficient (a majority of your pay? seriously?), and that despite our best efforts other countries will not do the right thing so we have no reason to, this discussion will be neither honest nor interesting.
You shouldn't be so dismissive. People can have honest concerns without being accused of spouting talking points. I am sorry you declined to comment. I was looking forward to some fixes from a liberal (no offense)point of view. Maybe next time.
BDR
People can have honest concerns without being accused of spouting talking points.
Indeed they can.
In my opinion, this is not such an instance.
But FTR, the links were provided to further illustrate the points I made in my comment, namely that:
a. the Medicare problem (and there is a problem) is being addressed (though not completely solved) with health care reform, and
b. Social Security should not be on anyone's short list of priorities.
Krugman says that global warming should be on or near the top of such a list. I don't know that I agree with that (though I don't necessarily disagree). I do agree that a 30+ year projection of Social Security's demise is next to insignificant at the moment.
I'll be glad to respond to any questions or comments specifically related to the points above.
And in the name of good sportsmanship, I will simply add that:
1. Efficiency, growth, and environmentally friendly business practices are not mutually exclusive,
2. While Medicare's efficiencies have been vastly overblown, I'll take the trade-offs between Medicare's inefficiencies (too much waste on suspect, ineffective, and experimental procedures, i.e., "too much coverage") over private insurance companies' inefficiencies any day,
3. There's a good debate going on over at the NY Times about who should have their taxes raised to pay for the new health care plan.
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/should-the-rich-pay-for-the-uninsured/?scp=1&sq=should%20rich%20pay%20for%20health%20care&st=cse
4. This blog post I read on Sunday seems relevant to our discussion:
http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2172
Also see:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/07/inequality-and-consistency.html
I read the links you provided. It all still comes down to taxes. I wonder when enough will be enough on taxes? You know I am not rich and chances are I may never reach the income bracket of the individuals that the debaters propose taxing. That being said, I find it morally wrong to take from one group, in this instance a very small minority of the country to pay for the health care of everyone else.
When did my family's health care become the responsibility of a millionaire or billionaire that is not related to me? Heck, for that matter, my dad would fall into the first category and I don't ask him to pay for my medical bills. Why then should he be forced to pay for anyone else's medical care other than his own?
If President Obama and the Democrats and any Republicans really want universal care why don't they pass a "sin tax" on themselves to pay for it? One of the authors in your link mentioned "sin taxes" as part of a kitchen sink approach to funding health care.
Post a Comment