There’s a GREAT, albeit FRIGHTENING
article in today’s (Friday, November 23rd, 2012) Wall
Street Journal, written by by Holman Jenkins. It's titled None
Dare Call It Default (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578136931848743300.html?_nocache=1353809241142&user=welcome&mg=id-wsj&mg=reno64-wsj)
This is a MUST READ,
especially for ALL current and future Civil Servants (cops, firefighters,
teachers, etc.) because it clearly explains what “entitlement reform” will mean
to YOU and I.
Many
public sector workers (especially state and city workers) don’t believe such “entitlement
reforms” will impact us much at all, perhaps some cuts in Social Security, some
reductions in Medicare, or at the least some increased costs, BUT few accept
the very painful reality that more and MORE local Municipalities (states &
cities) will be forced into bankruptcy to escape the pension obligations they
over-promised to public sector workers!
Jenkins
starts out by explaining what the “fiscal cliff” IS and isn’t; “America's
fiscal cliff is an artificial crisis. We have no trouble borrowing in the short
term. But at some point the market will demand evidence that long-term balance
is being restored. President Obama said in his first post-election press
conference that he doesn't want any proposals that "sock it to the middle
class." He knows better. A long-term socking is exactly what's coming to
the middle class, which must pay for the benefits it consumes.”
Then
noting that a few years back a 50% federal tax hike would continue to fund BOTH
our current AND future entitlement expenditures, but that, “Today, a 50% tax increase would
be needed just to meet the government's current spending, never mind its future
obligations.”
He
then notes that, “One way or another, then, entitlements will be cut. Don't call it
default. The correct term is entitlement reform.”
Jenkins
wryly notes, “You saw this day coming and saved for your own retirement... Taxpayers accept the risk of
future tax hikes that may make the decision to save seem foolish in retrospect.”
Now
THIS is the part of “entitlement reform” that will undoubtedly impact public
sector workers – the “money shot”; “According to
economists Robert Novy-Marx and Josh Rauh, state and local taxes would have to
increase by $1,385 per household immediately to make good the pension promises
to state and local workers, including firefighters and cops. That's not going
to happen given all the other demands on taxpayers. Default, in this case, is
the proper word for cities and states using bankruptcy to repudiate their
pension obligations.”
Did
you get that last part?
The
cost per household (nearly $1400/year above the other increases to fund
Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, etc.), is NOT going to happen!
Jenkins
is only the FIRST to honestly note that cities and states will be left with
ONLY ONE option related to deal with these over-extended pension promises –
Municipal DEFAULT, or "bankruptcy," which will able them to “repudiate their pension
obligations.”
As
for the “free lunch” of “Obamacare,” again, Jenkins tells the stark truth that
NO politician will; “Under the Paul Ryan plan, the affluent would pay more. Under the Obama
plan, the affluent would flee Medicare to escape the waiting lists, shortages
and deteriorating quality as Washington economizes by ratcheting down
reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. Don't call either default. You don't
have a legally enforceable right to the free care you imagined you were
promised.”
Jenkins
adds, “Don't go running to a judge when this doesn't pan out. The courts do
not overrule changes in government policy just because citizens find their
promised free lunch isn't forthcoming. Nor will it be fruitful to appeal to politicians' sense of
"fairness." Politicians can be relied on to do what will get them
re-elected. And, believe it or not, that is the good news.
“If politicians weren't eager to be re-elected, the trust
necessary to be an investor would vanish altogether.”
The
only thing I disagree with that seems implied here is that things might have
been different under Romney/Ryan.
But
how could they have been?
The
fiscal realities were going to be the same, the “fiscal cliff” would STILL be
looming. Romney/Ryan offered Americans a bitter pill, one that was highlighted
by the likes of Scott Walker in Wisconsin.
NOW,
Democrats are going to eagerly sign onto policies that will deliver EVERYTHING
that Holman predicts, but try and blame it all on the miserly Republicans “driving
a hard debt deal.”
The
plain truth IS that we’re all in for some unprecedented pain and a future of
paying much more and getting back much less in “entitlements.”
JMK
No comments:
Post a Comment