How The Word "Entitlement" Got Debased to Mean "Handout"

To the deep politics maven, one of the recurring themes of interest is the multiple ways our fellow citizens are continually "mind-fucked" for lack of any better, more apt term. Much of this is accomplished via the disinformation of political ads, but also via the media itself - i.e. when the corporate media trashed all truth and objective history in its presentation of the JFK assassination during the 50th anniversary of that event, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_22.html

Much of this sort of mind-fucking or gutting has already been well explicated in books such as Chris Hedges' 'Empire of Illusion' and Benjamin Barber's 'Consumed'.  Hedges also touches on how language is used to create mind viruses that wreak havoc in our political landscape once they colonize vulnerable brains. Some examples:

"death taxes" implemented by the GOOps to protect the estates of the rich which had been rightly subject to estate taxes.

"tax increases" - used to describe the repeal of the Bush tax cuts that were never intended to remain in place beyond 2011.

"liberal" - turned into a dirty  word by its  incessant misuse by Reep-tards and their fellow travelers, often to mean someone who would endorse child rapists and traffickers, supporting "welfare queens", and being soft on criminals - letting them go free (Google "Willie Horton" ad). All that when liberal actually means one who inveighs against child labor, exploitation of workers, denial of reproductive choice for women.

But the most recent example, "entitlement" - as described by the authors of  'Social Security Works'  - is startling to behold - including who the culprits are.  Why change the meaning of what was once a wonky reference to a word associated with the tax code (in terms of the child tax deduction entitlement, the mortgage deduction entitlement, the earned income tax credit etc.)?

As the authors note (p. 150), entitlement was turned into the proverbial 4-letter word:

"to suggest the benefits Americans had and were earning were less than deserved and to obfuscate the goals of those who sought to radically diminish social protections."

This term was most directly applied to Social Security - which has been in the sights of the Neoliberal elites for over three decades now. This despite as Altman and Klingson observe (ibid.):

"Focus groups indicate that most people equate the word 'entitlement' with a government handout- receiving something for nothing. But here's the catch that pollster Celinda Lake uncovered: when the focus groups were told the word 'entitlement' included Social Security, they vigorously disagree.

Social Security can't be an entitlement, the focus groups say, since they have earned their benefits just as they earn their compensation for work performed. When told that in Washington 'entitlement' does indeed refer to Social Security they become angry and insulted."

As they should be! However, that hasn't stopped the despicable, propaganda-based corporate media from jumping on the bandwagon to push this abominable association. To reinforce this Altman and Klingson  cite one LA Times headline which hysterically trumpeted:

'Entitlements Seen Taking Up Nearly All Taxes by 2012'.

But, of course, 2012 has come and gone and no such parlous 'takeover' has transpired. But the media monkeys who uniformly believe in "monkey see, monkey do" haven't let go of it despite the fact most Americans aren't amused at how they're being portrayed. Altman and Klingson  again (ibid.):

"The American people do not like change in language, but the media loved the storyline that entitlement spending on the old was crowding out spending on the young and ruining the country."

A virulent, despicable meme I've referenced and skewered before, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/05/cfr-prez-richard-haass-names-elephant.html

The authors then note how the actual name for Obama's deficit commission was known to the particulars and honchos as "The Entitlement Commission". Obama himself is actually blamed as being the prime culprit (p. 151) since "in the Executive order to form the commission, Obama lumped together Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid under the rubric of entitlement spending"

Once the media got wind of the misbegotten language use-   disgusting Neolib vermin that they are- more invested in PR and propaganda than truth, they pushed it ceaselessly.

Why did a Democratic President, Barack Obama, fall into this mind virus trap? Had he no deep insights into the history of attacks on Social Security?  Or did he simply lack the balls to fend off the mounting pressures ?(From long time Social Security opponents like Peter G. Peterson and his foundation, e.g.  www.petersonPyramid.org

To be fair to Obama, he didn't originally pervert the meaning of "entitlement" to include Social Security, Medicare etc. That was due to Peterson, who has had a boner to gut all the social insurance programs since 1981, when he "helped to form the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget"

Then, in 1992, unsatisfied with the pace of change (and disappointed that the Reaganites didn't really cut S.S. as much as he wanted - only raised the retirement age to 66) he formed the Concord Coalition "whose mission - according to its website- includes 'educating the public about the long term challenges facing America's unsustainable entitlement programs."

His Foundation also made and promoted a propaganda movie entitled I.O.U.S.A. especially intended to fuck the minds of the young and anyone else dumb enough to believe Oldsters are wrecking the country with mounting debt.

The authors note that Peterson has been "omnipresent in most of the deficit debates that have occupied Obama's presidency" and even worse, "his son Michael, who is president of his Foundation is on the board of directors together with Alan Simpson and Ernest Bowles of  an organization called 'Fix the Debt"

Again, these were the same two luminaries Obama appointed to head his commission. As for 'Fix the Debt' - I already skewered these assholes in a previous post, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/01/fix-debt-cover-to-undermine-your-future.html

As for Altman and Klingson, their take on this pack of miscreants and liars is most enlightening (p. 154):

"The hypocrisy of Fix the Debt is remarkable. Fix the Debt claims to want to reduce the federal deficit but nearly half of its board and steering committee members have ties to companies that lobby hard to preserve corporate tax breaks. Among its leadership are seventy-one CEOs heading publicly held companies.

Fifty-four of them, according to a 2012 report, had personal saving in their firms retirement plans totaling $649 million or an average of $12 million each, which annuitized at age 65 would provide each with $66,000 a month in retirement benefits."

So, it's okay for these pigs to live high on the hog, but meanwhile they wish to brand Social Security as an "entitlement" and reduce its benefits to one single small stipend of about $400 a month. Can you say disgusting?

Keep track of this word and how often it's bandied about in the weeks and months ahead as the same parasites reprise their roles and renew their efforts to make sure you eat cat food - or dog shit - in your old age.

You've been warned!

"Give In To The Irrational GOP?" In A Porker's Eye!

Columnist Michael Grunwald, in a recent TIME article (April 1, p. 18, 'Give In to the Irrational GOP') claims to have the best solution to our continued national kerfuffle over finances, spending and tax cuts. His recommendation to Obama? Give in to the GOP!  Insist on no further tax increases or even closing of tax loopholes for the richest, even though the Reepos will still maintain Social Security cuts be brought forth - despite the fact Social Security didn't contribute a dime to the deficit, and in fact, shameless congressional porkers and pirates have relentlessly raided it to hide the magnitude of the actual deficit!

According to Grunwald ( who concedes we "don't live in a rational world" - but nonetheless appears ready to mandate we all dive head first into an irrational one!):

"The only way Obama could fulfill the punditocracy's dreams of bipartisan agreement would be to drop his demand for new revenues and cave to the tax-phobic Republicans he thumped in November."

Oh really, sonny? Then one might call that November victory useless! Despite a clear choice of the majority of the people, who more than once in polls demanded higher taxes on the rich and NO meddling with Social Security, or Medicare, then Obama is justified in betraying them!

Grunwald goes on to add, disclosing he's a true pundit whore of the Neoliberal Elites:

"So he should cave- not to appease the chattering classes or show the country he's open to compromise. He should cave to ease pain, advance his agenda and improve the country in tangible ways."

Which, of course, is abject nonsense! Because if he caves, and bear in mind among true liberal circles he's already seen as a wuss, then it would mean even harsher social insurance cuts to make up for the lost revenue via taxes.

And we know the Neoliberal Enclave of Whores in D.C. is panting for "entitlement cuts"!  Or as salon.com Michael Lind recently put it:

"Calling for combining cuts in Social Security with more tax giveaways for savings, mostly to the rich, proves that politicians are Very Serious People to their Wall Street donors and to the mainstream media pundits who lionize the conservative deficit hawks Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles."

Oh, and they also lionize the whore front groups like 'Fix the Debt' with their whore front men, such as Ed Rendell, Ernest Bowles and Alice Rivlin.  All of them under the puppet strings of billiionaire Peter G. Peterson, e.g. see www.petersonPyramid.org. As Lind notes about 'Fix the debt':

"FixtheDebt, is one of the “astroturf” (faux-grass roots) anti-entitlement front groups created by right-wing billionaire Pete Peterson and funded by corporations, many of them in the finance industry, is spending tens of millions of dollars in a short time to pressure the public and lawmakers into cutting Social Security and Medicare"

As Felix Salmon noted of the FixtheDebt manifesto (by the front group’s allied CEOs- e.g. see the peterson.org link) , “the letter basically just says ‘please cut our taxes, raise taxes on everybody else, and cut the benefits they get from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security"

Worse, of course, is how faux liberals aka  "progressives" are meekly playing into the paws of these rats. Lind again, portrays it to a pathetic tee:

"The conservatives and libertarians demand that Social Security be completely abolished. Progressives reply, “Please don’t abolish Social Security completely — would you please consider letting us help you cut it instead?” Playing the role of the wimpy progressive begging for mercy from the hard right, President Barack Obama reportedly may call for cutting Social Security for 80- and 90-year-olds by means of “chained CPI” in his forthcoming budget."

Of course, if Obama is so lame and strupid as to do that, he will forever undercut his profile (and legacy)  in the eyes of liberals who reluctantly went "all in" with him in the last election (somehow suspecting he might renege on promises made), while soiling Democratic election prospects for at least another generation. Indeed, as I already noted, the Democratic Party has paid a huge price just for talking about Social Security cuts. A Social Security Works poll   has shown that the party suffered a stunning 25-point plunge in public confidence between 2005 and 2010 on its ability to do a better job than its opposition to protect the program.


Are the Dems such weak, forlorn wusses that they really wish to go this route? And enrage most of their left base in perpetuity?  Or, do they think that base will always fall in line when the next presidential campaign arrives. Well, they better think again!

As Lind correctly observes:

"Cutting Social Security is backdoor privatization — and a bonanza for Wall Street money managers. Cuts in promised Social Security benefits, whether from chained CPI, a higher retirement age, or means-testing, will force middle-class and working-class Americans to try to save even more money in the tax-favored private savings accounts like 401Ks so beloved by the Wall Street financiers who fund both Democrats and Republicans."

Sadly, it is Neoliberal Business patronage that has contaminated and ruined the Democratic Party, as it has the other corporate (Reepo) party. The Dems have merely disguised it better, but every now and then - especially in the heat of a presidential campaign season - a network crew will bust into a lobby -funded "gala" and show our reps hob nobbing with their CEO -corporate paymasters.

As for Grunwald, he does get one thing right in his piece, noting the Reeps "have offered some flexibility to make cuts....hoping he will be blamed later for making the unpopular ones."

Well, HE will indeed be blamed, if he chooses to cut Social Security.

Anyway, Grunwald goes on to say:

"Fine! Obama can whack programs that don't promote his priorities, like fossil fuel subsidies and sprawl roads; and he can demand back-loaded cuts that won't kill jobs now."

This is okay as far as it goes - but he needs to bear in mind, despite the braying Neoliberal media - that Social Security and Medicare are part of his priorities. What he really ought to be cutting is the military, and ordering every last manjack out of Afghanistan NOW, as opposed to pissing another trillion down the toilet by the end of next year!

Simpson- Bowles the Sequel: Can You Say 'Neoliberal Lickspittle'?

Alan Simpson (left)  and Ernest Bowles 2 years ago,  after Simpson suggested Americans on Social Security are like 300 million sucklings "on 300 million government teats”

The Neoliberal cognoscenti are going bonkers with the rollout of Simpson-Bowles II, or 2.0 if you will, an update of their original codswallop to cut the deficit. No one liked the original and let Obama know it as well, raking him for even letting these Neolibs through the national issues door. Well, they will like 2.0 even less. Let’s not even get into the fact that if these punks were truly serious they’d be going after the latest Pentagon white elephant, the B-35, which has now doubled in cost estimates because of overruns and problems – to nearly a half trillion bucks.(TIME, Feb. 25, 'The Most Expensive Weapon Ever Built’ ,p. 26)

Simpson –Bowles v 2.0 arrived with mucho fanfare, featuring a huge rollout sponsored by Politico (the hackiest, most Neolib political blog), where Neolib puppet Mike Allen hosted and interviewed the pair this morning in Washington. Make no mistake that when Neolibs come together they will have orgasms and wet dreams over any plan that appears “bipartisan” on the surface and takes aim at those nasty budget vampires called “entitlements”. You can also be sure that every Neolib hack- and- a -half in the Beltway, from Bob Woodward, to Fareed Zakaria to the latest  nabob (Joe Klein of TIME) will get excited at the prospect of a new way to snatch that money from oldsters’ pockets. All to “protect the kids”, never mind the real elephant in the room is defense spending - which budget slice is greater than the 45 next largest nations combined.

For example, in his recent TIME op piece (Op. cit., p. 17, ‘Aiming Low, Missing Greatness’) Klein thrashes Obama for "aiming too low" in his SOTU speech. He further accuses Obama of displaying “views of budgeting and spending” bearing a “totally unconvincing expression of prudence”. What does Klein want? What all Neolib hacks want! As he asks:

“Why shouldn’t government view capital investments – in education and infrastructure- as a necessary requirement for long term growth, as opposed to entitlements?”

Good question! Maybe because those “entitlements” help prop up aggregate demand for the economy, while providing oldsters with a measure of dignity and independence so they don’t have to move in with Junior or Missy – just graduated from college. BUT...Joe ....it does mean that in order to ensure seniors' future security the richest give up some of their yearly $55,000 tax cuts! (Actually, $1m for the top 0.1%)

Now, according to the Neoliberal rules of journalistic objectivity, supporting SB v 2.0 establishes your Neolib creds and extols you as a DC “serious person” and real player - as opposed to a pretender. Never mind that to the rest of the nation you’re a congenital asshole. Thus, it is good from time to time that people from the real nation sometimes arrive in DC and shake their asses up, such as when some  mean hecklers interrupted the Simpson -Bowles orgy. . In an apocalyptic sign for the deficit hawks, Simpson worshippers and other fetishists, the hecklers got a lot more attention on Twitter than the new Simpson-Bowles plan did. Can they of the "300 government million titties" fame recapture the magic?  Actually, I think that cow escaped the barn long ago, and 'Muricans are too smart to buy into it. Not when waste like the F-35 is on display!

S and B are doing their best meanwhile to explain why we need a new, different modernized cut plan ($3 of cuts to every $1 of revenue). One reason is that, in their eyes, the situation has gotten so, so much worse since their last plan, that we now need more deficit reduction than we needed last time. The other reason is that the point of this plan is to be a model for a “compromise” between the current supposed GOP sequester-avoiding plan and the Obama administration’s sequester-avoiding plan, and it does this by adding tax revenue that the GOP has explicitly ruled out — but not as much as the original Simpson-Bowles plan, which had a lotta taxes — and demanding even more spending cuts than the original plan did. So the new centrist common sense bipartisan compromise is way more conservative than it was a few years ago, but still not conservative enough to win any Republican support (beyond insincere rhetorical support, I mean).


The cuts come from Medicare and Medicaid, because while the Obama administration laid out a plan to get as much deficit reduction as Simpson-Bowles originally demanded, the Obama administration did so in the wrong way, without trying to cut a ton of money from those programs and Social Security.

As many readers may have heard, e.g. on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” the United States will eventually — in a few decades — have a big debt problem, mostly because we have committed to paying for healthcare for old people and healthcare costs are ballooning. In order to “fix the debt,” we’ll probably just have to pay doctors and drug companies less. (That will make a lot of doctors and drug companies mad, but the alternative is “let old people die” so they should just suck it up.) Voila! We have solved the long-term budget deficit, let’s all go home. Kudos to Bob Woodward, Joe Klein, Jonathan Alter ('You mean we can't let Obama cut 5% from those programs?') and the other overfed Neoliberal elites.  

Meanwhile, Politico, the fave blog of the Neolib elites,  is pretty excited about Simpson and Bowles but in the end, whether v 1.0 or 2.0 or any further n.0,  no one in Congress or the White House really cares about it and so far as we know it’s put out there merely to appease the Neolib DC media and their lackeys, hangers-on

But that won't stop them all from pumping out more BS, bollocks, palaver, and propaganda. The problem for them now is we're all onto their shtick. Or...we should be!