If you're an economy-pillaging plutocrat, these are times to celebrate

by Ken

So we've got all these creepy-weird economic-themed stories floating to the surface, which aren't directly related but clearly, somehow are.

For example, there's the sellout of a faction of New Jersey Democratic legislators, becoming partners with their odious neanderthal governor to make NJ the new Wisconsin. Here's the NYT's Richard Pérez-Peña reporting:

The proposed deal, which has yet to come to a vote in either house, would be a major victory for Mr. Christie, transferring billions of dollars a year in expenses from the government to its employees, and once again curbing the power of the governor’s favorite foil, the public employee unions.

It would eliminate the longstanding practice of negotiating health care payments in contract talks with the unions, instead imposing those terms through legislation. The proposed deal puts Mr. Christie firmly in the ranks of fellow Republican governors who have curtailed public workers’ collective bargaining rights this year, including Mitch Daniels of Indiana, John Kasich of Ohio, Paul LePage of Maine and Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

But the recent conflicts in those states have been strictly partisan affairs, with Democrats opposing moves made by Republican majorities. In New Jersey, the battle over pensions and health care has turned into an intramural fight among Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature, threatening to shake up the party’s leadership and weaken it in coming elections, thereby strengthening Mr. Christie’s hand.

But of course it isn't state employees who are bankrupting New Jersey. It's a collusion of state movers and shakers dating back to the Christie Todd Whitman administration who raped the state and the state workers -- stealing the pension money to cover the massive shortfalls created by their other thieving and incompetence. And then, through that thieving incompetence, they made it a crisis by assuming they could get away with failing to fund the pensions that had been negotiated in good faith, at least on the unions's side. (How were they to know they were dealing with a pack of mobsters? Well, actually they had pretty good glimmerings, since union leaders, having no choice (the state made it clear that the money simply wasn't going to be paid, having selected its unionized employees as the patsies who were going to take the fall for their thieving and incompetence -- talking about "sharing the sacrifice"), went along with some of the schemes state officials, mostly Republican, of course, but not exclusively, to pillage and plunder the pension money.

After all, what the crisis comes down to, the reason something has to be done, is all those gazillions of dollars' worth of unfunded pension obligations -- like as if it was the workers' choice to not fund the pensions. Christie is just the latest in a line of organized criminals who gets to pretend that he's enforcing fiscal responsibility when he should be packing for a long stay in the pen.

And the helpless NJ Dems wail, "What else can we do?"

Or there's the story broken by the WSJ, which got quickly unbroken, except not many people I know are buying the denials. The report was that the AARP has secretly decided to accept cuts in Social Security benefits. Here's the WSJ's Laura Meckler reporting (behind paywall, of course):

AARP, the powerful lobbying group for older Americans, is dropping its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits, a move that could rock Washington's debate over how to revamp the nation's entitlement programs.

The decision, which AARP hasn't discussed publicly, came after a wrenching debate inside the organization. In 2005, the last time Social Security was debated, AARP led the effort to kill President George W. Bush's plan for partial privatization. AARP now has concluded that change is inevitable, and it wants to be at the table to try to minimize the pain.

"The ship was sailing. I wanted to be at the wheel when that happens," said John Rother, AARP's long-time policy chief and a prime mover behind its change of heart.

The shift, which has been vetted by AARP's board and is now the group's stance, could have a dramatic effect on the debate surrounding the future of the federal safety net, from pensions to health care, given the group's immense clout. . . .

This, as you can imagine, produced a firestorm, which soon enough produced a statement from CEO A. Barry Rand "in response to inaccurate media stories on the association’s policy on Social Security." It's a statement that, curiously, has been circulated by a number of people but that doesn't seem to have a link that I can find. There's a Yahoo posting, for example, whose only link is an erroneous one to the aarp.org website, which is just as well, because I'm damned if I can find any hint of actual policy matters of the website. Anyway, the statement begins:

Let me be clear – AARP is as committed as we've ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today's seniors and strengthening it for future generations. Contrary to the misleading characterization in a recent media story, AARP has not changed its position on Social Security.

And it goes on to talk pretty forcefully about AARP's determination to keep Social Security strong and solvent, to "make retirement more secure for future generations, not less."

However, as colleagues point out, there's nothing in the ringing language, when you look at it closely, that necessarily conflicts with the WSJ report. And some have pointed out that the chief's boast that AARP "strongly opposed a privatization plan in 2005" should be taken with a grain of salt, that the organization had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the fray.

Other stories of this ilk? Well how about Erik Wasson's report in The Hill: "Senate Dems drop surtax on millionaires from draft budget"? Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad had come up with the idea of a 3 percent millionaires' surtax to get committee member Bernie Sanders on board with a plan that's targeted to be half spending cuts. Now, Wasson leads his report: "Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee are no longer looking at a surtax on millionaires as a way to bring down budget deficits, Senate sources said Friday."

Or how about those reports of following up the round of payroll-tax cuts for employees' contributions to Social Security with a round covering employers' contributions? I guess it was a small enough price to pay, putting some dollars back in the hands of wage earners in exchange for suddenly, for the first time, making Social Security dependent on Congressional largesse to pay out benefits. The new scheme accelerates the process, and this time without sharing the wealth with workers.

It's not that we don't have both short- and long-term spending and debt problems. It's that the only way we're allowed to discuss those problems is as framed by the people who did the most to create them, and have profited most from them, and now see a new path to riches. Not to put too fine a point on it: They lie. There are people who actually know what they're talking about attempting to talk about Social Security and deficits generally, people like economist Dean Baker, but the Village conglomeration of pols and media judges them insufficiently serious to be listened to.

While we're forced to listen to clowns like Alan Simpson and Chris Christie. Well, mercy me, what else can we do?

#