The politico/media/senior conspiracy to bankrupt America

Obama, despite his talk about wanting to be responsible
about government spending and the national deficit and debt,
has shown he can talk the talk but not walk the walk,
as specifically exemplified by
his October 2012 (pre-election) expansion of Medicare
to cover in-home services to stable elderly,
an extension for which he did not even show the responsibility
to estimate the cost of.
I.e.,
he signed a blank check,
with the younger generation expected to pick up the tab,
while the current elderly gain yet another benefit
which they did not pay for,
and which they did not grant to their parents.
(Note, by the way, how such
expansion of benefits for those who did not pay for them,
which has been the norm ever since Medicare was started,
makes lying jerks
of all those lying seniors who say
“Keep your hands off Medicare: we're just getting the benefits we paid for.”)
What a disgusting example of giving away the fiscal store
by both Obama and the advocates for this expansion,
and one which neither the other politicians nor the media has seen fit,
so far as I know, to call them out on.
What a politician/media/senior conspiracy to drive America to bankruptcy
and cheat the young.


This really is an instructive example of how
the politicians, media, and spending advocates conspire
to bankrupt America.
Before an election,
they announce an expansion of benefits to senior citizens.
The trumpet the benefits the expansion will provide,
while either low-balling or omitting to describe the cost of the benefits.
The seniors vote in gratitude for the benefits showered upon them by Uncle Sugar,
not caring a whit that
they are receiving benefits
which they never paid for and
which they did not extend to their predecessors.
Meanwhile, the younger generation,
which has to pick up the tab for this largesse,
is largely ignorant of the fiscal crime that has been committed on them,
because the media reports all the benefits,
while carefully refraining from examining the costs that will be incurred.
Want an example of this?
Read the Robert Pear New York Times article.
Note how Pear, with the tacit concurrence of his editors,
reports at great length on the benefits that will be provided,
including lengthy quotes from those who lobbied for the benefit expansion,
while he does not bother to get quotes from those individuals and organizations
who might view with the greatest alarm the costs that are being incurred.
Of course there are organizations in Washington which are trying to rein in spending.
But the NYT,
which brags to potential subscribers about the breadth of its coverage,
could not be bothered to present this other side of the issue.
Well, at least not before the election.
After their electoral choice Obama is elected,
no doubt they will get around to pointing out the costs and problems.
But by then it will be too late to affect the oh-so-crucial election.
How's that for a plot?


What is the significance of failing to estimate the costs
with respect to the 2012 election, held on November 6?
What if the Obama administration had made public
an estimate of the costs of its newly granted largesse?
If the actual costs of this benefit prove to be low,
and they gave a low estimate, no problem.
But what if (as I believe is sure) the actual costs turn out to be high, in the tens of billions of dollars.
If the administration gave, when it announced the benefits, an estimate well below what they prove to be, then they look either craven (deliberately low-balling the estimate) or fools or incompetents.
On the other hand, if they offer a realistic estimate, again in the tens of billions, the question would surely be asked (one would hope!) just how does the Obama administration intend to pay for these expanded benefits.
By ignoring the costs (while announcing the benefits) they avoid both alternatives, and their responsibility.
And the media and the Romney campaign have let them get away with it.


And what might those costs plausibly be?
I am no expert on health care, but can show the unavoidable implication of various plausible (I believe) possibilities.
Suppose one million seniors need full time health care.
Suppose the cost per beneficiary needing such care is $50,000 per year.
Simple multiplication yields $50 billion per year.
What does that mean for individual taxpayers?
A useful figure to remember is that $1 billion spread evenly over roughly 300 million Americans is close to $3 per person.
So $50 billion is $150 per American citizen.
For the nominal family of four, that works out to $600 for each such family.
In other words, given those assumptions, each such family must see their taxes go up $600 per year to pay for those benefits.
And Obama has said he would not raise taxes on the middle class!
What a liar he is!
But the media and the Romney campaign have let him get away with it.
Why?
Surely the reason is that they fear the voting wraith of those who desire these benefits, i.e., the senior beneficiaries and their caregivers.