The other day someone was wrong on the internet. Now I know that may be hard to believe, because the internet is full of lots of useful information and truth. It was one of those posts where I immediately roll my eyes because it's so simplistic in the handling of a excessively complex situation. In this case it was a post about the budget, and to add on to that, it also wasn't about anything recent, it is five years old. The basic premise is an attack on budget cuts by pointing out that government workers earn pension salaries, and perhaps if we want to make cuts that is where we should make the cuts.
This is one of those arguments that makes sense on the surface until you actually have to think about it for a fraction of a second longer than it takes you to hit the share button. Basically it compares the low "average" salaries of deployed troops, and the low benefits coverage of those on Social Security, to the six figure pensions of the president and congress. Why should we pay so much to those people, when we pay so little to the others. Fight the man! Get the pitchforks! THIS CAN FIX THE BUDGET!
Sit down, John.
Ok, there are a few problems with this scenario. The first being that the numbers are greatly off. The presidential salary was nearly double what it actually is, additionally, the average pay for a deployed soldier is tricky, and most attempts at it are higher than reported on the graphic. The bigger issue is that it gives a terribly wrong impression that these can in any way balance out. There are around 42million seniors, and 11,000 deployed service members in Afghanistan, compare that to the 600ish people who draw a congressional or presidential pension and it doesn't matter. If you took that pay, and you redistributed to the 42 million people it would give them each a raise of $0.91. In terms of using it to "fix" the budget, it accounts for 0.00095% of the annual budget, and 0.0055% of the national deficit. Basically it's an empty argument that does nothing to address the problems of budgets, or benefits. Quite simply it doesn't matter. Not to mention that it also gives the impression that every member of congress gets this amount for life the second they step down. Like all retirement plans, it's something you get when you are of retirement age, and it depends on how long you served as to the amount you get.
The reason I have a problem with this is a few, first it gives the impression that there is just this easy fix where you do this one thing and you can clap your hands and be done. It's not that simple. We have a $4 Trillion budget. That's a number so high that people really can't fathom it. Further, we have a $666 Billion deficit. Again, a number so high that people really can conceptualize it. If you want to make changes it's going to take work, compromise, and some pain in either tax hikes or program cuts, or most likely both if you want a deal. Is this to say that we can't do it? No. We certainly can and I'm sure if we had two responsible parties who both operated in good faith then we could find a workable deal. However, we don't, and instead have Republicans who want to destroy the federal government (and I don't say that hyperbolically, they literally think none of the social programs passed since Roosevelt are legitimate and should be ended).
The other beef I have with the graphic is that it is a swipe at our federal workers, and it delegitimize their efforts in the minds of the electorate. It gives this idea that they are something that we aren't, that politicians are other, that they are corrupt, and they are feeding off us. Recently my representative, John Dingell, retired after serving in the House for 60 years! He deserves a pension just as much as anyone else who served at a corporation for that long. He also is a citizen from Michigan who worked hard and did the best for his district. These sort of graphics and arguments surplants the idea that WE are our government, and instead posits that the government is something else, that does its own thing for its own interest. It's a cynical view, and it's damaging our country because it makes people apathetic and think that their involvement doesn't matter and is unnecessary. Such an outlook is dangerous for a republic, and we have seen them fall over the centuries.
In the end after confirming my facts and working on a response for probably the better part of an hour, I decided that it wasn't worth it to comment on. We are to the point that people expect to post any nonsense and not have any resistance to it because i
t's their opinion. It would be more trouble than it was worth with those involved, so after writing
all the reasons that they were wrong, I deleted it. It
still bothered me, but I wrote a blog instead, that no one will read, and that won't matter.
Picture(s) of the Day:
Picture 33

Have I ever mentioned that I hate this book? Like, everyone thinks it's this great book, and I think it's a shitty book with terrible lessons. The boy is an asshole, and the tree gives up everything about itself to try and make it happen. Then the boy only ever gives a fuck when he's an old piece of shit and needs to sit on what's left of the tree. Fuck that little boy.