Mar 29th 2011

Why Any Deal to Cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid Would be a Moral, Economic and Political Disaster

by Robert Creamer

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on

Friday, the Democratic group Third Way published a memo arguing that Democrats should support "entitlement reform" - by which they mean cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I don't doubt the sincerity or intentions of their proposal, but I believe that if Democrats took their advice it would result in a moral, economic and political disaster.
Here's why:

The immorality of "entitlement reform." The very idea that seniors on Social Security - whose average income is $18,000 a year - should be asked to tighten their belts while the Federal Government still gives huge tax breaks to millionaires and subsidies to oil companies is just plain wrong.

The principle voices for "entitlement reform" are the multi-millionaires from Wall Street who argue that we need to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits as part of a bargain to reduce the long-term federal deficit and give the "markets" confidence. Never mind that Social Security in particular does not contribute anything to the deficit and has in fact generated a
$2.6 trillion surplus that was paid for by workers and employers through Social Security taxes. Never mind that the Wall Street gang clamoring for "entitlement reform" demanded extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, subsidies for the oil companies, tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas and an end to the estate tax that only affects the sons and daughters of multi-millionaires.

Never mind that many of those who promote "entitlement reform" rake in millions from the fruits of their coupon clipping and are taxed only 15% -- while ordinary middle class people pay twice that much on income earned by actually working for a living.

Last year John Paulson
made a record $5 billion in personal income as the manager of a hedge fund. Had he somehow managed to make that astronomical sum of money laying bricks or sweeping floors, he would have paid taxes at a rate of 35% on the bulk of his income. Instead, he paid at a rate of only 15%, since he earned his money by speculating as a hedge fund manager instead of making a useful good or service.

The average Social Security benefit paid to a retiree is $14,000 per year. John Paulson - who received a multi-billion dollar tax break compared to ordinary working Americans -- made as much last year as the total paid to 357,142 average Social Security beneficiaries. And we're asking Social Security beneficiaries to "tighten their belts"? That's just plain wrong.

By the way, a Federal report issued at the end of last week found that corporations made more in profits in the last quarter of 2010 than at any other time in the history of the United States. That, of course, was far from the case for middle class incomes.

For the last twenty years, middle class incomes have stagnated at the same time all of our very considerable increase in Gross Domestic Product has gone to the top 2% of the population. Middle class people shouldn't be asked to pay to fix the fiscal mess that was caused by massive tax cuts to the rich, two Republican wars and the collapse of the financial markets caused by the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. The middle class has suffered enough from the Republican policies designed by their friends on Wall Street. Those who had the party should be asked to pay the bill. The notion that middle class people - and those who aspire to the middle class - should be asked to sacrifice while the wealthy few are getting richer and richer is simply obscene.

"Entitlement Reform" is bad economics.
The principle long-term structural problem in the U.S. economy is the demise of the middle class. Long-term economic growth requires that the incomes of ordinary Americans increase in proportion to the increased productivity of the economy. Otherwise, consumers will not have enough money to buy the goods and services produced by the economy and the result will, once again, be economic collapse. That "demand deficit" is precisely what caused the Great Recession.

Middle class wages over the last two decades did not keep pace with increases in productivity. Every dime of growth in the GDP was siphoned off to the financial sector and the wealthy. For a time, this demand deficit was filled with a credit bubble. But when that bubble ultimately burst, the house of cards came tumbling down.

Long-term economic growth requires that prosperity be widely shared. And that is not the least bit inconsistent with the need to close a long-term structural Federal deficit.
My wife, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who served on President Obama's Fiscal Commission, proposed a comprehensive plan to bring the deficit into primary balance without asking the middle class to pay by cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Instead, deficit reduction is achieved by raising taxes on the wealthy; requiring those who make their income from investments to pay the same tax rate as those who make their money by working; controlling the costs of health care with a Public Option; requiring Medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices; making modest cuts in military spending; and eliminating many tax expenditures to special interests such as subsidies to the big oil companies.

More recently she has also proposed creating new tax rates for millionaires and billionaires. At the moment the top tax rate is for all income above $375,000. The tax code currently makes no distinction between upper middle class and our nation's economic royalty that makes millions. Jan's proposal would create five new brackets beginning at one million and topping out at a billion.

If it were implemented this year, it would raise $78 billion - more than the $61 billion reduction sought by the Republicans. And it would do this while assuring that the highest rate (for billionaires) is still below the highest tax rate under Ronald Reagan.

Those who wring their hands about the long-term budget deficit act as if the deficit problem is intractable, and conveniently forget that only a decade ago President Clinton left office with federal surpluses as far as the eye could see. Those surpluses were squandered away by George Bush and the Republicans on two wars, and tax breaks for the wealthy.

The question is not
how to reduce the deficit, it is who pays to reduce the deficit.
And the "who pays" question is not just a question of morality, it is a question of economics. Economic inequality in the United States is higher today than at any time since 1928 - before the last great economic collapse. The last thing our economy needs is a "deficit deal" that shifts even more income and buying power away from ordinary middle class Americans and into the hands of the wealthy. That would be a formula for economic stagnation and decline. And that would be precisely the effect of cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits.
From an economic point of view, the facts are clear. We can cut the Federal budget deficit without increasing the "demand deficit" by cutting the incomes of retirees, the disabled and lower income working people.

And let's be clear, all of the proposals for "entitlement reform" would, in fact, cut the incomes of ordinary Americans. Let's look at a few:

Raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 for future retirees. This proposal would amount to an effective cut of about 20% in average Social Security benefits received by future retirees. Some people say that since life expectancy is increasing we should raise the age of retirement. That's easy to say if you're a lawyer or stock-broker - not so easy if you're a bricklayer or a maid who flips beds for a living. By the way, the numbers show that life expectancy has increased mainly for high-income people.

Privatizing Social Security. This proposal - which was soundly defeated when George Bush proposed it in 2005 - has been resurrected by the Republicans. It would destroy Social Security as we know it and replace it with a risky investment scheme that turned over the Social Security Trust Fund to Wall Street. Of course getting their hands on the Social Security Trust fund is the major reasons why "privatization" is promoted by the same "masters of the universe" whose reckless speculation collapsed the economy and cost 8 million Americans their jobs. It would trade the guaranteed benefit of Social Security for a bet on the stock market. If you happened to retire when the stock market lost 45% as it did in 2008, you're just out of luck.

Replacing Medicare with a "voucher" system. This is one of the major elements of Republican Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's "Road Map." The idea here is to give seniors a fixed value voucher and tell them to go shop the private insurance market. If private insurance companies raised rates, then seniors would have to come up with the difference. Instead of being a health insurance plan that seniors can count on to cover their needs like Medicare, it would become a "defined contribution" plan where the Medicare Trust fund would make a fixed contribution to your health insurance costs without any guarantee that you could find a plan comparable to traditional Medicare.

This proposal is supposed to be a way to "control" health care costs. Of course it does nothing of the sort. Instead, it controls federal expenditures on health care by shifting increases in costs to seniors. This is not cost control - it is cost shifting. In fact, it would increase overall expenditures on health care in the economy by replacing the most efficient insurance system in existence - traditional Medicare - with private insurance companies that have massively higher administrative costs - plus take a profit. And we're not talking about small differences in overhead. Medicare spends about 2% of every health care dollar on administration. Private insurers spend from 15% to 30% -- or more - of every dollar on administration and other non-medical costs like marketing and profit.

In fact, a
General Accounting Office report found that in 2006, Medicare Advantage plans - the part of Medicare that already involves private insurance plans -- spent only 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits. That's 16.7 percent administrative share compared to 2% for the traditional Medicare that does not involve private insurance companies.

The bottom line is simple: replacing Medicare with vouchers for private insurance would shift costs to seniors and increase overall costs by allowing private insurance companies to take a chunk of every dollar without adding any value whatsoever.

Turning Medicaid into a block grant to the states. In this case, the plan would be to control federal outlays on health care for low-income Americans - and nursing homes for the seniors and disabled -- by shifting the burden to the states. The states could then either ante up more cash when health care costs rose - or they could simply cut benefits and shift costs to low-income working people. If the states came up with the additional money, a higher percentage would be coming from middle class Americans, since most state tax systems rely on sources that are less progressive than the Federal income tax. If they chose to simply cut benefits, the burden would also fall squarely on ordinary Americans.

A group that would be especially hard hit would be middle class seniors who need nursing home care, since a third of Medicaid dollars goes to pay for long-term care. Much of that burden would ultimately fall on their children and families, who would be forced to come up with the money or watch their loved one be thrown out of the nursing home.

And once again, the plan to turn Medicaid into a block grant would do absolutely nothing to control health care costs. It would only shift those costs to everyday Americans and go a long way to undo the expansion of coverage to millions under the new Affordable Care Act.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are three crucial progressive achievements that have marked major mileposts along America's journey to realize our core values. Democrats have to be clear: we won't go back.

"Entitlement Reform" would spell political disaster for Democrats
. The Third Way memo argues that next year's election will be about "deficits." That's just non-sense.

First, a recent CBS News poll found that 51% of Americans say the economy and jobs are the most important problem facing our country today - but just 7% cited the budget deficit.
But more fundamentally, elections are never "about issues." Swing voters make their decisions based on their evaluations of the qualities of the competing candidates. People vote about whether a candidate is on their side, strongly committed to core values, a strong effective leader, self-confident, respectful - whether she or he inspires them.

Issues often become symbols in the voters' minds of whether a candidate is "on their side" or "a strong effective leader." But elections are never "about" an issue. They are about candidates.

Last year Democrats were thrown out of office because people were sick of an economy that had become worse and worse for them. As a consequence, many swing voters decided that Democrats weren't on their side. If the economy had been roaring back from recession, they would have voted differently. Their positions on deficits, or Federal spending, would have made very little difference because they are abstractions that have no direct, palpable impact on individual voters or their families.

On the other hand if a voter becomes convinced that a candidate actually intends to take something away that they value - to cut their Social Security or Medicare benefits, for instance - they will decide in a nano-second that the candidate advocating that position is not on their side. That is particularly true because most Americans believe that they are owed their Social Security and Medicare benefits since they have paid throughout their working lives into Social Security and Medicare. Voters don't view Social Security and Medicare just as "government programs." They view them as "insurance programs." Americans believe they deserve Social Security and Medicare benefits just as they would the benefits owed under any other insurance contract.

The notion that independent voters will some how be swayed by an abstraction like a "deficit deal" is a fantasy that must have been dreamed up by folks who spend all of their time talking to other policy wonks inside the beltway - certainly not someone who has experience with real world electoral politics.

The Third Way memo argues that seniors rarely break for Democrats anyway. Precisely. President Obama won in 2008 while losing seniors by eight points. Last fall, Democrats lost seniors by 21 points. The President can win re-election while losing seniors by 8 points - but not by 21. The election passes through states with old populations - like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida.

A decent chunk of seniors who voted against Democrats last year have to be convinced that Democratic candidates are on their side in 2012, or Democrats are toast. If they see Democrats bargain away their Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits - or those of their kids - they won't vote Democratic in November of 2012. It's that simple.
The polling shows clearly that the voters oppose cuts in in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

The public
opposes cutting Social Security benefits by 70% to 80%.

Two-thirds of likely voters oppose raising the retirement age.

Up to two-thirds support making the Social Security Trust fund solvent for generations by raising the payroll tax to cover income above $107,000 a year.

A memo last week from Democracy Corps summarized the findings of a survey they conducted in 50 of the most competitive Republican-held Congressional districts - nearly all of which gave a majority to Obama in the last presidential election.

In November, Republicans won these districts by 11 points. Now, as they've got to know them in practice, their lead has shrunk to two - a loss of 9 points.

Under 40 percent of the electorate in these districts sees their incumbents as "on their side."
Democracy Corps reports, the more these voters learn of the Republican budget in a balanced debate, the less they like it. Just 46 percent of voters in these Republican districts support the GOP plan to cut $61 billion, and by 48 to 40 percent, voters there say they are less likely to support the incumbent if the incumbent backs the Tea Party agenda.

Another poll found that 37% of Americans agreed with Democrats' approach to cutting spending as opposed to 25% for Republicans.

One of the reasons is that as Americans have begun to look at Republican budget proposals up close - in the concrete, not the abstract. They don't like what they see. That's especially true when they hear that Republicans want to cut things that are important to them, at the same time they give tax cuts to the rich, or subsidies to oil companies. To voters this means that the problem isn't that we're "broke" - as House Speaker Boehner claims - but rather that the Republicans give priority to the wealthy and big corporations instead of their needs.

Contrary to much inside-the-beltway opinion, a recent
NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that a 51% to 46% majority says the government should do more, rather than less.

It found that by 54% to 18%, Americans do not believe that cuts in Medicare are necessary to reduce the deficit. Forty-nine to twenty-two percent say cuts in Social Security are not needed. Fifty-six percent say cuts in Headstart programs are "mostly" or "totally unacceptable."

Seventy-seven percent say the same of cuts in primary and secondary education. Majorities also call unacceptable cuts to defense, unemployment insurance, student loans, and heating assistance to low-income families.

On the other hand, while Republicans rail against increases in taxes - even for the rich -- a whopping 81% favor placing a surtax on people who make more than a million dollars. Sixty-eight percent want to end the Bush tax cuts on those who make over $250,000.
Many "deficit hawks" argue that we have to "get real" and "make the tough choices" to balance the budget. How about we really get real and deal with the deficit using the approaches supported by the American people: increasing taxes on millionaires, or cutting tax subsidies to special interests like oil companies - not by cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

Fortunately, a lot of major Democrats get the picture. Today, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid will hold a "Back Off Social Security" event at the Capitol with senior groups and a large group of his colleagues.

They realize that any long term "deal" with Republicans over entitlements this year would inevitably erode Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits because it must pass a House that is now dominated by the Tea Party. That is simply unacceptable.
Democratic acquiescence to any deal that cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would be a moral, economic and political disaster.

The Democratic message on entitlements should be simple and clear: to paraphrase the late Charlton Heston - you will have to take cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits out of our cold, dead hands.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Mar 16th 2023
EXTRACT: "Putin is desperate for a ceasefire, but he does not want to admit it. Chinese President Xi Jinping is in the same boat. But US President Joe Biden is unlikely to jump at this seeming opportunity to negotiate a ceasefire, because he has pledged that the US will not negotiate behind Zelensky’s back. -- The countries of the former Soviet empire, eager to assert their independence, can hardly wait for the Russian army to be crushed in Ukraine. At that point, Putin’s dream of a renewed Russian empire will disintegrate and cease to pose a threat to Europe. -- The defeat of Russian imperialism will have far-reaching consequences for the rest of the world. It will bring huge relief to open societies and create tremendous problems for closed ones."
Mar 15th 2023
EXTRACT: "Fifty years ago, a war broke out in the Middle East which resulted in a global oil embargo.... " ---- " Many historical accounts suggest the decade of global inflation and recession that characterises the 1970s stemmed from this “oil shock”. But this narrative is misleading – and half a century later, in the midst of strikingly similar global conditions, needs revisiting." ----- "In early 2023, the global financial picture feels disconcertingly similar to 50 years ago. Inflation and the cost of living have both risen steeply, and a war and related energy supply problems have been widely labelled as a key reason for this pain." ---- "In their public statements, central bank leaders have blamed this on a long (and movable) list of factors – most prominently, Vladimir Putin’s decision to send Russian troops to fight against Ukrainian armed forces. Anything, indeed, but central bank policy." ---- "Yet as Figure 1 shows, inflation had already been increasing in the US and Europe long before Putin gave the order to move his troops across the border – indeed, as far back as 2020."
Mar 7th 2023
EXTRACT: "The United States is in the midst of a book-banning frenzy. According to PEN America, 1,648 books were prohibited in public schools across the country between July 2021 and June 2022. That number is expected to increase this year as conservative politicians and organizations step up efforts to censor works dealing with sexual and racial identity."
Feb 28th 2023
EXTRACT: "As was the case before World War I, it is tempting to minimize the risk of a major conflict. After all, today’s globalized, interconnected world has too much at stake to risk a seismic unraveling. That argument is painfully familiar. It is the same one made in the early twentieth century, when the first wave of globalization was at its peak. It seemed compelling to many right up to June 28, 1914."
Feb 19th 2023
EXTRACT: "Another front has opened in the global rise of populist authoritarianism. With their efforts to weaken Israel’s independent judiciary, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his corrupt coalition of Messianic fascists and ultra-Orthodox allies are determined to translate their anti-democratic rhetoric into authoritarian policy."
Feb 17th 2023
EXTRACT: "One year on from the start of a military operation that Moscow was expected to win easily, there are increasing signs of anger, frustration and resistance from ordinary Russian soldiers. These are important reminders that these men are not mindless pawns who will do Putin’s bidding under any circumstances."
Feb 16th 2023
EXTRACT: "Over the past few days, more details have emerged about the alleged Russian plot in Moldova. Apparently, well-trained and well-equipped foreign agents were meant to infiltrate the ongoing protests, then instigate and carry out violent attacks against state institutions, take hostages and replace the current government. This may seem far-fetched, but is it? Yesterday, Moldova denied entry to Serbian soccer fans who had planned to support their team, FK Partizan Belgrade, in a Europa Conference League match against the Transnistrian side Sheriff Tiraspol. ---- " ..... there is a history of Serbian football hooligans being involved in paramilitary activities, including war crimes committed by the notorious Arkan Tigers during the war in Bosnia in the early 1990s. Moreover, Russia attempted to overthrow the Montenegrin government in October 2016, just ahead of the country’s Nato accession the following year, in a plot eerily prescient of what was allegedly planned recently in Moldova.
Feb 14th 2023
EXTRACT: "As the British novelist L.P. Hartley once wrote, the past is “a foreign country: they do things differently there.” Alas, this does not mean that we necessarily do things better now. But to understand that lesson, we have to follow Santayana’s advice, and study history very carefully.."
Feb 7th 2023
EXTRACT: "Others who have left Russia include tens of thousands of the country’s excellent computer scientists, whom the armament industry desperately needs. In fact, so many Russians have emigrated to neighboring countries that Armenia expects its 2022 GDP growth to come in at a whopping 13%. Unlike oil fields, this is capital that Putin cannot nationalize or seize."
Feb 6th 2023
EXTRACTS: "Under these circumstances, Ukraine’s allies are right to scale up their military assistance, including by providing battle tanks. The goal is for Ukraine to prevail against its aggressor. But we cannot wish for that end without giving Ukraine the means to achieve it. The alternative is a prolonged war of attrition, leading to more deaths in Ukraine, greater insecurity for Europe, and continued suffering around the world (owing to Russia’s weaponization of energy and food supplies)." ---- "And make no mistake: the sanctions are working. Russian oil is selling at a $40 discount to Brent, and its daily energy revenues are expected to fall from around €800 million to €500 million after our latest measures kick in this month. The war is costing the Kremlin dearly, and these costs will only rise the longer it lasts."
Feb 6th 2023
EXTRACTS: "Brezhnev, in power from 1964 to 1982, signed the 1975 Helsinki Accords, together with the United States, Canada, and most of Europe. Eager for formal recognition of its borders at the time, the USSR under Brezhnev, together with its satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe, underestimated the potential impact of the Accords. That is probably why it agreed to include commitments to respect human rights, including freedom of information and movement, in the agreement’s Final Act." --- "Putin’s regime is turning its back on the legacy of Soviet dissent. Worse, it is replicating the despotic practices of Brezhnev and Soviet totalitarianism. If it continues on this path, it risks ending up in the same place."
Feb 5th 2023
EXTRACT: "....when countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and, above all, China flagrantly violate their citizens’ human rights, liberal democracies must unite to constrain their behavior. Ultimately, it is up to those of us who believe in the universality of human rights to expose crimes against humanity and to uphold liberal-democratic values in the face of authoritarian threats" --- "....liberal democracies have a shared responsibility to support the Ukrainians fighting to defend their homeland and to protect their rights to self-determination and statehood in the face of Russian aggression."
Jan 14th 2023
EXTRACT: "On balance, then, the events in and around Soledar over the past week illustrate that no matter the outcome of the current fighting, this is not a turning point. It’s another strong indication that the war is likely going to be long and costly."
Jan 14th 2023
EXTRACTS: "Russian President Vladimir Putin has long regarded the collapse of the Soviet Union as a “geopolitical catastrophe.” The invasion of Ukraine, now approaching its one-year anniversary, could be seen as the culmination of his years-long quest to restore the Soviet empire. ..... "With Russia’s economy straining under Western sanctions, some of the country’s leading economists and mathematicians are advocating a return to the days of five-year plans and quantitative production targets." .... "The logical endpoint of a planned economy today is the same as it was then: mass expropriation. Stalin’s collectivization of Soviet agriculture in the late 1920s and early 1930s led to millions of deaths, and the post-communist 'shock therapy' of privatization resulted in the proliferation of 'raiders' and the creation of a new class of oligarchs. Now, enthralled by imperial nostalgia, Russia may be about to embark on a new violent wave of expropriation and redistribution."
Jan 11th 2023
EXTRACT: "These developments suggest that Indian economist Amartya Sen was correct when he famously argued in 1983 that famines are caused not only by a shortage of food but also by a lack of information and political accountability. For example, the Bengal famine of 1943, India’s worst, happened under imperial British rule. After India gained independence, the country’s free press and democratic government, while flawed, prevented similar catastrophes. Sen’s thesis has since been hailed as a ringing endorsement of democracy. While some critics have noted that elected governments can also cause considerable harm, including widespread hunger, Sen points out that no famine has 'ever taken place in a functioning democracy.' --- China’s system of one-party, and increasingly one-man, rule is couched in Communist or nationalist jargon, but is rooted in fascist theory. The German jurist Carl Schmitt, who justified Adolf Hitler’s right to wield total power, coined the term “decisionism” to describe a system in which the validity of policies and laws is not determined by their content but by an omnipotent leader’s will. In other words, Hitler’s will was the law."
Dec 29th 2022
EXTRACTS: "On August 1, 1991, a little more than three weeks before Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union, US President George H.W. Bush arrived in Kyiv to discourage Ukrainians from doing it. In his notorious 'Chicken Kiev' speech in the Ukrainian parliament, Bush lectured the stunned MPs that independence was a recipe for 'suicidal nationalism', 'ethnic hatred', and 'Local despotism.' ----- ....the West’s reluctance to respect Ukraine’s desire for sovereignty was a bad omen, revealing a mindset among US and European leaders that paved the way to Russia’s full-scale invasion in February. ----- .... Western observers, ranging from Noam Chomsky to Henry Kissinger, blame the West for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade, or have urged Western leaders to provide Putin a diplomatic off-ramp by compelling Ukraine to give up territory. Policymakers, too, seem to view Ukraine’s self-defense as a bigger problem than Russia’s genocidal aggression. ----- ..... despite the massive material and military support the West has provided to Ukraine, the fateful logic of appeasement lingers, because many Western leaders fear the consequences of Russia’s defeat more than the prospect of a defeated Ukraine. ----- This war is about the survival of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. In the words of the Israeli leader Golda Meir, born in Kyiv, 'They say we must be dead. And we say we want to be alive. Between life and death, I don’t know of a compromise.' "
Dec 29th 2022
EXTRACT: "China’s flexible, blended, increasingly dynamic private sector could do all that and more. ----- Then came Xi Jinping. "
Dec 29th 2022
EXTRACTS: "For a few years in the late 2010s, it seemed to be only a matter of time before China would replace the US as the world’s largest economy and overwhelmingly dominant technological superpower. Then came the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019. " ---- "How could China’s seemingly all-powerful autocrat understand so little about the social contract on which his power rests? For all its difficulties, liberal democracy – with its transparency and self-imposed limits – has once again proved more efficient and resilient than autocracy. Accountability to the people and the rule of law is not a weakness; it is a decisive source of strength. Where Xi sees a cacophony of clashing opinions and subversive free expression, the West sees a flexible and self-correcting form of collective intelligence. The results speak for themselves."
Dec 12th 2022
EXTRACTS: "Next time you’re in Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, don’t bother looking for Dostoevsky Street. It’s been renamed: it’s now Andy Warhol Street. ..... because many Ukrainians regard Andy as Ukrainian. Was he? The evidence is mixed." ---- "Warhol remained a committed Greek Catholic all his life. He regularly prayed, both at home and in church, and frequently attended Sunday Mass. His bedside table contained a crucifix, a Christ statuette, and a prayer book. After he died on February 22, 1987, he was buried in St. John the Divine Byzantine Catholic Cemetery, some twenty miles south of Pittsburgh, in a simple grave next to his parents." ---- "When it comes to objective cultural affiliation or subjective ethnic identification, the United States—with its diverse Slavic heritages—has the greatest claim on Warhol and his art."
Dec 12th 2022
EXTRACT: "Cellular agriculture provides an alternative, and could be one of this century’s most promising technological advancements. Sometimes called “lab-grown food”, the process involves growing animal products from real animal cells, rather than growing actual animals. If growing meat or milk from animal cells sounds strange or icky to you, let’s put this into perspective. Imagine a brewery or cheese factory: a sterile facility filled with metal vats, producing large volumes of beer or cheese, and using a variety of technologies to mix, ferment, clean and monitor the process. Swap the barley or milk for animal cells and this same facility becomes a sustainable and efficient producer of dairy or meat products."