Yes, it is true, and not only with entitlements: anyone demanding spending is obliged to specify accurately and honestly how it will or would be paid for. What taxes, and (increased by) how much? Without the (increases in) taxes, the spending shouldn’t happen!

Then there’s the bigger picture, that Z5 understands but only is hinting at here: Why should “seniors” be sacred cows, as so many things are (as well as entitlements and other spending, and including the military if you observe the GOP, for example)? There is no sacredness to entitlements (despite what Bill Clinton said during his 1992 campaign, something disgusting that I had successfully predicted, or what Pelosi, Reid, and Obama did so pathetically and annoyingly recently).

Nor is the elderly sacred, any more than children are. And note the conflict that has existed for a long time — the disparity between what’s spent on the elderly (our wealthiest subset of society, despite the destitution stories) versus on children. Peter Peterson, a deficit hawk (who no doubt stands to gain from being a manager in an investment firm — wants the feds to compel people to save and invest more to remedy the savings deficiency) who has written numerous books on the fiscal (and demographic) future has included illustrations showing what “we” spend on the elderly versus on children, and on the radio today there was the lightweight columnist Tom Friedman (lightweight like, say, David Brooks) who referred to “nurseries versus nursing homes” (or pre-school versus elder care) in his blather today. (He stupidly misused “invest” as liberals do when referring to spending, which quickly changed my brief positive of view of him for a short time.)

Z5, perhaps we’ll see eventual reform accelerated (due to much higher costs) when this “disparity” is corrected by (the ultimate incrementalist choice!) extending Medicare to all children as well as to the elderly (and disabled and survivors) sometime soon. (This was one excellent tactic the Dems stupidly neglected in 2009-2010. Adding children rather than the poor — incorporating Medicaid into Medicare, which incidentally would relieve states of direct expenditures that are enormous — extending senior-style Medicare to kids (and replacing S-CHIP, and giving all children benefits) would be less susceptible to being stigmatized, and so, to being resisted. Naturally the Dems misread the 2008 anti-GOP-for-being-like-Democrats vote and lunged so far left they were not only rejected and resisted but repudiated in 2010. They, as they routinely are, were so very stupid to ignore this tactic. They even could have been sleazy as they were anyway, defining “children” to be as old as age 26. [Why not "less than 35 years of age"?])

lol ,thats funnier than the cartoon!