You are right, Tony. One problem is that individuals, if asked, will
say that they are prepared to sacrifice. But the groups to which they belong often owe their existence to resisting sacrifice and claiming more for themselves. We most of all need truth-telling leaders who will stop watching polls and get down to serious, responsible governance. The Tea Party and Occupy movements, though greatly different, owe their existence to the fact that citizens are taking matters into their own hands in their frustration at leaders' cowardice.

Dr. Robinson--
I agree with you about most of your concepts in your article. First, we are not being asked to sacrifice while we're fighting these long-term wars. At least in my consciousness, I know they're going on (far too long), but I have no children or grandchildren overseas. Was WWII the last war people really got behind and sacrificed for? After 65+ years has our government as a whole lost its way in this respect? As for pulling us together, didn't President Johnson try to do that with his Great Society? Again, that's almost 50 years ago!

What I don't agree with you on is: "Third, the cost of Social Security and Medicare will have to be reduced. The retirement age will need to be increased, as the bi-partisan commission on the deficit recommended a year ago." Why? I understand there are a large bubble of us boomers just within 1-10 or so years of becoming eligible for these benefits. However, not all of us will have the resources to wait an extra few years, especially since we may have paid into the system for 40 or more years already. I suspect you've done well for yourself financially and this may be a moot point for you. Don't assume all of us will be so fortunate.

The last US President to use the language of sacrifice was Jimmy Carter, who called for conservation and heavy investment in alternative energy as a way of breaking free of the energy crises that the country faced in the 1970s. The program turned out to be unpopular and an object of ridicule for the Reagan campaign in 1980; since then, the Carter administration hangs over the heads of politicians as a ghostly warning. Of course, had we followed Carter's energy program, we would be in a much better position today, but we didn't and we aren't.

John Quincy Adams also brought the concept of sacrifice into his American System, a system of tariffs and internal improvements which was to development American industry. Each part of the country would have to make a sacrifice (though, admittedly, the sacrifices would have been heavier in the south and the west), but each would benefit in the long run from increased prosperity. The American System ran aground on the shoals of regionalism and partisanship.

My reading of American history indicates that Americans are willing to make shared sacrifice in pursuit of an important aim only during the most dire of circumstances, such as World War II. Otherwise, particular interests are paramount in shaping policy. The concept of shared sacrifice in the abstract is popular--it offers an escape from the highly atomized present society and a return to a (somewhat imagined) past characterized by unity of purpose. But when specific programs are discussed, the popularity of shared sacrifice quickly goes down.

I think you are quite right about this.
I do know of 2 prominent politicians who have presented honest plans with real numbers, and they are Paul Ryan and Jon Huntsman. There is plenty of room to disagree with the components of their plans, but the numbers add up.

Until there is fair sacrifice, there will never be willingness to share it.

As for Social Security and Medicare, two different problems. One is a shift of wealth from the young to the old. The other is burdened by a costly medical structure that must be reformed.

On Social Security, lift the cap, and you are done.

On Medicare, socialize the insurance part for everybody (young and healthy subsidize the old and sick), lift the restriction on negotiations for drugs and that would go a long way to fixing it.

In terms of raising the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security, Anthony Robinson needs to read the Kaiser Family Foundation report on the impact of raising the Medicare eligiblity age to 67.
http://www.kff.org/medicare/8169.cfm
The short version is it would save the federal government a modest amount of money, while significantly raising costs for everyone else, including private employers. It also would make it even more difficult for people in their 60s to keep their job or find a job. Very bad policy.
In terms of Social Security, Robinson needs to look at the data on how reliant seniors are on Social Security income, and think about what it would mean for millions of financially strapped people in their 60s to have to wait until they're 69 or 70 for full benefits, compared to 67 under current law. Robinson needs to talk to people in their 50s and 60s and see how incredibly difficult it is for people in that age range to find or keep a job with decent pay and benefits. How does he expect people to survive longer without full SS benefits?
Yes, people could still apply for early benefits, but raising the age for full benefits would sharply cut the amount of benefits they'd receive if they applied early. This is another very bad policy proposal, when there is a much better solution available -- raising the cap on income subject to the SS payroll tax.

At last Rev. Robinson reveals his true (and truly reactionary) politics:

“Even the nearly 50 percent of Americans who now pay no federal income taxes will have to pay something, and they should.” (In other words, tax the poor – those of us who are already too impoverished to afford the necessities of life.)

“Revenues will have to be raised, but not just by higher tax brackets for the wealthy...So, second, the tax code itself must be changed. It must be made more transparent and no longer function as a way of dispensing political favors.” (In other words, impose the savagely regressive Flat Tax proposed by the Republicans.)

“Third, the cost of Social Security and Medicare will have to be reduced. The retirement age will need to be increased, as the bi-partisan commission on the deficit recommended a year ago. (In other words, not only rob recipients of money we already set aside through payroll deductions, but murder us by knowingly genocidal reduction of stipends and services.)

“This combination: raising revenues, reforming the tax code, reducing entitlements will mean sacrifice for most everyone. It should. And it should be broadly and fairly shared.” (Note the classically Republican rhetoric, which in truth means continuing – as capitalism gallops toward its fulfillment in a new form of Nazism – the U.S. policy of shifting the costs of governance onto the 99 Percent, while effectively exempting the One Percent aristocracy from any meaningful contribution to the nations, communities and peoples they exploit.)

While I don't doubt Mr. Mahbubani's contention “that no U.S. political leader can or will dare tell the truth,” the ultimate taboo is against naming or criticizing capitalism.

Neither the politicians nor even We the People are allowed to truthfully define capitalism – to admit its quintessence is infinite greed elevated to ultimate virtue – and that capitalism is therefore the malicious repudiation (and often the violent overthrow) of every moral and ethical precept our species ever uttered.

Thus we are also forbidden to acknowledge the murderous reality of capitalist governance: absolute power and unlimited profit for the Ruling Class, bottomless subjugation and unrelenting poverty for all the rest of us – precisely as embodied by Rev. Robinson's proposed “sacrifice.”

Meanwhile, for the revolutionary enlightenment now provided by Occupy Wall Street and its local and global daughters, let us give thanks to the courageous activists themselves. Since this is a rebuttal to a reverend, let us give thanks also to whatever deities may (or may not) exist.

But let us give no thanks at all to the Republican god served by Rev. Robinson's program of “sacrifice for most everyone,” including the vast multitudes of us who have already been so “sacrificially” looted, we have nothing to lose but our chains.

So you endorse starting with cuts to Social Security and Medicaid over regulatory concessions and subsidies to special interests, or the ballooning defense budget, or the costs of artificial wars? You realize that while a cut might go unnoticed by some, it might drive others into homelessness, or worse. And your rationale is the character building benefits of sacrifice and poverty? Are you channeling Henry Ward Beecher this month? Before you give that “bread and water” sermon I’d ask the Discovery Institute to run it by the almighty. I don’t think he’s ever been on board for that.

Just because you don’t see anyone in your universe who is suffering I can assure you there are millions of people on the edge who are doing without just to feed themselves and keep a roof over their heads.

Or we could advocate for healthier lifestyles which would reduce the costs of old people on Medicare.

http://www.bfw.org/2011/11/02/biking-could-save-billions/

Instead of blabbing about a fictitious "war on cars."

Also "shared sacrifice" includes those multinational corporations which currently pay NO taxes.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/news/economy/corporate_taxes

As a taxpayer, I feel like I've already sacrificed a lot to fund the longest war in American history in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a military budget (including military pass throughs to our client nations like Israel and covert ops, which have an unquantifiable tax burden on US citizens) that about the same size as the combined military budgets of the other 187 nations on this planet. I propose that we the people of the United States be asked to fund a military budget based on the mean mean expenditures of the other NATO members expressed as a percentage of their GNPs. This would free up hundreds of $ billions that would be available for funding services that Americans need including Medicare, repair of our decrepit infrastructure, and some of the money could be spent to pay down the national debt. We simply can't afford to continue to be the world's policeman.

Look at the cuts in services levied the last several legislative sessions in Washington, Mr. Robinson, and look at the cuts proposed for this coming special session. As someone else said, your friendship circle apparently contains no one whose life has been and will be made almost untenable by these cuts. Get out more and you'll notice a lot of sacrifices being made by Americans who haven't "enjoyed tax cuts". Your use of the word "we" is really off the mark. This is a bifurcated society, and the "we"s who haven't experienced sacrifice are a tiny incredibly wealthy minority.

Sounds like liberal arts 'educated' BS to me.

Mr Robinson wrote 'a gutsy commencement address' [google] which involves ryan crocker, whitman college, and how the iraq/iran got started.

Segments from Peoplenomics Saturday November 5, 2011

On the Iran side of things, we notice with some concern the Russia Today that "Iran cornerstone of possible WW3 over Mid East[google]."

Meanwhile in Israel, reports in the JPost this morning are that the "US 'absolutely' concerned Israel will strike Iran[google]" and this comes while the Israeli government is trying to figure out how their "secret" plans to do so in here were "outed" all over the net.

We're trying to recover $22,036 stolen from our Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union by some of the liberal arts 'educated'.

http://www.prosefights.org/deaton/deaton.htm#titomadrid