« Is This The Way You Do Your Budget? | Main | Tale from A Red State »
Journalists and Social Security
From the Office of There Ought To Be A Law
There ought to be a law that until and unless journalists can get the actual facts right on Social Security, they are cordially invited to sit down and shut up. The first invitation will be going out to Tim Russert.
From yesterday's edition of NBC News Meet The Press Russert discussing Social Security with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA):
Russert:... People, rather than spending 15 months, are going to spend 15 years.
Russert is referring to the non-factoid that because life expectancy was much lower in 1945, people only lived long enough to get 15 months worth. As Atrios explained to Big Tim over a month ago:
Um, Timmy? No. There's a difference between life expectancy at birth, and life expectancy at 65. According to the folks at the SSA, for the cohort of people who turned 65 in 1945, 53.9% of men and 60.6% of females survived from age 21-65. And, for those made it that long - survived until 65 - on average males lived until they were 77.7 and females lived until they were 79.7.
While increasing life expectancies obviously have had some impact on total social security payouts, a big chunk of the increase in life expectancy overall has been due to reductions in the mortality of children, who never pay a cent into social security anyway.
The SSA explains:
However, as Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has only increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940. So the actual increase in time that males can anticipate receiving Social Security is closer to 3 years than to 14.
Now, I can understand at the beginning of this debate, someone getting the basic facts of the situation wrong. Okay, no I can't. It's Russert's job to prepare for what is ostensibly NBC News' most important show, and I imagine he gets paid handsomely to do so. However, it is now a month later, and this subject has been discussed and dissected and it is not opinion we are talking about, but actual facts. A month later and Big Tim still doesn't have a grasp of even the most basic of facts.
Stupidity, laziness, or shill? Whatever, in any event...
There ought to be a law.
Oh, no! Not *another* one! We have way too many of 'em already!
There *Otter* be a law? (And who better to write it for a real fun departure from statutory legalese?)
Sometimes, I could almost favor prior restraint . . . or something like a spamblocker for pundits . . . filtering the garbage between their mouths and our ears!
spamblocker for pundits would silence all cable news channels between the hours of..basically all the time.
the spinnaker from NY votes aye.
Bob,
When it comes to pundits, I would be happy to vote for prior restraint, full restraint, any restraint whatsoever.
Morons, all of them.
As insubstantial and unhelpful as Russert was with interview with JK, and just about everyone else, there is almost too much written about SS to fault him entirely.
Someone needs to tell me just how much fixing now, with priorities of deficit reduction and staving off tax cuts as arguments? I understand the centrists' Sperling and Emanuel saying we have to offer something, because so much has been made of this years ago. Also, we still do have something of a tinkering problem.
Do we hang tough at waiting, insisting on rolling back tax cuts, or offering something?
Spin,
Well, at least shackles, a gag, and a Hannibal Lecter mask for Ann Coulter would be a good start . . .
~about the "right-wing" message machine..
... this is defintely worth reading...
"how they took over everything in govt."
The Right-Wing Express
By Don Hazen, AlterNet. Posted February 7, 2005.
If you want to know how the conservative message machine was built and what progressives can do to respond, just ask Rob Stein.
Consider that the conservative political movement, which now has a hammerlock on every aspect of federal government, has a media message machine fed by more than 80 large non-profit organizations – let's call them the Big 80 – funded by a gaggle of right-wing family foundations and wealthy individuals to the tune of $400 million a year.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21192/
We hang tough and insist on rolling back tax cuts.
Marjorie, the President's plan has absolutely nothing to do with the solvency of Social Security. The President's Plan DOES NOTHING to deal with the porblem of the insolvency issue of social security, not to mention the fact that such and issue is fifty years hence.
The fact that we are even discussing this issue is something of an insult, as the facts so clearly support the Dem point of view. I don't meant to say that you are insulting me, not at all of course.
Here's my point. Emanuel and Sperling are completely WRONG when they say that we have to offer something. We don't have to offer a damn thing. Every available fact is on our side. This is an argument that is subject to opinion.
And that is the part that is so disturbing to me here.
They think they can go after an issue, on which, the facts do not support them. NONE of the fact support them. If they are so BLATENT as to think they can pull this off, and if they DO pull this off, what WON'T they they be able to do. What about the issues where they have only to manipulate opinion?
The reason that I say that we have to continue to hold the line and offer them NOTHING, is because NOTHING is wrong. Social Security is one HELL of alot more solvent and secure than in 1999, the last time that Bill Clinton discussed the issue. And the reason it is, is because any suggestion of the "government", not people even, but the "government" using the surplus to try their hand at a little private investing , with the SURPLUS mind you, would have turned out to be diasterous.
The system in fact, does not need tinkering. Not at this moment, though it does certainly bear monitoring, as part of the three legged stool of retirement, SSI+personal savings accounts+pension. Right now, many,many companies except the largest ones, are opting to end their pension system, and beef up 410K plans instead. So there goes one leg of the stool.
Then you kick out another leg of the stool, social security.
No the Dems do not need to offer anything other than outrage, and I will tell you what I find outrageous.
First, social security is the most successful anti-poverty program any government on the face of the earth has ever run. Anywhere, anytime.
Second, THIS IS A VALUES ISSUE, DAMMIT, and I am just beginning to get just a little bit pissed off that the Dems aren't beginning to frame it this way. This isn't about them youngin's being able to make choices with their own money. That is total and utter crap.
And I don't care if ever 18-30 year old on the face of the earth thinks that SSI will not be there for them, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE FACTS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ITSELF PUTS OUT DENY THIS POINTBLANK. (not shouting at you Marjorie, darling, never, shouting in the general direction of my Congressman's office).
Here is why it is a values issue. Social Security is a reward for a life of work. Social Security says to people, our older population who worked and struggled and raised kids, it says to them, we respect you. And to show that respect, we are going to GUARANTEE that you do not slip into poverty.
That's what Social Security is about. It supposed to say to older people, we respect you, we thank you for your life of work and service to society, and you can count on us. We will not let you sink into poverty. You were there for America, working and contibuting as a good citizen your whole life. We will be here to make sure you don't slip into poverty and can continue into your old age with respect and dignity.
That's the point of Social Security.
Of for crying out loud, I meant to say above in the mini-rant (which once again, was not directed at marjorie, the lovely poster who posed a perfectly reasonable question)the following:
This is NOT an argument that is subject to opinion. Like if X is good or bad.
The Social security argument is one that is completely FACT-BASED argument.
And that is what I find so disturbing. Okay, pick up the rant here in my post above...
An alternative Social Security Solution..
We can't just say Bush is full of crap, we have to come up with a reasonable alternative.
I read and posted this article a while back:
It is by Paul Krugman who came out with reasonable alternatives.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=10&ItemID=6823
So for starters, how about rolling back the tax custs to grow the economy, shore up Social Security, pay down the deficit and restore some sanity to funding programs for the needy.
Fixing SS is chump change compared to the deficit problem if the tax cuts are rolled back now.
[snip]
But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.
Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.
Do we hang tough at waiting, insisting on rolling back tax cuts, or offering something?
Posted by: Marjorie G at February 7, 2005 05:41 PM
~marj~
Yesterday I read somewhere (can't remember where, but I'll go back & try to search for it)...that time is on the Dems side on this...Bu$h is pushing this for immediate action, but some GOPers are wary...so they hope to force the Dems to propose "something" to "fix" SS, now that bu$h has put it out there...but the wary GOPers who face re-election in '06 know whatever is to be done, must be done this year....so the longer the Dems can stall this, possibly into next year, SS reform will be a non-issue, since SS reform in an election year is not going to be a good thing to put before the electorate.
JK on Imus program this morning said SS can be secured into the next century by rolling back 1/3 of bu$h's tax cuts for the wealthy...if the Dems continue to frame it that way, that works....that makes it a choice between "tax cuts for the rich vs. totally securing Social Sec. for all Americans"
More Krugman on the problems the British had..
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/14/opinion/edkrug.html
The costs of their plan outweighed the benefits.
---------------------------------------------
He pretty much debunks the problem and doesn't think anything needs to be done specifically for Social Security.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010305F.shtml
"We hang tough and insist on rolling back tax cuts."
Posted by: Spinnaker at February 7, 2005 06:07 PM
Spin,
Early this morning, CNN was citing either Reid or Pelosi as saying dems WILL offer a plan for SS. It surprised me, until I thought about it more.
After acknowledging that SS faces a "challenge," they can't say nothing is wrong. Sure, the problem is decades away and there is no need to rush-to-overhaul. But I think that, after their acknowledgment of the challenge, they don't see saying they will "do nothing" now as a viable option.
In fact, I think they see an advantage in addressing it now, while extending tax cuts for the wealthy is on the table. It gives them a good way to put the SS issue in context, and some leverage in taking on the tax cuts.
An unoffical Paul Krugman blog...
info and articles..
http://www.pkarchive.org/
Bush's Big Bet: Risking His Capital
By Howard Fineman
Newsweek
snip~
In fact, Bush's GOP allies are moving cautiously. They won't even try, Hill sources tell NEWSWEEK, to unify behind a particular [SS] bill until the fall—hoping to lure Democrats to make a counterproposal first. That will leave plenty of time for more talk, more campaigning
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6920457/site/newsweek/
John Edwards Works to Help Fight Poverty
By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (AP) -- Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards, getting the 2008 campaign cycle off to an early start, said Saturday that poverty "is one of the great moral issues of our time" and he pledged to help fight it.
"It may seem like an impossible task to end poverty, but that's what skeptics have always said about the great struggles we have faced," he said. "If we can put a man on the moon, cure polio, and put a library on a little chip, then we can end poverty."
The setting of Edwards' speech was as notable as its content. A visit to New Hampshire, traditionally the site of the leadoff presidential primary, is the first public sign that a politician is considering a White House bid.
[SNIP]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=20&u=/ap/20050206/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_poverty
Bob:
Just between you me and the doorknob, I think that is exactly what they are going to propose.
Rollback the tax cuts to the wealthy IS our proposal for helping social security and I think that may be the WHOLE proposal. And if that is their proposal, bravo to Harry Reid for working them into that box.
Harry Reid went ballistic on the floor of the Senate over a 13 page memo from the RNC, including a part about his family. Uh oh, bad move Bush. He called Bush OUT. Now the Senator is scheduled to be at a dinner tonight with the PResident, after calling him out on the Senate floor to repudiate the memo.
Sould be an interesting meals.
Week number 3 of getting all food at family-owned groceries
Year number 14 of boycotting television except for very special programs - I wouldn't watch Jong Il Kim if I lived in North Korea either
I found a great photo of John Kerry about to enter a French restaurant in his Carhart jacket while carrying something in a platsic bag - on Free Republic today - & have it as my screen saver. Those people don't understand irony.
& for true Kerry fans, such as Marjorie G - this will be long because I don't have a link - if I had a link I'd post the link - so enjoy!!:
IMUS: Please welcome to the program Senator John Kerry.
Good morning, Senator Kerry.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Good morning, Don. Good morning. How are you?
IMUS: I’m fine, sir. How are you?
KERRY: I’m doing great. How do you like your new studio?
IMUS: Well, it’s cleaner than—have you ever been over to Astoria?
KERRY: I’ve been to Astoria but not to the studio.
IMUS: Much cleaner.
KERRY: Well, that’s good to hear. You need clean. I gather Wyatt dressed you for the morning, from what I hear.
IMUS: I’m wearing my Mickey Mouse T-shirt. That’s in honor of—I’m a big fan of Michael Ovitz and Michael Eisner and I’m happy that that whole thing...
KERRY: You’ve made a lot of money off them in the last month.
(LAUGHTER)
I tell you, you ought to see the headline up here in Boston today. It looks like we’re going to war with, whatever it is: two-inch headline says one word, “Dynasty.”
IMUS: Pretty good game. I guess you watched it.
KERRY: Oh, yes, I watched it. It was good. You know, I thought the Eagles made it tighter than I thought. I had the Patriots by two touchdowns. So I lost the cover. I assume we won because you didn’t endorse the Patriots.
(LAUGHTER)
[Per DiAnne's request at 7:25 post, we've shortened this comment. Please see the link that is posted several times below. And do read the transcript -- it's a great interview. Thanks.]
If someone sends in the damn link then maybe someone can go shorten that.
~meanwhile, things definitely not going well in Iraq today ~
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq
Suicide Bombs Kill 27, Al Qaeda Claims Both
(Reuters) - Suicide bombers killed 27 people in attacks in two Iraqi cities on Monday in the worst violence since the country's historic election eight days ago. Al Qaeda's wing in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for both blasts and vowed further attacks on "apostates and their masters," an apparent reference to U.S.-led forces and the Iraqis who work with them. More ...
Iraq: Spinning Off Arab Terrorists? (C.S. Monitor)
Iraq Army 'Intimidated' (BBC)
- Sistani list leads in key Sunni province - AFP via Yahoo! News (Feb 7, 2005)
-
- Leading Shiite cleric says new Iraq must embrace Islamic law - at USATODAY.com (Feb 7, 2005)
- Iraq electoral commission admits ballot box irregularities - AFP via Yahoo! News (Feb 7, 2005)
- Shiites want Islamic stamp on Iraqi law - at The Daily Star (Lebanon) (Feb 7, 2005)
- 4 Egyptians Abducted and a G.I. Is Killed in Iraq - at The New York Times (reg. req'd) (Feb 7, 2005)
- Iraq Cites Voting Problems in Mosul Area - AP via Yahoo! News (Feb 7, 2005)
DiAnne,
Ron Chusid posted a link to the Imus interview on the Unofficial Kerry for President blog:
http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/kerry-on-imus.html
Ron also posted a link to another Kerry interview:
http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/another-kerry-interview.html
MSNBC link to John Kerry interview on Imus program this morning
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6928257/
The Senate leadership is considering implementation of a rarely used procedure known as the "nuclear option" to get around a potential filibuster of federal judicial appointments. This maneuver could limit Senate debate on President George W. Bush's expected nominees to the Supreme Court, and other federal courts, and silence voices of dissent.
This so called "nuclear option" will give Vice President Dick Cheney, who serves as the Senate's presiding officer, the power to declare unconstitutional the use of filibusters in judicial nominations. This rule change will allow a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than 60 votes, to affirm judges for lifetime appointments. The Senate minority - the Democrats - will not be able to filibuster Cheney's rulings under this option.
This is wrong. It is wrong to jettison a longtime Senate procedure simply because it is inconvenient to one party's goals. It is an abuse of power to strip the Senate minority of a tool designed to protect its rights - rights both parties have vociferously defended throughout the Senate's history. Sign our petition today, and let the senators know that we oppose the changing long-standing Senate rules to blatantly advance one party's goals:
Save the Integrity of the U.S. Senate
www.commoncause.org/SaveSenatesIntegrity
Here's a live link:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=317178&en=6oJJIPOkF6KCIIOjF9JLLNNjF8JLL0MDLjIIJMNoFgKVJ7K
Well, I guess we're covered for Imus!!
Those too lazy to scroll, read the link.
Those too lazy to open the link, scroll.
Anyway, as I said, I think we're covered for Imus!!
DiAnne,
Funny, coming from you, the "linkmaster" who has shared so many good links here.
But, isn't it nice to know that "We've got your back."
"LINKS? We don't need no stinkin' links!" -- DiAnne
Thanks guys - more links in the next section!!
Well, at least shackles, a gag, and a Hannibal Lecter mask for Ann Coulter would be a good start . . .
Posted by: Bob Evans at February 7, 2005 05:44 PM
Bob now that is a picture that appeals so much to me,just picturing it is a hoot
Kangaroo