What Congress first needs to do is agree that Social Security is here to stay, notwithstanding the rants of those who call it creeping socialism or the greed of a financial system that would love to see all those trillions invested in the stock market.Personally I'm not aware of anyone (that doesn't fear black helicopters) "ranting" that "all" Social Security funds should be in the stock market. At most some people reasonably, calmly, and persuasively argue that younger people should be able to invest a portion of their Social Security contributions in the stock market (see below to see who else once thought this was a good, smart idea!). And it's not "creeping socialism" - it's an aspect of outright socialism - taking your money away after you earn it and then doling it back to you as the government sees fit. And I guess they think that investing trillions in the stock market is a bad thing - I guess all those businesses couldn't use a shot of capital to expand and hire, that money is better off filtered through layer after layer of bureaucracy before being spent or thrown into shovel ready holes in the ground. Anyway, you probably know where this is going...RESEARCH PROJECT! Let's go back through a number of years of editorials to see what the Times Union once said about Social Security.
Dec. 14, 1996: With Social Security facing bankruptcy by the year 2030, there's no time for Congress to lose in findings ways to rescue it...Yet whatever package is agreed on, private investment should be part of it.
***Interesting. One might even say conservative.
Jan. 19, 2001: Last week's gyrations on Wall Street -- including a surprise interest rate cut by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan -- should come as a sober reminder that any plan to privatize Social Security must account for the up-and-down reality of the market. President-elect George Bush, who made Social Security privatization a key part of his campaign, must provide details on how such a plan would work in times of a sustained down-slide...Allowing individual workers to set their own stock course, even with the help of government-approved plans, is another, riskier approach. Mr. Bush should take a long look at which approach he favors -- and at what risk to the investor.
***And as the wind (and political party of the President) turns, so turns the opinion of those not tasked with actually leading, just criticizing. In case it's not clear how 'on board' they are with privatization, the headline of the editorial is "Think hard before privatizing Social Security" as in, 'don't even think it'.
May 21, 2001: ...the need to shore up Social Security and Medicare remains imperative.
[humorous aside: Aug 2001 during the Clinton recession the editors had this to say: The point isn't to wish against better times, obviously, or to begrudge Mr. Bush the credit that would deservedly come with them.
***Good thing the liberal press didn't "begrudge Mr. Bush the credit" for the record-setting stretch of job and GDP growth that was triggered following his steps to deal with the Clinton recession, 9-11 attack, and accounting scandals - whew! Imagine if they hadn't lavished all that praise on him for that?]
Sep. 3, 2001: Is it really advisable to privatize Social Security, when that will mean draining the system of payroll taxes at the very time the surplus is being diverted to other uses?
***Reading these old editorials - not just the SS stuff - it's interesting to note how much more liberal the paper, and all the news media, really, has gotten in the past decade. For example, this: And perhaps the most difficult question of all: Should the minimum wage be raised as a way of stimulating the economy, or would that lead to more joblessness, as opponents have argued in the past?
***Can you even imagine them considering an argument that higher minimum wages laws lead to more joblessness as a serious argument today, stated without comparing the proposer to a flatearther or Holocaust denier? Yet, as recently as 2001, they were putting it forth as a reasonable argument. Of course, right next to this, as the World Trade Center still smoldered they made the completely false claim (Sep. 17): to put more money into the pockets of lower-income Americans who were left out of Mr. Bush $1.35 trillion tax cut package that was passed earlier this year.
***Needless to say it's a lie to claim anyone was left out - the tax cuts applied to each and every tax bracket, no one was "left out" except, of course, those with no income. Question: Did the 9-11 attacks turn the media ultra-liberal from left-leaning or liberal?
Dec. 17, 2001: The dilemma is that without structural reform -- and, realistically, that means some kind of privatization -- the Social Security system will be running in the red by 2016.
Jul. 22, 2002: Look how they manage to ignore their own previous 'advice' while talking about "politicians in Washington" - They are also hitting home with politicians in Washington who only two years ago were touting the stock market as a good way to rescue Social Security from fiscal collapse once baby boomers begin to retire in droves. Nowadays, they are mostly silent...Back then, the idea of a young worker investing some of his or her Social Security taxes into individual investment accounts seemed well advised...For those reasons, many congressional Democrats sided with Republicans on privatization.
Feb. 13, 2003: Perhaps most important, Mr. Greenspan warned that accumulating budget deficits could spiral out of control at the very time when millions of baby boomers will be retiring and drawing on Social Security and Medicare entitlement programs. The warning sharply contrasts with the Bush administration's argument that by enacting a new round of tax cuts now, the economy will grow and the deficits will be contained.
***Guess you picked the wrong horse to back, didn't you, guys?
Feb. 27, 2004: Just four years ago, Social Security solvency seemed assured in an era of federal budget surpluses. While there are many reasons why the budget has slipped back into the red, including the recession and the war on terrorism, there's no denying that the Bush tax cuts are a major factor as well.
***An "era of federal budget surpluses"? Since when is like 18 months an "era"? Oh, and yeah, I'd like to argue that the tax cuts aren't a major factor since revenues went up.
Apr. 5, 2004: It was a good choice. Mr. Moynihan joined with Sen. Bob Dole, a Republican, to write what was clinically referred to as Public Law 98-31, which Mr. Reagan signed in 1983. Largely as a result of that law, Social Security is now expected to fully fund benefits for the next four decades, despite the continued raid on trust fund monies to mask gaping federal deficits.
***Yeah, not so much. they'd have been closer if they'd said 'four years'. Oh, and the phrasing is hilarious...Check it out: "The politician clinically referred to as Mr. Moynihan joined with the Senator clinically referred to as Bob Dole, clinically referred to as a Republican, to write what was clinically referred to as Public Law 98-31, which the President clinically referred to as Mr. Reagan signed in the year clinically referred to as 1983." :P
Jul. 31, 2004: Jobs are essential, education is invaluable and Social Security must not be turned over to private hands. It all makes for an agenda, promising if a bit vague, that's hard to quibble with...
Sep. 2, 2004: In truth, the time to address Social Security and Medicare solvency was four years ago, when the nation was anticipating budget surpluses for years to come. That was the perfect opportunity to assure that some of these surplus dollars would go to the Social Security trust fund...
***Yes, the "perfect opportunity" was before we knew we were about to have a recession and suffer a major economic setback due to a terrorist attack - how foolish for failing to act when we still wore rose colored glasses, because if we did it then, before we knew the fit would hit the shan, it would be fine, unlike doing it after the fit is being flung on the walls.
Sep. 4, 2004 (in full attack mode prior to the 2004 presidential election): The combination of rising spending and decreasing tax revenue is troubling enough. But Mr. Bush continues to promote a plan to privatize Social Security that, if enacted, would only compound the problem.
***Good thing we don't have to worry about rising spending and decreasing tax revenue now with a Democrat president! Phew!
[Aside: Sep. 2004: What's more, there was no war on terror in the Reagan years, and no huge expenditures for occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Today, those two battlefronts are a major expense and may continue to cost billions for years to come.
***Jes'you nemmind that little "Cold War" thingamajig, m'kay. Oh, and this part should make you shoot milk out your nose: The latest deficit report by the Congressional Budget Office defies any attempt to put a positive spin on the numbers. Not that members of the Bush administration didn't try on Wednesday, even after the CBO concluded that it would be next to impossible for President Bush to meet his goal of cutting the deficit by half within five years. But it does no good to deny reality. The numbers are bad, and growing worse.
***The numbers were just so awfully bad that Bush and the Republicans had to go on and cut the deficit in half in LESS than 5 years ;) ]
Oct. 18, 2004: Kerry talked about Social Security first from the pulpit of the Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio.
***Good thing Democrats don't mix church and state or use churches to hold campaign events ;)
Oct. 21, 2004: Mr. Kerry's concern is the fate of Social Security under a president who's on record as favoring its partial privatization.
***You mean like the Times Union editorial staff?
Dec. 5, 2004: Mr. Bush might have a better case for this approach if he hadn't squandered the Clinton-era budget surpluses by pushing for a 10-year $1.2 trillion tax cut, much of which will benefit the upper economic classes. Then there's Congress, which looked the other way when Social Security trust fund money was used to mask the size of one budget deficit after another, dating back to the Reagan era.
***Do they simply have no conscience to say things like this? When did the GOP enact the tax cuts? When the economy was slipping in recession, making any such "surpluses" illusory. Not to mention the fact that this was written in 2004 with the ample hindsight available to view 9-11 and the accounting scandals and yet they still claim that the economy would have survived the 9-11 attacks, a recession, and the accounting disaster and the government would have kept running surpluses? The level of dishonesty is truly staggering, to ignore reality is such a way as to make such a claim. Boy, Bush really shouldn't have triggered a recession, caused the 9-11 attacks, and made all those companies get screwed by accounting firms during the Clinton years (instead of prosecuting them). This is like saying the Democrats squandered the decreasing deficits of Bush and the GOP Congresses - after all, the deficits were on a declining path and would have soon turned to surpluses if the Democrats hadn't "squandered" what the GOP had done, right? And, again, we'll point out the fact that revenues went up to record levels.
Jan. 1, 2005: It's privatizing Social Security that Mr. Bush is so willing to turn into a political crusade. Iraq is argued at a lower volume, even as the death toll mounts.
***What if I said: "It's passing socialized health care that Mr. Obama is so willing to turn into a political crusade. Afghanistan is argued at a lower volume, even as the death toll mounts." Shoe, meet other foot.
Jan. 27, 2005: There's a problem with Social Security that must be addressed sooner rather than later, President Bush declared at his news conference on Wednesday. "The math shows there's a problem." If only he was as perceptive, and as adamant, about the national deficit and the clear and present danger it poses.
***If only the Times Union were as willing to face reality as President Bush.
Mr. Bush must bear most of the blame for the tax cuts, which he continues to defend as necessary to revive the economy. Yet there are no encouraging signs that such a robust recovery is taking place.
***Yeah, I imagine those signs were completely missing where the liberal press was looking, namely their own posteriors. And how far, now that a Republican president is calling for it, have the Times Union editors moved away from embracing partial privatization? Now the idea is "troubling": Just as troubling is Mr. Bush's attempt to build public support for a plan to partially privatize Social Security...
Jan. 30, 2005: There are many other approaches, to be sure. One would be to raise the payroll tax by 1 percent for workers and employers - thereby ensuring solvency until 2075...There is no imminent crisis and to rush to a solution - a single-minded one - would serve no one's best interests. But that doesn't mean there's no problem with Social Security. Wouldn't it be refreshing to deal with it now, rather than in a crisis mode?
***But didn't the Democrats and Obama just lower SS taxes? Funny, eh? Oh, and this is only a handful of years ago...surprise! Heeeeeeere's imminent! Welcome to crisis mode! Too bad the Times Union was against Bush's plans to "deal with it now" instead of now that we ARE at crisis mode.
Oct. 29, 2006: While many young workers might put their Social Security contributions into a private retirement fund, the fact is that many would not, leaving them impoverished in their retirement years and in need of welfare. But it is good to hear a Republican candidate who refuses to join the immigrant-bashing bandwagon, yet another example of how a congressional campaign can be about issues rather than smears.
***Too bad the press can't be about issues instead of smears. And too bad this has nothing to do with an argument anybody is reasonably making - namely allowing them to direct part of their forced paycheck withdrawals to the stock or bond markets instead of a nonexistent "lockbox", aka Congress' checkbook. No one's saying to just end Social Security. Say hello to everybody, Mr. Strawman.
Sep. 30, 2007: That was the perfect time for Mr. Greenspan to propose that some of the surplus dollars be used to replenish the Social Security trust fund, which had been squandered by previous administrations, and compliant Congresses, to pay for irresponsible spending and to mask the true size of budget deficits.
***See, now I believe that if you're going to write about politics and the government you should have an inkling as to how it works...for we all know, well some of us, that it is CONGRESS that writes budgets and only "compliant" administrations go along. Ass. Backwards. Good thing there's no "irresponsible spending" going on under Obama!
And then: As the White House began to turn those surpluses into deficits, Mr. Bush put forth a plan to restructure Social Security by, essentially, privatizing it for future generations. And Mr. Greenspan's position? He focused on the future costs of Social Security and Medicare, while remaining silent on Mr. Bush's reckless economic policies.
***Ah, now partial privatization has fully morphed into "reckless" behavior! My, my, how "reckless" of the Times Union to promote such a thing! Oh, yeah, again Mr. Bush is scolded for Clinton's recession, the 9-11 attacks, and the accounting scandals under Clinton's regulatory system. What Bush should have done during a recession, after a massive terrorist attack on our nation's financial center, and when consumer confidence in businesses is an extremely low ebb was MASSIVELY HIKE TAXES to make up for lost government revenue. It was the right thing to do.
Jan. 18, 2009: We are no closer, for example, to ensuring the long-term health of Social Security or Medicare than when he took office. At least Mr. Bush did not succeed in his plan to uproot Social Security and, in the name of privatization, replant it on Wall Street.
***'Whew! Well at least he didn't get through the stuff we were supporting before he was for it!'
Oct. 17, 2010: It was only a few years ago that Mr. Diamond was able to show Social Security could be kept solvent without such radical changes as allowing Americans to invest their contributions in the stock market.
***Funny, it was only a few years ago that the Times Union was proposing "radical changes as allowing" partial privatization ;)
***********
I want to make two points. First, I will credit the Times Union for, as far back as I reached, acknowledging that there were looming Social Security problems, although, like even the open-minded parts of the left, they thought it was still far off. Still, they admitted it existed. However, never ONCE did I find them criticizing the Democrats that have, for decades, preached (lied) to America saying that Social Security was fine, there was no crisis, the GOP was trying to "scare" people by saying there was a crisis. I could find no example of the TU calling them out for their deception. It was as recent as last year that the Democrat's Senate majority leader Harry Reid was claiming: "It’s only a program in crisis for those who want to privatize it." And the Times Union stayed silent. That's bogus.
Second, the way the Times Union disingenuously supported partial privatization when Clinton was in the White House and then turned (and then turned vicious) against it when it was Republican Bush that was pushing for it was completely beyond the pale, particularly when coupled with the claims that Bush was responsible for failing to keep surpluses going that were already gone by the time he signed his first budget and in the face of a recession and the 9-11 attacks. That's extraordinarily bogus, bush league, and pathetic.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment