If there were prizes given for the most one-sided, misleading story about Social Security this year, a segment aired on the CBS Evening News before Thanksgiving would make a great candidate.
In a breathless recitation of the horrors befalling the system, CBS painted a grim picture of Social Security, using scare words and phrases like “the system is headed for a crisis,” “the government is confronting a painful reality,” and “there’s no debating that we’re running out of time.” How’s that for opinion journalism on a news show?
Perhaps to substantiate the segment’s conclusions, CBS piled on quotes from those people in favor of cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age. Here was Andrew Biggs, currently a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, saying: “Americans are living longer, but they’re retiring earlier and saving less. Something in that equation has to give.” Biggs was a deputy Social Security commissioner in the Bush II administration and a Social Security analyst at the Cato Institute, which has been a leader in the efforts to privatize the system. CBS did not mention those credentials.
Dec 1, 2010
CBS Scare Tactics
From the Columbia Journalism Review:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Quote:
Here was Andrew Biggs, currently a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, saying: “Americans are living longer, but they’re retiring earlier and saving less. Something in that equation has to give.”
How do you calculate the impact of the reduced benefits that those people who retire early collect? Doesn't that equalize things? People who are retiring at 62 when they don't have to do so are leaving money in the Social Security system, aren't they? Does that then help to bolster the overall fund? Seems that this would be a good thing for the program (although not so good for the individual who is only getting 80% of his retirement pay).
Social Security is in crisis mode, if you think all federal spending considered as a whole is unsustaianable.
The trust fund balamce merely indicats the draw that the trust fund has on the Treasury's general revenues.
The benefits are no more funded than battleships.
Both depend on the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.
I have governmental links and excerpts to back these statements if anyone is interested. These excerpts give credence for the opinions stated are from parties who have done the necessary reserarch.
I am not simply mouthing what I think reality is or what I hope it could be.
When outgo exceeds income, your upkeep is your downfall.
Don Levit
Andrew Biggs is a hack. He came to SSA with one thing in mind and that was to dismantle the Agency and the programs. I wish he would go away and pursue some other line of work!
What A#1 and #2 said. And, for the last time, Social Security is not in a crisis, not hardly, not no way, nohow. Nancy Ortiz
Nancy:
Social Security is in crisis mode, if it is to be funded like a retirement/insurance plan.
It is not in crisis mode if you see it as a pay-as-you-go system, which pays for benefits just like it pays for battleships - out of current revenues and debt.
Don Levit
Don, Don, Don, you are reluctant to accept the facts of life, it seems. SSA has been a pay-as-you-go system since its inception. And yes, FDR knew this; the man wasn't dumb. At first, the annual income greatly exceeded annual benefits, but as the worker to retiree ratio changed, so did the income/outgo ratio. It wasn't and isn't and can't be a fully funded, pure "insurance" program. Unless, of course, someone invents a time machine and we go back to 1935 and start over with a vastly different concept and system.
Anonymous:
When I say pay-as-you-go, I mean it is funded from general revenues, just like battleships.
FDR's concept of pay-as-you-go was Social Security was to be self supporting, with no support from general revenues.
I guess he didn't envision the trust fund being used for current governmental expenses, so that the trust fund was an accounting mechanism, rather than a feal store of weealth.
It is merely an indication of the "draw" the trust fund has on the Treasury's general revenues (and debt) without an appropriation.
I can provide good third party governmental links and excrpts if you or anyone else is interested.
Don Levit
Ah, but Don, so what?? If the trust fund runs a surplus, then that surplus has to go somewhere. And the Treasury is the only logical/safe place for it to go. Once Treasury has it, and given the Trust Funds bonds in return, what Treasury does with the "excess cash" is up to Treasury. When the cash flow reverses and SSA has to "cash in" its bonds, Treasury has to come with the cast. If the overall gov. is running a deficit, then Treasury has to borrow to repay the bonds. It's really pretty simple, dear fellow; it's not a conspiracy. And I don't need "links," thanks, I learned all this when I was a baby budget analyst back in the 1970s.
Post a Comment