Why we love him

Howard Dean, in great form at a party fund-raiser, went after Sanctimonious Rick Santorum yesterday, according to this report by Frederick Cusick, writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer today.

After reading the account, I'm going to guess a lot of funds were raised!

Thanks to The Note
for directing us to this one!

Fakery, astroturf & all that good stuff

In our increasingly unreal world of reality shows, steroid-driven sports, and Presidential “town meetings” open only to invited and screened supporters, too many things are not what they seem. Recent outbreaks of fakery have revealed the tip of what looks to be an iceberg of deception, and Americans would do well to pay close attention.

Just a couple of months back, the White House was caught having paid almost a quarter-million dollars to columnist and commentator Armstrong Williams for promoting the (still under-funded) “No Child Left Behind” program on his show and in his columns.

And then, of course, we learned about the internet-porn star turned White House “correspondent,” whose cover was blown after two years of being called upon by the President and his press secretary in briefings by a name that wasn’t his.

Last week, the Bush Administration claimed that it is perfectly okay to prepare and supply TV news shows with videos that look and sound like news segments (complete with actors portraying journalists), even though the General Accounting Office — a people’s watchdog in government — had told them it was absolutely illegal.

Part of the crime is using taxpayer (our) money to sell us on an idea or agenda, which is strictly illegal. So Mr. Bush says they’re not promoting a point of view, just presenting facts.

But another part of the illegality rests in hiding the source of the video and/or making it look like a news report. The Administration, which might easily have identified itself in the videos -- “This is the Department of Health and Human Services, and we approve this message?” — somehow failed to do so.

On the contrary, “This is Karen Ryan reporting” was the sign-off by a hired PR consultant in several videos favorable to the Bush Medicare prescription bill last year; these were prepared by the Administration and offered to TV news outlets as “news releases.”

More recently, we learned that Susan Molinari, a frequent guest on political news shows (always introduced as “former Republican Congresswoman”) is actually high up on the payroll of a Washington lobbying firm — the very same one that paid Karen Ryan and Armstrong Williams, with taxpayer (our) money!

Much more subtle is “astroturf” — in this context a word for fake grassroots organizations. According to Wikipedia, “The expression astroturfing is used pejoratively to describe formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous public reactions.” In other words, corporations or other special interest groups disguised as ordinary citizens.

Progress for America, a lobbying organization dedicated to getting rid of Social Security, is presently running ads claiming that the Democrats have “no plan for saving Social Security,” ending with an inviting scroll of the phone number to reach your representatives in Washington so you can tell them to put up or shut up. Yup. Non-partisan. Grass-roots as all get out!

Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values appeared to be a really inclusive liberal organization when it surfaced just before the presidential primaries. It actually consisted of 18 individuals, two corporations and six unions, and had one purpose: to take Howard Dean out of contention. It worked. Not surprisingly, after the primaries were over we learned that there were some Gephardt and Kerry supporters involved.

Letters “to the editor” can be another form of astroturf, a way of disseminating propaganda around the country via local newspapers. These are always from well outside the community, signed by an individual we never heard of or on behalf of some noble-sounding organization — and they rarely deal with local matters.

For example, my local paper has received at least two letters signed by one Latreece Vankinscott, Chief Operating Officer of The Heartland Institute in Chicago, in support of privatization of Social Security because, she says, it would be good for minorities. But a check of their web site reveals that this organization also supports private schools paid for with public vouchers, “market-based approaches to environmental protection,” “deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies,” and — get this — cigarette smoking!

The risk of "personal accounts"

On March 28, 2005, an email from Dow Jones's MarketWatch.com delivered this item, quoted in its entirety:

"S&P: Soc. Sec. personal accounts more risk than reward
By John Spence
BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- Personal Social Security accounts could bring more risk than reward to investors, and would shift more responsibility for saving for retirement to individuals, Standard & Poor's said Monday. "The key question is whether an individual account holder can build enough money in savings to retire comfortably while withstanding any inevitable investment risk," said David Biltzer, chairman of the index committee at S&P. Given the risks in the market, not all aggressive savers will retire with ease, S&P said."

Picky, picky

As if to confirm that the broadcast newscasters are too willing to go along uncritically with President Bush, consider the pronunciation by virtually every one of them of the word “err” as “air,” following the “trend” set by the President. My high school English teacher would be livid.

Granted that there seems to be a news need to play and replay Mr. Bush’s declaration that “we must air on the side of life,” still it would seem seemly were the announcers to declare independence at least this once and speak the speech properly when speaking for themselves.

No DeLaying the inevitable?

Folks here in Texas who have long since despaired that the rest of the country seemed not to know about this dreadful malfeasant can begin to take heart. It seems that Mr. DeLay's search for glory in the Schiavo tragedy may have backfired; it certainly brought him to national attention. Now, in The New York Times today, Glen Justice does a beautiful number on him, LINK, and from down in DeLay's home district we have word that Richard Morrison, DeLay's nemesis and with luck his replacement, is heading to D. C. to do some schmoozing with the Democratic Congressional Caucus (think money) as he regroups for his 2006 campaign! LINK

Building from the ground up

Those of us who are on board, with Howard Dean, with the conviction that the Democratic Party must be rebuilt from the ground up will probably want to save this beautifully coherent piece by Bill Bradley. I especially like his description of the Republican Party as a pyramid with the president at the top, whilst the hapless Democrats tend to try to balance THEIR pyramid with the President at the bottom!

LINK

Starving the beast

Mr. Bush and his followers are doing their best to deplete America's wealth and resources with ever-increasing tax cuts and hidden budget items -- and now they have the nerve to say, with regard to Social Security, that we're in a pickle because it will be necessary to raise taxes in the future to pay our obligations.

Republicans love to claim that the Democrats are conspiring to "obstruct" their agenda by, for example, opposing privatization of Social Security -- as though it were somehow wrong to disagree with the President and insist on preserving the system we have. Yet it's clear to any thinking American (now almost 70% of us!) that there are a variety of adjustments to choose from, any one or even combination of which would be relatively painless and would shore up the trust fund for just about ever.

If there's a conspiracy at work, it's between this administration and people like Mr. Bush's friend and adviser Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform), who has said for years that the way to get rid of government was to "starve the beast."

Follow the money?

I am bowled over by the fervor of the Bush Administration, which seems far more passionate than one would expect if the issue were “merely” saving social security! How come more journalists/analysts aren’t remarking on this?

Press release or propaganda?

Congressman Joe Barton has some problems with candor, that’s for sure.
Last week, in a press release, the Congressman’s office reported to our local newspaper that the Congressman had “met with a women’s focus group in Arlington” to discuss Social Security reform. From the way it’s written, there’s no telling who the women were, or how large the “focus group” might have been, or who might have been invited, or what topic was the “focus,” but since we are told he “consults regularly” with them, I’m going to make a giant leap here and conclude that they were supporters of his — for example, the Republican Women of Arlington?

No matter. The point of the press release is obviously not to convey news but rather to leave the reader with an impression — in this case that Social Security is on the road to bankruptcy and that somehow breaking it will fix it.
In fact, the Barton press release could be a model for any politician who, for whatever reason, wishes to talk in circles rather than clearly.

For example, we read: “Barton found that the group understood that the current Social Security system won't be solvent for their children and grandchildren.”

Just what does this tell us? Well, it doesn’t tell us how the group came to understand what it is said they understood, does it? Had they done research in preparation for the meeting? If so, just where did they find any evidence that “the current Social Security system won’t be solvent for their children and grandchildren”?

Perhaps it was Mr. Barton who helped the ladies reach their understanding. Yet he must know that the Social Security Administration itself projects that full benefits will be paid for at least the next 35 years, after which benefits MAY be reduced by PERHAPS as much as 30 percent IF nothing is done to adjust the system in the meantime And the projection by the Congressional Budget Office says this won’t happen for at least 45 years.

I've shown you my sources; where are Mr. Barton’s?

Next, in the press release we read: “Barton's women's focus group was supportive of a plan to keep the promise of Social Security alive for future generations.” Oh, good: “A plan.”

And then: "’Social Security . . . is in serious danger for your sons and daughters,’ Barton said, addressing the group's concerns.” And he offered that tired old line: “In 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security. Today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary” etc.

Well, so what? Yes, back in 1950 there were fewer folks in retirement relative to folks with paying jobs and now there are more, a development that was planned for when the system was set up. And salaries in 1950 were much lower than they are now, so it probably required more workers to support each retiree. After all, in 1950 a salary of $10,000 was enough to put you squarely in the middle class! It would buy you a nice house without borrowing, and it was enough income so the Missus didn’t have to work. What would it take in today’s dollars? The median house price around the nation is over $200,000!
How many workers support each retiree sounds like it’s an important statistic, but it’s just not as relevant as the simple fact that the Social Security system needs fixing. No disagreement there, just disagreement as to whether the rather apocalyptic view of Mr. Bush is truth or hype.

According to Barton’s press release “One woman informed Barton that the government has made promises it cannot afford to keep, and that action must be taken now to fix Social Security permanently for future generations.”
Now, I rather suspect Mr. Barton already knew this, and suspect that in fact the information probably flowed the other way, but I doubt he had any interest in telling the women the whole truth. That is: Mr. Bush and the Republican congress have borrowed all the money in the Social Security Trust Fund (which contained a surplus when he took office!) to help pay for tax cuts and war; in exchange, they gave the Trust Fund treasury bonds, to be redeemed when that money is needed to pay benefits.

The reason the Republicans are really, really worried is that unless the Trust Fund is replenished by responsible fiscal policies — reducing the deficit, for example, and not making tax cuts permanent, and certainly not passing new tax ones — we will have a problem, and beginning around 2040 the government may be obliged to find the money elsewhere to pay full benefits. Can you say “new taxes”? Not if you are a Bush!

A little history would help explain the situation: Back in 1983 President Reagan and the Congress agreed that the system needed a course correction, and put in place an increase in the Social Security portion of payroll taxes. As a result, the Trust Fund grew and was able to keep growing; President Clinton initiated a policy of leaving the Trust Fund alone, even as he balanced the federal budget and built a surplus, and at the end of his presidency the Trust Fund — and the government — were in good shape.

So we learn two things: Fiscal responsibility makes a big difference, and mild course corrections fix problems.

If it ain't broke . . .

There are some simple but important facts that everyone should know about President Bush’s demand that we must “overhaul” the Social Security system.

1. There is no crisis! Under the present plan we are good until at least 2052, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This means that even without any adjustments, there will be no reduction in benefits to retirees; those benefits are presently about 42% of their working salary. Under the President’s “reform,” however, benefits will be reduced to 25%.

2. The President can call it “voluntary” all day long, but guaranteed benefits will decrease for those who do not choose to participate, just as they will for those who do.

3. Likewise, he can say we “get to manage our own money” but the truth is that there will be severe restrictions on investments, to protect us from ourselves. Think how much you love HMOs!

4. Our Texas State teachers’ pension fund is “not quite where it needs to be,” one well-informed State legislator observed last week, “because of what happened in the stock market awhile back.” This would be the same stock market, boys and girls, into which the President proposes to move our hard-earned social security contributions.

5. Ignoring for the moment the risk, consider this: The big winner if this proposal goes through may well be the brokerage firms on Wall Street. If you do participate in the program and invest in the stock market, do you honestly believe those guys will offer free transactions?

6. The cost of changing to the President’s plan will, sooner rather than later, be about $3 trillion in “transition costs,” whereas under the worst case scenario if we keep the system we have and make no adjustments, we MIGHT have to borrow SOME money in forty or fifty years to cover shortfalls IF they occur.

7. There are several “tweaks” to the system that could mean we wouldn’t have to borrow at all:
a) Raise the retirement age: It is already raised to 67, so that will already add to the fund;
b) Raise the cap: People who earn over $90,000 or so per year don’t pay social security on the amount over that cap; the cap hasn’t been raised in some time, though earnings have gone up.
Since the very well-to-do still seem to feel they need that $1,900 or so per month along with their pensions and investment income, I say, “Absolutely! Wouldn’t have it any other way!” But it would certainly be fair to ask the folks with the tax cuts to pay a little longer. (We might need to remind our affluent friends that the tax is only on earned income, not investment income, so they don’t worry too much!

8. Finally, remember that Social Security was never designed to be an investment, but rather insurance against an old age of abject poverty. We don’t expect our payments for home and auto insurance to grow into a fund we earn profits on, and we should not expect our FICA payments to do so, either. Still, for most Americans the amount paid to us upon retirement will far exceed the amount we’ve paid in, something no stock market investment can guarantee!

Ordinary Americans should pay attention — this is no ordinary proposal, for it most certainly will do away with the Social Security program altogether. Unless you are very fortunate, you should be worried; fortunate or not, fairness says you should do everything you can to keep this safety net from being pulled out from under hard-working Americans.

Copyright 2004 at Waxahachie TX