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.
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.
posted by The Voice | 11:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home