Press release or propaganda, part 3
Not being one inclined to let a sleeping lie lie, I took on Joe Barton's press secretary (see previous post) this week, and have posted the riposte here:
Well, looks like I got the attention of Congressman Barton’s office, and that’s good!! It’s about time we had some public dialogue on the subject of Social Security and the President’s plan to privatize it, even if it’s not with Mr. Barton himself.
Brooks Landgraf, who signed the letter as Mr. Barton’s Press Secretary, had quite a bit to say about me personally, such as “she simply suffers from an innate inability to recognize the reality of the world around her,” and that my “assault on Congressman Barton for seeking the views of women in his district regarding Social Security reform was nothing short of self-aggrandizing propaganda.”
There was so much content in his letter, I think it’s important to reply, though I want to focus on substance rather than tone; I do want to say, however, that “self-aggrandizing propaganda” is probably not how a Congressman should characterize a constituent’s critical remarks.
No, I didn’t “overlook” Congressman Barton's statement in his press release that he “met to gather opinions from a women's focus group, comprised of leaders from an array of sectors around the community.” On the contrary, I pointed to it and speculated as to who might have been included, since we weren’t told in the press release.
I should think the first rule in any dialogue might be that if you don’t want the listener to guess, then tell the facts up front.
And as for “outrage” and “lividity” — just not there. My “pretty penny” says that Mr. Landgraf hoped to diminish my remarks by attributing them to out-of-control emotions.
You can be sure there’s no way I would be outraged by a congressman “wanting to talk about public policy with those he represents,” though I would be concerned if “those he represents” do not include ALL of his constituents!
Joe Barton is supposed to represent me, too, along with the rest of the folks in Waxahachie; and I do find it curious that he hasn’t held a town meeting on Social Security here in Waxahachie, the Ellis County seat, even though the President of the United States has urged his allies in Congress to do just that.
Getting to the heart of the matter, there was nothing in my column even suggesting that “government should neglect to reform Social Security” — in fact, quite the opposite. Corrections are needed in order to assure the solvency of Social Security in years to come, but what the President proposes is dismantling, not fixing, a program that is NOT in crisis.
There’s just one more personal remark I’d like to address: The startling statement that, “I'm appalled at Ms. Guyol's misogynistic accusation that women cannot form their own opinions, which she made evident in her column.”
Excuse me? I am a woman, and I can definitely form my own opinions, though I try to base them on solid information. I suspect it’s just my writing about them that has him upset.
If indeed “the women in the focus group that met with Congressman Barton were well-informed about Social Security and did not need to take cues from anyone,” why not share with us, at least, what information they had?
If not, then why tell us at all that the women in the focus group “understood that the current Social Security system won’t be solvent” — unless the point is to have us believe it, too? But would that be enough information for you? It was not enough for me, and that was the point I was making.
If Mr. Barton was not the source of their understanding, I apologize for thinking so. After all, the President said it was necessary to conduct an all-out 60-day national campaign to “help Americans understand there is a problem” (formerly a “crisis”) with Social Security. I guessed, perhaps mistakenly, that Mr. Barton was heeding the President’s call to folks in Congress to assist.
Finally, Mr. Landgraf invites me to repudiate statements that he offers as facts, and repudiate I will, for those statements are scandalously misleading — just calling an assertion “fact” doesn’t mean a thing when it’s incomplete, or given in a way that makes it look like something it’s not.
I want you to know that I am using the very source as Mr. Landgraf — that is, the most recent report of the Social Security Trustees. He said: “Inaction on Social Security would mean that our children and grandchildren would have to borrow an estimated $10.4 trillion, according to the Social Security Trustees.”
What he doesn’t tell us is that $10.4 trillion is what you get by projecting the shortfall out as far as a computer will take it, called by the Trustees “Infinite Horizon Deficit,” rather than the “75-year Deficit” used by the Trustees every year until 2003. The 75-year deficit is projected to be $4 trillion — still a big number, but much easier to deal with.
And Mr. Landgraf goes on to say that “Each year we wait costs an additional $600 billion, which will continue to rise,” implying that’s ON TOP OF to the $10.4 trillion, whereas it is more like a multiplier that gets us there.
Here’s how The New York Times explained it this week:
Compounding the subterfuge is that the difference between this year’s $11 trillion eyepopper and last year’s number — $600 billion — is being used as evidence of a scary deterioration in Social Security’s finances. That’s just wrong. The two monster numbers are actually the same quantity — different ways of expressing an unchanging level of debt at two different points in time.
In fact, the American Academy of Actuaries is quoted, in a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, as having said that the use of such a projection is “likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise … into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated.”
Mr. Landgraf was right about one thing: “The longer we wait to take action, the more difficult and expensive the changes will be.” It’s true, it will be less painful and more effective to begin corrections now, if we can just get past all the hyperbole and get down to business. But let’s don’t let Congress bomb the house to put out the fire!
Here are the numbers that, so far as I know, have never been disputed by anyone:
If we do absolutely NOTHING the system will be able to pay full benefits to all retirees until at least 2041, at which time — if nothing has yet been done — funds on hand will still be sufficient to pay about 74% of what was promised until at least 2079, when — again, if nothing has been done — payments will have dropped to about 68 percent of what was promised.
Before your eyes glaze over, just let me put it this way: Imagine someone telling you that “You will be bankrupt in 12 years or so — but you’ll still be able to pay all your bills for another 24 years or so, after which you may be able to pay only about three-quarters of your bills for another 35 years . . .”
You should live so long!
Well, looks like I got the attention of Congressman Barton’s office, and that’s good!! It’s about time we had some public dialogue on the subject of Social Security and the President’s plan to privatize it, even if it’s not with Mr. Barton himself.
Brooks Landgraf, who signed the letter as Mr. Barton’s Press Secretary, had quite a bit to say about me personally, such as “she simply suffers from an innate inability to recognize the reality of the world around her,” and that my “assault on Congressman Barton for seeking the views of women in his district regarding Social Security reform was nothing short of self-aggrandizing propaganda.”
There was so much content in his letter, I think it’s important to reply, though I want to focus on substance rather than tone; I do want to say, however, that “self-aggrandizing propaganda” is probably not how a Congressman should characterize a constituent’s critical remarks.
No, I didn’t “overlook” Congressman Barton's statement in his press release that he “met to gather opinions from a women's focus group, comprised of leaders from an array of sectors around the community.” On the contrary, I pointed to it and speculated as to who might have been included, since we weren’t told in the press release.
I should think the first rule in any dialogue might be that if you don’t want the listener to guess, then tell the facts up front.
And as for “outrage” and “lividity” — just not there. My “pretty penny” says that Mr. Landgraf hoped to diminish my remarks by attributing them to out-of-control emotions.
You can be sure there’s no way I would be outraged by a congressman “wanting to talk about public policy with those he represents,” though I would be concerned if “those he represents” do not include ALL of his constituents!
Joe Barton is supposed to represent me, too, along with the rest of the folks in Waxahachie; and I do find it curious that he hasn’t held a town meeting on Social Security here in Waxahachie, the Ellis County seat, even though the President of the United States has urged his allies in Congress to do just that.
Getting to the heart of the matter, there was nothing in my column even suggesting that “government should neglect to reform Social Security” — in fact, quite the opposite. Corrections are needed in order to assure the solvency of Social Security in years to come, but what the President proposes is dismantling, not fixing, a program that is NOT in crisis.
There’s just one more personal remark I’d like to address: The startling statement that, “I'm appalled at Ms. Guyol's misogynistic accusation that women cannot form their own opinions, which she made evident in her column.”
Excuse me? I am a woman, and I can definitely form my own opinions, though I try to base them on solid information. I suspect it’s just my writing about them that has him upset.
If indeed “the women in the focus group that met with Congressman Barton were well-informed about Social Security and did not need to take cues from anyone,” why not share with us, at least, what information they had?
If not, then why tell us at all that the women in the focus group “understood that the current Social Security system won’t be solvent” — unless the point is to have us believe it, too? But would that be enough information for you? It was not enough for me, and that was the point I was making.
If Mr. Barton was not the source of their understanding, I apologize for thinking so. After all, the President said it was necessary to conduct an all-out 60-day national campaign to “help Americans understand there is a problem” (formerly a “crisis”) with Social Security. I guessed, perhaps mistakenly, that Mr. Barton was heeding the President’s call to folks in Congress to assist.
Finally, Mr. Landgraf invites me to repudiate statements that he offers as facts, and repudiate I will, for those statements are scandalously misleading — just calling an assertion “fact” doesn’t mean a thing when it’s incomplete, or given in a way that makes it look like something it’s not.
I want you to know that I am using the very source as Mr. Landgraf — that is, the most recent report of the Social Security Trustees. He said: “Inaction on Social Security would mean that our children and grandchildren would have to borrow an estimated $10.4 trillion, according to the Social Security Trustees.”
What he doesn’t tell us is that $10.4 trillion is what you get by projecting the shortfall out as far as a computer will take it, called by the Trustees “Infinite Horizon Deficit,” rather than the “75-year Deficit” used by the Trustees every year until 2003. The 75-year deficit is projected to be $4 trillion — still a big number, but much easier to deal with.
And Mr. Landgraf goes on to say that “Each year we wait costs an additional $600 billion, which will continue to rise,” implying that’s ON TOP OF to the $10.4 trillion, whereas it is more like a multiplier that gets us there.
Here’s how The New York Times explained it this week:
Compounding the subterfuge is that the difference between this year’s $11 trillion eyepopper and last year’s number — $600 billion — is being used as evidence of a scary deterioration in Social Security’s finances. That’s just wrong. The two monster numbers are actually the same quantity — different ways of expressing an unchanging level of debt at two different points in time.
In fact, the American Academy of Actuaries is quoted, in a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, as having said that the use of such a projection is “likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise … into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated.”
Mr. Landgraf was right about one thing: “The longer we wait to take action, the more difficult and expensive the changes will be.” It’s true, it will be less painful and more effective to begin corrections now, if we can just get past all the hyperbole and get down to business. But let’s don’t let Congress bomb the house to put out the fire!
Here are the numbers that, so far as I know, have never been disputed by anyone:
If we do absolutely NOTHING the system will be able to pay full benefits to all retirees until at least 2041, at which time — if nothing has yet been done — funds on hand will still be sufficient to pay about 74% of what was promised until at least 2079, when — again, if nothing has been done — payments will have dropped to about 68 percent of what was promised.
Before your eyes glaze over, just let me put it this way: Imagine someone telling you that “You will be bankrupt in 12 years or so — but you’ll still be able to pay all your bills for another 24 years or so, after which you may be able to pay only about three-quarters of your bills for another 35 years . . .”
You should live so long!
posted by The Voice | 1:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home