Miami Herald Invents a "Consensus Among Economists" to Push Social Security Cuts

[Joanne98]

Friday, 09 July 2010 21:40
The Miami Herald took first place in the contest to have the most inaccurate article on Social Security when it printed without challenge an assertion that: "For awhile, there's been a consensus among economists that raising the retirement age makes a lot of sense." This is obviously not true, since there is no shortage of economists who do not agree with this view and it is quite possible that a majority of economists do not agree with this position. Any reporter who had researched this topic at all would know that the assertion is not true and would not present it to readers as being true.

Instead the article presented almost exclusively the views of people calling for cuts in Social Security. Remarkably, the article included no discussion at all of the likely financial situation of the retirees who would see their benefits cuts as a result of an increase in the retirement age. These workers have seen most of their savings wiped out by the collapse of the housing bubble and the plunge in the stock market. No "adult discussion" of Social Security can occurr with assessing the situation of the people who would be affected by proposed benefit cuts.

The article also never once mentions the possibility of addressing the projected long-term shortfalls in Social Security by raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax or by raising the tax rate. Polls consistently show that these positions are far more popular than the raising the retirement age.

In fact, the people attending a set of public meetings last week held by America Speaks, an organization funded by Peter Peterson, a long-time foe of Social Security, overwhelmingly preferred raising the cap on the Social Security tax to increasing the retirement age. This was even after being presented with a heavily biased budget book prepared by America Speaks. There is no way to write a balanced story on Social Security without mentioning revenue options.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/miami-herald-invents-a-qconsensus-among-economistsq-to-push-social-security-cuts?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beat_the_press+%28Beat+the+Press%29

[IndianaGreen]

1. It is the ruling class, represented by the 2-major parties, that wants to scuttle Social Security

No one mentions all the IOUs put in Social Security by a Congress too happy to raid it.

Boiled down, U.S. politics under today’s mature capitalism are not about the welfare of the demos (i.e., the people) as envisioned in classical notions of democracy, but rather about which party can best deliver profitability to investors and corporations. There are continuing debates between those who simply want to slash labor costs, taxes, and regulations for the rich, and those who want to do some of that but also use some regulation and government spending to encourage higher wages and demand-driven growth. Both sides, however, accept that making the economy profitable for the owning class is the sine qua non of successful administration. Within these constraints, there are occasional important political fights and periodic bones to throw to the electorate. But, in times of economic stagnation, the bones get smaller and even disappear. What passes for genuine political debate often tends to be irrelevant gibberish and blatant manipulation on side issues, or inconsequential nitpicking on minutiae. The big stuff is off the table. The system is democratic in theory, plutocratic (rule by the rich) in content.

Capitalism, the Absurd System
A View from the United States

Robert W. McChesney and John Bellamy Foster

http://monthlyreview.org/100601mcchesney-foster.php

[RC]

3. Social Security was setup as an insurance policy, separate from everything else.

Self contained, if you will. Pay back the IOU's and it will be solvent for generations.
If they cut Social Security benefits, then are they going to cut the premiums also? Bet not.

Raising the retirement age to 70 is a terrible idea. As others have mentioned, if you have a cube rat job, then that could work. But most of us do not. With all the outsourcing, most of the jobs left for the average worker is manual labor of some kind. At 66 and having office jobs most of my life, I am already too old for construction or standing in the sun all day digging holes in the ground.

[truedelphi]

8. + our household.

[izquierdista]

2. Let us remember the words of the prophet

"They're coming for your Social Security money"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHd_jXtp4Rs

[IndianaGreen]

5. So true it hurts!

[madrchsod]

4. "the words of power"

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/05/201052574726865274.html

robert`s article applies across all media....

[FBI_Un_Sub]

6. Simple solution

• Tax income above $106,800 for OASDI/FICA
  
• Tax interest and dividends for OASDI/FICA
  
• Tax decedents' estates for OASDI/FICA
  
• Quit taking "Oil War" expenses out of the General Fund -- try a $2/gallon tax on imported oil.

We got into trouble when LBJ diverted OASDi/FICA to pay for VietNam.

[TacticalPeek]

7. The fix is in.

That asshole Alan Simpson was revolting at the governors conference this morning on c-span2.

:grr: