Losing the War on Social Security

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot add to this debate as I haven't been following the Social Security story but I found this rant in the Daily Howler distressing. I'm afraid that the Republican Spin Machine is once again dominating the media discussion on Social Security. Anyone care to comment?

Here's a snippet:

THE SPEECH NOT GIVEN: Four Big Pundits stared into air as Russert recited irrelevant facts. Eventually, the pundits all stated their views. But the following speech wasn't given:
THE UNBOOKED PUNDIT: But Tim, that 16-to-1 ratio is wholly irrelevant. Those were the numbers in 1935! But today, we have roughly three workers for every retiree, and the system is producing an annual surplus! We don't need those sixteen workers to finance Social Security! The question is: What will happen over the next five decades as we get closer to a 2-to-1 ratio? And no, the system isn't in "crisis." Come on! According to the CBO, full benefits can be paid until 2052, and minor changes in taxes and benefit levels could make the system fully solvent for decades after that. We don't need sixteen workers for every retiree. Does somebody pay you to mention them?

OK, our Unbooked Pundit should skip that last question. But this speech is never given when Washington's pundits gather to chat. Pundits like Kay know which points to recite--after they get through scolding Williams for depriving folks of all the facts.

•  I think we are losing the war

  everywhere.

  NPR sounded like good right wing programming tonight.  It really kind of scared me.  I could not believe the topics they touched on, and the vocabulary they used.

  No Democrats can be found saying anything of substance, or anything positive.  

  Perhaps I am just having a bad couple days, but it sure seems like we are not being heard.  

  What else is new?

  by k9disc on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:30:06 PM PDT

•  The thing is

  I tuned out of the media circus long ago: I don't have a TV and I don't listen to radio. I get my info from the internet and the occasional newspaper. As such, I really have no idea of the state of punditry stuff like this I find horrifying - the only bright note I see is that I think a lot of people are starting to use the internet, where you can get a more thorough and researched set of ideas, to get their info. Small still I suppose but growing. I wonder if the Daily Show will shame the rest of the News acts to shape up.

  by storme on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:36:11 PM PDT

•  it's hard to change the convential wisdom

  SS reform, and the pending doom are supposedly a given, I was watching a cnbc interview of paul Krugman last week, and he was talking about how SS wasn't in trouble, and the woman interviewing him just couldn't grasp that there wasn't a problem, she was like but everyone thinks this is going broke, bla bla bla.  

  Good Morning America had a guy on from the Cato Institute today talking about how much trouble SS is going to be in and how private accounts are the answer, he appeared with a young couple who was hand picked by the Cato folks.  

  The center For American progress had a great panel discussion on SS on cspan, and some of the mainstream press was there so I'm hoping they got some counter points of view, and I'm hoping the Center get's their experts booked on more tv news programs. We may need to buy a block of time like Ross  Perot did during his 92 pres run to get the word out about just how bad this idea is.

  by jbou on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:44:44 PM PDT

  •  Gore blew SoSec issue in 2000

    Of course, he was not scaring that the system was going to be broken. (This issue was discussed in The Daily Howler recently as well.) But Gore did not really countered the doomsday presumptions. Ok, he was terribly accused in the media of "attack atacking" Bush's "bold proposals". But Gore's attempts to appear moderate did not give him any grace dividends, and in effect he needlessly accepted the "broken" frame for all of us without noise. Since then we have double uphill battle here.

    by ray z on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 12:54:33 AM PDT

•  "SSRP"

  Start calling it the:

  Social Security "reducement" plan.

  If the plan threatens one iota of promised benefits (it will) this tag line is legit:

  Social Security Reducement Plan  

  Instead of AARP we will get SSRP

  by Liberal4ever on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 10:58:16 PM PDT

•  Democrats win when they protect Social Security

  Today is the first day Bush made any extended comments on SS and from what I see the papers refute his central points straight out of the box. From the WaPo:

  But some critics say Bush is exaggerating the Social Security problem to build support for his plan for private accounts. For one, they say, the term "bankrupt" does not apply to Social Security. If nothing is done to the system, Social Security could still pay about 73 percent of promised benefits in 2042, when the system's "trust fund" of Treasury bonds will be depleted, Social Security's chief actuary has calculated.

  So "some critics" include Social Security's chief actuary?

  From the NYT:

  Many Democrats and economists say that Mr. Bush is exaggerating the problem, and that Social Security could be fixed with modest tax increases and a cut in benefits. Even without changes, Mr. Bush's critics say, the system would be able to pay three-quarters of promised benefits four decades from now, when baby boomers have long retired.

  So the two leading papers spike Bush's false claims on the first day. Supporters should of SS should be encouraged but wary - it's a long hard fight but a fight that can and should be won.

  by joejoejoe on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 11:10:27 PM PDT

  •  the answer to that lies in...

    ...whether the Democrats can demonstrate Unified Opposition.

    It's pretty easy to explain. Vote together, as a block, at very least on SS. Any Dem who won't support Social Security gets targeted and thrown out on his ass. No mercy.

    by claude on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 11:23:22 PM PDT