Republicans once again prove they have no shame:
"In a sign of the intensifying political battle over Social Security, the AARP released a nationwide poll Monday indicating deep public skepticism about President Bush's plan for personal accounts.
...
"In a two-page rebuttal, the Republican Party said the AARP's survey relied on slanted wording, misleading questions and an unrepresentative sample of the nation as a whole to come up with its findings."
They complain about "slanted wording"? "Misleading questions"? After all they have done to mislead the public about Social Security? Utterly shameless, as usual.
And of course the AP story has not the slightest hint about what's really happening with Social Security, just that Bush "has called on Congress to enact legislation that will put Social Security on a stronger financial footing." It will put Social Security on a stronger footing? The AP has made that assessment?
As usual, the Republicans are shameless, the media are clueless, and the cycle of life continues.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Social Security's Stalking Horse
Ve ah gonna take the pension plan and deeze tings and skveeze it and grope it like dis!
A Kos diary entry today mentions a New York Times article on Medicaid privatization in Florida as a possible stalking horse for federal privatization efforts. That may be so.
But an even scarier article was found elsewhere in the Times, desribing Schwarzenegger's efforts to kill the California state pension program.
If the GOP succeeds in California, not only will it eliminate a significant voice for investors' rights, it will give new life to those who want to kill Social Security.
Schwarzenegger is using the same tactics in California that Bush is using on a national level, describing the system as a crisis, "out of control," that needs to be privatized immediately. As with Social Security, experts say the California pension system is actually in very sound shape.
What's more, Calpers, as it is known, has long been a critical advocate for investors' rights, fighting for greater corporate accountability and stricter corporate governance. Conservatives have long despised it and are constantly trying to hurt it. Schwarzenegger's plan could completely kill it.
But perhaps most importantly, this fight could help set the tone for the national fight: "The outcome of the vote in California, pension experts and political analysts say, will not only have an impact on the state pension system, but will also provide an important marker of public opinion on proposed changes to Social Security."
National opponents of Social Security already recognize the importance of this fight, including the usual suspects such as Stephen Moore: "Mr. Moore, who has advised Mr. Schwarzenegger on economic policy and participated in an independent audit of state finances last year, said that California tends to lead the nation on social policy. If California moves from a traditional defined-benefit pension plan to a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan, the nation is likely to follow, he said."
This is a critical fight that we can't allow them to win.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Per the Times, there's a new Greatest Generation
In a Sunday Week-in-Review piece for the Times about Social Security, John Tierney says:
"As they now take on Social Security, Republicans are counting on a more independent group of Americans, who are comfortable with placing their savings in the financial markets."
Yes, obviously prior generations of Americans were simply weak-hearted and overly dependent on the government teat. You know, those lily-livered generations that weathered the Great Depression, defeated facism and communism and built the greatest military and economic power the world has ever known. And now suddenly they're all, "Oh, I'm scared. Oh, I don't want to risk homelessness by handing my entire life's savings over to Wall Street!" Pussies.
Tierney goes on to write:
"President Bush is careful not to sound that menacing. In his inaugural speech, he promised that the new ownership society would make 'every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny,' but quickly explained that this would provide 'greater freedom from want and fear' - a purposeful echo of the same guarantees that Roosevelt made for the New Deal."
He "explained" that. He "explained" that taking your life's savings to the blackjack table gives you "greater freedom from want and fear." Thanks for clearing that up.
And of course Tierney goes to the usual well for the usual quotes from the usual drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub crowd:
"'Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state,' said Stephen Moore, the former president of Club for Growth, an antitax group. 'If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state.'"
You know, I don't think journalists quote this guy or Grover Norquist enough. I think one or both of these guys should be featured in every article about Social Security and tax reform ever written. If I didn't know better, I'd swear they were being paid by George Soros to make sure Republicans never get their fondest wishes, by scaring the living shit out of anybody who reads their quotes. "Jab a spear through that," indeed. Hell, I want to send Steve a check.
Tierney lists some typical poll responses on Social Security:
"Americans are wary of change. Some polls have found that allowing private Social Security accounts is favored by a majority of Americans, with support especially high among young people, but the support drops when pollsters mention that private accounts could be risky. If asked to choose between a system with private accounts and a system with guaranteed benefits, people tend to prefer the guaranteed payments.
"But then, people also repeatedly tell pollsters they're not sure they can count on guaranteed payments from Social Security. In the New York Times/CBS News poll conducted from Jan. 14 to Jan. 18, only a quarter of the respondents said that Social Security could be fixed with minor changes, while half said it needed fundamental changes and a quarter said it needed to be completely redone."
He doesn't bother to mention any of the facts about Social Security. It's an analysis piece, mainly about process, so perhaps it's not necessary. But it's sort of a glaring omission not to mention that Americans are woefully misinformed -- after all, that's part of the process, and it's something the White House will try to take advantage of, as Andrew Kohut suggests:
"'There's so much softness in response to questions on Social Security because the public hasn't really made up its mind,' said Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center. 'There are a lot of conflicting sentiments, and which strain of thinking comes out on top depends on the struggle for public opinion this year.'"
There may be "conflicting sentiments," but there's also just plain old ignorance, on which Bush will try to capitalize, and of which Tierney doesn't take note.
Tierney also focuses a lot on something we already know: that Bush is going to push privatization as a way of reducing the government's role in people's lives:
"Edward H. Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said the way for Mr. Bush to win that fight is to emulate Ronald Reagan.
"'Reagan tapped into a basic American sentiment that frightens the establishment figures, who assumed everyone wants the government to run their lives,' said Mr. Crane, who has been promoting private Social Security accounts for more than two decades. 'That New Deal was a sharp departure from the traditional American respect for the individual. If Bush plays this correctly - and Karl Rove is a very smart guy who's looked at the same polls we have - he can win simply by arguing that a private account gives you control over your retirement instead of making you dependent on 535 politicians.'"
OK, first of all, a government providing retirement security for its citizens is an entirely different animal than a government "running people's lives." In our system, the government invests a small amount of people's money for them in a secure way and then guarantees to return it to them in such a way that enables them to eat and have shelter in their declining years. Some obviously argue that the government temporarily holding and investing a small amount of their money for them is an abhorrent intrusion, but the alternative could be far, far worse, both for the state and for the individuals in it. In other words, if we have armies of old people dying on the streets, how does that benefit either the state or the rugged individualists in it? It'd be like everybody funding their own fire and police protection. Killing Social Security is an extreme libertarian idea that simply isn't practical.
What's more, "respect for the individual" is the basis of, not the antithesis of, Social Security. Every person deserves to have a modest safety net after a lifetime of hard work, even those many of us who are too stupid to figure out how to make money in the stock market, such as myself.
"As they now take on Social Security, Republicans are counting on a more independent group of Americans, who are comfortable with placing their savings in the financial markets."
Yes, obviously prior generations of Americans were simply weak-hearted and overly dependent on the government teat. You know, those lily-livered generations that weathered the Great Depression, defeated facism and communism and built the greatest military and economic power the world has ever known. And now suddenly they're all, "Oh, I'm scared. Oh, I don't want to risk homelessness by handing my entire life's savings over to Wall Street!" Pussies.
Tierney goes on to write:
"President Bush is careful not to sound that menacing. In his inaugural speech, he promised that the new ownership society would make 'every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny,' but quickly explained that this would provide 'greater freedom from want and fear' - a purposeful echo of the same guarantees that Roosevelt made for the New Deal."
He "explained" that. He "explained" that taking your life's savings to the blackjack table gives you "greater freedom from want and fear." Thanks for clearing that up.
And of course Tierney goes to the usual well for the usual quotes from the usual drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub crowd:
"'Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state,' said Stephen Moore, the former president of Club for Growth, an antitax group. 'If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state.'"
You know, I don't think journalists quote this guy or Grover Norquist enough. I think one or both of these guys should be featured in every article about Social Security and tax reform ever written. If I didn't know better, I'd swear they were being paid by George Soros to make sure Republicans never get their fondest wishes, by scaring the living shit out of anybody who reads their quotes. "Jab a spear through that," indeed. Hell, I want to send Steve a check.
Tierney lists some typical poll responses on Social Security:
"Americans are wary of change. Some polls have found that allowing private Social Security accounts is favored by a majority of Americans, with support especially high among young people, but the support drops when pollsters mention that private accounts could be risky. If asked to choose between a system with private accounts and a system with guaranteed benefits, people tend to prefer the guaranteed payments.
"But then, people also repeatedly tell pollsters they're not sure they can count on guaranteed payments from Social Security. In the New York Times/CBS News poll conducted from Jan. 14 to Jan. 18, only a quarter of the respondents said that Social Security could be fixed with minor changes, while half said it needed fundamental changes and a quarter said it needed to be completely redone."
He doesn't bother to mention any of the facts about Social Security. It's an analysis piece, mainly about process, so perhaps it's not necessary. But it's sort of a glaring omission not to mention that Americans are woefully misinformed -- after all, that's part of the process, and it's something the White House will try to take advantage of, as Andrew Kohut suggests:
"'There's so much softness in response to questions on Social Security because the public hasn't really made up its mind,' said Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center. 'There are a lot of conflicting sentiments, and which strain of thinking comes out on top depends on the struggle for public opinion this year.'"
There may be "conflicting sentiments," but there's also just plain old ignorance, on which Bush will try to capitalize, and of which Tierney doesn't take note.
Tierney also focuses a lot on something we already know: that Bush is going to push privatization as a way of reducing the government's role in people's lives:
"Edward H. Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said the way for Mr. Bush to win that fight is to emulate Ronald Reagan.
"'Reagan tapped into a basic American sentiment that frightens the establishment figures, who assumed everyone wants the government to run their lives,' said Mr. Crane, who has been promoting private Social Security accounts for more than two decades. 'That New Deal was a sharp departure from the traditional American respect for the individual. If Bush plays this correctly - and Karl Rove is a very smart guy who's looked at the same polls we have - he can win simply by arguing that a private account gives you control over your retirement instead of making you dependent on 535 politicians.'"
OK, first of all, a government providing retirement security for its citizens is an entirely different animal than a government "running people's lives." In our system, the government invests a small amount of people's money for them in a secure way and then guarantees to return it to them in such a way that enables them to eat and have shelter in their declining years. Some obviously argue that the government temporarily holding and investing a small amount of their money for them is an abhorrent intrusion, but the alternative could be far, far worse, both for the state and for the individuals in it. In other words, if we have armies of old people dying on the streets, how does that benefit either the state or the rugged individualists in it? It'd be like everybody funding their own fire and police protection. Killing Social Security is an extreme libertarian idea that simply isn't practical.
What's more, "respect for the individual" is the basis of, not the antithesis of, Social Security. Every person deserves to have a modest safety net after a lifetime of hard work, even those many of us who are too stupid to figure out how to make money in the stock market, such as myself.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Your So-Called Liberal Media
Oh, the shame. Mediamatters has a list of the heads who talked to America from the TeeVee during today's coronation festivities.
Sort of amazing, isn't it, that Fox is the only cable news network that featured more Dems today than you can count on one hand. I take it, then, that CNN and MSNBC have decided that about, oh, 49% of the country can go pound sand.
Sort of amazing, isn't it, that Fox is the only cable news network that featured more Dems today than you can count on one hand. I take it, then, that CNN and MSNBC have decided that about, oh, 49% of the country can go pound sand.
Party Like It's 1994
In the latest (Jan. 24-31) issue of New York, John Heilemann writes about how the Social Security battle is shaping up to do for the Dems what the health-care battle did for the GOP in 1993:
"In early December, William Kristol went up to Cambridge to deliver the Theodore H. White Lecture at the Kennedy School of Government -- a stem-winder on, what else, “The Meaning of the 2004 Election.” After an hour of talking mainly about the GOP, Kristol was asked in a Q&A to assess the Democrats’ current predicament. In his dry, wry, mordant way, Kristol pointed out that the Republicans had been in similar, and arguably worse, straits in 1993 and 1994—until the epochal battle over the Clinton health-care plan catapulted the party into control of both houses of Congress. Then, quietly, Kristol added, “If I were a Democrat today, I’d be looking at Social Security.”
...
"To any Republican with a sense of history (let alone irony), the possibility that Social Security ’05 could be a replay of health care ’94 (with the partisan polarities reversed) looks all too real, and scary as hell. To Democrats, however, it is, and should be, an opportunity to get up off the mat."
It's really worth a read. He points out the many similarities between the Dems of 05 and the GOP of 93/94 -- they are completely out of power, facing a president who thinks he's got more popular support than he really does, a president who's dead-set on an epochal reform that will make or break his presidency. There are some other similarities, but those are enough for starters. Heilemann suggests that, if Dems can show the kind of backbone the GOP showed in 93/94, they can turn the tables of power, as the GOP did back then.
But he also points out some of the differences in the two situations. For one thing, obviously, Bush is beginning his second term, while Clinton was beginning his first. That actually could work to Bush's disadvantage, since many of the people he needs to help him are up for reelection, while he is not. On the other hand, another big difference between the two situations is the fact that the Dems haven't been out of power all that long, while the GOP had by 1993 been in the wilderness for decades. They were hungry, disciplined and had a charismatic leader in Newt Gingrich. Heilemann points out that the Dems have no Newt Gingrich of their own, now, but suggests that perhaps Rahm Emanuel could be one.
Given what Josh Marshall has said about Rahm Emanuel, I'm not so sure about that.
But I do see the Dems as being amazingly disciplined (so far) on this point, perhaps enough that they don't really need a charismatic leader. And they certainly have the intellectual muscle (Bob Rubin, Orszag, others) and grassroots support (BlogPAC and its affiliates) behind them. The only question now is, how far will Bush push this issue? Will he push it far enough that it does him damage, or will somebody talk sense into him before that point?
Also, what is Bill Kristol doing giving pointers to the Dems? Heilemann points out that Kristol is against Bush on this issue and suggests he has some Machiavellian reason for that. What could it be, I wonder? Did Bush snub him somehow? Is he nostalgic for the days when the Republicans were an opposition party? Should be interesting to watch.
"In early December, William Kristol went up to Cambridge to deliver the Theodore H. White Lecture at the Kennedy School of Government -- a stem-winder on, what else, “The Meaning of the 2004 Election.” After an hour of talking mainly about the GOP, Kristol was asked in a Q&A to assess the Democrats’ current predicament. In his dry, wry, mordant way, Kristol pointed out that the Republicans had been in similar, and arguably worse, straits in 1993 and 1994—until the epochal battle over the Clinton health-care plan catapulted the party into control of both houses of Congress. Then, quietly, Kristol added, “If I were a Democrat today, I’d be looking at Social Security.”
...
"To any Republican with a sense of history (let alone irony), the possibility that Social Security ’05 could be a replay of health care ’94 (with the partisan polarities reversed) looks all too real, and scary as hell. To Democrats, however, it is, and should be, an opportunity to get up off the mat."
It's really worth a read. He points out the many similarities between the Dems of 05 and the GOP of 93/94 -- they are completely out of power, facing a president who thinks he's got more popular support than he really does, a president who's dead-set on an epochal reform that will make or break his presidency. There are some other similarities, but those are enough for starters. Heilemann suggests that, if Dems can show the kind of backbone the GOP showed in 93/94, they can turn the tables of power, as the GOP did back then.
But he also points out some of the differences in the two situations. For one thing, obviously, Bush is beginning his second term, while Clinton was beginning his first. That actually could work to Bush's disadvantage, since many of the people he needs to help him are up for reelection, while he is not. On the other hand, another big difference between the two situations is the fact that the Dems haven't been out of power all that long, while the GOP had by 1993 been in the wilderness for decades. They were hungry, disciplined and had a charismatic leader in Newt Gingrich. Heilemann points out that the Dems have no Newt Gingrich of their own, now, but suggests that perhaps Rahm Emanuel could be one.
Given what Josh Marshall has said about Rahm Emanuel, I'm not so sure about that.
But I do see the Dems as being amazingly disciplined (so far) on this point, perhaps enough that they don't really need a charismatic leader. And they certainly have the intellectual muscle (Bob Rubin, Orszag, others) and grassroots support (BlogPAC and its affiliates) behind them. The only question now is, how far will Bush push this issue? Will he push it far enough that it does him damage, or will somebody talk sense into him before that point?
Also, what is Bill Kristol doing giving pointers to the Dems? Heilemann points out that Kristol is against Bush on this issue and suggests he has some Machiavellian reason for that. What could it be, I wonder? Did Bush snub him somehow? Is he nostalgic for the days when the Republicans were an opposition party? Should be interesting to watch.
Is Lieberman Leaving the Faction?
Josh Marshall has Joe Lieberman in his Faint-Hearted Faction. But tonight on the Daily Show, he seemed to write his ticket off that island. I don't have a verbatim transcript or anything, but he said something to the effect of "Let's leave Social Security alone. It's one of the best things we've ever done, and we should be able to encourage private investment without altering Social Security." Again, that's not verbatim, but that's the jist of what he said.
I see that Josh has been getting a lot of e-mails from other people about the show, too. I'm taping it tonight, so I can get his exact language. I'm sure the more technologically-advanced people with TiVos will beat me to it.
Anyway, it's very encouraging to see Lieberman line up with the forces of good. More evidence of the dynamic discussed in an article in the new New York magazine. More on that in a minute.
Update: Sure enough, Josh has the TiVo transcript: "Lieberman: Social Security protection - don't fool around with it. It's probably the best thing the government has done in 100 years, getting senior citizens out of poverty - Stewart: You're not just saying that 'cuz you're getting older? Lieberman: (laughs) Yes that's one reason I'm saying it, but if we want to add some extra savings opportunities for baby boomers and those younger, let's find another way to do it without messing around with Social Security."
I see that Josh has been getting a lot of e-mails from other people about the show, too. I'm taping it tonight, so I can get his exact language. I'm sure the more technologically-advanced people with TiVos will beat me to it.
Anyway, it's very encouraging to see Lieberman line up with the forces of good. More evidence of the dynamic discussed in an article in the new New York magazine. More on that in a minute.
Update: Sure enough, Josh has the TiVo transcript: "Lieberman: Social Security protection - don't fool around with it. It's probably the best thing the government has done in 100 years, getting senior citizens out of poverty - Stewart: You're not just saying that 'cuz you're getting older? Lieberman: (laughs) Yes that's one reason I'm saying it, but if we want to add some extra savings opportunities for baby boomers and those younger, let's find another way to do it without messing around with Social Security."
Econ News, Jan. 20
Today's reports were middling at best.
First, the Conference Board laid its latest LEI on us, saying it jumped 0.2% in December. That's a hair better than forecast (though I've always been sort of amazed that people can fail to forecast this, since every component in it is known. Then again, who really cares all that much?).
Anyhoo, November's gain was revised upwards, too, helping to ease the painful sting of the five straight months in which the LEI fell, the sort of stumble usually associated with a crappy (if not recessionary) economy.
But should we get all excited? Well, no, says the ubiquitous Ian Shepherdson, who believes January's number will be flat. Meanwhile, the ECRI's weekly index of leading indicators has fallen back below zero.
In the second report, the Philly Fed said its factory index plunged to the lowest level in 18 months, to a 13.2 reading, nearly half the consensus forecast of 25. The Empire State index was down pretty sharply, too. Again, should we care? Well, to the extent it tells us anything about the national factory sector, we should. Lehman Brothers said the number points to a 2-to-3-point drop in the ISM for January. But, I would also ask how much the ISM tells us about the national factory sector. Lately, it seems, not much; ISM has been at levels lately that should be consistent with runaway economic growth, and we sure haven't seen that. Best, in the end, to wait for the actual numbers from the government.
But one more anecdote, from Bob Brusca: "The Fed’s Beige book –- topical up to January 10th, was quite upbeat about manufacturing in general. One exception was the Cleveland Fed. Reports I get from ‘on the ground’ in Michigan suggest that things in that part of the country are not so sweet either."
In a separate e-mail, Brusca also pointed out that Minneapolis Fed President Gary Stern had deviated a bit from the Fed's recent script in a speech today. I can't get a copy of the speech yet, but I'll take Bob's word for it. "Stern says he expects that inflation will remain subdued. He also admits that inflation could pick up but adds that he wouldn’t bet on it," Brusca said.
Interesting, but I don't know if it means much. After all, Mr. Stern is not a voting member of the FOMC.
First, the Conference Board laid its latest LEI on us, saying it jumped 0.2% in December. That's a hair better than forecast (though I've always been sort of amazed that people can fail to forecast this, since every component in it is known. Then again, who really cares all that much?).
Anyhoo, November's gain was revised upwards, too, helping to ease the painful sting of the five straight months in which the LEI fell, the sort of stumble usually associated with a crappy (if not recessionary) economy.
But should we get all excited? Well, no, says the ubiquitous Ian Shepherdson, who believes January's number will be flat. Meanwhile, the ECRI's weekly index of leading indicators has fallen back below zero.
In the second report, the Philly Fed said its factory index plunged to the lowest level in 18 months, to a 13.2 reading, nearly half the consensus forecast of 25. The Empire State index was down pretty sharply, too. Again, should we care? Well, to the extent it tells us anything about the national factory sector, we should. Lehman Brothers said the number points to a 2-to-3-point drop in the ISM for January. But, I would also ask how much the ISM tells us about the national factory sector. Lately, it seems, not much; ISM has been at levels lately that should be consistent with runaway economic growth, and we sure haven't seen that. Best, in the end, to wait for the actual numbers from the government.
But one more anecdote, from Bob Brusca: "The Fed’s Beige book –- topical up to January 10th, was quite upbeat about manufacturing in general. One exception was the Cleveland Fed. Reports I get from ‘on the ground’ in Michigan suggest that things in that part of the country are not so sweet either."
In a separate e-mail, Brusca also pointed out that Minneapolis Fed President Gary Stern had deviated a bit from the Fed's recent script in a speech today. I can't get a copy of the speech yet, but I'll take Bob's word for it. "Stern says he expects that inflation will remain subdued. He also admits that inflation could pick up but adds that he wouldn’t bet on it," Brusca said.
Interesting, but I don't know if it means much. After all, Mr. Stern is not a voting member of the FOMC.
Spare the Rod, Spoil the Sponge
The mighty conservative movement marches on.
No, you smirking liberals, it's not ridiculous at all for right-thinking Christians to target for destruction a cartoon sponge who lives in a pineapple under the sea. Not ridiculous at all. As long as our culture is beset with this nautical nonsense, with our impressionable children "dropping on the deck" and "flopping like a fish" -- clearly code words for homosexual activities -- then the terrorists win. Also, the Devil.
Update: James Wolcott has a new name for Mr. Dobson: SpongeDob StickyPants.
No, you smirking liberals, it's not ridiculous at all for right-thinking Christians to target for destruction a cartoon sponge who lives in a pineapple under the sea. Not ridiculous at all. As long as our culture is beset with this nautical nonsense, with our impressionable children "dropping on the deck" and "flopping like a fish" -- clearly code words for homosexual activities -- then the terrorists win. Also, the Devil.
Update: James Wolcott has a new name for Mr. Dobson: SpongeDob StickyPants.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Getting our shit together
It's heartening to see how effectively liberals have rallied in response to Dear Leader's plan to "reform" the Social Security system with a 12-pound sledgehammer. Even Liebermanesque Dems have opposed it, and now lefty bloggers have formed a new site, There Is No Crisis, to help explain to the public that laying waste to their retirement security might not be the best idea ever. Of course, they'll be accused of taking payola from the ghost of FDR or something, but never mind. I'll be linking to it often.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Bush vs. Facts
I wish I could claim credit for the headline, but that's the brilliant sub-head of a must-read Rex Nutting column (?) today at CBS MarketWatch:
"President Bush made several factual errors Tuesday about Social Security's long-term financing problems at a photo op event designed to educate the public about the retirement system."
It's an awesome, and brief, and non-sleep-inducing read. Print it out and carry it around with you as a talking points memo for future arguments with rabble-rousers who want to destroy Social Security in order to save it.
Thank God guys like this are around. It's sort of sad, though, that so few of them are available that none could be found to work for the Washington Post or the New York Times.
"President Bush made several factual errors Tuesday about Social Security's long-term financing problems at a photo op event designed to educate the public about the retirement system."
It's an awesome, and brief, and non-sleep-inducing read. Print it out and carry it around with you as a talking points memo for future arguments with rabble-rousers who want to destroy Social Security in order to save it.
Thank God guys like this are around. It's sort of sad, though, that so few of them are available that none could be found to work for the Washington Post or the New York Times.
Donaldson caves
So much for the tougher SEC. From today's Journal:
[...]
Well, that was nice while it lasted.
I'm agnostic on the best-price rule; I just don't know enough about it to know whether it's a good or bad idea. But I do know that there has been a lot of heat on Donaldson lately, for trying to enforce rules that require businesses adhere to only minimal standards of honesty and accountability. Yesterday's WSJ had an interview with Bush in which he made more comments like the one above:
Getting the message, Donaldson? Apparently, he did, and he's caved to at least some of their demands. Not a good sign, but not too surprising.
Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson, facing business and political criticism for advocating an agenda that some consider too regulatory, is softening his stance on two controversial proposals he initially championed.
In recent weeks, Mr. Donaldson has told SEC staffers and others that he is reconsidering his support for a proposal to overhaul the way stocks are traded in the U.S., according to people who have spoken to him about the matter. The New York Stock Exchange opposes the proposal, and now Mr. Donaldson may back a less-radical plan for overhauling trading rules.
[...]
Mr. Donaldson was brought in as chairman in the aftermath of several corporate scandals to help restore investor confidence and to shore up the SEC's reputation as an effective watchdog. Since then, he has come under fire from fellow Republicans for pursuing a regulatory agenda that some say is out of sync with his party's pro-business stance. He has pushed through significant proposals on mutual-fund governance and hedge-fund regulation with only the backing of the SEC's two Democrats. He also has clashed with his two fellow Republican commissioners on some enforcement issues. Republican anger toward Mr. Donaldson has prompted speculation that he may leave before his term expires in 2007.[Emphasis added]
In an interview Monday with The Wall Street Journal, President Bush praised Mr. Donaldson for holding corporate wrongdoers accountable but cautioned against regulatory overreach. "You want government to uphold law. What you don't want government to do is to freeze investment. And there's an interesting balance there," President Bush said.
Some within the SEC said the political and business pressure is causing the chairman to tread carefully when considering this latest proposal to revamp stock-trading rules. "Donaldson, as much as possible, is looking for regulatory approaches that get as much support as possible and, at this moment, is not interested in taking on something as controversial" as the plan to revamp stock trading, said an SEC official familiar with his thinking.
Well, that was nice while it lasted.
I'm agnostic on the best-price rule; I just don't know enough about it to know whether it's a good or bad idea. But I do know that there has been a lot of heat on Donaldson lately, for trying to enforce rules that require businesses adhere to only minimal standards of honesty and accountability. Yesterday's WSJ had an interview with Bush in which he made more comments like the one above:
He praised the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for tough policing of misdeeds in corporate America, but warned of a danger of squelching investments by going too far. "We've been through a very difficult period, and the Justice Department and SEC have been doing a very good job of sending a clear signal that if you break the law there will be consequences," he said.
But he also called for "balance," saying: "At the same time we are mindful that a system that can become too onerous is one that makes America not the best place in the world to do business."
Getting the message, Donaldson? Apparently, he did, and he's caved to at least some of their demands. Not a good sign, but not too surprising.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Donkey Rising
The Democrats are still scratching their heads about their election defeat (pick any one of the past four years or so), but some real important strides are being made:
Good point, Bill! I think we all were caught completely off guard by that surprising Republican attack-dog approach. After all, Republicans have always been downright chivalrous in their approach to elections. Who could forget ...
1972: G. Gordon Liddy tells Richard Nixon he's willing to break into DNC headquarters and get the dirt on Hubert Humphrey. Outraged, Nixon personally drags Liddy before a national television audience and beats him briskly about the face and neck before offering to concede the election. Humphrey declines, and an impressed electorate sends Nixon back to the White House with a resounding triumph.
1988: Lee Atwater tries to make political hay out of the fact that Michael Dukakis once set a scary non-white inmate free to commit scary non-white crimes. An offended George H. W. Bush responds by convincing Ronald Reagan to free several non-white federal convicts, and then he takes the inmates on a trip to King's Dominion, where they ride rides and eat ice cream and don't rape or murder anybody. Everybody has a laugh and learns a little something, too, and Bush wins in a landslide.
2002: GOP operatives, including Ann Coulter, poke fun at Georgia Sen. Max Cleland for only losing three of his limbs in Vietnam. His opponent in that year's senatorial race, Saxby Chambliss, is so ashamed of his associates that he hacks off all of his own limbs and is wheeled to an easy victory over Cleland, the Democratic incumbent.
So who could have seen 2004's dirty GOP tricks coming, except for Bill Richardson, whom we're going to start calling "Ol' Eagle Eye" for his keen powers of observation. With geniuses like Ol' Eagle Eye on the case, Democrats should next win another election in the year never. Start writing your campaign-donation checks now!
"We were caught off guard by this perennial Republican attack-dog mentality," says Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a potential 2008 presidential candidate, reflecting on 2004. "We've got to find ways to develop our own."
Good point, Bill! I think we all were caught completely off guard by that surprising Republican attack-dog approach. After all, Republicans have always been downright chivalrous in their approach to elections. Who could forget ...
1972: G. Gordon Liddy tells Richard Nixon he's willing to break into DNC headquarters and get the dirt on Hubert Humphrey. Outraged, Nixon personally drags Liddy before a national television audience and beats him briskly about the face and neck before offering to concede the election. Humphrey declines, and an impressed electorate sends Nixon back to the White House with a resounding triumph.
1988: Lee Atwater tries to make political hay out of the fact that Michael Dukakis once set a scary non-white inmate free to commit scary non-white crimes. An offended George H. W. Bush responds by convincing Ronald Reagan to free several non-white federal convicts, and then he takes the inmates on a trip to King's Dominion, where they ride rides and eat ice cream and don't rape or murder anybody. Everybody has a laugh and learns a little something, too, and Bush wins in a landslide.
2002: GOP operatives, including Ann Coulter, poke fun at Georgia Sen. Max Cleland for only losing three of his limbs in Vietnam. His opponent in that year's senatorial race, Saxby Chambliss, is so ashamed of his associates that he hacks off all of his own limbs and is wheeled to an easy victory over Cleland, the Democratic incumbent.
So who could have seen 2004's dirty GOP tricks coming, except for Bill Richardson, whom we're going to start calling "Ol' Eagle Eye" for his keen powers of observation. With geniuses like Ol' Eagle Eye on the case, Democrats should next win another election in the year never. Start writing your campaign-donation checks now!
Justice is served!
Great news today, as the heads of four ne'er-do-wells from CBS News rolled into the gutter, where they bumped against the round noggin of Dan Rather, all getting their just desserts for participating in the Memogate fraud last year. PBR Street Gang is thrilled with the electric jolt of white-hot justice and can't wait to see it flow everywhere else it's deserved. For starters, the New York Times newsroom, where Judith Miller continues to hack away, and the Defense Department, where they still let Donald Rumsfeld talk and give orders and stuff. So let's go, justice! Come on!
Any time now!
Any time now!
Is Greg Mankiw lying?
What brought me out of semi-retirement is this brief story in today's WSJ:
"PHILADELPHIA -- President Bush's top economic adviser, responding to criticism of the administration's plans to shore up Social Security, said the White House isn't seeking to slash retiree benefits, but aims simply to stop the system from showering ever-larger benefits on each new generation of retirees.
"N. Gregory Mankiw said that under current law, Social Security benefits for the average U.S. citizen are set to increase "by over 40%" in inflation-adjusted terms over the next four decades. To pay for such increases, he said, the government would have to raise payroll taxes to levels that could hobble the U.S. economy and make it "more like those of Europe."
(Quote from Mankiw)
"Public opposition to Mr. Bush's proposals for overhauling the Social Security system has grown as details have become known. The seniors group AARP launched a newspaper advertising campaign denouncing a proposal to permit workers to direct some of their payroll taxes into private savings accounts. Critics have also charged that Mr. Bush's proposal to index Social Security benefits to inflation instead of wage increases would reduce benefits by a third over the next few decades.
"Mr. Mankiw, who is chairman of Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, said the government didn't begin to index benefits to wage growth until the late 1970s. Even then, he said, prominent economists were arguing that the system was too generous because wages tend to grow faster than prices. Unless the current system is revamped, he said, the U.S. government by 2018 will be paying out more in benefits than it receives in revenue. By 2042, the system will be "insolvent." If Congress were to wait until then to raise taxes to pay for benefits, payroll taxes would need to increase by about 50%, he said. Tax increases of that magnitude would have "adverse effects on the overall economy.""
First, if you cut the rate of growth of benefits, then you're slashing benefits. Hopefully, the media will notice this. I doubt they will, of course.
Second, saying the system will be "insolvent" in 2042 is overstating it a bit. That's one estimate of when the system will be forced to pay less in benefits. Another estimate, one not made by Bush appointees, predicts that day will come in 2052. In either year, the system will be able to pay 75-80% of full benefits for decades to come. Does that sound like an "insolvent" system?
Finally, I don't know what to make of his claim that payroll taxes would need to increase by about 50%. I will do my damnedest to find out, because that sounds like a lot of bullshit to me, or at least like the usual Mankiw-speak, which is it's bunch of shit molded around a sliver of truth to make a sort of bullshit panini.
"PHILADELPHIA -- President Bush's top economic adviser, responding to criticism of the administration's plans to shore up Social Security, said the White House isn't seeking to slash retiree benefits, but aims simply to stop the system from showering ever-larger benefits on each new generation of retirees.
"N. Gregory Mankiw said that under current law, Social Security benefits for the average U.S. citizen are set to increase "by over 40%" in inflation-adjusted terms over the next four decades. To pay for such increases, he said, the government would have to raise payroll taxes to levels that could hobble the U.S. economy and make it "more like those of Europe."
(Quote from Mankiw)
"Public opposition to Mr. Bush's proposals for overhauling the Social Security system has grown as details have become known. The seniors group AARP launched a newspaper advertising campaign denouncing a proposal to permit workers to direct some of their payroll taxes into private savings accounts. Critics have also charged that Mr. Bush's proposal to index Social Security benefits to inflation instead of wage increases would reduce benefits by a third over the next few decades.
"Mr. Mankiw, who is chairman of Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, said the government didn't begin to index benefits to wage growth until the late 1970s. Even then, he said, prominent economists were arguing that the system was too generous because wages tend to grow faster than prices. Unless the current system is revamped, he said, the U.S. government by 2018 will be paying out more in benefits than it receives in revenue. By 2042, the system will be "insolvent." If Congress were to wait until then to raise taxes to pay for benefits, payroll taxes would need to increase by about 50%, he said. Tax increases of that magnitude would have "adverse effects on the overall economy.""
First, if you cut the rate of growth of benefits, then you're slashing benefits. Hopefully, the media will notice this. I doubt they will, of course.
Second, saying the system will be "insolvent" in 2042 is overstating it a bit. That's one estimate of when the system will be forced to pay less in benefits. Another estimate, one not made by Bush appointees, predicts that day will come in 2052. In either year, the system will be able to pay 75-80% of full benefits for decades to come. Does that sound like an "insolvent" system?
Finally, I don't know what to make of his claim that payroll taxes would need to increase by about 50%. I will do my damnedest to find out, because that sounds like a lot of bullshit to me, or at least like the usual Mankiw-speak, which is it's bunch of shit molded around a sliver of truth to make a sort of bullshit panini.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)