|
MediaCynic.com Homepage | Social Security
Political Roundup 6-20-05
CIA Director Porter Goss has an excellent idea where Bin Laden is. From a
recent Time magazine interview:
Time: It sounds like you have a pretty good idea of where he is. Where?
Goss: I have an excellent idea of where he is. What's the next question?
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware is considering a presidential
run.
There are several blogs and websites now supporting a Condoleezza Rice
bid for president located here, here, here and here. Rice was recently
seen at the 5th Annual World Refugee Day celebration with actress Angelina Jolie.
Public support for war is dropping says Left Coaster.
In a Financial Times interview Bill Clinton says close down Gitmo or clean it up:
Bill Clinton has become the most prominent figure so far to add his voice to
criticisms of the US prison camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.
In an interview with the Financial Times, the former president called for the camp, set up to hold suspected terrorists, to "be closed down or cleaned up".
Mr Clinton joined critics at home and abroad who have singled out the indefinite detention of prisoners without trial and widespread reports of human rights violations at Guantánamo. "It is time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused," he said.
Mark Felt, also known today as Deep Throat, has landed his own book
deal.
Senator Chuck Hagel (R) doesn't think the situation in Iraq is getting
better like the Bush administration claims. From a US News article
"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is
completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like
they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're
losing in Iraq."
Warren Buffet told Lou Dobbs in a recent interview that the huge trade deficit will have consequences:
Everyone says that what is going on can't go on forever. We had, you know,
$618 billion trade deficit last year, and it's already grown a little bit
this year. The standard line is, it can't go on forever, but no one seems
to give an answer of what is going to be done about it. We exported $1.1
trillion last year, and we imported over $1.7 trillion. We are running up
obligations to the rest of the word, and they are buying our assets at the
rate of almost $2 billion a day. And that will have consequences.
Buffet also said there might be a soft landing or there might not:
Right now our net position versus the rest of the world is they own $3
trillion more of us than we own of them, and that number grows every day,
and at some point economists talk about a soft landing. Maybe there will
be a soft landing, but you know, who knows?
Blog Discussions: There are over 3,800 posts listed on Technorati
discussing the Schiavo autopsy results. The autopsy showed that Schiavo's severe brain damage was irreversible and that she was blind.
There are 2,501 posts discussing a plan by some Republican senators to raise the retirement age to 69. By comparison, there are over 18,900 posts discussing the not guilty verdict from the Michael Jackson Case.
Posted on June 20, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
Poll Numbers Dropping for Bush and Congress
MSNBC reports on the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, and the numbers are not good news for either President Bush or Congress. The American public is unhappy with Bush, Congress and the priorities they are pursuing. A majority of Americans think that Congress should be focusing on the economy, gas prices and healthcare, not privatizing Social Security or battling over judges. In fact, a majority of Americans want the Senate to decide the fitness of each nominee to be a judge on its own and not just rubber stamp the White House's nominations. That's not good news for Frist and the anti-filibusterers.
The survey, which polled 1,005 adults from May 12-16 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, also has some troubling findings for President Bush. Just 20 percent of those polled say the economy has gotten better over the past 12 months, an 11- point decline since January; 51 percent believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power was not worth the cost and casualties of that war; and only 36 percent support Bush’s plan to allow workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market.
Most don't support blanket approval for judges
That Social Security figure, which is virtually unchanged from April, is significant because it suggests that Bush hasn’t moved the country any closer to supporting private accounts despite his months-long campaign for them.
Regarding the contentious debate over Bush’s judicial nominees, just 34 percent say the Senate should generally confirm the president’s judicial picks as long as they are honest and competent, while 56 percent argue that the Senate should make its own decision about the fitness of each nominee to serve.
Overall, according to the NBC/Journal poll, 52 percent believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, while 35 percent think it’s on the right track.
All of these findings, Hart says, are signs of an angry electorate. "If you are a member of Congress and you got the poll back, you better be looking over your shoulder," he said. "The masses are not happy."
This poll reports that 47% of Americans want the Democrats to take over Congress in 2006, versus 40% who want Republicans to stay in charge. It's
still too early to say if those numbers will hold until the midterms. But one thing's for sure: if James Dobson continues his Svengali-like hold on Frist and the Senate's agenda, things could go ill for Republicans in 2006.
Posted on May 19, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
Bush's New Twist on Social Security: Cut Benefits for the Middle Class
Well, that was a bit of an eye-opener. Last night, President Bush announced the fuzzy outlines of his plans to revamp social security. He doesn't have all the kinks worked out yet, but here are the linchpins of the plan: 1) tie benefits to prices (that is, inflation), not wages, which would produce a hefty cut in guaranteed benefits over time, 2) reduce benefits for the middle class and so-called wealthy Americans "to help the poor", and --you guessed it-- 3)private savings accounts coupled with yet more reductions in guaranteed benefits. It's certainly a novel approach. Cut benefits for the middle class; you know, the majority of Americans, those people who actually vote in elections. As Frank Newport of Gallup said, the more Bush talks about social security the more his poll numbers drop. But those in the echo chamber don't seem to hear what Americans are saying.
Posted on April 29, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
Terrible Troika Set to Terrify Old Europe
President Bush named Paul Wolfowitz to head up the World Bank. You remember Wolfie? He's the one who said that the Iraq War will be paid for by Iraqi oil reserves and that it would be silly to think that we'd need more troops to win the peace than to win the war. Oh yes, and he hates Old Europe. Sounds like the perfect guy for the job. But that's only the beginning of the reign of the Terrible Troika. With Wolfie at the World Bank doling out money to poor people, Karen Hughes on a mission to improve our image in the Muslim world and John "The UN Totally Sucks" Bolton as our new ambassador to the United Nations, 2005 is set to be one of Old Europe's most miserable years--diplomatically speaking. Never let it be said that Karl Rove doesn't have a sense of humor.
Good news for the dwindling Social Security trust fund: rising obesity rates are going to cut 2-5 years off people's lives.
President Bush winked at Maureen Dowd at the Gridiron Dinner in Washington on Saturday: "not a flirty wink but a mischievous Clark Gable 'I've got your number and you think you've got mine but I win' wink." That's a lot of information to glean from a wink.
Posted on March 17, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
When It Comes to Social Security, Gridlock is a Beautiful Thing
David Brooks takes a shot at analyzing the status of the current Social Security debate and gets it really wrong. Brooks starts out by saying that there is only a one in four chance that Social Security reform will happen this year. Fair enough; the polls show that only around 37% of Americans are buying into the idea of privatizing social security. He then tries to explain where both the Republicans and Democrats went wrong. He says that the Republicans underestimated Americans' love for the social security program and their willingness to take a cut in benefits. So far, so accurate. But where he goes terribly wrong is in saying that the Democrats and moderate Republicans who have opposed privatization at all costs are making a mistake by not meeting the privatization folks halfway. For the first time in a long time, Democrats are totally united against this absurd proposal to privatize Social Security, which even President Bush admits will not make the program fiscally sound. When a proposal is morally, ethically and logically wrong, you do not compromise. You say "No."
Put simply, there is no Social Security crisis. A few adjustments need to be made because our population is aging. Today, even Alan Greenspan said that it's not a complicated fix. He suggested--hold on to your hats folks--that we put the Social Security monies in a Lock Box, and stop co-mingling it with other funds. (Al Gore probably fell out of his chair when he heard Greenspan put forth this sensible idea from his 2000 presidential campaign.) Second, if we didn't have such a horrendous deficit from a war that was supposed to be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues (remember that promise?), the cost of the risky social experiment of private accounts wouldn't require us to borrow trillions of dollars from the Chinese. Third, Greenspan said today that raising the retirement age by even one year would have a tremendous positive impact.
Brooks says,
If Social Security reform fails--and obviously I hope this obit becomes obsolete--it will be many years before any sort of big entitlement reform will come up again. The parties will keep playing chicken, and we will soon find ourselves catastrophically buried under our own debt.
He makes it sound like Social Security is the reason for the current deficit, which is absurd. This so-called "reform movement" is anything but that. This is a movement to dismantle the New Deal and wean Americans off a retirement plan that is funded by taxpayers. That is a fundamental policy shift embracing the idea that each person is responsible for his own retirement and that the government does not need to provide a safety net for the elderly and infirm. Although I personally find that position to be unethical, morally bankrupt and quite impractical (even the most libertarian among us probably doesn't want to trip over homeless elderly people eating cat food while on the way to Nordstrom's), it is a recognized--if unpopular--political position to take. So, let the privatizers stand up and tell the American people what they're really trying to do to Social Security: destroy it, starting with small, incremental steps. And when they tell the truth, the American people will see that, sometimes, gridlock can be a beautiful thing.
Posted on March 15, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
Republican Senators Waffling on Social Security Privatization
USA Today reports some bad news for President Bush: the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll conducted Friday-Sunday found that a paltry 35% of Americans approve of Bush's Social Security record, 56% disapprove and 9% have no opinion. After a week of hearing angry seniors gripe at them during town hall meetings, many Republican Senators have returned to Washington less than thrilled with the whole privatization thing. Senator Frist (who has apparently learned a thing or two about how to handle the unruly Senate) threw the whole issue squarely back in Bush's lap. "The president will have to stay out there and lead on it, when a lot of political figures want to run and hide and when you have a lot of people who say there's no problem." At least he recognizes that many people (read: economists and the majority of Americans) heard the president loud and clear when he admitted that private accounts will not improve the financial situation of social security. Frist may have thrown the hot potato back to Bush, but the president has a problem: the more he talks, the more people are opposed to his plan. Or, as Senator Chuck Schumer quipped; "In two months, the president has created a firestorm against [his own plan]." The Gallup Poll had some more bad news for Bush: his favorable rating is at 56%, but the AARP's favorable rating is at 75%.
Posted on March 1, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
Bush Dangerously Close to the Read My Lips Zone
President George W. Bush is dangerously close to entering the Read My Lips: No New Taxes territory that sunk his father's hopes of a second term as president. Bush, Jr. knew that the only way he could get small and medium-sized businesses on board with this social security privatization idea is to promise not to increase the taxes paid by businesses to social security. He said over and over again he would consider any fix but a tax hike. But, here we go again. The Associated Press reports that President Bush is, indeed, open to the idea of raising social security and/or medicare taxes. That set off a firestorm among fiscal conservatives (You remember them, right? Small government, no deficits, fiscal responsibility? No? Me either.) "People are quite angry about Bush opening a Pandora's box of tax increases," said Stephen Moore, an anti-tax advocate from the Club for Growth. "It's almost like 'read my lips' all over again." Be careful, Mr. Moore, you are treading dangerously close to heresy here. That almost sounds like you're calling our president a flip-flopper.
Posted on February 18, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
President Bush Explains Social Security Reform
Atrios gives the heads up to the most enlightening part of President Bush's speech to seniors in Florida to explain what in the world he means by social security reform.
(Question from crowd) --[I don't] really understand how is it the new plan is going to fix that problem?
THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.
Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.
Okay, better? I'll keep working on it. (Laughter.)
It's crystal clear to me. I don't know why that questioner is so negative. He must be part of the freedom-hating, reality-based community. I think President Bush could land a cushy gig at MIT after his term is up -- lecturing on theoretical physics, perhaps. And, in a related newsflash, not even Stephen Hawking could make this proposed Social Security "reform" plan make any kind of sense.
Posted on February 8, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
Is Bush Moving to the Center?
Conservative commentator Bob Novak asks that very question in an interesting column. Novak, like Peggy Noonan, wasn't thrilled about the Bush inaugural speech. But what he finds more disturbing is Bush's reluctance to push forward with the gay marriage ban and the departure of some hardliners from the administration. Condoleeza Rice won the battle against John Bolton and picked her own second and third in command at the State Department, who are both career diplomats -- not neocons. But the real irritant is the selection of pro-choice Republican Jo Ann Davidson as the new co-chairman of the Republican National Committee. Of course, all of these comments relate to domestic issues. Seymour Hersh, appearing on The Daily Show last night, told Jon Stewart that his CIA sources tell him that it's full speed head with attacking Iran this summer and reforming the Middle East in the neocon image. And privatizing social security is certainly not moderate. So, I think that the signals are not as clear as Mr. Novak seems to think. But we'll see.
Posted on January 27, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
Social Security: Living on Borrowed Time
In President Bush's weekly radio address, he said of his plans to revamp Social Security: "I'm open to good ideas from Democrats and Republicans." So, let me get this straight. He still doesn't have a specific plan yet for tinkering with the elderly's social safety net? That's not terribly reassuring. The White House keeps floating trial balloons to see what kind of reaction they get. So far, the reaction has been remarkably cool, especially considering the fact that we still haven't even heard the details for this supposedly sweeping change. If one supposes that Bush's plan is to allow workers under 30 to take a small percentage of their incomes and put them into private accounts, the estimated transition costs will be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. Because our government has recklessly spent the money that the current retirees have been paying into the system for the last forty years or so, the system relies on the earnings of today's young workers to fund current benefits payable to retirees. This shortfall will have to be met by our borrowing from the Chinese and anyone else who's willing to continue to finance our profligate spending spree. But the word is that the countries that hold much of our debt are increasingly unhappy with our free-spending ways. And aren't the countries buying up our debt also doing arms deals with terrorists? Is this really a good idea to owe these people a lot of money? And exactly how much did Bush just ask for in additional funding for the Iraq War -- $100 billion or so? But we'll get that money back in oil revenues, right? Oh wait, Bush made sure that that provision was taken out of the Iraq spending bills -- Iraq doesn't have to pay us back for the cost of "liberation." Not to worry. I'm sure our international creditors will be just as generous when the time comes.
Posted on December 18, 2004
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
A Snowy Day at the White House
The Wall Street Journal reports that Treasury Secretary John Snow has been asked to stay on for a second term, after weeks of rumors that he was going to be shown the door. The word is that the bigwig Wall Street executive that the inner circle wanted for the job turned them down flat, no doubt horrified by what happened to the last big exec who took the job, Paul O'Neill, who clashed repeatedly with the White House because of his incredibly annoying habit of telling the truth to reporters. Snow is said to be loyal and is willing to go along with Bush's plans to privatize social security and revamp the tax system. Rumors are also swirling around D.C. that Snow is just a placeholder until another exec can be found to take the job in a year or two. Those rumors were not put to rest when Snow refused to answer questions about whether he will be staying for Bush's entire second term. With the AARP already sending out 55 million letters to its members opposing the proposed partial privatization of social security, Snow better be ready to rumble come 2005.
Posted on December 9, 2004
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
Greenspan Lobs a Grenade Into the Political Arena
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
lobbed a grenade into the political arena with his comments about the ballooning U.S. deficit of $521 billion, which he said must be reduced. Chairman Greenspan warned that if we do not take steps to reduce the deficit, long term interest rates will rise and eventually wreak havoc on the U.S. economy. When the 70 million baby boomers start to retire there will be a massive demographic shift. There won't be enough people paying into the system to pay out benefits. His solution to this problem? Cut spending on social security.
Greenspan recommends cutting the amount of benefits for future retirees, raising the retirement age and changing the index used to calculate inflation.
These comments have created a firestorm of outrage in this election year from the AARP, Democrats and seniors.
President Bush tried to calm fears by stating that:
"My position on social security benefits is: those benefits should not be changed for people at or near retirement."[emphasis added]
Hmmm...that sounds like he does support cutting benefits for anyone who isn't going to retire in, say, the next five years or so. Doesn't surprise me a bit. Anyone who reads the newspaper knows that Social Security is bankrupt. The funds are co-mingled to pay for other projects...there is no magic "lockbox" that keeps those funds separate. And lately the government has been spending like a drunken sailor, to quote Senator John McCain.
So, you know that big chunk of cash that's witheld from your paycheck every two weeks? Don't count on ever seeing it again in the form of a government check that arrives when you hit 65. I hope you're all putting something into savings, because I guarantee you that social security won't be there to bail you out in your Golden Years.
Posted on February 25, 2004
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati
| |
|
Our Blogs
Bloggers Blog
Book Blog
Crafters Craft
Drivers Drive
Fantasy SF Blog
Gamers Game
Health News Blog
HowToWeb.com
The IWJ Blog
Lovers Love
Media Cynic
Petosphere
Pleasant Morning Buzz
Science News Blog
Shopping Blog
Singers Sing
Surfers Surf
Traders Trade
Video Nacho
Watchers Watch
Workers Work
The Write News
Writer's Blog
|
