Tweet
Usually it is the politicians who use euphemisms to try to conceal the impact of their policies. However, the Washington Post decided to help them along in a front page article when it twice referred to Social Security “changes” that could be part of the budget agreement.
Of course “changes” don’t reduce the deficit unless they are cuts. President Obama and the congressional leadership were discussing plans to cut Social Security. These cuts are likely to be very unpopular, so it is likely that they would rather have the public not realize that they were debating cuts to Social Security.
Since the Post‘s editorial position also supports cuts to Social Security, the paper apparently decided to help the politicians along in this effort. This is why the Post is known as Fox on 15th Street.
Interestingly, the Post never once referred to tax “changes,” rather than increases. It even allowed Don Stewart, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s deputy chief of staff for communications, to refer to “massive tax increases,” without pointing out that none of the tax increases put forward by President Obama would raise taxes above their late 90s level when the economy was adding 3 million jobs a year.
Washington Post reporters have the time to look up tax increases and assess their importance. Washington Post readers do not.
38 Comments
It is also ignored that those tax tucks would not kick in for a couple of years, altho the right insists they will destroy business ‘confidence’ now and be a ‘job killer’ also now.
The media corporate board rooms (all 6 of them that control 90% of our media) have controlled the page content of just about all media since Reagan (makes the fact that self select in surveys show more Democrats/liberals working in various positions in the media an even more pointless factoid that the fact that the surveys had 5000 card responses out of 400,000 sent out, or that 30 responses were used to declare DC a liberal media heaven).
But then I grew up when Time Mag. was the source you used if you wanted decent points in your debate – and that was as board room controlled/conservative as anything today 60 years later, albeit more about anti-union, anti-communism, anti-Russia, anti-black/minority than it was about economics and taxes.
It’s the Washington Post, bible of the Beltway Brahmans. There is only one acceptable narrative in DC and it’s never a “progressive” narrative.
I should have noted that at the start of Reagan’s term we had about 30 board rooms doing the control now done by 6 board rooms – got to love that progress thing.
Democrats and the Social Security Messaging Fail
It should come as a shock to no one that Democrats have failed miserably in developing a coherent message on Social Security. That’s the way they operate. And having no short, powerful message to sell, they’re obviously in no position to play the game Republicans have mastered over the past decade: repeating the message over and over and over again.
Republicans took all the money Social Security needed to stay in business for the next 25 years to pay for two bungled wars and tax cuts for the rich. Now they don’t want to pay it back …
Article:
http://beeryblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/dems-must-get-social-security-messaging-right/
What????
“Of course “changes” don’t reduce the deficit unless they are cuts. ”
For gawd’s sake. Even CUTS to social security don’t reduce the deficit. Social Security isn’t part of the budget. It has no effect on the deficit at all.
The ONLY thing cuts to social security can effect is when social security will have to cash in bonds to pay out benefits.
The government borrowed the surpluses from social security to spend on OTHER things. If this act of borrowing money and now being expected to pay the money back is considered a part of the deficit and debt, then the blame should be placed on what the borrowed money was used to BUY, not on the creditor (social security) we borrowed the money from. We aren’t blaming China and Japan for lending us money to spend. Why are we blaming social security? Blame the wars, the Bush tax cuts and medicare part D. We borrowed the social security surpluses to BUY these things that we couldn’t afford. These are the problems, not social security.
And, if your reference was to FUTURE social security payments after 2037, the social security program is legally denied the capability to pay out more than it brings in. So, at that point when the program will only bring in enough to pay out 75% of its obligations, it will not legally be allowed to go to the government to get the other 25% and cause an increase in the deficit or debt. The only action that would be legal would be to increase FICA taxes by either increases the tax rate or increasing the or removing the income cap.
Please don;t buy into their language that “savings” in social security can have any effect on the deficit or debt. It’s not true.
“Please don;t buy into their language that “savings” in social security can have any effect on the deficit or debt. It’s not true.”
actually, by reducing disposable income, it can make the economy and thereby the deficit worse
double speak. Revenue increase= tax increase. Social Security changes= cuts. Augst 2 deadline= deadline unless deal not reached. By the way I dont have any of those bonds that might be defaulted. I would guess 99% of FDL readers dont have them either. So why do we care? Oh I better be careful because I would be off to a “re-education” camp.
can anyone say:
estate taxes
and
top two tax brackets.
they are lower than they have been in more than half a century.
there is plenty of money there for debt reduction.
can anyone say:
eliminate the FICA cap?
there is plenty of money there to make SS fully solvent at current benefits for 75 years.
why are we looking at cutting SS, Medicare, Medicaid, education?
Can anyone say:
negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D?
Can anyone say: troop reductions?
need I go on….
So, I guess “Change We can Believe In”
Is really “Change W.E. can believe in.”
W.E. = wealthy elites…
Alas, Why would Blue Texan say, “Paul Krugman nails it, as always” when PK chose to remain silent during all three extraordinary economic debates made in the last 15 years (Boskin, Glass-Steagal repeal, housing) that combined to wreck our economy and shape our economic future for decades to come. And why would Dems call leading Economists together pre-2008 election, sans Dean Baker – the one Economist who’s been consistently right on ALL the issues we’re struggling to face up to now? Aah, the imponderables of life.
Given the extent of control the conservative faction of moneyed interests have over government and media, we probably won’t see any real fixes get good press, or even fair press, unless those interests stand to profit from them. That could mean there will be no actual fixes, just more crap along the lines of the health care ACA.
Republicans think they are really riding the high waves here. I think they have lost any redemption with voters. Tell me, why would one want to vote for republicans that have refused job bills six times?
Why would one want to vote for republicans that wish to strip all we have paid into our Social systems? Oh, and all during the Bush years America lost money, jobs, world standing, and all moral ethics in every sector of government. Two and half years after Obama’s election, they are the majority house and still haven’t managed to bring our economy back from the brink.
Why would one wish to vote for a republican?
Oh and to answer the question: It’s the WaPoo! Their main business objective is to dis-inform readers.
Maybe the Federal Government started menopause. That always gets referred to as non-specific term “changes” too.
Maybe it’s Obama that’s started menopause. Is that how “Change you can believe in” turned into 3 wars and $2 trillion thrown into the street for bankers.
when Pete Peterson is your Editor in chief this comes as no shock to me that WaPo is helping to destroy SS…isn’t interesting that we never hear Peterson’s name on any of the “Liberal” MSNBC shows? Keep up the good work Dean! I saw you on Fox w/Laura I the other week and how you keep your cool is beyond me!
Fiscal TImes and Washington Post have a public agreement where Post uses Times’ “economic” stories.
Fiscal Times is funded by Pete Peterson, an ancient billionaire who once owned Blackrock and hates Social Security because it is owed money by the government – money he thinks would be better spent as even more tax cuts for rich and their corporations.
Not a hard story to tell if Democrats were not a bunch of whiners and compromisers, who march on Twitter, not the street.
“Why does the Washington Post say “changes”…when they mean cuts?”
Because we’re a nation of bullshit. (The most important word in the english language…)
It’s de riguer, to protect the corporate reich that Bush did so much to implement, and on which Obama seems perfectly willing to put the finishing touches.
“Of course “changes” don’t reduce the deficit unless they are cuts.”
No matter what ‘changes’ are made to Social Security, it will not reduce the deficit because it hasn’t added ANYTHING to the DEBT or DEFICIT. Why does everyone not get this simple point. It is also not an entitlement or a social welfare program.
This is just another in a series of attempts to dismantle Social Security that has been perennial since the 1940′s.
So-called conservatives HATE Social Security just like they hate labor unions and abortion (this is a short list of things, I could thing of many more.
The so-called conservatives have done virtually nothing that enhances this country, all they while endlessly scheming how to crush these important advances in our society that allow people to live with some form of financial security and dignity.
Tell that too all the septuagenarians that will HAVE NO MONEY TO SPEND and starve in the streets.
. . .Why Does the Washington Post Say “Changes” to Social Security When They Really Mean “Cuts”?. . .
——————
It would have to do with the outlay actually increasing, nonethless, although many individuals will see less in their SS payment. It’s the same with other budget jargon.
To a progressive a “cut” in any social program’s budget exists by definition whenever there is any reduction in a service to a beneficiary, or the outlay doesn’t keep up with inflation, even though the Fed’s outlay may actually increase a subsequent year.
To right wingers there is no such thing as a “cut” unless the outlay actually goes down. In other words, to hell with the end product.
Yes, the WP’s language is surprising, considering that usually progressive friendly source.
No place with Fred Hiatt running it is at all ‘progressive’. Just ask Dan Froomkin.
We have a winner. They don’t want to pay it back.
The money they took to finance wars and tax cuts should be trickling down anytime now./s
…“changes” don’t reduce the deficit unless they are cuts.
Only to the GOP and their friends like the WaPo. The could “change” SS by raising the income cap on which SS taxes are paid and eliminate the expected shortfall. There’s a “change” that isn’t a cut.
WaPo’s progressive tendencies are past history, as it lined up with the Bush WH on wars and tax cuts. Sad to see, but Watergate kept it afloat for awhile, and only by persistent right wing editorial stands has that fame ended in flames.
Why Does the Washington Post Say “Changes” to Social Security When They Really Mean “Cuts”?
Because they are a conservative rag.
Why ask?
Why do the “almost Nazi’s” have such a great desire to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
The Average SS recipient receives $1,000 per month. From that amount they say the monthly medicare premium, co-pays,deductibles, rent, utilities and food.
Do they expect the SS recipient to cut their pills into quarters, reduce necessary doctor’s visits, eat dog food, and move out onto the streets.
These radical extremist so-called republicans and the vast propaganda machine that supports them act as if they just “poofed” into existence and have no parents, grandparents,aunts, uncles, cousins, neighbors, co-workers, spouse, children, brothers and sisters.
Are these people the natural Nazi’s? The natural Nazi’s supported Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pinochet, Argentina junta, Burma junta, Pol Pot, Assad, Saleh, Kadhafi, Mugabe, Idi Amin, Hussein, and so many other despots.
Why are these “sub humans” so loyal and so willing to do despicable deeds for their evil leaders?
what do sun myung moon, rupert murdoch and j. edgar hoover have in common?
top level blackmail…this is how things get done.
How can Dems have a coherent message on SocSec –or Medicare, Medicaid, anything– when the ostensibly Democratic president uses Republican talkingpoints (the cleaned up, NPR-sytle more rational sounding wording, not the bat guano style; altho sometimes…, the Dem leadership is all over the economic/political map, and nobody at the top listens to or gives a rat’s ass about what the masses of people want.
Now, a Tea Party minority gets lots of press, but the TWO TO ONE majority which want some cuts, tax increases on the wealthy, and NO ONE TOUCHING SocSec, Medicare, and Medicaid? We get, what, a brief mention from Andrew Kohut on NewsHour, stressing that even middle to lower class Republicans feel this way — and then Judy Woodruff says to Kohut, Well, it depends on what words they use for the cuts then doesn’t it? Kohut agreed, appeared somewhat off kilter, then added there would be fierce anger from the electorate if cuts are made to SocSec and the medical care programs.
Don’t forget the $12-13 Trillion that went to the Too Big To Fail banksters out the back door of the Fed.
Notice the LYING Catfoodcrats have put on the focus on taxes so you won’t see how they’re trying to TRICK Americans into supporting this.
Obama and his snarkly little “eat your peas”, well the peas are Social Security and Medicare hidden under the shells in the GRAND con game.
We’re just marks in the game.
Prof. Baker, thank you.
I think the “changes” is spin from the Democrats. It’s one of their new LIE words, you know like “change you can believe in”. It must be an inside joke. I mean worked for the campaign, maybe they figure they can sell raising the Medicare age to boomers by re-using the “change” word.
Why do people here call tax increases revenue increases?
I don’t. I have no problem with the word tax. It’s taxation without representation that I oppose. If we AGREE to tax ourselves to buy a park or build a school or a bridge or take care of granny at the nursing home or the sick kid down the street, what’s wrong with that?
What I loathe are the back room deals and the press release lies that prevent us from agreeing to anything because the bill is deliberately passed before we know what is in it.
It’s all about the debt ceiling, who cares, until you wake up and find out they just left you without healthcare at 65 and thought you wouldn’t notice.
One reason they say changes is that some of it is change rather than cut. for eaxmple, if you are under 55, you are likely not collecting social security so it isn’t a cut, it’s a change.
I think the expectation is actually that social security isn’t and never was meant to support people as a sole means of support in retirement.
I get your drift, however. . .
Nazis and the other miscreants on your list actually depended on large state controlled social programs to control the public. Disapproved citizens could easily be excluded from benefits, which was part of their strategy, while the rest could be cajoled into supporting most anything the state wanted to do. Musolini had been a socialist, flirted with communism, before settling on the fascist course which was simply more expedient for him at the time. It was more about enhancing central power of the state than this or that economic ideology.
Other aspects of Naziism included an obsession with military conquest and exterminating anyone who could be trumped up as an obstacle.
Perhaps the aspect of military intervention, and its methods, is where you draw your parallel with today’s right wing mindful of recent history. I think it’s a stretch to extend that to a prospect of gas chambers, although there may be a valid parallel as far as Guantanamo, secret rendition sites. Still I think Naziism is too all encompasing a term. It’s more comfort food than accurate criticism.
I agree that there’s a severe inclination toward neglect on the right’s agenda nowadays. They’re wishfully thinking they’ll protect a privileged lifestyle at no cost to themselves, and imagine some benefit to sociecy will accrue to boot. It’s a siege mentality, no? It all adds up to something toxic, but I’m not sure what to call it — I really need something inflammatory.
I’d pick some other term than Naziism, though.