Tweet
Headquarters of the Washington Post
The Washington Post is intensifying its push for cuts to Social Security and Medicare apparently hoping for action in the lame duck Congressional session. Today a story in the news section told readers:
On entitlements, Obama has offered significant changes to Medicare, including letting the eligibility age to rise from 65 to 67.
The passive tense in this sentence might confuse readers. President Obama proposed raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. This is not something that happens absent his effort to stop it, like the rise of the oceans due to global warming. Obama would be the agent of this increase in the age of eligibility. Experienced reporters and editors usually would not make this sort of mistake.
The next sentence tells readers:
He has also supported applying a less generous measure of inflation to Social Security benefits.
Okay, does everyone know what this means? I suspect that only a small minority of Post readers understands that “applying a less generous measure of inflation” implies a cut in the annual cost of living adjustment of 0.3 percentage points. This cut would be cumulative so that after being retired 10 years a beneficiary would see a cut of approximately 3 percent, after 20 years the cut would 6 percent and after 30 years it would be 9 percent.
Newspapers are supposed to be trying to inform their readers. It is difficult to believe that the Post’s terminology in this sentence was its best effort at informing readers of the meaning of this proposal. It is perhaps worth noting that this proposed cut in benefits is hugely unpopular.
At another point the Post discussed the contours of the budget dispute and told readers:
one of the sticking points remains relevant: Although Democrats wanted to increase the tab [revenue increases] for taxpayers by $800 billion, Republicans wanted at least some of the money to come from economic growth, ….
A real newspaper would write the second part of this sentence:
Republicans wanted to claim at least some of the money would come from economic growth
Undoubtedly both Republicans and Democrats would be happy if the government got additional revenue as a result of more rapid economic growth. The difference is that the Republicans want to score the additional revenue as part of the budget agreement, making assumptions about the impact of lower tax rates on growth that may not be warranted by the evidence. Most Post readers probably would not understand this fact.
Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economy and Policy Research. He also writes a regular blog, Beat the Press, where this post originally appeared.
Photo by Daniel X. O’Neil and licensed under the Creative Commons.
19 Comments
From the WaPo article:
That’s all we need to know.
A timeline for the successive White House “cave-ins” writes itself.
Our only hope is if some in Congress think that their future electoral success
depends on defending SS and Medicare.
And last night on Jennifer Granholm’s show, Peter Fenn actually promoted Erskine Bowles for the next Treasury Secretary. And I thought Timmeh was bad.
I am sick of hearing Eskine Bowles’ name on Current TV as some sort of super hero! I am really sick of hearing how “progressives” are on board for cutting SS and Medicare, really? the media is lazy and bought!
Is this the same paper where the ‘economist’ allows people to confuse him for a real economist with the same last name? I admit I know little about economics and print journalism, but I wonder if there is a point where ‘abandoning journalistic norms’ becomes ‘journalistic malpractice.’
Congratulations Democratic Voters! You just slit your own throats. Look down, the knife is still in your hands.
He is an idiot and a fraud.
Yeah, less than 72 hours since our great victory, and we’re being thrown under the bus. That’s a quick backstabbing even by Obama standards.
If Oilbummer and his crew are going to try and throw us under the bus on Social Security and/or Medicare, we’ll have to mobilize quickly. What’s the most effective way?
Think the people are mad about wall street? Taking away what little is left will push them way over the edge. It will bite each person where Wall Street is a little too far away to be real. A famous French king once said; “The people are revolting” Since it was Mel Brooks, we have no doubt of his chosen meaning.
light the fuse.
The planet looney dems on Democracy Now think the election yielded a progressive mandate .On planet rational , the voters ‘ statement was’; Mr.Prez ,with the pubs ‘proud stance on social Darwinism assisting you ,we validated your wisdom that we retards had nowhere else to go”.
Amy was even proposing we get out and take a beating ,get pepper sprayed ,go to jail and whatever abuse necessary ”to make O do what he clearly has zero intention of doing ” .I’m obviously paraphrasing ,but that’s a terrible message to young activists.I guess she’s leaning forward with Van Jones to expand her subscription base ..
I knew Obama wouldn’t give up screwing over large numbers of his voters, but this is happening fast. Medicare rising to 67!? Wonderful. Many recipients will then be too dead to use it. I have family members who put off health care until they turned 65. And, there is nothing generous about social security to begin with. It’s a meager program. In most industrialized countries, the equivalent social security programs cover 70% of retirement costs. Ours covers 28%.
I’m guessing Obama is trying to rush this through in the lame duck because the just elected Democrats could not vote for this. They just ran against all of these proposals.
I don’t know about “progressive mandate”, but I do think voters voted against cuts to Medicare and social security and for raising taxes on the wealthy.
But, but…team blue won a resounding victory this past Tues. As demonstrated perfectly over the last few months right here on FDL, pretend progressives will happily LOTE it up so that they can say they helped team “slightly less evil” beat team “slightly more evil”. Yes, a new day has dawned for the forces of “not as evil”.
You won’t see this bunch of dissemblers do much more than pretend to be upset when Obama spends the next four years dismantling medicare, SS, and engaging in airstrikes against Iran ‘cuz “Rmoney would have been even worse!”
Let’s see what President Elect Obama had to say to the Washington Post on Friday, January 16, 2009, shortly before his first inauguration.
I remember it well because it was the first time in my life I had ever seen a Democratic politician use the word “entitlements” and promise “reform.” (In the last thirty or so years, has any government “reform” been appealing to the left? You know, like Bill Clinton’s “reform” of welfare led his administration to brag about having “ended welfare as we know it” and both parties striving toward “reform” the U.S. Post Office, etc. )
Let’s see if I can find it by googling Washington Post Obama entitlements January 16, 2009.
Yep. Here it is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html
Yes massib@12 ,I’m sure that you are correct on voter sentiment ,but a mandate affirms a position ,and in fairness to Obama ,he never had a no-cuts position Contrariwise ,O never denied that Bowles was told by him that BS didn’t slash entitlements as much as he desired.He did promise to hike taxes on the rich ,but that’s a pretty shallow ,and mercurial victory ,since history betraces no evidence that lobbyists won’t have them reinstated within a few months .Different legalese ,but the aggregate royalist loss is always repaid with even greater tax-evasion welfare via the back door .
So ,as I initially said ,don’t confuse a collective hope with a mandate ,unless you are prepared for a bruising reality check.My real concern ,however ,is not what people choose to believe ,but instead ,influential voices telling young people to hit the streets and push O to fulfill a non-existant progressive mandate .That is perniciously irresponsible .
It’s not a backstabbing. Obama has been saying this was his goal. He’s been saying it for more than four years now. Well over four in fact. It’s part of what a lot of us have been trying to get the O-man’s biggest fans to understand. On issue after issue where Obama tells us he is seeking what amounts to a Republican agenda, his fans tell us “He’s lying to get elected.” And then when he does the things they claim he was lying about, they tell us “It’s 11th dimensional chess. He’s hanging the Republicans by offering them what they want, but he doesn’t really want it himself.”
Obama is a conservative. Full stop. He believes in the Confidence Faery. Full stop. And he thinks that cutting Social Security and Medicare, expanding defense and catering to the banksters is his path to either being “the greatest president evah!” or the road to speeches at half a million or more a pop when he leaves office. Regardless, it isn’t backstabbing when the assailant tells you to your face he’s about to stab you. And Obama has done that. Obama lovers should have believed him.
Why would you think that? They voted for Obama, and those things are not what Obama stands for. In fact, Obama stands pretty much for the opposite, especially with regards to “not cutting” Social Security and Medicare.
The DLC crowd has co-opted the term “progressive,” but not too unfairly. It was after all, in Teddy Roosevelt’s day, a term for the left wing of the Republican Party.
So, it is true that “progressives,” like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel, Tim Kaine, Obama, etc. are very much on board for the cuts.
People who are left of center right, however, are not.
Call those folks who you will, traditional Democrats, FDR Democrats, classic Democrats, or whatever name suits you. All are very different from Republicans and therefore very different from the center right folk who have co-opted the word “progressive.”
Corporations want government to subsidize their underpaid workers with food stamps, Medicaid, etc., so they show up for their slave wages jobs every day,
Corporations gain nothing from old people, who don’t work for them, mostly because they are too feeble. Plan to save money: cut their benefits to the bone and let them die, unless they are part of the “producer” team.
Remember that Obama not only appointed banker Erskine Bowles, but he also appointed the crypt-keeper Simpson Boles to head the BS commission.
The BS changes in Soc Sec will cut at least 40 percent from the benefits of middle class workers in the higher tiers, giving them just 5% of some earnings, versus 90% for the bottom tier.
Imagine if the income tax went from 5% to 90% for people making less than $100k, let alone those making more.