By John Ballard
The Catfood Commission did more damage to the popular understanding of Social Security than investment bankers have done to the global economy. And that's saying a lot. Social Security is one of America's greatest governmental success stories and the agency is a model of efficiency and good organization. When I was in the food business one of my customers was, among other assignments, a Social Security big shot in the Southeast and we had several conversations about the system years before I became a beneficiary. He assured me that not only was Social Security not in trouble, it is one of the safest and most durable features of the political landscape.
When My wife and I signed up a couple years ago I was totally impressed with the experience. For years we had received those annual account summaries tabulating my earnings according to official records. The first time I saw one of those reports I was surprised to see records of my earnings and SS contributions going back to my part-time jobs when I was in school. And it made me proud to see how the numbers grew over the years, up to and including two decades when they topped out at levels less than my actual earned income thanks to my earning more than the taxable cap during those years.
Recent reportage regarding Social Security has been sloppy and irresponsible. This Columbia Journalism Review interview with William Greider underscores the point repeatedly.
William Greider, National Affairs Correspondent for The Nation, a prominent political journalist and author, has been a reporter for more than 35 years for newspapers, magazines and television. Over the past two decades, he has persistently challenged mainstream thinking on economics.
For 17 years Greider was the National Affairs Editor at Rolling Stone magazine, where his investigation of the defense establishment began. He is a former assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, where he worked for fifteen years as a national correspondent, editor and columnist. While at the Post, he broke the story of how David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director, grew disillusioned with supply-side economics and the budget deficits that policy caused, which still burden the American economy.
Trudy Lieberman: What are we to make of this consensus on fixes to Social Security that some in the media tell us has been reached?
William Greider: This is a staggering scandal for the media. I have yet to see a straightforward, non-ideological, non-argumentative piece in any major paper that describes the actual condition of Social Security. The core fact is that Social Security has not contributed a dime to the deficit, but has piled up trillions in surpluses, which the government has borrowed and spent. Social Security�s surpluses have actually offset the impact of the deficit, beginning with Reagan.
TL: Why don�t reporters report this?
WG: They identify with the wisdom of the elites who don�t want to talk about this�because if people understand that Social Security has a $2.5 trillion surplus, building toward more than $4 trillion, people will ask why are politicians trying to cut Social Security benefits?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TL: Who is representing the public in this debate?
WG: The same people who rallied the public against Social Security privatization in the Bush administration. They have organized again. Some are the same players. Labor is on the barricades. Some righteous members of Congress. But in general the mass media don�t go to those dissenting voices. Instead, they are reporting factual errors as correct opinion.
TL: What do you want the press to do?
WG: I am daring reporters to go and find out the truth about this and report it. I�m not asking them to draw big conclusions or to assert their opinions. Just be honest reporters. It�s so frustrating to see the coverage. I�m not asking reporters to change any minds. I�m just asking them to do some real reporting. I mean, go to the facts�the actuarial records�and talk to a variety of experts. Reporters ring up the same sources and ask them how to think about Social Security.
TL: What does the public understand about what is happening?
WG: Not everyone understands what is happening. But most do. Most people know they have paid money into Social Security all these years and the money belongs to them, not the federal government. This is not welfare. It�s probably the best-understood program in the federal government. In fact, polls indicate in these troubled times the public believes people need increased benefits.
Do take a few minutes to scan the whole interview. It's not too long. And in a storm of agitprop and disinformation this exchange is a breath of fresh air.
I'm not optimistic enough to imagine it will get widespread attention, but it gives me hope that somewhere among the many clerks and staff associates that earn their living advising elected officials some will come across it as they help craft modifications to Social Security.
Part of the problem of the Catfood Commission is that when political types get together, even those with decent technical credentials, they tend to communicate more in the language of politics than ordinary discussion. Without technocratic advisors they are like fish out of water, flopping about the best they can. The results are often what we have seen with the Catfood Commission. They mean well, but in the same way that Senators and Congressmen listen to endless hours of committee hearings, they tend to make quick decisions about new information and much of what they hear, even if it is solid, never registers, passing into one ear and out the other.
Meantime, it appears that Trudy Leiberman, the interviewer/journalist, has been doing her homework on Social Security. She may not be up to speed about other subjects but I would hate to have her asking questions of me about Social Security if I wasn't well informed. Let's hope she finds her way to one or more of the hearings that are certain to be scheduled before any of these newly-elected representatives get their filthy politically-contaminated hands close to Social Security. (Thank God for seniority. It's weak tea, but better than nothing as newly-elected Tea Party Insurgents come into Washington.)
No comments:
Post a Comment