The end of last week’s segment gave a brief nod to one consequence of raising the retirement age, noting that a government study found that increasing the age for full benefits would hurt poor workers the most. By then, viewers would have gotten a one-sided picture and may have missed the kicker: “Raising the retirement age alone won’t solve Social Security’s problems. Most reform plans also call for higher payroll taxes on the wealthy and cuts in benefits.”
CBS viewers deserve better.
For more from Trudy Lieberman on Social Security and entitlement reform, click here.
Thanks for that, Trudy. One of the things I've never seen a news story do is tote up the compensation workers have lost during the past generation because of pension scams. And i use that term deliberately.
Some (not enough) people understand that wages have fallen for ordinary workers. Those stats are easy. But total compensation seems to have fallen even more, because private sector workers used to get pensions, and now they get squat.
I suspect that if we summed the losses to regular folks and set it on a scale next to the gains enjoyed by the financial services industry over the same period, they might even balance.
#1 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Mon 29 Nov 2010 at 02:01 PM
I have to wonder, why would CBS (or any other television news org) bother to report anything other than what would benefit their owners the most?
Today's corporations have dispensed with the idea of taking care of their retirees because it cut into the bottom line, and thus made them less competitive in a world where quarterly profit predictions mean everything. Something tells me that coming down on CBS, while the right thing for CJR to do, is effectively pissing into the wind.
#2 Posted by MM, CJR on Mon 29 Nov 2010 at 04:04 PM
A C-Span broadcast from last week was informative. Of particular interest were comments about how the experts do not even know for sure about the impacts of the 1983 fixes, which raised the retirement age to 67. This was the first time for me hearing any mention about uncertain impacts from already reduced benefits by the raised retirement age. If they do not even know if age 67 will turn out to be negative or positive (for the trust fund or for people), then what criteria are they using to justify further reductions in benefits by additionally increasing the age to 70?
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FutureofSocialSecurity11
Future of 1983 Social Security Law
Nov 23, 2010
National Academy of Social Insurance
Participants talked about Social Security reforms enacted in 1983, the long-term fiscal solvency of the program, strategies to make up for predicted shortfalls, and the need for bipartisan compromise.
From transcript:
00:57:002 min.
Gregory, Janice - President
... HAVE A CONCERN THAT WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DID GET IN '83, THE FULL IMPACT. WE KNOW WHAT WE DID WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS THE FULL IMPACT OF IT. WILL...
00:57:052 min.
Gregory, Janice - President
... '83, THE FULL IMPACT. WE KNOW WHAT WE DID WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS THE FULL IMPACT OF IT. WILL PEOPLE REALLY WAIT A WHOLE YEAR? WILL THEY WAIT A FULL TWO...
#3 Posted by MB, CJR on Mon 29 Nov 2010 at 06:09 PM
It isn't surprising that CBS would take part in the dissemination of false information about the fictitious impending insolvency of Social Security. I never watch Fox News but a couple months ago I was getting my serviced at a local shop and they had Fox on the TV in the waiting area. Some "expert" from a conservative think tank repeated the usual stock lies, and at the end of the piece the announcers, in their usual shrill way, were saying "You heard it folks! This man is an expert, SOMETHING will have to be done because Social Security is running out of money!!"
Note to Democratic and Republican lawmakers: If you attempt to dismantle Social Security WE ARE WATCHING HOW YOU VOTE and you will never be elected to anything again.
#4 Posted by Mark, CJR on Tue 30 Nov 2010 at 11:11 AM
First, life expectency at the time Social Security was implemented is skewed because of the numbers of early childhood deaths back then, deaths that are now largely prevented through vaccinations and antibiotics.
Secondly, life expectancy is lower for people at the bottom of the economic ladder, people who are often doing physically demanding work for low wages and poor benefits. The current life expectancy for an African American male is only 66.1 years.
The last time I spoke to my mother before she fell ill she was talking about how happy she was that she was going to be able to retire in just 4 years when she turned 62. Mother had worked in factories from the time she was 18, usually working the night shift. She had worked in lightbulb factories but those went to Mexico and she took a job at a plant that made delivery systems for nuclear warheads. The next time I spoke with her she had just been diagnosed with a type of lung cancer that her doctor said was triggered by exposure to industrial toxins. She was dead three months later at the age of 58.
So all thos people sitting in their plush comfortable offices on their plush comfortable backsides telling American workers that they are living too long can really suck it as far as I'm concerned.
#5 Posted by lmwilker, CJR on Tue 30 Nov 2010 at 11:27 AM
I'm thinking I saw the same report on CBS, and what really struck me was the use of their own reporters as SOURCES. Several times the interview went to a CBS business reporter or veteran old-timer, as if those reporters were experts in the field. I was astonished by this whole piece and how the network went to such stupendous lengths to tell one whopper after another.
#6 Posted by Cwilson, CJR on Tue 30 Nov 2010 at 12:21 PM
And once upon a time CBS was considered the gold standard of broadcasting!
#7 Posted by B Morgan, CJR on Wed 1 Dec 2010 at 04:16 PM
What is happening, at times, is the assurtion or inference that Social Security and Medicare are part of the reason for our current federal debt. That is, of course, not true. Even President Obama has said this, in effect, saying something like the "entitlement" are the reason for our long-term debt. That makes no sense. We have an annual budget of about $3.8 trillion, but we only collect about $2.4 trillion in federal income; thus, we have an annual deficit. But this deficit has nothing to do with Social Security, which has a savings of about $2.6 trillion in its Trust Fund!
#8 Posted by George Fulmore, CJR on Wed 29 Dec 2010 at 09:53 PM