In the book Free Culture, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig argues that the story of Trent Lott’s comments had disappeared from the mainstream media within forty-eight hours, but Internet bloggers kept it alive until it resurfaced in the MSM, eventually forcing Lott to resign his position. He was soon to be Senate Majority Leader.
Right now the “lesser people” story is hot stuff on the Internet; on Sunday, The Fiscal Times, a news outlet financed by Peterson, took note of Simpson’s latest in an opinion piece by John M. Berry. Berry argued that, in the exchange with Lawson, Simpson has undermined the already slim chances of agreement on a way to put the government on a sustainable long-term budget policy path.
Was The Fiscal Times piece implying that this was Simpson’s Trent Lott moment? Will the MSM be far behind?
I suppose that if this issue is decided on the basis of Simpsons personality it will be decided correctly. But since I'd rather see it decided on the basis of the facts, let me offer two.
Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Now or ever. It is paid for by the people who will receive the benefits. All the government does is manage the insurance function...using the money of the workers even for that.
Social security is not going broke. Now or ever. If the next generation lives longer than the last, and those workers want to preserve the same replacement rate (percent of monthly income) as their parents... at a higher real standard of living... they would have to raise their payroll tax by an amount equivalent in today's terms of twenty cents per week per year.
Yes, that adds up over time. But it never adds up to enough that any sane worker would even notice it.
The whole "deficit commission" is based on a fraud that Pete Peterson has perpetrated on the President, the Congress, the Press, and the People... and all because no one thinks to check his numbers.
#1 Posted by coberly, CJR on Mon 21 Jun 2010 at 07:36 PM
Let's not make this about Alan Simpson, a personality and a distraction, he's not the real problem.
The real problem is the commission and the people on it who don't really want to talk about escalating healthcare costs and the insufficiency of the reforms made to address the problem, they don't really want to talk about military spending which uses up half the government's discretionary budget, they sure don't want to talk about the jobs crisis which threatens government revenues and the creation of a long term unemployable underclass for years to come, they want to talk about the one program that's funded because, "that's where the money is"...or was until its revenue were sucked away to pay for things like tax cuts during a time of war.
Krug makes a comment about this:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/zombies-have-already-killed-the-deficit-commission/
The problem is we have a stupid elite class. These were the people who supported the Bush campaign into the white house because he was a vacuous tax cutter who pretended to be a "uniter, not a divider", and believes in war based stimulus:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/21/academy_award_winning_filmmaker_oliver_stone
"NÉSTOR KIRCHNER: I said that a solution to the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war and that the United States has grown stronger with war.
OLIVER STONE: War. He said that?
NÉSTOR KIRCHNER: [translated] He said that. Those were his exact words.
OLIVER STONE: Was he suggesting that South America go to war?
NÉSTOR KIRCHNER: [translated] Well, he was talking about the United States. The Democrats had been wrong. All of the economic growth of the United States has been encouraged by the various wars. He said it very clearly. President Bush is—well, he’s only got six days left, right?
OLIVER STONE: Yes.
NÉSTOR KIRCHNER: [translated] Thank God."
Bush is a personality and a distraction, but he's not the real problem. The real problem is that we have stupid people leading our discourse and that, whether it's Obama or Bush, they will continue to make the same stupid mistakes based on the same stupid concepts.
They don't want or like the new deal, the marshall plan, the government building and insuring a crumbling social system through entitlement programs and infrastructure investment.
If we want to boost the economy, we need to cut taxes and go to war. And we can fund these initiatives using money pledged to programs we hate anyways.
If America is ever going to be strong again, these idiocies need to be addressed in open. We need a government investing in a healthy commons and acting as a vigilant steward of the economy and the environment.
We don't need a government who's sole purpose is to borrow money, make wars, and keep the corporate dependency network happy.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 21 Jun 2010 at 08:18 PM
PS. Your Holly link is missing a backslash between audit and shining. http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/shining_light_on_the_debt_comm.php
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 21 Jun 2010 at 08:24 PM
Let me spare everyone the effort, and sum up Lieberman’s, Thimbles and the rest of CJR's views on the deficit commission thusly
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 21 Jun 2010 at 10:01 PM
No u, libertard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ5RKeXlfSA
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 22 Jun 2010 at 01:08 AM
The real bloody problem:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/26/AR2010062604314.html
"The world's developed countries have built extensive public health systems, promised citizens a paycheck for life and erected a welter of protections around some industries and types of jobs. Now their leaders are conferring over a singular dilemma: how to take some of it back without undermining the economies they are trying to sustain...
An IMF report to the Group of 20 major economies "has to go through a lot of contortions" to show that developed world debt can be brought down without undermining growth, said Eswar Prasad, a senior economist at the Brookings Institution and former IMF economist, who has reviewed the document. "They have been tweaking their methods -- the message is that you need to have fiscal retrenchment, but if you do it the right way you won't have negative growth effects...
he IMF has published a "Ten Commandments for Fiscal Adjustment in Advanced Economies" that includes an admonition from its top economists to "obey these . . . and chances are high that you will achieve fiscal consolidation and sustained growth."
The document acknowledges that the level of budget cutting being planned by the developed world is risky given the weakness in the world economy. Deep cuts are underway in Greece and Spain, and have been proposed in Britain and recommended for the United States and others to begin by next year.
But the document also contends that a commitment to more-balanced public spending will stabilize bond markets, bring down interest rates as governments borrow less, and encourage more private investment -- all "growth-friendly" results that will help offset any reduction in government budgets.
In addition, the agency says that for the process to work, budget cutting must be accompanied by a broad set of other reforms that would improve economic performance.
Public retirement and health programs are singled out: "You shall pass early pension and health care reforms as current trends are unsustainable" is commandment No. 5. Much of the projected increase in future public spending in developed countries is related to the aging of their populations, and changes such as an increase in the retirement age improve future balance sheets without cutting current spending.
Labor markets need to be overhauled to make it easier for people to find and change jobs or enter new markets; in recent reports on Greece and France, the agency singled out rules that protect retailers, pharmacists and others from competition. Product markets need to be deregulated. Taxes almost certainly need to increase..."
This:
http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2010/06/24/ten-commandments-for-fiscal-adjustment-in-advanced-economies/
needs some serious analysis.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 27 Jun 2010 at 10:37 PM
Speaking of analysis:
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/07/if-social-security-annual-report.html
"I started reading the Annual Report of the Trustees of Social Security in 1997 and awaited its typical March 31st release date each year since with eager anticipation. To the point that last year I put up a post that morning called Bestest Day of the Year: SSRR Day where 'SSRR' stood for 'Social Security Report Release'. Well people mocked, and rightfully so, because SSRR Day 2009 didn't happen until May 1st. The delay, though not quite explained, was explicable, on typical SSRR Day only two of six Trustees was actually confirmed.
Well flash forward to 2010. A year older and perhaps a little wiser, and wary from being pwned the year before I put up the following post on Mar 21 heralding the impending release: Upcoming Attractions in Social Security, putting it in the context of the new Obama Deficits Commission while warning that the 2009 Report had been delayed. Well a helpful informant advised me that the word was that it would be delayed until April, and then on April 5th it was announced widely that Report Release would be June 30th. Oddly none of this was official, the news just got out in typical Beltway fashion.
Come mid June I started referencing the new, new updated release date only to be notified by three different knowledgeable sources that word was out that Report Release would be delayed yet again, perhaps until August. And just like with the 2009 Report the explanations advanced were not unreasonable. But none of them were official, to my knowledge no one has at any point officially announced even the fact that the Report would be delayed (and delayed and delayed) beyond its statutory release date, and still less given an official explanation.
I find this odd in the extreme, particularly since Social Security is front and center in the news with the ongoing meetings of the Catfood Commission with their strong suggestions that cuts to Social Security are definitely on the table. You would think that repeated delays in the release of this key Report would at least require SOME explanation and that someone in the media might be asking questions. But no like the proverbial tree falling in the forest no one was close enough to hear the sound. "
Data is annoying when it runs counter to the policy. Someone should be checking this out.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 6 Jul 2010 at 05:18 PM
How much does Senator Simpson get montly on his Senate pension, that really needs to be in the discussion in view of his "lesser people" remarks.
Also, how much in billions is reduced from social security from pension off sets of federal workers, where are those figures.
And, how about the pension package of U S military who were never in the front lines, who start drawing at aroudn age 45.
Unfortunatly, Simpson's antics diverted from substantive discussion and consideration on so many viatal issues.
If the President wanted to pick a clown, and
a buffon, Simpson was the right guy.
It did nothing to sove America's serious problems, however.
#8 Posted by Mitchell, CJR on Tue 28 Dec 2010 at 05:13 PM