WG: My guess is that very few reporters understand what it is, or know that the concept of social insurance originated as a conservative idea—conserving social solidarity. It was first proposed more than one hundred years ago in Germany by Bismarck—not exactly a left-winger. Today’s critics style it as an entitlement program, and therefore reporters think that it’s like welfare. It’s not something the government gives to greedy old people. Alan Simpson has been relentless on this point. The press has picked up on Simpson’s language and made it sound like it’s a hand-out.
TL: A recent Bloomberg poll shows that two-thirds of those polled think the program should be means-tested. Has the press explained what that means?
WG: Social Security is by far the government’s most popular program precisely because it is universal. Everyone pays in; everyone is protected against catastrophe. The danger in means testing is that it really may turn Social Security into a welfare program—alms for the poor—and eventually doom it by destroying the broad political support it enjoys. That’s another aspect for debate the media has glossed over.
TL: Does Bismarck’s notion of social solidarity resonate in this country?
WG: The idea of social solidarity represents the core of our society. The belief that we’re all in this together has been trampled over in the last thirty years by conservative ideology. Good citizens and politicians have been sucked into believing that solidarity is not the issue. Until Americans rediscover the importance of solidarity, we’re going to be screwed up as a society. We will be trapped in brutal class conflicts and arguments over who gets more, who must be thrown over the side in the interest of business efficiency. I believe deeply most Americans do not want this dog-eat-dog brutality, but do not see much chance of changing it.
TL: What has to happen?
WG: We have to have a come back to this central principle of this society. The Tea Party in its own crude way is reaching for it. What people want is a government that works for them. Social Security is a great test case for what people want. By all means, let’s have a debate. But we haven’t yet had an honest debate.
TL: What can the press do to improve its reporting on Social Security and make this debate happen?
WG: There are a lot of smart, capable reporters. They have to go back to the beginning and put a story together that asks two simple questions: Why go after Social Security now? What is its real condition now? They need to go back to the basics of reporting—talking and listening, observing what people think about everyday reality. Talk to all sides respectfully. On economic issues, talk to the workers, not just the bosses and management experts. You will learn valuable insights from all of them.
TL: Is there any other advice you can give to newbies on this beat?
WG: The media, despite many virtues, are failing their obligations to a functioning democracy. Reporters might ask themselves if they are complicit in this indictment, or if they could do something to prove it is wrong.
For more from Trudy Lieberman on Social Security and entitlement reform, click here.
Excellent interview.
www.NewsCommonsense.com
#1 Posted by Bob Griendling, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 02:04 PM
A good place for reporters to start is to search online for a copy of the 2005 actuarial report from the trustees. It will give you a sense of perspective, because 2005 was the year President Bush announced his intent to privatize a portion of Social Security, and the report was prepared under the signature of his appointees. At the time, the trustees said that Social Security could continue to pay benefits at the current rate until 2041. It will tell you that at the end of 2004, the program had $1.7 trillion in assets set aside to handle the demographic bulge of the Baby Boomers, that the plan was bringing in far more tax dollars than it was spending on benefits, and that if WE AS A SOCIETY wanted to maintain Social Security in its present form there were at least three ways to fix the post-2041 shortfall. Here they are, quoting directly from the 2005 report: "For the trust funds to remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection period, the combined payroll tax rate could be increased during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of 1.92 percentage points, benefits could be reduced during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 12.8 percent, general revenue transfers equivalent to $4.0 trillion (in present value) could be made during the period, or some combination of approaches could be adopted."
Pleas note: Do any of these, or any combination, the trustees said, and it would fix the actuarial shortfall for 75 years.
Now, go to the 2010 report from President Obama's trustees and you'll see the trust fund has grown to $2.3 trillion in assets by the end of 2009,but the "problem" with Social Security remains much the same. We need to increase payroll taxes by 1.92 percentage points -- by 0.96% each for employees and workers -- only the date of exhaustion of the trust fund has been pushed forward to 2037. For a household earning $50,000 a year, that would mean paying another $480 a year into Social Security. Historically, Social Security payroll tax increases are phased in over several years, so maybe a quarter of the 0.96% per side might be imposed one year, another quarter a year or two later, etc., until the full tax increase is made.
Do you recall ever hearing President Bush, President Obama, Alan Simpson, or Erskine Bowles even mentioning a payroll tax increase as a potential way to address the Social Security situation? Me neither. Now, being good reporters, ask yourselves, why not? You'll be on your way.
#2 Posted by Joseph Conn, CJR on Sat 25 Dec 2010 at 02:40 PM
Fellow Nation Alumni, Christopher Hedges did a set on Democracy Now recently:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/20/chris_hedges_obama_is_a_poster
Do you think that the one sided, slanted influences, coverage of social security might have to do with "the collapse of the pillars of liberal institutions"?
All the "radical elements" which prioritized social values over economic ones have been purged and marginalized from national discussion so that contemptible people, like Harold Ford Jr., are designated the acceptable form of liberalism to show on TV and report a perspective from.
And he sees social security as something to compromise on,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WXXG1tHEuE
so that is defined as the reasonable liberal position.
And when you contrast him with the tea party town hall attendees or the Fox News professional shouters, maybe he is. But he is, by no means, a representative of liberalism or liberal values.
And the problem with our institutions is that we define him as respectable and Howard Dean as radical.
The medium by which we are supposed to be communicating liberalism is defining liberalism without liberal input.
This is a problem when dealing with liberal programs and ideas.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 27 Dec 2010 at 01:26 AM
Wasn't it LBJ's "unified budget" that stopped separating the SS budget from the larger general funds?
Regardless, it's a broken ponzi scheme dreamed up by liberals and has got to go.
http://www.safehaven.com/article/19453/social-security-is-not-insurance
#4 Posted by Keefer, CJR on Thu 30 Dec 2010 at 12:52 PM
What is never reported is that the fate of the SS Trust Fund depends on our rate of economic growth. The SS actuaries in their “Low-cost” projection assume 2.8% average annual growth over 2010-2085. Though this rate is less than the average over the last 80 years, the Trust Fund under this assumption will have grown to $119.6 TRILLION by 2085. [See Social Security Trustees Report, 2010, Table VI.F8, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2010/VI_OASDHI_dollars.html#150920
Also see our summary and update, http://www.njfac.org/SSpkt.htm
The most important protection for SS is what investment in innovation, worker health and training, resource efficiency and the environment we make now for the future.
#5 Posted by June Zaccone, CJR on Fri 31 Dec 2010 at 12:09 PM
"Regardless, it's a broken ponzi scheme dreamed up by liberals and has got to go."
Actually the FACTS prove that statement wrong. You prove that you really don't understand Social Security by writing it.
But then you're getting nowhere when your link goes to a three paragraph article by Ron Paul anyway.
#6 Posted by Paul G, CJR on Mon 3 Jan 2011 at 01:57 AM
"Regardless, it's a broken ponzi scheme dreamed up by liberals and has got to go."
What's the weather like on Bizarro World?
#7 Posted by Brian, CJR on Tue 4 Jan 2011 at 03:04 PM
@Keefer: the Ron Paul article you cite is based on factual errors - the claim, for example, that "the status quo is an illusion that will not last even another 10 or 20 years". The social security trustees report clearly shows that, even with no changes whatsoever, the social security trust fund has a positive balance through 2037 (or 2040 if disability benefits are excluded). So Ron Paul, who has access to this information, simply lied. And you, who also have access to that information, bought the lie because it suits your ideology to do so. That's just sad.
#8 Posted by Dale Brayden, CJR on Sun 9 Jan 2011 at 02:47 PM