New York Times columnist David Brooks is a regular on TV talk shows–including his weekly appearance on the PBS NewsHour (allowing the public to hear regularly from a widely syndicated columnist and commercial TV pundit, just aspublic TV was intended to do!).
On a NewsHour midterm election post-mortem discussion (11/3/10), Brooks made this point about the supposed economic ignorance of some voters:
If you looked at the exit polls, the independents were more likely than other voters to really be alarmed about the deficits. They were also more likely than other voters to want to protect Social Security, Medicare and all the things that create the deficits. If the American people are not willing to square that circle, then how can you expect elected leaders to do that?
If David Brooks believes that Social Security–a government program that at present has amassed a$2 trillion surplus– is “creating” the deficit, he either doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or says things that he knows are false because he feels like they make his arguments sound more appealing.
A decent program would either feature another panelist to refute this nonsense–Mark Shields, the show’s regular liberal, did not–or have a host who would set the record straight–which didn’t happen.
More and more, as I peruse the musings of Republicans-at-any-cost pundit David Brooks, I am reminded of the comedian Irwin Corey, who in years past was often billed on talk shows as â┚¬Ã…“The world’s Foremost Authority.â┚¬Ã‚ Brooks, like Corey, can extemporize important-sounding gobbledygook on any subject whatever.
Here he dons his economist skullcap to impart for us lesser folk the conventional Republican wisdom that the Social Security Trust Fund adds to the Federal deficit, which it does not, and implying that such matters as an estate tax moratorium and the costs of two wars are mere trifles by comparison and therefore not worth mentioning.
poor bobo…guess it wouldn’t occur to him that those same independents might be up for raising taxes and/or cutting “defense” spending…
and of course, the best way to bend the curve on healthcare costs wouldt have been single payer…not that THAT would cross his mind, either
In fact both a single payer medical insurance and increase of retirement benefit would access the social security surplus to the greater economy. Thus, improving both unemployment figures and health care, while stimulating the economy! This is a win win plan! Brooks often is not the best source for opinion or Facts.
People who try to figure out where David Brooks is coming from are overlooking an important fact. David Brooks is just another paid off RepubliCorp propagandist who makes things up, that have no basis in fact, hoping the RepubliCorp echo chamber will keep repeating the nonsense he comes up with, until the noise is everywhere. Then, he can comment that these things are true, because everyone else is saying the same thing. What a lowlife A**hole!
I have been aware of David Brook’s “butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth” opinion spread for some time. I do remember Professor Irwin Corey and his intellectual balogna lectures. There is a comparison and it’s about time the ‘king in all his nakedness has been exposed.” Sorry David, but the latest nonsense blaming Social Security for the deficit exposes your backside and shame on you.
Sincerely,
Dorothy S. Richards
David Brooks is the definition of an apologist for the wealthy.
He like all of the pudits is paid handsomely by the wealthy and for the wealthy.
Like a poison dart he will change direction with the wind, never losing his target.
Can’t someone pull his license?
I love how the corporate media misinforms the public, then cites polls of that same public to lend credence to its propaganda.
One note on the Social Security surplus: yes, it exists, but from the standpoint of the government as a whole, it’s a debt, because it’s comprised of government bonds. Now that’s not the SSA’s fault and there is little doubt that the Treasury will make good on the obligations, but the public needs to make sure that when the government “robs Peter to pay Paul” in order to do so, “Peter” is the top 1% of households (and corporations). I say this not just because they can afford it, but because at the same time working people were hit with a larger payroll tax – as regressive as they get, taken out of the first dollar earned – in order to build up the surplus, taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations were relentlessly cut. In other words, under the guise of preparing for the Baby Boom Social Security bubble, the tax burden was shifted from the haves to the have-nots.
I wish I knew as much about anything as David Brooks claims to know about everything. Apologies to Lord Melbourne.
Seems I’m not alone here. One more thought then: The New York Times, which prints Brooks twice a week, and PBS Newshour, which lets Brooks prattle away every Friday night while Jim Lehrer sits stupefied and Mark Shields thinks up his “While I agree with David” cop-out blather, are both far more at fault than Brooks.
In the interest of balance, these two media giants mix independent left-wingers who tend to be objective and informed with right-wingers who these days, like Brooks, tend to be bought and paid for by extremely wealthy interests. The Times and PBS relentlessly maintain in essence that left-wingers are no more honest than right-wingers, and that impartial programing provides balance by mixing the viewpoints of the two. Unfortunately, that is no longer true, if it ever was.
As anyone who has made a serous effort to understand America’s current plight can plainly see, right-wing talking points now consist largely of absurd accusations, discredited economic theory, cooked numbers and fact-free assertions that the editors of the Times and the moderators of PBS simply lack the courage, or the wit, to refute.
Brooks and his ilk are merely water carriers. The generals are sitting on boards of directors.
PBS is no longer public. It has become just another piece junky corporate media. Since Bill Moyers retired, I don’t bother with PBS. Thank the gods for Direct TV!
Am I alone here or what! Brooks is a conservative? I don’t think so. He is about as Republican as David Gergen. However, there is no social security surplus. There are IOU’s, but that ain’t money, and since you can’t pay social security benefit checks with IOUs, that money comes from the general fund and therefore adds to the deficit.
Patrick Moore wrote “there is no social security surplus. There are IOU’s, but that ain’t money, and since you can’t pay social security benefit checks with IOUs, that money comes from the general fund and therefore adds to the deficit.”
While this is true, it’s a bit misleading. Those IOUs are Treasury bonds, backed by the full faith of the U.S. government. They will be made good on. Yes, the federal government will have to find the money elsewhere, but from the standpoint of the SSA, there is a surplus. And the fact is, for decades ordinary people paid extra payroll taxes to fund the baby boom bubble, so they are OWED. Meanwhile, taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations were relentlessly cut, in part because the difference could be made up by the extra payroll taxes. Under the guise of preparing for the baby boom S.S. bubble, the tax burden was shifted from haves to the have-nots.
This shifting of the tax burden is one reason we have historic levels of income/wealth inequality in this country. The first studies are emerging that examine these disparities post-meltdown. A study by economist Edward Wolff found that the top 1% of households in this country held an astonishing 37% of the wealth in 2009. Of course, with the ability and willingness of fat cats to hide their loot offshore, the real figure is almost certainly much worse. It may be over 50%. That should bother every American.
The bottom line is that when the government makes good on the S.S. bonds, it needs to do so on the backs of the wealthy individuals and corporations that saw their tax burdens reduced while those of the working class were increased. The working class, after all, has already paid for the surplus once, and shouldn’t have to pay for it again.
There is a glaring hole in pretty much all coverage of the economy, the deficit, and the national debt. Nobody ever talks about the insanely bloated “defense” budget. We could cut it in half, and still no other country would come close to spending as much as we do. There is absolutely no need for all that wasteful, unproductive spending in order to defend ourselves. The other thing is corporate socialism, all the tax breaks and other gifts that big businesses routinely get, in return for creating jobs in China and India and further degrading our economy.
I know why Republicans and conservatives never mention these things. Why are they taboo subjects for Democrats and liberals? Are liberal pundits really so blind, or do they have to sign contracts not to mention certain things? The answers to many of our problems are really very simple, yet they never cross the lips of anyone on PBS, much less commercial media. Is this intentional, or unintentional ignorance?
Do we really have to explain this again? As of today, the Social Security Trust Fund (combining the Federal Old-Age and Survivors insurance Trust Fund plus the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) has a $2.6 trillion surplus representing contributions by workers and employers that have not been spent on current benefit payments. All of this money has been invested in special issue Treasury bonds. Since Uncle Sam is deep in debt with no plans to cut back spending where it matters (ie. $712 billion for people in and around the DOD in 2011 alone), you could argue that the money is being frittered away, but you cannot argue that the Trust Fund is the culprit.
Although the Fund grows from receipts and interest from the bonds, a shortfall is now expected around 2017. Without funding adjustments, the Social Security Administration sees it depleted by 2042 and the Congressional Budget Office by 2050.
Although the Fund consists entirely of federal obligations, it is part, and those $2.6 trillion make it the largest part, of the national debt, which is currently $13.8 trillion. The entire amount of it, however, has been contributed by employees and employers. So while it appears to some that tossing out Social Security would take a huge burden of the Treasury, it is, in fact, precisely the other way around.
Roger it is phony money.Like monopoly.AND>>………..the fed is printing more as we speak.Another trillion.