With all the newfound interest in campaign factchecking in the corporate media (that enthusiasm shouldn’t be confused with being good at it), it’s worth remembering that it’s not just the political candidates whose claims should be factchecked. The moderators should face some scrutiny too.
Last night ABC‘s Martha Raddatz framed a question this way:
Let’s talk about Medicare and entitlements. Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive?
Glenn Greenwald caught that one, and the Institute for Public Accuracy did as well. As we’ve been pointing out for a long time now, Social Security is not going broke. Not even close, as a matter of fact. (Read Greenwald’s piece for a great rebuttal.)
Why does this matter? Well, besides the obvious reason (if the reporter at the table isn’t getting the facts right, why would the politicians?), it’s important to understand the question that grows out of this misinformation: How much of a cut must we all take in order to avoid the looming bankruptcy of the system. A politician who had a more reality-based view of Social Security’s financial health would have to correct the assumptions in the question before attempting to answer it, which is difficult.
As Barack Obama said in the first debate with Mitt Romney, there’s not a lot of disagreement in their views on Social Security. This caused some anger on the Democratic side, since many Democrats want their position to be clearly differentiated from the Republican side. Obama might have other ideas. But whatever the candidate are saying, there needs to be a place at the debate table for the facts.
Did Marthan Radditz write the questions or did someone else, and if so, who wrote them?
Also, in terms of debates, instead of saying which candidate won or lost, the journalists and pundits should focus on ths candiates comments and ask : have the People won or lost?
Facts? at the Debate? I am shocked, shocked I tell you…
The one disagreement I would have is we still need to frame the question “who won the debate” in terms of which candidate. The problem I see is, we don’t hold the politicians accountable to the facts, nor do we hold media accountable either. Until then, there will be no facts, only ‘bites of noise’, that sound suspiciously like the quaking of a duck.
It’s also worth noting the absurdity that lies behind Raddatz’s assertion: the notion that you can “cure” a program that spends “too much” money (even if that were true about Social Security) by cutting back on the amount that the program pays out to its beneficiaries. That way, the program – the government bureaucracy and mechanism that makes it all happen – might be left with more money in its vaults, because less money would be paid out to those for whom the program supposedly exists: retired people, disabled people, etc. In other words, you could save “the program” by choking off the people that it is supposed to serve. Taken to its logical – but absurd – limit, this would imply that the best way to “save” Social Security would be to entirely eliminate all benefits to all people. That way, “the program” would be awash in cash, completely solvent forever; even though the elderly and disabled people themselves might be ruined or dead. But that wouldn’t matter, according to this perverted logic, because the recipients are not “the program”.
Such ideological obfuscation underlies much of the discussion about government programs that actually help people. It’s not obvious whether people like Martha Raddatz are ignorant airheads or deliberate deceivers.
Why would it be so hard to correct the question? Just say I totally disagree with that question and go on to explain your position. Surely people who want to sit in the top positions of gov’t could do that. If not then I really am scared.
Funny “debate”.Reminded me of three people in a bar.Uncle joe is drunk ,ranting and raving.Raddatz is the bartender.And Ryan the salesman is sitting at the bar.Gloriana asked the right question of who won or lost.Well the people lost.I wanted clear questions(they were weak).And I wanted to hear both men.Joe decided,or could not control himself,or was instructed to disrupt Ryans answers by in effect shouting him down,or heckling him.So we lost.On all counts
SS is indeed going bankrupt. If you want to understand why what Greenwald said in his article is incorrect, read this http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/10/glenn-greenwalds-problem-with-math-and.html?m=1
Thanks for the link Neil. The article makes the excellent point that SS is “going broke” because it’s excess revenue has been used for discretionary spending. This doesn’t really show that Greenwald is incorrect. When the trust fund of a self-sustaining program is plundered to pay for something else the proper description isn’t ” it is going broke”.
Biden did refute her (indirectly) by saying that SS is solvent until at least 2033, before crushing Ryan’s voucher plan for Medicare and promising never to privatize SS.
I remember this succinctly because I was yelling at my TV for Biden to propose lifting the cap, and was disappointed this was never mentioned by any of them.
Is a self-funded program like Social Security correctly called an “entitlement?”
Tee jae…The idea that SS is proof that socialist programs work ,reminds me of what a professor taught me about such things.He aways said look to the tangible funding.Real money(stable) or gold.Promissory notes are worthless if all goes south.Does the government use it as a bank…. to bank role their other schemes.This devalues it.Is the government devaluing currency(they are on both counts).When SS is funded it is a good safety net.We can’t afford many but this is as good as it gets.When the funding evaporates it IS a ponzi scheme.The real elephant in the room is medicare.Obamas fiscal policy board say it will go belly up in 12 years.Republicans and Ron Paul think that is a dream.It will never last that long.That will collapse SS.Debt rising to 200trillion.Then our European divestitures will fold.Cost one and a half quatrillion!More money than now is in the entire world.Im not feeling safe because SS tells me they are solvent with a few sheckles in the bank…….not by a long shot.
Chrigid – No, it’s not.
michael e says, “When the funding evaporates it IS a ponzi scheme.”
Tell us, when will that happen? And how exactly will it be a ponzi scheme (be specific).
“Obamas fiscal policy board say it will go belly up in 12 years.”
Source(s) please.
“It will never last that long.That will collapse SS.”
Source(s) please.
“Debt rising to 200trillion.”
Source(s) please.
“Then our European divestitures will fold.”
Source(s) please.
“Cost one and a half quatrillion!”
Source(s) please.
“Im not feeling safe because SS tells me they are solvent with a few sheckles in the bank.”
Okay then, better put your retirement savings into the market. Go ahead, I dare you.
Apparently The “Big Lie”, continues. SS is both solvent and an Insurance Plan that is exempt from Budget adjustment. Perhaps, Direct action of educating reporters and pols is required.
I was going to post a comment but Neil’s link and Darren’s comment pretty much sum it up.
Simplified summary… You pay SS taxes. That money — what Glenn referred to as a “surplus” — is then loaned to the US Government via purchase of US Government securities. The government spends that money to kill brown people, bailout banks, prop up dictators, etc.. When the government needs to pay money to SS recipients, they borrow money from someone else to pay back the money originally borrowed from the SS fund. This is spelled out right on the SS web site.
Whether or not this qualifies SS as “going broke” is moot.
Tee jae
Im not in school as Ive told people before here.I am not writing a book and sourcing all my material.Im giving opinion.But these numbers are not of my making.Certainly you can find them on Ron Pauls sights.A man I don’t always agree with ,but a man who does not “fudge” the facts or math..Will Medicare go belly up in 12 years(at the longest)?No one really contests that.Unless things change it is a forgone conclusion.Will it drag everything else down around it(SS)?Everything I have read says yes.Will that create a domino effect?I believe so.People will loose everything.The dollar will be worth nothing.The government in collusion with the banks will keep them alive as long as possible.Credit cards/bank cards will not work.Gold will stand alone(Your question about my investments beside that is moot)Cash on hand for a time will be worth something I suppose.If we do not change direction and feel great pain now,I foresee a total collapse, not in the long run….but much shorter.That is where both Mitt AND Obama are lying their asses off.They act as if they can tweak the system.One maybe better then the other.2 weeks ago the Fed started unfettered printing of money,to stave off a short term collapse.Like small earthquakes before the big one.Trying to relieve pressure.China announced it will deal with us only in petro dollars.You know that dirty stuff(oil)we are fighting tooth and nail NOT to develop.They are asking the world to go off of the dollar standard.AND they are outside our embassies yelling they want their money back.Im not going to even talk about the viability of Mitts plan or its weaknesses.I will say this….Obama has no plan.Four years- no budget(though law mandates he must present one)Four years of increased spending ,borrowing ,and printing, with more to come.He is lost in an ocean, turning into a tidal wave- that will take all in front of it.So my friend if i have not made it clear enough, let me be blunt.I DO NOT SEE THIS COUNTRY SURVIVING.Not far beyond 12 years.I cashed out to gold before the crash, because I had been speaking on it for more than a year.I clearly saw what would happen when Fanny and Freddy went down.Irregardless of any wall street collusion.So I made out like a bandit.I new under Obama’s policies gas would double, and I invested along those lines.I made out again.But this coming “bump in the road “I fear will be cataclysmic.Game over.For the smart ones,the dumb ones and everything in between.I cant tell you Mitt can stop it.I can tell you Obama will quicken it.My father always said never give up hope.Well to my fellow contributors,tell me how we get out of this one.Blow smoke up my skirt.Make me feel better.I need a good dose of fantasy about now.
“I am not writing a book and sourcing all my material.Im giving opinion.”
Case in point: “Obamas fiscal policy board say it will go belly up in 12 years.”
That’s not an opinion. You are claiming someone else made a factual statement. So, I am asking you to cite your source for that statement.
“Certainly you can find them on Ron Pauls sights.”
Don’t tell me to go on a wild goose chase to confirm your (false) claims. That’s intellectually dishonest. As the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
“Will Medicare go belly up in 12 years(at the longest)?No one really contests that.”
First, make up your mind. Is it your opinion or not? Second, yes MANY people contest that. But if it’s really a widely known fact, then you will have no trouble at all citing your sources.
“Will it drag everything else down around it(SS)?Everything I have read says yes.”
Please share with us “everything you have read.” Otherwise, you’re just pulling this nonsense out of your butt.
“If we do not change direction and feel great pain now,I foresee a total collapse, not in the long run….but much shorter.”
Wow, the neoliberal austerity pushers have really done a number on you.
“Im not going to even talk about the viability of Mitts plan or its weaknesses.”
Good, I’m glad you can admit it’s not at all viable.
“Obama has no plan.Four years- no budget.”
Why, because Fox said so? Look again.
“I DO NOT SEE THIS COUNTRY SURVIVING.Not far beyond 12 years.I cashed out to gold before the crash, because I had been speaking on it for more than a year.”
Wait, are you Glenn Beck?! That sure would explain a lot.
“I new under Obama’s policies gas would double.”
You really have no clue.
“I cant tell you Mitt can stop it.I can tell you Obama will quicken it.”
You are entitled to your (ill-informed) opinions.
“Blow smoke up my skirt.”
Your skirt? Is there something you’re not telling us?
Michael – take 2 pills and go to bed. Your ranting again.
Can’t we just go back to the League of Women voters and some independent integrity instead of a mix of duopololistic collusion and corporate interest in running debates? An independent organization could choose moderators for ability instead of rewarding them for not asking anyone difficult and embarassing questions. The only way we learn anything at a debate is by accident.