FAIR put out an Action Alert today (2/9/10) on a USA Today report that presented dubious, one-sided claims about Social Security’s supposed crisis. Feel free to post your messages to the paper, or share your ideas about the alert, in the comments thread here.
Scaring old (and young, and middle-aged) folks.
Not cool dude – but par for the corpress course, innit?
Dear Mr. Jones:
I am a regular reader of USA Today. I’m disappointed in the lack of objectivity of your front page article on Social Security (Feb. 8, 2010).
Why would you use two Republicans as “experts” and not include others with a vastly different point of view about the solutions/sovency of Social Security?
I hope you will come forth with a corrective article that will present a more balanced and thoughtful analysis.
Thank you.
Ron Henry
RE: “Social Security Races to ‘Negative’: Rash of Retirements Push Fund to Brink,”
Anyone who has followed this debate about Social Security in depth will be disappointed in this reporting.
Good reporting needs well informed expert opinion, not just water carriers for one sided presentations for those who want to defund a most useful and efficiently run program that provides security for many millions of Americans.
Many economist, specifically most of those who independently study Social Security, totally disagree with this alarmist reporting.
Not including the information they offer is bad journalism and reduces the perceived value of all reporting in your newspaper.
If I were to see a corrective article with balanced reporting on this topic it might restore a bit of trust in your product.
Keith
____________________________________
Dear Mr.Jones:
Re: “Social Security Races to ‘Negative’: Rash of Retirements Push Fund to Brink,” I’m wondering why USA Today felt it was necessary to publish such a biased, alarmist, and untrue article on Social Security. I can only conclude that you are editorializing on the front page in order to put forward a right-wing, pro-privatization point of view instead of being a responsible publication and getting the facts straight.
M
Hello. I am writing to ask you to report accurately on social security, instead of the alarmist reporting we have seen recently.
On Feb. 8 on the front page, you reported this: “Social Security Races to ‘Negative’: Rash of Retirements Push Fund to Brink”. This makes it sound like the fund is nearly bankrupt.
Later in the article you admit that social security is “accumulating a $2.5 trillion trust fund”, which appears to contradict the headline’s warning about being on the “brink.” You also tell us that social security “took in only $3 billion more in taxes last year than it paid out in benefits”.
Only $3 billion?
The fact is that our social security program is nowhere near going broke. See for yourself; one article that is clear on this is available at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/035468.html
A balanced report on social security, were it going to quote Republican operatives at all, would at the very least offer the opposing view instead of putting forth such bias as “reporting”.
As America’s only national newspaper, it is your duty to cover the news, not slanted opinions.
I would be very interested to hear how you intend to balance your reporting on such issues as social security in the future.
Sincerely,
Joel Hildebrandt
joel@earthsong.org.nz
Hello. I am writing to ask you to report accurately on social security, instead of the alarmist reporting we have seen recently.
On Feb. 8 on the front page, you reported this: “Social Security Races to ‘Negative’: Rash of Retirements Push Fund to Brink”. This makes it sound like the fund is nearly bankrupt.
Later in the article you admit that social security is “accumulating a $2.5 trillion trust fund”, which appears to contradict the headline’s warning about being on the “brink.” You also tell us that social security “took in only $3 billion more in taxes last year than it paid out in benefits”.
Only $3 billion?
The fact is that our social security program is nowhere near going broke. See for yourself; one article that is clear on this is available at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/035468.html
A balanced report on social security, were it going to quote Republican operatives at all, would at the very least offer the opposing view instead of putting forth such bias as “reporting”.
As America’s only national newspaper, it is your duty to cover the news, not slanted opinions.
I would be very interested to hear how you intend to balance your reporting on such issues as social security in the future.
Sincerely,
Joel Hildebrandt
Dear Mr. Jones:
Reporter Richard Wolf’s story on Social Security seems intent on deliberately misinforming the public on the issues surrounding the future of Social Security rather than portraying a fair and accurate account of the issues and choices to be made. It appears that Mr. Wolf and USA Today wish to take part in perpetrating the massive fraud campaign waged against American workers by corporations and the wealthy in this country. Social Security is not “on the brink” – far from it. To characterize it as such is extraordinarily irresponsible and, really, just an outright lie. The FACTS are as follows:
In the 1980s, Social Security taxes were raised and benefits cut in the name of covering the retirement of the Baby Boomers and so that the system could loan its surplus to the Treasury Department to cover for Reagan’s income tax slashing that disproportionately benefited the weathly and corporations. That money was to be paid back with interest, just like the U.S. Treasury’s debts to China, Japan, private U.S. citizens and everyone else who owns Treasury bonds. If Social Security fails to collect the money that is owed to it by the Treasury, that would amount to a massive fraud and transfer of wealth, as trillions of dollars specifically collected to pay for workers’ retirement benefits would never be used for that purpose. IT would instead transfer the general cost of government from progressive income taxes to the regressive payroll tax
The money borrowed from Social Security is currently scheduled to be paid back by 2037, at which point the program will have an actual deficit. However, many experts have argued for years that this projected future shortfall is not a short-term crisis, and can be addressed with minor changes like eliminating the cap on taxable income, so that the wealthy would pay the same percentage of their income as middle-income and poor workers. This would be a far more fair system of taxation that the one we labor under today where the middle and working classes actually end up paying a much higher percentage of income than either corporations or the wealthy.
Whatever happened to the notion that with great wealth, comes great responsibility? If one reaps the highest benefits of a society and its workers, one has a higher obligation to pay for those benefits at an appropriate rate. I, for one, am tired of subsidizing corporations and the wealthy for their greedy, short sighted excess while getting nothing but decreasing wages and benefits, along with a crumbling infrastructure in return. I think its high time time corporations and the wealthy pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Or more accurately, my bootstraps because they stole my boots long ago.
Corporations and the wealthy would be NOTHING without the hardworking middle class, working class and even poor who staff their companies, build and buy their products, teach their children, protect their homes and businesses, build their roads and bridges, and pick up their garbage. They had best realize where their true wealthlies and stop pissing it away.
As for USA Today, perhaps you could stop the alarmist nonsense and try real reporting for a change. Oh, and remember that the majority of readers and those you seem to be waging the culture war against.
I wanted to ask you why your newspaper presented such a one-sided report on Social Security. I would think that journalists would try to include other opinions who would disagree with the notion that Social Security is in some sort of crisis.
Reporter Richard Wolf leads with this warning: “Social Security’s annual surplus nearly evaporated in 2009 for the first time in 25 years.” But several paragraphs later, readers are told that the program has been “accumulating a $2.5 trillion trust fund”–which certainly sounds less ominous than the headline’s warning about being on a “brink.” And by a “nearly evaporated” surplus, USA Today means that Social Security “took in only $3 billion more in taxes last year than it paid out in benefits.”
I understand that many people in Wall Street would love to see Social Security privatized (and good thing it did not happen when President Bush tried to push this idea because it would have been a complete disaster for our senior citizens). The fact that they would like to see Social Security privatized is because the program has money and all of us are paying into the system every other week. 40i(k) plans are not mandatory, but Social Security is. Honestly, I do not want to see Social Security privatized because I just do not trust Wall Street.
Social Security revenue goes up in economic good times and down in bad times. That is the point. It is supposed to level the spikes. For my forty year lifetime I recall that every economic downturn was accompanied by fear mongering about social security. And when I was in my twenties it made me afraid. If the great recession lasts beyond 2010 (and it might very well) the problem of social security in 2037, will not be the worst of our problems. The looming problems with social security are a reason for a more aggressive stimulus to end the recession, not a reason to contract the government. This is a traditional anti middle class republican fear tactic and USA Today is providing a platform for nonsense.
As for the journalism of this report: who is an expert? Let’s try to stay away from anonymous experts.
“Experts say the trend points to a more basic problem”
Why did your newspaper present such a one-sided report on Social Security? Even by the current journalistic standards of â┚¬Ã‹Å“he said, she said,’ you should have included experts who would disagree with the notion that Social Security is in some sort of crisis. You need more balanced reporting, and not just about Social Security. The real reason why we are in financial trouble is that we spend more money than all the rest of the world on making war, the so-called â┚¬Ã‹Å“defense’ expenditures. Why not report about the waste and corruption in the Department of Defense and the Pentagon?
A respected newspaper should stick to the facts as addressed in the following article and give the readers the truth.Senior have enough problems without all your scaremongering. We wil not stand for any tampering with our Social Security You know we did not let Bush and his coherts get away wth it and we intend to stand pat,especially the Baby Boomers whichalready have been raped through their losses on Wall Street and are on the alert with any tampering of their Social Secuirty.
(I forwarded the FAIR fact sheet)
I dont agree with this
Dear Mr. Brent Jones:
I find it untruthful, alarming and providing misinformation when US Today proclaims “Social Security Races to ‘Negative’: Rash of Retirements Push Fund to Brinkâ┚¬Ã‚ in a headline and in fact in the body of the article there is no such immanent situation. Is this a way of US Today promoting the recently restated Republican call for privatizing Social Security? I hope note, as recent history has shown us we cannot alone rely or trust on Wall Street to be there when we need financial security. How many seniors and those that were about to retire in 2008 now have to continue to work or find employment in order to provide for their â┚¬Ã…“Golden Yearsâ┚¬Ã‚ thanks to the unethical practices of Wall Street.
Social Security can be fixed has it has in the past. It will take Congress to show some willingness to provide an adjustment and to make sure that the borrowed funds that are owed to the Social Security fund are repaid.
Respectfully,
Raymond Lanier
Concord NH
I did send an e-letter, but am not posting since I can see that my views have been covered by the many posts I see here. Keep up the fight! Good work to all concerned.
People do not understand the system that our government operates. It is easier to scare people into summission by threating and scaring the group that votes the most, the older generation believes it is a responsiblity of a citizen to vote. If all the facts were published in the major news outlets then there would be no scandals, hate crimes and fear.
Dr. Max Skidmore, University of Missouri at Kansas City, wrote the best book on explaining the Social Security system and how it works. Get it and Read it for the straight facts. No fear, no sensationalisms just bold truth.
Oh come on – we all know that Social Security and Hitler’s SS share the same initials and that Osama bin Laden and Tanya Harding traveled back in time using an ACORN time machine and, using assuming the identities of “President Roosevelt” and “Senator Robert Wagner”, passed this communist, ecoterrorist, homosexual, muslim travesty!
I sent the following to USA Today, via e-mail:
I am writing to complain about your “alarmist” Social Security warnings of a few days ago.
Under the headline “Social Security Races to ‘Negative’: Rash of Retirements Push Fund to Brink,” USA Today’s February 8 front page presented an alarmist view .
Reporter Richard Wolf leads with this warning: “Social Security’s annual surplus nearly evaporated in 2009 for the first time in 25 years.” But several paragraphs later, readers are told that the program has been “accumulating a $2.5 trillion trust fund”–which certainly sounds less ominous than the headline’s warning about being on a “brink.” And by a “nearly evaporated” surplus, USA Today means that Social Security “took in only $3 billion more in taxes last year than it paid out in benefits.”
The money borrowed from Social Security is currently scheduled to be paid back by 2037, at which point the program will have an actual deficit. But many experts have argued for years that this projected future shortfall is not a short-term crisis, and can be addressed with minor changes like eliminating the cap on taxable income, so that the wealthy would pay the same percentage of their income as middle-income and poor workers.
A story that presents Social Security as on the “brink,” then, is giving readers a decidely skewed perspective on an important matter of public policy. As economist Dean Baker noted recently on his Beat the Press blog (2/8/10): “If nothing is ever done to change the program, the projections still show that it will be able to pay close to 80 percent of scheduled benefits. This will still provide future retirees with a benefit that is considerably larger than what current retirees receive.”
If USA Today were to present these less-alarming facts, the headline might read, “Social Security Continues to Pay Benefits as Expected.” That would be much less alarmist–and more accurate.
Sincerely,
xxx
Fort Mill, SC