GOP Fearful of Bush Second Term

[SoDesuKa]

Bush supporters ought to be flush with excitement over the new administration beginning a month from now. We should be hearing happy chatter about the bold new proposals Bush will implement starting in January. But that's NOT happening - Bush supporters are as quiet as mice. This reflects the sorry state of his leadership.

If I were a Bush supporter I'd go back to Clinton-bashing. It never goes out of style, and it's handy as a substitute for positive achievement. Bush knows the high point of his second term is likely to be the fact he got re-elected despite the failures of his first term. Nixon's restless ghost walks the halls of the White House. Remember me? I won in a landslide.

[Erika]

1. The Religious Right Are Exuberant!

Falwell expressed again today how Bush "owes" them for their turn out and they expect him to repay them. Bush just needs to make this country into a theocracy based on their own interpretation of the Bible and they damn well expect him to do it.

He's got a mess on his bloody hands in Irag. Afghanistan isn't much better.

Our infrastructure is crumbling.

SS is crumbling.

Medical costs are soaring to the point that a significant portion of Americans have no access.

Asians own a great deal of this country because of his federal deficits and borrowing.

But Be Happy, the rich have never lived better and the world corporatists love him. Bush says we're all doing fine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Just one correction

Erika do NOT fall for the Republican Talking Point, SS is NOT crumbling, that is what they want to sell you to privatize it.

It is expected to be solvent until 2052 and if nothing is done benefits will go down to 80% at that moment. There are pretty easy solutions that can be taken in the next few years to ensure SS solvency at 2052.

[G_j]

3. according to this, until 2042

FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/activism/cbs-cnn-social-security.html

ACTION ALERT:
CBS, CNN Mislead on Social Security

December 13, 2004

The debate over Social Security privatization could very well be the most
important domestic story of the coming year. Unfortunately, recent media
discussions of the topic are built on flawed assumptions and inaccurate
information.

"Social Security is in trouble," announced CNN reporter Bruce Morton on
the December 9 broadcast of NewsNight with Aaron Brown, adding:
"Politicians like South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham know it." Though
that's the starting point for the segment, the "trouble" that Social
Security faces might not be nearly as bad as the "solution" offered by
politicians like Graham.

According to its own trustees reports, Social Security will be able to
operate just as it does now until 2042; another projection from the
Congressional Budget Office forecasts 10 additional years of solvency. Not
bad for a program in "crisis."

What's more, the "bankruptcy" of Social Security has been moving steadily
into the future; in 1997, the program was expected to run short of funds
in 2029, or 32 years; now, in 2004, the trustees say they won't need more
cash until 2042-- gaining 13 years of projected black ink in just seven
years (Political Animal, 12/13/04).

But CNN offered none of these caveats; the only sources in the report were
Michael Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute and Robert Bixby of the
Concord Coalition-- both of whom support some form of Social Security
privatization. Another guest was a 27-year old who suggested that Social
Security would not be around for her when she needed it.

With such a one-sided debate, reporters turn to calling various
privatization schemes "reform," and they suggest that something must be
done. As Morton put it, "Fixing the system will have to hurt, somehow. But
not fixing it may hurt worse."

Before the segment, CNN anchor Aaron Brown commented: "We expect in the
days ahead to take a good, hard look at Social Security reform,
privatization and the rest. This is, if you will, the trillion-dollar
elephant in the room." One hopes that CNN will take a "hard look" at the
facts regarding Social Security, and include a broad range of opinions on
the fiscal health of the program, as well as the faulty assumptions that
are used to support the case for privatization.

CBS Evening News, on the other hand, profiled one man in its December 9
report on Social Security: Tad DeHaven, whose on-screen ID was "National
Taxpayers Union." According to reporter John Roberts, he is a "poster
child for Social Security reform: 28 years old, a college graduate, in the
work force for six years, getting married next May, expected to retire in
2042. That's the year Social Security goes broke."

For starters, that is not when Social Security "goes broke." According to
the conservative estimates of its trustees report, Social Security would
still be able to pay about 73 percent of its obligations after 2042. And
as economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic & Policy Research
frequently points out, "the projections show that the program will always
be able to pay a higher real benefit than that received by current
retirees" (Economic Reporting Review, 12/6/04), since future benefits are
projected to be more generous than those given to today's seniors.

But while CBS viewers learned a fair amount about Tad DeHaven's personal
life, they weren't given a crucial bit of information about his
professional career: the National Taxpayers Union is a conservative
Beltway group dedicated to Social Security privatization, and DeHaven has
also worked at the like-minded Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation
(Political Animal, 12/10/04). So when Roberts noted that DeHaven "is fully
on board the plan to establish private accounts for Social Security" and
"argues doing nothing is not an option," that shouldn't have been a
surprise.

Why was CBS using a figure closely associated with the privatization side
of the debate in a "man on the street" interview? Whatever the reason, the
end result was clear: a report that sorely needed to be balanced.


ACTION:

Tell CNN NewsNight to offer a broader debate in its upcoming reports about
Social Security, including the viewpoints of those who do not believe that
Social Security faces an imminent crisis. And ask CBS Evening News if it
plans to air a clarification noting that the "man on the street" it used
to explain Social Security's future was in fact a paid proponent of Social
Security privatization.

CONTACT:
CBS Evening News
mailto:[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

CNN NewsNight
mailto:[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
maintain a polite tone. Please send a copy of your correspondence to
[e-mail].

[ET Awful]

11. Notice that your article references the Congressional Budget Office report

which "forecasts 10 additional years of solvency." Thus, the 2052 date.

[Must_B_Free]

4. Clarify for me, friend

There's nothing in the new proposal that says I HAVE to put my SS money in the market, right?

It's just the fact that I'll be paying into a system that will be gone when its time for me to collect?

"Social Security would still be able to pay about 73 percent of its obligations after 2042."

Actually, I should be eligible by about 2035.

[zann725]

5. I heard 80%, and I think the year was 2052...and that's even IF nothing

is done to correct or adjust it before then.
Paul Krugman was on AAR last week saying the above. If I remember correctly, he said that something as subtle as putting a 'cap' on large wage earners...maybe having them receive reduced benefits could essentially correct the SS problem at that point (in 2052).

[Ruffhowse]

7. The way I understand it is that everyone will have less withheld from

their paycheck (2-5% I think) and you can either invest that much yourself in the stock market (probably pre-defined designated mutual funds) or not. If you chose not to participate, there is that much less that you are saving into Social Security and you will get less when you retire. So you are essentially punished if you choose not to participate.

[ProfessorGAC]

17. The Money Will Be There

Do NOT believe the hype. The system is in nowhere near the fiscal shape declared. Nowhere near it!

Look 48 years of sovlency, with ZERO adjustments in payments or payroll deduction rate is a better financial condition than any corporation in this company, INCLUDING Microsoft or Wal-mart. (Think Microsoft or Wal-Mart could survive for 48 years without either minimizing costs or enhancing revenues? The answer, my friend, is no.)

Facing potential bankruptcy in 48 years(!) if one does nothing to enhance revenues isn't even remotely a financial problem, let alone a crisis. So, this is all nonsense.

The money you pay in will be there in 2035.
The Professor

[Iris]

20. Yes! This is a myth that has been debunked.

I remember it was going strong in the late 80s, then seemed to die down a little bit, and now is back in full force with this administration.

[Erika]

6. Thanks!

I will send a letter to my (barf) republican senator asking for his comments on SS.

[Garbo 2004]

8. Yup, "SS is in trouble" is presented as established fact by media & pols

but it's one of those "everyone knows" unexamined "facts" of the same nature of the previously repeated "fact" that Saddam had WMD's in Iraq and was an imminent threat to the world. When in fact he didn't and wasn't

The vested interests have an interest in scaring the crap out of people and mucking with social security. Think they're planning to privatize SS to benefit the people? Ha! Someone will profit and it won't be those on SS.

[Ruffhowse]

9. Yup, the ones profiting from this will be the financial community (as if

they need MORE money). As all that money is processed into the stock market, the money managers will be dipping in and taking their share out as it goes by. And the financial community overwhelmingly supported Bush in the last election, what a coincidence!

[indepat]

16. Jerry best typifies the embodiment of the anti-Christ IMHO by what spews

his mouth.

[Willy Lee]

19. Maybe so, but they are NOT the majority. eom

[Old and In the Way]

10. It's like being on a 4 year mindless bender.......wheeeeeee.

and they are now going to start waking up to one hell of a hangover.....

[ET Awful]

12. And in a little while, they'll realize that while they were on that bender

they got a huge f'in tattoo of the name of the hooker that ripped them off that won't be easy to get rid of.

[eauclaireliberal]

13. RE: "GOP Fearful of Bush Second Term"

America gets hte government it deserves. Thanks to the Xtian neo-cons, the rest of us are going to learn this shit the hard way.

[enough]

14. I hate to say it, but I agree with you, eauclaire

A couple of days ago I walked into my local grocery store -- parking lot full of huge pick-ups and SUVs, the people in the store scowling, pushing, and pretending that nobody else exists (no social interactions -- everybody acting they are alone in the store).

It suddenly occured to me -- George Bush IS their president. He is exactly the right president for them.


(And before somebody jumps on me to say that he stole the election, I agree. But the fact that we have this totally fraudulent voting system simply reflects the reality of the american population. The American people ALLOWED this voting system to happen, and the vast majority of the population does not want to hear about it.)

[xequals]

22. Exactly. The fraudulent system which elects fraudulent leaders

all happens on the people's watch.

They were made very aware of the problems with the system in 2000, yet re-elected the leader who benefited from that fraud.

Yes, in the end, the people do get the government they deserve - voting fraud or no. Government is always an outcome of the mentality of the people. ALL government is "by the people" - though most governments are not "of" or "for" them.

[Deja Q]

15. If they were, then why did they vote for him?

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. GOP, if Bush goes down, the RNC goes down.

That's your boy. You bought him, you own him.

[DinahMoeHum]

21. Fuck the GOP. They made their bed, now they can sleep in it.

:nuke: