Today's Anti-Social Security Propaganda

Well, it looks like there is a new push on in the long term destruction of Social Security today. Now, I usually write about the plight of the long term un and underemployed but I am getting close to Social Security eligibility so decided I would discuss the anti Social Security effort today.

I'll start with Fact Free Fred Hiatt's Concern Troll op-ed in today's (Monday, January 28) Washington Post. It seems Mr Hiatt wants to offer his advice to President Obama on "entitlement reform" using the guise of how Democrats and Republicans view the past four years:

To achieve a fiscal compromise, Obama agreed in 2011 negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner to changes in Social Security that would be anathema to liberals, but Boehner walked away from the talks.

...snip...

Both histories are factually correct. That coherent accounts can be written either way ought to suggest to partisans that neither version is quite the slam-dunk they imagine.

At a minimum, it ought to propel the White House to continue acting in the national interest, whichever party that seems to serve. And for a long time, Obama has said the national interest requires both revenue increases and reform of entitlement programs.

Once again, Mr Hiatt and the Post are pushing the myth that Social Security is a part of the overall Federal Budget and needs to be "controlled" to "fix the deficit" when in fact, Social Security loans to the Genera Fund have been propping up the Federal Budget for decades, allowing for the tax cuts over the years.

While I expect this type of nonsense from the Washington Post, today's Tampa Bay Times had a decidedly misleading headline ("US spends far more on seniors than on kids.") How is it misleading?

In 2008, all government (local state, and federal) spent $26,255 on average for each person 65 or older, most of which is Social Security and Medicare.

The blurb on children spending:

Conversely, the federal government spends relatively little on children and Medicaid is the largest single item. State and local governments spend much more n children because they pay for schools. But overall, governments spend far more than double on seniors than they do on children 18 and younger.

Finally, at the very bottom of this post, the Times offers a couple of caveats to offset the misleading nature of their headline and opening:

And boiling it down to a zero-sum game between young and old can make it seem as if those were the only choices. Indeed, other portions of the federal budget could be targeted instead, from defense spending to interest on the debt. Or people might be willing to pay higher taxes for government to do more.

Perhaps most crucially, if you spend dollars on the old, that can indirectly aid the young, and vice versa.

...snip...

Finally, some experts suggest that the issue isn't spending on the elderly versus spending on children. Rather, it's a question of what policies can promote high employment and growth versus policies that promote consumption today.

This brings us to Politico which offers this article titled "The quiet liberal plans for entitlement reform." Of course, the first "liberal" plan is the Chained CPI:

This new formula — a tweak to the consumer price index — would assume that people switch their buying habits when prices rise, rather than just buying the same things over and over. So, for example, if the price of ground beef goes up, someone might buy chicken or fish instead.

...snip...

But a lot of Democrats and liberals aren’t on board. They say seniors are already having a hard enough time with the current cost-of-living increases without dialing them back.

...snip...

That’s why liberals want any chained CPI agreement to be balanced out with measures to ease the burden on the seniors with the lowest incomes. For example, Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, suggests exempting people on Supplemental Security Income — which pays benefits to the lowest-income seniors — and making a special payment to seniors who have been on Social Security for 20 years because they get poorer as they get older.

Note to Politico and inside Beltway Villagers: if you have to make special provisions for the poorest and lowest income on the scale to avoid the bad impacts of a policy, that should by definition tell you the policy is bad for everyone.

For what it is worth, Politico does mention lifting the cap on Social Security earnings but limits this to:

Lift the cap so 90 percent of all Americans’ earnings are taxed — it’s only about 83 percent now — and a Social Security deal could raise about $550 billion in revenues over the next 10 years, according to estimates by Third Way, which has endorsed the approach. It would also wipe out Social Security’s deficit through 2020.

Of course, this is also misleading as "...wipe out the Social Security deficit through 2020..." discounts the loans Social Security has made to the general fund for 30 plus years and the surplus that was built up that was used to fund tax cuts.

There is a large amount of cluelessness across the board with the policies being discussed. A week and half ago, the "Business Roundtable" proposed raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70. Jon Walker at FDL Action made a rebuttal on this level of idiocy here. I would just like to ask these CEOs where the jobs are that allow folks to keep working until age 70? The BLS information for December 2012 shows the Unemployment Rate as 7.8 and the rate for the long term un and underemployed and those who have given up at 14.8% (a figure that I believe is much too low than actual). But of course, they don't actually have to do anything that might mitigate the problems they have helped to create.

And because I can:

Oh Noes! Wall Street Might Not Get Their Bonuses!

So I was doing my standard web surfing this AM after I had checked the (non-existent) jobs listings when I saw this from Bloomberg with the title, "Half of Wall Street Employees Expect Bigger Bonuses":

Almost half of Wall Street employees expect their year-end bonuses to be higher this year than they were a year ago, according to an eFinancialCareers.com survey.

Of the 911 U.S. financial professionals who responded to the e-mailed survey, 48 percent anticipate a higher payout, up from 41 percent in a similar survey last year, the job-search website said today in a statement. Employees of hedge funds and other asset managers were more optimistic than those at banks and broker-dealers, according the statement. Of the respondents, 82 percent work for U.S.-based companies.

Well imagine my surprise this afternoon when I see this one from Bloomberg titled "Wall Street Bonus Pool Seen Shrinking for Second Straight Year":

Wall Street’s cash bonus pool is likely to fall for a second straight year as the financial industry grapples with market turmoil, economic weakness and new rules, New York state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said.

Revenue and compensation trends have “edged downward” since February, when DiNapoli estimated that the 2011 pool for Wall Street declined by 13.5 percent to $19.7 billion, the comptroller said today in a report.

The New York Times presented it this way this afternoon:

It still pays to be on Wall Street.

Even as the financial industry in New York has slashed jobs by the thousands, the average worker who remains is collecting a near-record paycheck.

In a report released on Tuesday, the New York State Comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, said that the average pay package of securities industry employees grew slightly last year and was up 16.6 percent over the past two years, to $362,950. Wall Street’s total compensation rose 4 percent last year to more than $60 billion.

CNBC appears to be trying to split the differences with this report titled "Wall Street Expects Bigger Bonuses But May Not Get Them" as they report on the same survey that Bloomberg covered in the first link:

Revenue is down on Wall Street but expectations for bonuses are up — at least for some workers who have seen their pay shrink since the financial crisis explosion.

A survey from eFinancial Careers shows 48 percent of workers on the Street are looking for higher bonuses than 2011. Expectations are high even as investment banking revenue is down 11 percent for the same period last year while the securities industry overall saw revenue fall 7 percent in the first half.

At the same time, some of the larger firms have been doing better as the headwinds from the European debt crisis subside and hopes grow that the industry will close the year out strongly.

Meanwhile as Wall Street whines its way along, our (not-so-favorite) Masters of the Universe, Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon are once again daring to spout their nonsense. Jon Walker at FDL Action presents this:

What I find most ironic about these CEO deficit hawks complaining about the “uncertainty” that is hurting the economy is that they are the ones responsible for helping to create said uncertainty to begin with. The deficit obsession created the uncertainty about raising the debt ceiling. Similarly, they constantly pushed for a big deficit deal resulting in the creation of the sequesters, which are seen as a big source of the fiscal uncertainty at the moment. The main “uncertainty” about government policy right now is how the government will clean up the mess created by past efforts to force a deficit deal.

But hey, MotU never have to be accountable for destroying the economy. After all, they deserve those millions dollars of bonuses right? Destroying the global economy is hard ass work so they must be compensated for it.

Meanwhile, CNN actually touches base with the real world with this article on part time jobs being the new normal in employment. Notice how much attention is paid to the ravings of Blankfein and Dimon and the Wall St WATB versus the attention paid to the rest of us in the real world?

And because I can:
Happy Birthday John. RIP

Wishful Thinking Is Not a Good Policy Foundation

Author's Note: Please take a few minutes and Join the Firedoglake Membership Program today. FDL provides the tools that help me and others extend our reach with our rants so we need to support FDL when we can.

I had to laugh (albeit ruefully) when I saw this opening from Jon Walker at FDL Action this morning:

Almost any national health care debate in this country is almost entirely disconnected from real-world examples, which is tragic given that facts have a well-known liberal bias.

My bold. Why did I find this worth laughter? Because the bolded part is applicable to just about every policy issue written or talked about by the DeeCee Political crowds and their Beltway Village Idiots Courtiers in the TradMed. Pick the issue, any issue, and the discussion emanating from DeeCee sounds like it is coming straight out of an alternate universe.

By now, most folks reading me know that I write frequently about the (lack of) jobs and the problems facing folks looking for employment; whether they are like myself and among the long term un and underemployed or the folks just entering the workforce with newly minted college degrees.

Today, we have the Initial Unemployment Claims (via Bloomberg) report from last week, and guess what? The economists are once again "surprised." From the Bloomberg article:

Jobless claims increased by 10,000 to 424,000 in the week ended May 21, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median estimate of economists in a Bloomberg News survey called for a drop to 404,000. The economy grew less than forecast in the first quarter, a separate report showed.

...snip...

Estimates in the Bloomberg survey of 47 economists ranged from 390,000 to 420,000. The Labor Department revised the prior week’s figure up to 414,000 from the 409,000 initially reported. There were no special factors behind last week’s increase, a Labor Department official said as the figures were released.

IMNSVHO (In my not so very humble opinion) I think the economists are making it all up as they go along. I'm not sure any group of people can be so consistently wrong on so many levels.

USA Today had this article last Thursday on the dragging job creation: