'Administration Sources' Lying About Obama's Plans for Social Security?
Glenn Greenwald points out why the use of unnamed sources is so misleading to the public:
In order to assuage concerns among progressives that the Obama administration intends to follow in the Bush administration's footsteps by trying to cut Social Security benefits, high-level Obama officials have been telling journalists such as The American Prospect's Ezra Klein -- on the condition of anonymity -- that they have no intention of touching Social Security, producing reports which then faithfully communicate that message, such as this one from Klein, two weeks ago:
What people at the White House have told me on Social Security -- and what I wrote in the post she's referencing -- is that there's no intention to touch Social Security in the foreseeable future. It's not a priority and it's not a political winner. . . . The problem, they say, is health care, not Social Security, and that's where the White House is focusing.
Based on those same anonymous conversations, Klein wrote other posts telling progressives who are worried about Obama's intention to cut Social Security that they were worrying about something that doesn't exist.
But in The New York Times today, David Brooks recounted what he described as "conversations with four senior members of the administration." Those unnamed Obama officials all called Brooks in order to refute his column from last week which argued "that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous." Brooks -- like Klein -- granted anonymity to and then proceeded to quote all four "senior members of the Obama administration" (a) without explaining why he did so, (b) without describing efforts, if any, to persuade them to use their names and (c) without providing any information about who they are or what their motives might be (all flagrant violations of the supposed NYT policy governing the use of anonymity). These paragraphs were the result of the anonymity Brooks gave to the Obama White House (emphasis in original):
Besides, the long-range debt is what matters, and on this subject President Obama is hawkish.
He is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security as well as health spending.
What Klein's anonymous White House sources told him ("there's no intention to touch Social Security in the foreseeable future") is directly contrary to what Brooks' anonymous White House sources, two weeks later, told him (Obama "is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security"). But there's no way to resolve those contradictory White House claims because Klein and Brooks allowed these officials to hide behind anonymity when making these claims. That's what anonymity does -- it allows dubious or even false government claims to be spouted with impunity and without any accountability.
What Klein's anonymous White House sources told him ("there's no intention to touch Social Security in the foreseeable future") is directly contrary to what Brooks' anonymous White House sources, two weeks later, told him (Obama "is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security"). But there's no way to resolve those contradictory White House claims because Klein and Brooks allowed these officials to hide behind anonymity when making these claims. That's what anonymity does -- it allows dubious or even false government claims to be spouted with impunity and without any accountability.
That's why anonymity is such a valuable weapon for government officials and such a risky and questionable practice for journalists. If the claims from Klein and Brooks' sources are true about the intentions of the White House, then why can't they just attach their names to those claims and why aren't they made to do so by the journalists before having their statements amplified to the public?
First let me note that, as a contract employee -which is what the Times' columnists are, Brooks is mostly likely not bound by the anonymity rule, although he should be.
Second, I don't know that these are as contradictory as Glenn thinks. This is where I'll put on my former-press-secretary hat. You never want to lie to a reporter if you can help it, but you will mislead them. My guess is, the person they misled is Ezra Klein. First of all, "not in the foreseeable future"? Classic weasel words. "When I talked to you, Ezra, it really wasn't a priority. But circumstances have changed since then."
And while we all know who he is, in the Beltway world, Ezra's not a big name and doesn't have a huge megaphone - except in the blogosphere, so the thinking would be that he's not as big a potential threat as Brooks. But if you activated the liberal base at this time with a possible threat to cut Social Security, that would be a real distraction at a time when they're focused on other things. Trust me: They don't want to deal with this right now (i.e. "for the foreseeable future.") So yeah, score one for truth.
If the Obama administration was really serious about never touching Social Security, odds are they would have made that strategic leak to someone more prominent. Real leaks (that is, accurate ones), on things that matter, are always used to float trial ballons and either reward the reporter for previous favorable coverage - or get him in line to soften future coverage.
From my own experience as the person pushing those stories to reporters, I'd say Brooks was the one who got the accurate story on this because 1) it's the Times and you don't want to piss them off if you don't have to 2) they wanted to soften him up to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on budget issues in general and 3) they wanted him to pass it along the secret message to other conservatives - "I didn't put this in the story, but Axlerod told me, strictly on the QT, that...". In other words, this has all the signs of a classic strategic leak.
And if there's any doubt here, you have to give the edge to appointments - namely, that Obama has surrounded himself with many, many advisers who have actively supported either the privatization or partial privatization of Social Security. Are those the people you'd hire if you wanted to save Social Security?
So while it is indeed difficult to read between the lines when "sources" spout conflicting stories, in this case? Not so much. Because I think they were both told a version of the truth. No, Obama's not planning to touch Social Security - at this time. And yes, Obama plans to cut Social Security spending - in something. Only time will tell what those cuts include.
When I heard President Obama was going to "take a look at Social Security", I figured, based on what I have heard and seen in actions from this president, that he was simply meaning he was going to review it...take a look at it.....figure maybe how to improve or shore it up. I never assumed that he's "planning to cut benefits" or any other such nonsense.
Help me out here...isn't david brooks that four eyed, "got everything wrong" with his prognosis regarding the dip shit that lived in the White House prior to us getting our democracy back?
The way I read this, the little weazel is pulling a limpballs on you, where he wants to keep his name in the news and get the Democratic Party base all worried and disgruntled. NOT falling for it.
I'll beleive President Obama is going to f*ck with SS when HE tells me....not these ass holes that need to keep their insignificant noses on the front page of talk shows.
... and quoting him extensively while pushing a "some say" whispering campaign borders on insane.
Obama has ALWAYS said he wanted to raise the income limit for SS and Medicaid taxes to fund both better and limit payouts to the rich. The rest of this is mumbo jumbo made up shit.
Could this front page poster be dropped please? She keeps pushing the same kind of "some say" garbage that we screamed at the right wing for over the past few years.
It is sickening.
“In a recent interview, Nobel laureate and economist Joseph Stiglitz noted that, a few years ago, the Bush administration said injecting $560 billion into Social Security would put the system on sound footing for the next 75 years.”
Compare that to the money we have spent elsewhere, such as Iraq, the banks, and so forth.
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/money...
.
Yea...
... The "Some People Say..." game.
Let's play!
Some people say...
... The world is flat!
... Money grows on trees!
... The existence of ice disproves climate change!
... George W. Bush is Gre-e-e-a-t!
See, that is so easy.
Now,
The world is flat, some people said so.
Money grows on trees, 'cause some caterpillar said so.
It's snowing outside so climate change is a lie, some people say.
And George W. Bush is the best, so said Elizabeth Hasselbeck.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
And if there's any doubt here, you have to give the edge to appointments - namely, that Obama has surrounded himself with many, many advisers who have actively supported either the privatization or partial privatization of Social Security. Are those the people you'd hire if you wanted to save Social Security?
Especially in light of the above comment. There are a lot of things about Obama's appointments that have really pissed me off.
So Are 'Administration Sources' Are Lying About Obama's Plans for Social Security?
Makes sense?
.
It could be a rhetorical question...
... 'Administration Sources' Are Lying About Obama's Plans for Social Security?
Or it could be an inquisitive question...
... Are 'Administration Sources' Lying About Obama's Plans for Social Security?
But instead, the use of the adverb, "SO" indicates that the following statement is more declarative than inquisitive, NO?
"So, rain falls from the sky?" - duh!
I happen to think the second "ARE" is a typo...
... Otherwise we have a declarative rhetorical statement.
"So, are Raindrops are falling from the sky?"
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
I was referring to the typo.
that would pass for innuendo or gossip. Seems like much of what passes for news isn't.
So, when I heard the prez was going to take a "look" at Soc.Sec. I can do nothing except guess what this meant.
It may mean that he will raise the cap which would bring in more money.
It may mean that he will raise the age for when people become eligible.
It may mean that it will be means tested.
It may mean that there will be no COLA.
It may mean a combination of all of these.
All I can do is guess.
For SS itself, does he plan to cut monthly payments to the elderly? The disabled? Or does he plan to raise the age of receipt of payments? And isn't it already rising? -- seems like I read that somewhere.
Now, the place to do some real analysis and revamping is Medicare and Medicaid.
And how nice it would be to have one national health care government plan that enfolded Medicare, Medicaid, and all health matters now covered by private health insurance instead of diddling around with different programs, all of which have different requirements, benefits, and provisions.
I suspect Obama will be in BIG trouble if he touches Social Security, particularly later on in his term when the next election approaches.
And I have a suggestion for Obama. Get your staff, starting with Rahm Emanuel, to keep their mouths shut and if something must be said, then YOU say it. Stop the leaks floated to see what the response is, stop playing people as fools, do your job clean and above-board. That's no way to run a government. Well, maybe it's ONE way, but if you want feedback, get it from the American people, not two-bit journalists responding to other two-bit journalists. You could even have White House polls.
The transparency you promised is certainly in tatters.
I guess I naively assumed that when Obanma said change and transparency, he sort of meant it. This "anonymous sources" stuff is bullshit and really should stop. Last time it got us into an unnecessary war. All it does is end up confusing people and that's the last thing we need right now. A little forceful clarity would go a long way.
Does David Brooks write a gossip column?
DC, glad you put it so precisely..
David Brooks makes most of his stuff up - out of thin air. I have never seen or read anyone that tries so hard to be a 'reasonable' pundit but fails so miserably even at writing his name/address...
His discourse over the years highlights his burning wish to be a Buckley but fails miserably at even being a good copy buy. WHAT A LOSER!
of the present value of my promised SS benefit as a lump sum and call it even.
A win for me, a win for the SS system, a win for the taxpayers.
Oh, BTW, I'll make the same deal on Medicare, because I'm in great health.
We spend today in "National Defense" while politicians are talking about cutting off SS:
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com...
Obama's plan is not as good as expected on Military Expending
SS, along with everything else, MUST be 'looked at' and hard. I am living on SS and know that the country can't afford to pay it many more years with the economy falling as it is. Something, lots of things, must change and/or go away. Wake up and smell the death of the country around you.
i'd say start with dismantling the death-machine that is our military-industrial complex, and only then when that's accomplished take a look at SS.
Rather than "look at" Social Security, the Obama administration needs to "look at" its endorsement of GW Bush's plan to rescue the financial sector with taxpayer money, trillions and trillions of dollars. What's going forward under Obama will no more save the economy and get it on a stable path than doing a rain dance.
I'd rather see the death of the country around us result from the collapse of the fraudulent banking and financial industries the world over than by seeing the US government step in and bail them out with our money.
I'd like to see the US government lose its military dominance, too, because of this financial crisis.
header please. Those two ares are given me grammar anxiety. The content of the post itself is a little nebulous. Brooks as a source of information regarding the administration intentions is more than a little suspect. In any event reducing costs of social security and health care does not necessarily imply reducing benefits.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
There seems to be a paragraph duplication ('What Klein's anonymous ...') as well.
Sorry to be so nitpicky.
would correct my grammar. (Given instead of giving) Hey, no one is perfect.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/7282
Granted this is from 2004 but he does a great job explaining the dishonesty of those that want to privatize SS.
Nice analysis of the anatomy of leaks, Susie. We need more of that kind of information.
It could also be, of course, that rival inside groups are leaking like hell to get their points out there in order to control the discourse.
A bit off the point here, but privatization is not the only way to fix Social Security. Off the top of my head, I can think of two ways to help so it is perpetually available to those who need it. One is to raise the limit and deduct it from wages beyond what the limit is now. Perhaps up to $250,000.00. Another would be to not pay any money out to those who do not actually need it. Like wealthy people. They do not need Medicare, either. As Oliver Wendell Homles said, "I like paying taxes. With them, I buy civilization." One other thing, someone actually reads that GOP hack David Brooks?
In this day and age of instant messaging and 24-hour news so many people reach for a glimmering link to answer their concerns. Many will continue to jump to conclusions, causing an unhealthy situation with regard to the issue for which they seek insight. It's fine to forecast, though if you're acting on rumors vs facts you may unjustly be setting yourself up for disappointment unnecessarily.
How can anyone attempt to answer the SSI issue without taking into consideration the other key relative components? There is allot of biased information to digest from all media, including the internet.
Before one puts the cart in front of the horse, consider the active working groups and there relation too Social Security. The conservative Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell makes a reference to Social Security in the following CSPAN clip.
Summit Launches Health Care Reform Program,
At about 10:15 > http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId...
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Thanks for pointing to this link to the CSPAN CLIP.
I reccommend everybody to watch it. It's more about health care rather than SS but it was very refreshing.
I can't control anyone's thoughts but my own. I don't know allot about anything and unless I possess the facts I'll normally withhold comment. I believe our imaginations are extremely powerful and at times they can be detrimental too our health by instigating unwarranted anxiety, absent the facts. I try my best to hold off until I get the facts, because for some reason I don't like to be wrong. At the same time, I also believe, that to get it right, sometimes we must be wrong... Go figure :-)
PS. Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Study the symptoms not the virus...
The more I see the fall out from Bush and his administration destruction of our country and our economy , , the more it looks like a well layout plan..
This plan is to make sure there will be no efforts to stop this complete deletion of our social programs or any efforts to stop the shift of wealth and power to these Global Corporations Giants..
When Clinton left office not only had he balance the budget , but Social Security was in sound shape and on the way of getting better each year.
Now of course Bush had to use the Social Security funds and even borrow from the future funds of Social Security , which directly destroys Medicare..
This is all BS and ties to the facts that Private corporations have now taking over the policies of our government and country and will stop paying any benefits to their employees..
Once they privatize Social Security and Medicare you will see the same results as you have with your retirement funds invested in the stock markets... They will be used and destroy by the corporate greed and power..
If anything at all should have been learn from the last 8 years , it should have been that employers and corporations are going to screw you soon and often...
If the government does not control and fund the citizens of this country's health , retirement and social programs there will be none..
The elite like Bush , Cheney and corporations do not concern themselves with these programs because by the time they reach this stage they have "stolen" enough wealth and power to have any type of health benefits , retirement or and thing they or their children wish..
The reason they have reach this height ,, is because by the sweat and thief of the American citizens they have taken all the wealth while throwing crumbs to the workers is anything at all..
This is a class war fare and it is destroying the lives of the American citizens more and more each day... If you believe the elite and corporations are hurting you are sadly mistaken... You will never know their wealth and power they have because it is overseas and censored from anyone to see.. They again are not treated to the same methods which are forced onto the American citizens with the spying on our citizens in every phase of our lives with every detail of our information shared and spread to all in our country and overseas....
Spying on citizens and people is one thing that Israel has proven they can do well , for they have practice spying and infiltrating people for over 4,000 years.. It has been recorded in the bible of their special forces which gather information to invade and wipe out whole cities.
None
There is NO THERE... HERE!
This is BULLSHIT POLITICAL DOUBLE-SPEAK! Tyke, above, said Brooks is a putz... and I second that emotion.
Of course like everything the republicans can not stand like the American citizens and workers having a nice life ,,, Bush destroy everything Clinton build in his administration for the benefit of the Americans and their country..
Bush the terrorist are finding new and better ways to destroy us and
So Are We... And Bush is the winner of the most destructive to our country in our history,,, including all of our enemies.
http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/e...
Dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt.
In his 1998 and 1999 State of the Union addresses, President Clinton called on the nation to save the surplus until the solvency of Social Security is assured.
He also repeatedly vetoed large Republican tax cut bills that would have jeopardized our nation’s fiscal discipline. The President’s actions led to a bipartisan consensus on saving the surplus and paying down the debt.
Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025.
When President Clinton took office, Medicare was expected to become insolvent in 1999, then only six years away.
The 1993 deficit reduction act dedicated some of the taxes paid by Social Security beneficiaries to the Medicare Trust Fund and extended the life of Medicare by three years to 2002.
Thanks to additional provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse and bipartisan cooperation in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, Medicare is now expected to remain solvent until ****2025.****
Bush certainly took an axe to this didn't he...
None
Go down to your bank Monday morning and withdraw every fucking penny. Then buy Gold before it is too late.
Before I retired from the Postal service I paid about $78, every two(2) weeksfor my Aetna healthcare with required copay for all doctors,emergency room charges,and prescriptions,etc.Since I became eligible for Medicare and now have medicare parts A & B which cover about 80% of my charges,I now pay $212. a month for Aetna membership and am still responsible for the same copays for all services even with medicar paying 80% of my medical bills.
It would appear to me that Medicare (and the taxpayer) is gettig a scewing from the insurance company.I'm sure mine is not the only health care company using this practice.It seems that as soon as you become eligible for Medicare,Medicare is declared your "Primary provider" by all Health insurance companies with no reduction in premiums to the patient and no apparent help to lessen Medicare resposibilities.
Ed. Do you mean that Aetna now charges you higher premiums and the same copay charges for about 80% less coverage? When you left the Postal service were you removed from its insurance pool? Is that why Aetna raised your premiums?
If Obama wants to mess with Social security in w way that reduces benefits or otherwise undermines the system, it strikes me that it will be a damn good way to make sure that he's a one term president. He would be crucified in the the 2012 primaries.
In a world of worthless 401K's and in a world where pensions are becoming non-existent, social security is even more important than it was when it was created. Since the only people who want to "reform" soscial security are the very same people who created the current economic crises through their fraud and theft of wealth, I'd be inclined to hold Obama in great suspicion if he buys into the bullshit and subesequently acts on it based on what he has bought into. The man needs to think long and hard before he goes down that path. I personally am willing to pay more into the system in order to preserve it.
Comments are closed on this entry