Dissing Social Security sure is Ponz-ular

or, No One Ever Went Broke Scaring You Into Thinking Social Security's Going Broke

by folkbum

Every six months, I send a big chunk of dough to American Family to insure my car. That money doesn't go into a safe with my name on it. Instead, that money goes into 1) a set of investments designed to increase AmFam's long-term financial stability and 2) the settlement payouts of other clients found to be at fault. Someday, I will (sadly, not too long ago, I did) need AmFam to pay for an accident myself. When that happens, the payout will come from the immediate cashflow of the company--the premiums their other customers are paying at that moment.

If you're Ron Johnson, or Rick Esenberg, or Nick Schweitzer, or any one of countless others on the right, that makes American Family insurance--hell, any insurance--a Ponzi scheme.

For after all, Social Security, which all of the above have happily (though RoJo's backing away? maybe?) called a Ponzi scheme, does exactly the same thing. We pay into it, the SSA invests some, and they use the rest to pay out benefits to other people.

Hell, the RoJos and Esenbergs and Schweitzers of the world would have beaten George Bailey to death in the bank, screaming at him about putting their money in Joe's house.

No, actually probably not. See, there's a political advantage to trashing Social Security that doesn't exist in trashing banks and insurance companies and every other operation that exists with a similar structure. We have been told for decades that Social Security is going bankrupt and will not be there for (me, you, your children, the creepy guy next door who peeks in your window, take your pick), and it has worked. Polls consistently show that people believe remarkable falsehoods about Social Security. And when you have people scared about Social Security, there's a campaign issue for you.

To be fair to the bloggers above, they try offering arguments. Probably because they, too, believe the falsehoods and have to twist and turn to make sense. Esenberg:

People like Jay who defend the system like to say that the government won't or can't default on those bonds. It certainly can. Congress could repudiate the bonds, although it likely won't. The problem - the one that Jay elides by saying that the trust fund "can pay" out benefits for a number of years - is what it would take to pay those benefits.

The trust fund can't just write a check. It must redeem those bonds, i.e., call in the government's IOU to itself. The government can't just write a check to honor the bonds because it doesn't have the money. It must either raise taxes or borrow more money. To the extent that this cannot be done, benefits must be reduced. Thus taxpayers who have paid "extra" as "we went" really have nothing to draw on. They must either forego benefits or impose even higher taxes on younger people.

Let's pretend for a second that the trust fund isn't really what is and instead is, like my mythical AmFam payments sitting in a safe. Every dollar spent from that trust fund would have been deficit spending (or higher taxes) over the last thirty years. If it was okay (or would have been) to deficit spend back then--on star wars, the war in Iraq, "ending welfare as we know it," whatever--why is it suddenly anathema to raise taxes or deficit spend to keep a promise we've made to our elders and poor? And it wouldn't take much: Social Security will continue to draw revenue that nearly meets the promised benefits for many years, bottoming out at between 75% and 80% of benefit levels. Small tweaks now--lifting the cap on taxable income, or redefining income to include more than just wages, or pushing the payroll tax up a smidge--would make future work to meet those promises much easier (either because you believe in the trust fund or because current deficits will be lower).

Schweitzer:

My question [. . .] is... where is the choice with Social Security? Yes, Social Security doesn't deceive anyone... everyone does in fact know how it works... or at least should. But Social Security has one advantage that no privately run Ponzi Scheme has... there is no choice in whether or not you participate. I belong to an entire generation of people who truly believe that we will not get anything from Social Security. [ed: see! I told you!] I am planning my retirement on the idea that Social Security will not pay me one red cent. I have to. I know exactly how Social Security operates, and I can also see demographics and how population is changing. There simply won't be enough people to pay me once I rise to the top of the pyramid.

For this, I defer to erstwhile Republican Charlie Crist, who makes a salient point: "There are other ways we can help fund it, by creating a pathway to citizenship. [. . . I]f we have those 11 to 14 million people productively participating in the American economy and paying the payroll taxes that would be attended to it, that would help Social Security." There is a labor force in this country willing and waiting to contribute to our financial health--and Nick's financial future--but the same forces scaring the pants off of you about the safety of Social Security are also busy scaring you about the Brown Menace because, you know, that too makes a good election issue. What's good for the country is bad for electoral fortunes.

And it's those fears that RoJo and his political allies are counting on, and apparently winning, in their quest to return to the freewheeling Bush years of no regulation and vast income growth for the already well-off. Esenberg and Schweitzer have become willing tools in that quest.

The Fake War On Christmas

by capper

In his most recent column for the misnamed Waukesha Freeman, Owen Robinson continues to hype the faux War on Christmas.

This is something the right wing feels they need to hype every year. The chief complaint is that some Freedom From Religion type of group protests governmental facilities used to promote the holiday. I have yet to hear of any of these groups that want to keep people from celebrating their religious beliefs in their homes or churches, just not using taxpayer funded facilities.

Owen's other complaint are the stores that chose to be inclusive of all of their customers, using the phrase "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" as opposed to the exclusive, Christians only "Merry Christmas."

Nick Schweitzer does a pretty good job at refuting Owen assertions. He gives a history of this so called war, and then makes this excellent point:

Should a Jewish clerk be forced to say Merry Christmas to his/her customers? We seem hell bent on allowing Catholic pharmacists the right to not only refuse to give out birth control, but not even forward the prescription onto another pharmacy, so why should a Jewish or atheist clerk be forced to acknowledge your religion? And more importantly, why do you have the need to have others acknowledge it? I mean, it's nice when they do, and Owen tells a nice story of being wished Merry Christmas by a waitress. But he's not just talking about those random well wishes in the spirit of the season. He's also suggesting that the lack of those wishes constitutes a war on the season itself!

To paraphrase Nick's last paragraph, it appears that those asserting that there is a war is satisfied with the right to celebrate their holiday, but are demanding that others acknowledge and follow in line, at least for the season. In other words, they are asking for the equivalent of Affirmative Action for their religion, even though they are in the majority in this country.

I don't see anyone wanting to end the national day of celebration of Christmas. And trust me, outside of vital services like hospitals, firefighters, police and the such, the only places open from Christmas Eve afternoon to the day after Christmas are gas stations and movie theaters, and not all of those are either. However, I don't recall ever getting off of work, with pay, for Yom Kippur or Channukah. The banks don't close for Tet or Samhain.

If you practice any of these other religions, and you want to have the day to celebrate or worship in your fashion, you have to use your own vacation time, and the rest of the world carries on. However, if you are atheist or a non-Christian, and you want to do your grocery shopping or banking or whatever on December 25th, well, you're just SOL, fella.

I wonder how loudly the Christians would scream if they were required to use their own vacation time to celebrate Thanksgiving or Christmas. The outrage would be deafening, to be sure. But if someone of another religion, or an atheist, would wish to have those equal rights to their beliefs (or nonbeliefs), well, that would be just absurd to them, or they would feel threatened by it.

There is no War on Christmas. At best, it could only be called a War for Equal Standing, which is what I thought this country was supposed to be all about.

That's civility for you

by folkbum

Anybody remember that episode of "The Simpsons" where Krusty the Clown is trying to resurrect his career--well, okay, one of the episodes where Krusty is trying to resurrect his career--and some other comedians are trying to help him figure out why he's not funny? At one point Kristy Krusty squints up his eyes, throws on a pair of glasses, stick sticks some fake buck teeth in his mouth, and does a horrible stereotypical--some would say racist--Asian accent. "Ah, so" he says, and does an extended bow.* The other comedians look on in horror.

That's kind of how I felt reading this, from the guy who wants to elevate the debate on the Wisconsin blogs. (But, hey, at least it's not a retard joke!) UPDATE: I didn't keep my browser window open or copy and paste the original, but John Foust (in comments below and at bootsandkittens.com) has the Google cache: "Always be suspicious of government official who seek to remove themselves from public scrutiny." Owen has edited the post to fix the pidgin-Chinese sound of his "fortune cookie."

On a more serious note, Nick Schweitzer has a thoughtful look at the women-in-the-military topic here.

* It was not just offensive, but it was stale--Jerry Lewis ran that bit into the ground 40 years before.

The Conservative Thanksgiving Day Hypocrisy Parade™

by folkbum

Yes, it's that time of year when we blow conservative talking (or typing) heads full of helium and march them through the streets so the kids can point and laugh. My only regret is that I lack, say, Al Roker to provide his inimitable off-beat commentary as we watch the gasbags roll by. So instead, I will sometimes rely on members of the Cheddarsphere to offer their comments. Anyway, let's start the Hypocrisy Parade™!

First up is my BFF, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran. Nick describes the balloon as it wafts past our cameras:

Wow... this takes a lot of [helium] for Patrick McIlheran to say:

Milwaukee School Board member Jennifer Morales wants the schools, for benefits purposes, to treat people who are shacking up as if they were married -- "domestic partner" benefits, it's called.

It's supposed to be the epitome of progress. Morales says it's a matter of fairness: "Fairness for employees is fairness for employees," she told the Journal Sentinel. "It's not about me, it's not about Tina."

Tina would be the woman to whom Morales says she's married. If the schools approve this deal, Morales and Tina Owen, who works at an MPS charter school, would be considered spouses for benefits purposes.

That would be the same guy who wrote pretty passionately to pass the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Wisconsin, and then wrote about how such a ban wouldn't affect benefits for same sex couples, so they need not worry. Ummm... yeah... right. It especially takes a lot of [helium] to use the phrase "shacking up", and then immediately talk about about Owen and Morales. So first Patrick fights to prevent committed couples like Owen and Morales from getting married... and the criticizes them because they're not married... saying they're just "shacking up"... and aren't deserving of the benefits that any other married couple might receive. That's not just arrogant on his part, but insulting.

For anyone interested in a different description of that balloon, you can check out capper at Whallah! or Mike Mathias.

Next up is one I've been looking forward to for months. Former Wisconsinite Kevin Binversie moved to the Death Star Washington, DC, earlier this year, but he has been posting regularly at the Badger Blog Alliance. Here we see his puffy head floating by, because over the summer, a favorite topic of his was the Democratic National Committee's insistence that its rules be followed. Specifically, the rules about when states could hold primaries. "Democrats Disenfranchise...Democrats," he wrote. "Gee, I thought from all the crap Jay, Xoff, and the elected gang in Madison have been telling all of us for years; only our side can do that." You'll notice that what's blowing out the tail of the Binversie Balloon is smarm. (Kevin returned to the topic again later.) Well, Kevin's silence is deafening since this from the Republicans:

Republican Party leaders [. . .] recommended punishing five states for shifting their nomination contests earlier, moving to strip New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming of half their delegates.

"It's very important that our party uphold and enforce the rules that we unanimously voted into place at the Republican National Convention in 2004," said Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee. The rules ban holding votes before Feb. 5.

The ropes of apologies unposted are dangling from Kevin's balloon. I sure hope the marching band walking behind him doesn't trip over them!

And bringing up, aptly, the rear of our Hypocrisy Parade™ is the biggest gasbag of all, Charlie Sykes--not that his head needs any additional inflation for the holiday! Sykes is always good for outrage, and when the Catholic League yelled "jump," Charlie opened his valves and flew into the air. See, Miller Brewing Company put its mug (get it? mug?) on a poster advertising a street fetish fair in open-minded San Francisco, and Charlie Sykes led the Cheddarshpere's outrage parade. (The outrage parade, by the way, is not affiliated with this Hypocrisy Parade™.)

In the end, Miller buckled like a spaghetti bridge built by the kids insulted in this post by squeaky-clean Owen Robinson, who next year might get his very own balloon (keep reaching for the sky, Owen!). Miller's logo came off the poster, the Catholic League notched another victory into its bedpost, and Sykes was triumphant.

But when the Milwaukee Interfaith Conference complained about something Sykes had posted on his own website--a "parody" of the now-common "Coexist" bumper sticker that, among other things, replaced the Star of David with a Swastika--Sykes did not lead any kind of parade, outraged or not. Now, there's a difference between the Catholic League and the Interfaith Conference. The New York-based CL has basically become a front group for Republicans, and the IC is made up of actual and real church, synagogue, mosque, and temple leaders from around the Milwaukee area--so it doesn't take a genius to figure out which Sykes will align himself with.

So, long story short, Sykes spewed his noxious gas right back at the IC, claiming that he was drawing a "line" in defense of free speech and artistic expression. I know! It's the funniest balloon out here! Brawler, what do you think?

It's a Sykesian masterpiece of taking a principled stand on free speech while at the same time denying accountability for controversial implications of said speech. Which is classic Sykes -- and is the antithesis of Journalism 101.

Paul Noonan has some thoughts on the matter. Oh, and Jim Rowen, what make you of this cartoon balloon?

Charlie is framing the issue as one of free speech. His free speech. And I've got no complaint with that. I want him to have free speech, but to exercise caution, like we all do, so we do not commit libel, slander, or needlessly poison the public debate.

What's the point, even if it's profitable, wins ratings, notoriety, celebrity? It's a drag on the community. What's wrong with a little effort to be uplifting? To be a real uniter, not a 50,000-watt divider.

And, briefly, we can roll the film on some historical footage from Bill Christofferson of Charlie Sykes's "free speech for me but not for thee" attitude.

Well, every Thanksgiving Day Hypocrisy Parade™ has to end, and the 2007 version has now finally gone past. Thanks to all who participated, whose hard work makes all of this possible. Great job, everybody! See you next year!

Russia's Flat Tax

by folkbum

Libertarian Nick Schweitzer read my rebuttal of Tom McMahon's rebuttal of liberal bloggers' rebuttal of Charlie Sykes, and he comes away displeased.

It is in particular the line "tax cuts don't increase revenue" that displeases Nick's libertarian self. He writes (his iatlics),

One of the cooler phenomena that has happened in the former Soviet states since the 1990's is their incredible economic growth compared to that of the Western European states that are slowly turning socialist with their large government social programs.  One of the keys behind this incredible growth has been that many of these former Soviet states in Eastern Europe have adopted the flat tax.

Nick then links to the Libertarian Cato Institute, where someone notes that since instituting a 13% flat tax in 2001, Russia's tax collections have increased dramatically.

Problem is, this is not a function of the tax itself, but rather greater compliance (my italics):

One senior government tax official estimates that before the flat tax took effect at the beginning of 2001, Russians on average declared as little as 25% of their income. Since it was introduced, there has been a marked increase in both payment rates and revenue. Official statistics show that income tax revenue rose 28% between 2000 and 2001, and a further 21% by last year, after adjustment for inflation. Total government revenue from personal income taxes shot up from an unadjusted $6.2 billion in 2000 to almost $12 billion last year.

The Kremlin is pleased. "We don't think it's possible to force people to pay taxes through repressive sanctions," says Mikhail Orlov, head of tax policy at the Ministry of Economy. "The tax system may be primitive, but it's simple." And, he added, so far it works.

Part of the credit for the turnaround goes to a clever advertising campaign designed to convince taxpayers that the tax is a bargain. One TV ad during the recent tax season showed two apples, one with a 13% slice cut out of it representing the flat tax and the other missing a 30% chunk, a reference to Russia's former top income tax. The message: Taxes are so low that any reasonable person would pay up. "It's a small amount, so of course it's worth paying," says Natasha Diniliouk, an accountant who lives in Moscow.

In other words, more people paid taxes instead of skipping out on them, and that as much as anything what caused revenues to increase. Taxing 30% of only 25% of the country's income certainly leads to a lower total than taxing 13% of 100% of income. This is something Nick's Cato link leaves out of the discussion.

In the US, since we have near-100% compliance, switching to a flat tax would certainly make it easier to file, but I doubt it would create much new revenue--and it abandons the only progressive form of taxation that we have.

McIlheran Watch: More unFairness

by folkbum

You know, I really didn't want to get dragged into this. The Fairness Doctrine is not my issue. Jeebus knows I have plenty of issues, but not so much that one.

To be honest, I'm not even sure the Fairness Doctrine really needs to be returned; if the GOP wants to live with the dinosaur that is talk radio--while we Dems run the table with YouTube and Facebook--then so be it. Someday the dittoheads will get satellite radios and get addicted to the NASCAR channel, and then where will Limbaugh be?

I linked to that quip from Trent Lott a while back mostly for the larf. Well, that and the chance to rub McIlheran the wrong way.

Anyhow, after larfing it up with that great wit Trent Lott, I got invoked by not one, not two, but four bloggers from the other side (plus I got called "mighty" by the heroic Brew City Brawler). Then Realism/Philip/djheru made his post Friday (he's a new guest-blogger, by the way, so make him feel welcome), and here I am in the thick of it.

Rick Esenberg wants me to play Burgess Meredith from "Rocky." Nick Schweitzer mocks me. This gator-skinned fellow went after me twice.

The last three of those links are somewhat related, and stem from Nick's assertion that, basically, because he thinks print media, NPR, the TV networks, and so on "slant liberal," it's okay that talk radio is 91% conservative (.pdf). (Wiggy made the same point in the "liberal" print media last week.) Nick writes,

The problem is that both sides only look at one particular type of media to prove their argument about being unfair, instead of looking at all forms of media on the whole. Where the [Milwaukee] Journal [Sentinel] tends to slant liberal, talk radio makes up for it. Where CNN and MSNBC slants liberal, Fox News makes up for it. All sides are being represented fairly... as long as you look at the media fairly.

First of all, I laugh at the notion that the non talk-radio media "slants liberal." I am a liberal, and a fairly representative one at that, and the whole reason I started blogging back in 2003 was that the media were not representing my point of view. My primary non-blog sources of news are NPR, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and some national feeds like the New York Times and Washington Post. I have no idea how far to the right you have to be to see those as liberal, but apparently that's where Nick is. To me, they are absolutley not.

The "media is all liberal" idea seems to be getting a boost of late by (the apparently liberal, according to Nick) MSNBC, which released a study noting that 143 "journalists" have given to Republican or Democratic candidates, the vast majority to Dems. 143 journalists represents about .1% of all the working journalists in the country. And while MSNBC's methodology may have missed a few, even if the number were ten times what they found, you'd be looking at only 1% of the media, and trying to extrapolate the political leanings of the other 99%. Seriously, anybody here trying to claim that 99.9% of journalists can be described by a non-random sample of the other .1% is delusional. (And read that list: I'm sure the Boston Globe's sports statistician is pulling that paper to the left as hard as he can, the same way the Los Angeles Times food writer is yanking that paper to the right.)

But as Jamison Foser points out comparing the MSNBC study to the one linked above about talk radio, MSNBC tells you nothing about content. So what if the Washington Post's film critic gives to Republicans: What does that tell you about anything he's written? Did MSNBC do the first bit of digging around to find whether the guy writes with any particular slant? No.

But if you look at what you actually see and hear in the media--the so-called "liberal" media--there are unreasonable and even counterfactual attacks on Democrats. MSNBC's own Chris Matthews this morning, for example, attacked Hillary Clinton for surrounding herself with women. (His guest commented on the women's hair color.) Liberal? I don't think so! The "liberal" New York Times slammed John Edwards for not helping the poor without bothering to ask if, you know, any poor people got help. And I could go on.

But the cake-taker among those dragging me into this fight, as he so often is, and as you might have surmised by the title of this post, is McIlheran himself. In a post he unironically titles "Public property: No thinking, please," he makes this laughable argument, my emphasis:

What strikes me about the "public airwaves" argument is this: The entire medium of radio can't exist without using some electromagnetic spectrum space--some "public airwaves." This is because the government, in the interest of keeping broadcasters from interfering with each other, declared all the broadcast spectrum to be public property. It then follows that the authorities can regulate the ideological content of broadcasts? That seems stupid.

If that's the inevitable implication, it's one more argument against public property--analogous, in its way, to how that which is in the public sphere is so often less cared for, less safe or less usable. If being public means the airwaves must be ideologically regulated, then let's sell them or lease them off. I'll take a vigorous debate over public ownership any day.

Beyond the forehead-smacking fact that we already do lease the public airwaves (the FCC technically calls it "licensing"), McIlheran unknowingly gets straight to the nut of this issue: There is no vigorous debate. And his implying that vigorous debate would return absent government ownership or oversight of the airwaves is, as I said, laughable. If right now, without any enforcement of some kind of "fairness doctrine," the big-media companies that own these broadcast licenses refuse to air opposing viewpoints (even if those opposing viewpoints are more popular!), there is no "vigorous debate," what could possibly be possessing McIlheran that he thinks removing the non-existent oversight--and putting ownership of the spectrum permanently in the hands of those who can pay for it--would make debate happen?

The Illusory Tennant, in my favorite post about the Fairness Doctrine this past week, reminds us why the FD was there in the first place (scroll to the comments):

Also seriously though, much of the debate rumbling around these parts misses the point of the original "fairness doctrine," the constitutionality of which the Supreme Court upheld (unanimously) in a case called Red Lion v. FCC.

The specific question had to do with an "attack rule," whereby individuals or groups subject to political attacks on their honesty, character, integrity, and so forth, had to be afforded the opportunity for rebuttal.

So, in effect, the FCC was attempting to facilitate more speech, and not less, as the conservatives are claiming in the current debate.

(The Brawler elaborates on that idea in another excellent post.)

Any calls for a new "Fairness Doctrine"--at least from me, and the people I know and love on the internet like Xoff--are not calls for an "Equal Time Doctrine." I'm not asking that WTMJ hang up Jeff Wagner in favor of Ed Schultz (although I bet Schultz could get good ratings here). The point is to allow those maligned, like Clinton and Edwards in my examples above, to respond. As often as Bill O'Reilly, for example, slams Media Matters for America, O'Reilly will not invite anyone from MMfA on to debate him one-on-one (which makes sense given that O'Reilly can get pwned by a 16-year-old high-school student). Rush Limbaugh never invited David Ehrenstein on to talk about "Barrack the Magic Negro," because Ehrenstein would have explained how Rush turned a legitimate sociological analysis into a minstrel show. Charlie Sykes never invites liberals he can't control (i.e., not Mikel Holt) onto his radio or TV show to respond to his spin and lies. And McIlheran himself saves the worst of what he writes for his blog (these lies about Scooter Libby, for example) so that he doesn't have to face letters to the editor detailing outright falsehoods in the pages of the paper.

When Trent Lott said the talk radio was running America, yeah, it was ironic and funny. But he's also right that if you only hear one side of the story, your own opinions will not be well-informed. (Consider the FOXNews viewers who believe more lies about Iraq than other news comsumers.) So all we ask is that on those "public" airwaves, some time be given for those maligned, one way or the other, to respond. For the other side to be heard, even a little bit. For the public to be presented with multiple perspectives, multiple voices, and multiple opinions on the burning issues of the day.

More information, in other words, not less. And, after all, isn't that what free speech is all about--more, not less?