Whoa! I look like THAT?

It is the curse of the dieting class, of course, that we tend to peruse ourselves more often in the mirror, sometimes approaching the level of self-absorption, and that is why I found this so intriguing.

Brilliant.

The original is here.

When "broke" isn't broke...or broken (the big Social Security lie).

This long excerpt from yesterday's edition of Bob Somerby's always interesting, sometimes infuriating Daily Howler dismisses the Big Lie simply and effectively and deserves wider attention, and so I've posted it here. I also wanted to have a copy accessible to forward or print out and hand to anybody who throws this old canard at me going forward...

Special report: The thirty-year itch! PART 2—ALAN SIMPSON’S CON (permalink): Will Social Security “still be there” when Mike Hatchell, age 52, retires? Plainly yes, barring national melt-down. (Unless enough people start thinking it won’t be, in which case radical “reform” to the program becomes much easier to sell.)

On last Thursday evening’s Countdown, Hatchell said he had to spend his existing retirement funds during 59 weeks of unemployment. (His wife has also been out of work. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/16/10.) He volunteered an intriguing thought when asked about his retirement prospects:

HATCHELL (8/12/10): Obviously, I mean, with the unemployment—after 59 weeks without a job, you know, I mean, the IRA accounts, you know, that got drained. We basically have no retirement other than, hopefully, the government will have Social Security. We all know how vague that might be in the future.

Hatchell seemed like a very bright person. As we watched him, we kept thinking that he would make an excellent national spokesman for a range of political/issue groups. But, like millions of other people, he has heard all kinds of stories about what a fraud Social Security is. As early as 1994, a large number of younger voters had been conned into believing that they would never get Social Security benefits (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/16/10). Like millions of other Americans, Hatchell seems to retain this fear.

People have heard a welter of claims about Social Security, as we noted in yesterday’s post. But for the most part, people who fear the demise of the program have been misled by two basic cons.

Ironically, the two major cons are semi-contradictory. The first con says that the program’s trust fund doesn’t exist. The second con explains what will happen after the trust fund is gone:

First con—the trust fund: On the one hand, people have heard that the Social Security trust fund is just “an accounting fiction”—“a pile of worthless IOUs,” “the left hand borrowing from the right hand.” (The money isn’t there—we’ve already spent it!) Since Social Security is supposed to start drawing on the trust fund in the next few years—since the trust fund is supposed to allow the system to maintain promised benefits through the year 2037—this suggests that Social Security might be on the verge of a near-term collapse.

Second con—after the trust fund is gone: On the other hand, people have heard that Social Security will “go broke” or “go bankrupt” once the trust fund expires in 2037 (according to current projections). For most people, these terms suggest some sort of cataclysmic collapse, after which the Social Security system would have to be shuttered. Presumably, this explains why so many people, for so many years, have seemed to assume that they will never draw any benefits.

Those are the two basic cons. People like Hatchell have heard these cons for at least the past thirty years.

It’s easy to address the second con—to explain what happens after 2037. Alan Simpson is the Republican co-chairman of Obama’s deficit commission. Back in June, he said Social Security “will go broke in the year 2037” in an interview with Alex Lawson. But as soon as Lawson challenged that language, Simpson described the actual facts—the facts these scare merchants have known all along. John Berry did the reporting, for the Fiscal Times:

BERRY (6/20/10): Lawson asked if the [deficit] commission was working on Social Security, and Simpson replied, "We’re really working on solvency… the key is solvency."

"What about adequacy? Are you focusing on adequacy as well?" asked Lawson.

Replied Simpson: "Sure. We have to take care of the lesser in society. I don't know where you get all the crap you come up with. ... We’re trying to take care of the lesser people in society, like we always have in this country, and do that in a way without getting into all the flash words that you love to dig up, like cutting Social Security, which is bullshit. We’re not cutting anything. We're not cutting anything, we’re trying to make it solvent. It will go broke in the year 2037."

[…]

Lawson continued the interview by asking, "What do you mean by ‘broke’? Do you mean the surplus [the trust fund] will go out and then it will only be able to pay 75 percent of its benefits?"

"Just listen, will you listen to me instead of babbling?" Simpson said. "In the year 2037, instead of getting 100 percent of your check, you are going to get about 75 percent of your check. That’s if we touch nothing. So if you'd like that, fine.”

Duh. After making the frightening claim that Social Security “will go broke in the year 2037,” Simpson explained what would actually happen. Since payroll taxes would keep rolling in, the system would never “go bankrupt” or “broke,” unless you’re reinventing the language. Instead, payroll taxes would keep rolling in, and benefits would keep going out, although the system would be able to pay only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. Those scheduled benefits are higher than the benefits which are currently being paid (even when adjusted for inflation), but this would not be a desirable circumstance. That said, Mike Hatchell would still be receiving benefits, even after the trust fund expires—though his benefits would have to be cut at that point, barring some new source of revenue.

This would not be a desirable outcome—but Social Security would still “be there.” It would not go belly-up. If we’re still speaking traditional English, it wouldn’t be bankrupt or broke.

When people like Simpson use words like “bankrupt” and “broke,” they deceive people like Hatchell. Unfortunately, they’ve been at this game for a very long time, over at least three decades. As a result, many people are very confused about the program’s long-term prospects. They’ve heard that the system is “going broke.” They think they will never get benefits.

That’s the bad news, but here’s the good news again: This long-term situation is extremely easy to explain. You can see how easily Simpson explained it—but only after he was challenged about his claim that the system “will go broke.” Can we talk? Barring some sort of national meltdown, Social Security will never go broke in the way Hatchell seems to fear. Barring some sort of national meltdown, Social Security will always be there—though we may need to find new revenue, if we want to keep future benefits at their promised levels.

The long-term situation is easy to explain. This raises an obvious question: Why has no one ever explained it to Hatchell? Quite plainly, Hatchell is a very bright person; watching him, we kept thinking how good a spokesman he would be for various groups. But he seems to think that Social Security may not be there when he retires. (“We all know” such things, he said.) Thirty years of “liberal” ineptitude, indifference and fecklessness explain this situation.

The long-term situation is easy to explain; you can see how easily Simpson explained it. But so what? Over the course of the past thirty years, your “liberal” “intellectual leaders” have been too stupid and lazy to do so. As early as 1994, people like Hatchell had been conned. In the sixteen years since then, your “liberal” “intellectual leaders” have continued to nap, snore and fail.

Maybe we'll stay a two newspaper town after all.

The new owners of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News have worked out what appears, on the surface at least, to be a reasonable and workable deal with the Newspaper Guild.

He was robbed...(more thoughts).

One of the things I dislike about also posting posts from here on Facebook is that sometimes a discussion breaks out there that is superior to or, as in this case, in place of comments here. That is just what happened after I posted this.

Only four people were involved, one of them me, but it did expand and expound on my argument that the Commissioner of Baseball should step in and rectify the horrendous umpire's call in Detroit the other night which robbed a young pitcher of an historic Perfect Game. I found it interesting enough that I wanted to add it here.

So I have:

KERRY BYRNE
The downside is opening the floodgates to redo every call that's not popular -- whether right or wrong.

Personally, I think it worked out great: The pitcher was a total class act, and now everybody thinks he's a friggin' hero. Really refreshing. And the guy who fucked up manned up, too.

All in all a pretty heartwarming story .. even though the ump did blow it harder than a circa 1976 toothless 42nd St. hooker trying to make rent that week.

ALEXANDER MITCHELL
Because if you call into question the supposed infallibility of umpires without any formal instant-review process, you open up the can of worms of every call being protested endlessly for 20 hours. I don't care for opening that can.

JACK CURTIN
Which is, Alexander, the same BS as the powers that be are spouting. Not only is this situation sui generis, the addition of expanded replay systems, which is inevitable now, renders the "cam of worms" argument irrelevant. There will be a system in place. Not to mention the argument that the Commissioner can act in the "best interest of the game" ... See Moreand not create any precedent in the first place, plus he gets to decide which protests are valid. Lawyers are always looking for their clients to do nothing so that there is nothing to be contested. It is, as I said, stupid.

Everybody behaved really well, Kerry, agreed. Why not take the simple action that will reward them and cost nobody nuttin'?

KERRY BYRNE
Let me take more of an existential tact here, the Right Honorable Mr. Curtin.

While I agree the ump fucked up, and while I agree the pitcher was jobbed, the fact of the matter is that overturning the call would be an injustice to the 19 other guys who did in fact pitch legit perfect games.

All those 19 guys played the same game with the same rules and same dysfunctional and maybe even drunken dick-bag umps. They all had to overcome imperfect officials to pitch a "perfect" game. The fact that umps are so fucked up is one reason why a perfect game is more rare than a virgin 16-year-old from Philly. They all had to deal with the same shit.

I mean, it sucks ... but let's not go changing history just becuase we all feel a little sad for the young millionaire who just won a Corvette and probably gets more tail than Davy Crockett's haberdasher.

JACK CURTIN
I just can't agree. We are talking the 27th out, not a pitch called a ball which should have been a strike. Nor does correcting an obvious and admitted error in any way affect the rules in any way in terms of the what happened in the game. Get it right, isn't that the mantra? Why in the world let it stay wrong?

Not fixing it, who suffers? The ... See Morepitcher, the fans, the umpire, the game itself. Who benefits? Nobody.

Fixing it, who suffers? Nobody. Who benefits? The pitcher, the fans, the umpire, the game itself.

No-brainer.

ALEXANDER MITCHELL
What suffers is the absolute authority of the umpires, human and fallible as they may be. My father was a pro umpire for a little while. I learned from him that even if you're wrong, you're still right as long as you're not operating with deliberate bias. If we're going to put any doubt into the umpires' ability to call 'em, then just dispense ... See Morewith them completely and program cameras and lasers to call the decisions instead. Otherwise we'll spend all game arguing every call. What we just saw was ugly, but, like the 2000 election in Florida, a necessary evil.


JOHN ALESSANDRO IV
How about taking a page from Baseball's past? The Pine Tar Incident. (That image of Brett running out of the dugout is burned in my brain.)

That game was replayed -- several weeks after the homerun was ruled invalid -- from the moment of the infraction forward.

While here, Galarraga -- who is well aware he DID pitch a perfect game * -- may never ... See Moreknow the true joy in celebrating the moment, but he could pitch to one more batter, possibly get him out (again), and, possibly, officially get a complete game. The precedent is there; if it's such a Big Deal, let it happen.

I love that in an interview, Galarraga essentially said about Joyce, "Nobody's perfect." Well said. Of course, I couldn't help but think, "Except you, last night.", but that's just me.

* There are too many asterisks in Baseball already. Sadly, this is another.

JACK CURTIN
You think there is no doubt about umpires' ability to call 'em now, Alexander? Seriously? Absolute authority? That disappeared forever with home run replays. It was always shaky because an ump who made his infallible call was often convinced to change it after conferring with his brethren. Human error may be part of the game, but it hardly needs to be sanctified and protected, especially in an instance where it is obvious and rectifying that mistake would do nothing but good and have no impact on the rules as they exist at all. The game is over; let's put it in the books as what it was rather than what will become infamous as "the Perfect Game that never happened,' which is, really, just dumb.

He was robbed. And rectifying that will not only not attack the integrity of the game, it will strengthen it.

This is just stupid.

All the crap you hear about breaking precedents (What precedent? This has never happened before), the integrity of the game (this is the game that was filled with juicers and whose most sacred records have been violated by same, am I correct?) and never affecting the outcome of a game (the outcome of this game remains exactly the same, same team won, nothing changes except an exceptional and historic performance is recognized as it should be) is ridiculous.

The commissioner should man up and toss out the bad call, for the sake of his umpire if nothing else.

Simple. Do it. Nothing changes as a result, especially since such a colossal screw-up will probably mean the addition of replay options in any case, which makes the overturn itself even less controversial.

That said, three perfect games in a little over three weeks? How the hell did that happen?