The AP's Social Security reporting is hackstatic!
This is the first paragraph of the AP wire story on Social Security this afternoon, by "MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer:"
Sounds pretty okay to me. Cost of living increase. You know, like Social Security is doing what it's intended to do.
But wait, this is the last paragraph of the story:
Excuse me? How do we know this so called "overhaul" would have done anything to bolster SS finances, when Bush offered no specific details on how he would pay for his magical overhaul, other than increasing the national debt exponentially, with enormous effects on, like ya know, things like home values and retirement savings? And since when did the definition of "looming" become more than 30 years from now. But I suppose this brilliant "economics writer" was referring to the usual canard that outlays will exceed revenue "in 2012." But as we have all (present "economics writer" excluded) learned, that is when the Social Security surplus will have theoretically reached its apex of $116 billion, falling to $113 billion in 2012, according to the Congressional Budget Office. $113 billion. Surplus.
Oh, and one more thing, Bush's "measure (what measure?)" has failed to attract widespread support in Congress, because it has failed to attract widespread support in the, um, entire population of the United States of America.
It is simply astonishing that writers assigned to cover this topic still don't have any idea what they're writing about. Sheesh, guys. Even the White House anonymice dare not whisper "private accounts" any more. Can you please stop trying to continue to carry Bush's water for him on this, since that particular bucket is clearly empty.
WASHINGTON - More than 48 million Americans will get a 4.1 percent increase in their monthly Social Security checks next year, the largest increase in more than a decade. For the average retiree, it will mean an increase of $39 a month.
Sounds pretty okay to me. Cost of living increase. You know, like Social Security is doing what it's intended to do.
But wait, this is the last paragraph of the story:
President Bush had hoped to get Congress this year to pass a Social Security overhaul he viewed as the centerpiece of his second term. It would have bolstered Social Security finances to deal with a looming funding crisis when 78 million baby boomers begin retiring and it would have allowed younger workers to create personal accounts. However, the measure has failed to attract widespread support in Congress.
Excuse me? How do we know this so called "overhaul" would have done anything to bolster SS finances, when Bush offered no specific details on how he would pay for his magical overhaul, other than increasing the national debt exponentially, with enormous effects on, like ya know, things like home values and retirement savings? And since when did the definition of "looming" become more than 30 years from now. But I suppose this brilliant "economics writer" was referring to the usual canard that outlays will exceed revenue "in 2012." But as we have all (present "economics writer" excluded) learned, that is when the Social Security surplus will have theoretically reached its apex of $116 billion, falling to $113 billion in 2012, according to the Congressional Budget Office. $113 billion. Surplus.
Oh, and one more thing, Bush's "measure (what measure?)" has failed to attract widespread support in Congress, because it has failed to attract widespread support in the, um, entire population of the United States of America.
It is simply astonishing that writers assigned to cover this topic still don't have any idea what they're writing about. Sheesh, guys. Even the White House anonymice dare not whisper "private accounts" any more. Can you please stop trying to continue to carry Bush's water for him on this, since that particular bucket is clearly empty.
posted by John at 5:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home