Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"What's the Congressional Black Caucus Thinking? "

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:20 AM
Original message
"What's the Congressional Black Caucus Thinking? "
An article about social security "reform" from townhall.com:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/sp2005011...


What's the Congressional Black Caucus thinking?
Star Parker (archive)

January 11, 2005


Congressional Black Caucus members are already uniformly lining up in opposition to including individual retirement accounts as a key element of Social Security reform-- despite the fact that a specific proposal from the Bush administration has yet to arrive on Capitol Hill.

<snip>

The black caucus, with 43 members, is now the largest it has ever been. Included is new Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who has gotten much attention as a supposedly new-generation black leader. Yet, not one of these black legislators has indicated it might be worth giving serious thought to the possible benefits of individual retirement accounts to blacks.

This is particularly curious given that the newest winner of the Nobel Prize for economics, Edward Prescott of Arizona State University, has written recently that individual accounts are a good idea and should be included in reform of Social Security.

What's going on here? The winner of the Nobel Prize for economics says it's a good idea and the black caucus dismisses it before it has even been formally proposed. Is this about good economics or is this about power politics? Where is our exciting new Sen. Obama? There is certainly nothing partisan about the Nobel Prize. Yet, the recommendations of Prescott, honored by the Nobel committee as most distinguished in his field, are irrelevant to black Democrats.

<more>


I wonder if Ms. Parker and other Bush administration shills are getting Armstrong Williams-sized payments for promoting social security destruction to the African American community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. They probably read the report
that social security is fine for at least another 20-30 years and then only minor adjustments to it as is and it will remain solvent.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. Carefully disingenuous...
... for example, yes, Edward Prescott is a Nobel laureate. Was he chosen for a Nobel Prize because of his advocacy of a program which will destroy Social Security? Parker seems to conflate the two.

There are other economists, equally capable, who think any privatization of a working, workable system with minimal problems at the moment would be a disaster. Perhaps the Black Caucus is taking their advice?

And, yes, I have a feeling we will find other pundits getting payments for promoting the White House's agenda. There's a profound marketing campaign in progress, effectively now, for this horrible idea. The Bushies want this so badly that they will likely break the laws against using taxpayer funds for domestic propagandizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I wrote and asked how much
the Bush administration pays her to promote the social security misadventure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Ask her editor that question, if you really want an answer.
And file a Freedom of Information Act Request.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Good for you !
These days, that is a legitimate question.

It is bad enough that RW pundits regularly receive outsized "speaker fees," lucrative consulting gigs, and such from the Heritage Foundation, trade associations, and other orgs. lining up to thank them for being such good lap dogs.

That RW pundits may actually be getting paid directly by the U.S. government with our tax dollars is absolutely unbelievable.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 23rd 2014, 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC