Nancy Altman of Social Security Works addresses the phony media-hyped "deficit hawkishness of the electorate" and the "troubling" secrecy and composition of the bi-partisan Deficit Commission:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4112This week on CounterSpin: a special look at two issues that seem to bring out the worst in the corporate media. First up, the deficit. Worrying about the budget deficit is a corporate media staple, so President Obama's deficit commission must appear a godsend. Early reports are that Social Security cuts, another media obsession, have become the commission's main focus. Somewhat tellingly, the commission has announced that it will not be reporting on its recommendations until after the November elections. We'll talk about the President's commission, social security, public opinion and the media, with Nancy Altman, the co-director of Social Security Works, and author of The Battle for Social Security: From FDR's Vision to Bush's Gamble.
...
NANCY ALTMAN
CounterSpin: If you stay current on economic news then you've seen the repeating media theme that says that Americans are terribly concerned about high deficits—so concerned, according to some media outlets, that they see lowering deficits as a more pressing matter than job creation. These days, the theme that most of us are deficit hawks is often found hand-in-hand with the theme that Social Security is in trouble, and that we must do something about it—"something" virtually always meaning, cuts in benefits. These two themes have come together in President Obama's deficit commission, formally titled the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Though there are many possible approaches to fiscal reform, the president's commission seems to have made Social Security its most pressing concern.
With us to talk about deficit hawks, social security, the president's commission, and what Americans really think, is Nancy Altman. Altman is the co-director of Social Security Works, and the author of the The Battle for Social Security: From FDR's Vision to Bush's Gamble.
Nancy Altman, welcome to CounterSpin!
Nancy Altman: Thank you so much for having me.
CS: I want to get to the President's deficit commission in a moment, but first, let's talk about this notion that most of us are deficit hawks. On June 18, the Washington Post reporter Lori Montgomery wrote that concern over exploding deficits was resonating even more profoundly with voters than unemployment concerns. What can you tell us about this media trope that says Americans are by and large deficit hawks, more concerned over deficits than jobs?
NA: There have been a number of focus groups and polling that's been done recently on this question, and what I have seen is that people are concerned about the economy. And often people equate a bad economy with the government's got to do something, and it's we've got to tighten our belts, they've got to tighten theirs. It's really, in some ways, simply a proxy that the economy is bad and that people want jobs programs and so forth. But another mistake that I think a lot of policymakers make is to think that people equate the deficit with social security. What our focus groups and polling show is that people understand Social Security as a program that people are paying into, it's a dedicated trust fund, and that it has no borrowing authority and has nothing to do with the deficit. So I think to the extent policy makers decide that they should cut Social Security to reduce the deficit because that's what their constituents want are going to be surprised when they get back home.
CS: It's also true that poll after poll shows that the public has much greater concern for job creation than for fighting the increasing deficits.
NA: Absolutely, and in fact, the two go together. The best thing we can do to reduce the deficit is get our economy back going, put people to work in good paying jobs.
CS: So now president Obama has a commission to deal with this overriding deficit concern. Tell us about the commission, whose on it, and what does is seem to be looking at these days?
NA: This is very troubling. I think Americans have not heard much about this commission, and that, I think, is almost intentional. It's a commission that's been set up by executive order: six members from the president, six members from Congress, the House, and six members from the Senate with very broad authority for the entire federal budget. It reports December 1 after the election. As you mentioned, in the history of Social Security, I actually think this is the biggest threat to Social Security that we may have ever had, certainly bigger than 2005 and privatization. And the reason I say that is because all of this is being done behind closed doors, in the quiet, so the people don't even know what's going on. The members who have been appointed to this commission, many of them have a long history of opposing Social Security, wanting to see it cut. Alan Simpson, who is a conservative former senator from Wyoming, has used the term "greedy geezer" so much that some think he invented the term—he's the co-chair of this. The other co-chair is Erskine Bowles, who worked in the Clinton White House and has been for a long time in favor of a kind of privatization of Social Security. The two of them have made quite clear that Social Security is a clear target of what they want to do, and I think it's very serious because they will report on December 1, after the election. And the leadership has already agreed that if 14 out of the 18 members reach agreement—the majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, has agreed to bring it up in December in the lame duck, and if it passes the Senate, Speaker Pelosi has said she will bring it up. So it's on a very fast track—if they come out with recommendations to cut Social Security, it will be acted upon without much time for public input. So I think people should start asking their members now about what is going on.
CS: Explain to listeners why it's telling that the commission isn't releasing its recommendations until after the election.
NA: Well, the executive order has specified December 1, but this is kind of typical of these situations. The idea is that you don't want to do anything unpopular before the election.
...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
