Miami Herald Invents a "Consensus Among Economists" to Push Social Security Cuts

[Hannah Bell]

The Miami Herald took first place in the contest to have the most inaccurate article on Social Security when it printed without challenge an assertion that: "For awhile, there's been a consensus among economists that raising the retirement age makes a lot of sense." This is obviously not true, since there is no shortage of economists who do not agree with this view and it is quite possible that a majority of economists do not agree with this position. Any reporter who had researched this topic at all would know that the assertion is not true and would not present it to readers as being true. Instead the article presented almost exclusively the views of people calling for cuts in Social Security...

The article also never once mentions the possibility of addressing the projected long-term shortfalls in Social Security by raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax or by raising the tax rate. Polls consistently show that these positions are far more popular than the raising the retirement age.

The article also makes a point of discussing the increases in life expectancy without noting that tax rate has been increased substantially over the last 70 years, precisely to cover the cost of a longer retirement. Again, it is impossible to write a balanced article without pointing out that current workers have paid higher tax rates in order to finance a longer retirement.

The article also implies that it would be reasonable to cut Social Security benefits to finance other parts of the government. This would mean describing the payroll tax as a "Social Security" tax even though the money was being used to finance the war in Afghanistan or other expenditures. It is unlikely that this would be a popular position...

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/miami-herald-invents-a-qconsensus-among-economistsq-to-push-social-security-cuts

[DCBob]

1. You do realize the SS retirement age has already been raised for some depending on year of birth..

From wikipedia..

"Those born before 1938 have a normal retirement age of 65. Normal retirement age increases by two months for each ensuing year of birth until the 1943 year of birth, when it stays at age 66 years until the year of birth 1955. Thereafter the normal retirement age increases again by two months for each year ending in the 1960 year of birth, when normal retirement age stops at age 67 for all born thereafter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

I dont know if that means there is any consensus, but at the time this measure was adopted, it was seen as the easiest most effective measure to help with the problem.

[Hannah Bell]

3. yes, i'm aware, as i'm one of the people it was raised for. but i don't understand your point in

noting that.

[annabanana]

2. . . and you can count on this so-called "consensus" being

intoned by all the "serious" people until our CorpoMedia® deadened populace accept it as conventional wisdom..

HEY!! LOOK OVER HERE!! (endless discussion of another police blotter s scandal)