http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:24:19 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/14/122419.php Hal PawlukYou remember that a major part of Bush's election and re-election successes was the Religious Right, right?Besides big-dog Christian leaders like James [whomp your kids] Dobson, Jerry [Teletubby] Falwell and Pat [anybody know an assassin?] Robertson with their mega-media audiences, pastors at churches across the country roused their flocks and got them to the polls to vote for George W. Bush.But one man on one day in one church in California gave a sermon which did not back Bush.And thus it came to pass that the Internal Revenue Service started an investigation, threatening the tax-exempt status of the church. Yea, verily: 'Antiwar Sermon Brings IRS Warning 'On June 9, [All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena] received a letter from the IRS stating that "a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax exempt as a church ..." 'The letter went on to say that "our concerns are based on a Nov. 1, 2004, newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times and a sermon presented at the All Saints Church discussed in the article."' [LA Times 11/07/2005] (Story links open in new windows) So nobody at the IRS had even heard the sermon (the smell of brimstone would have given them away) - they only read about it, but decided to go after the church!The church is not going to turn the other cheek on this, because it's too important: 'California Church Vows to Fight IRS Investigation of Sermon '"There's much more at stake than All Saints in this " investigation, said [Rector J. Edward] Bacon. "I think it's a defining moment about religious freedom in the United States." 'Bacon said the IRS asked for supporting documents in its letter, which the church provided. Then the agency offered a deal: if the church would say it violated the regulations and promise to comply in the future, the IRS would drop its investigation. ' The church replied that it had not broken any regulations.' [Beliefnet.com 11/08/2005] The Rev. Dr. George Regas gave his position on this issue in an editorial on November 9: 'The won't-be-bullied pulpit 'I gave the sermon on the Sunday before the presidential election. It was called, "If Jesus Debated Sen. Kerry and President Bush." In it, I took great care to say that I did not want to tell people how to vote, but that I was challenging them to go into the voting booth on Tuesday taking with them all that they knew about Jesus, the peacemaker. To take all that Jesus meant to them and then vote their deepest values. '...I had criticized the drive to develop more nuclear weapons and described tax cuts that benefited the rich as "inimical to the values of Jesus." Based on that, the IRS made a subjective determination that the sermon implicitly opposed one candidate and endorsed another. 'It seems to me that fundamentally moral issues, such as peace and the alleviation of poverty, are indisputably the province of church pulpits, regardless of which politicians are debating that week or where a Sunday happens to fall in an election cycle.' [LA Times OpEd 11/09/2005] Reverend Bacon wrapped it all up in a sermon yesterday: 'The IRS is arguing that they can investigate a church based on a field officer's subjective determination that a preacher's sermon implicitly opposes or endorses candidates, regardless of the explicit statements of the preacher. An evangelical Christian radio show host told me during an interview Friday, "Pastor, if they are coming for you now, they will be coming for us next."' [The IRS Goes to Church 11/13/2005] So does anyone else think this is typical of the intimidation this administration is famous for, and that once again it has crossed the line?And do you think that this is what government should be used for? Is it really supposed to be an instrument of the party in power to keep itself in power? Does that bring a whiff of Il Duce into the room? And why is nobody on the Religious Right being investigated for their thinly veiled but glaringly obvious endorsements of George W. Bush? Write your Senators and House Representative and tell them you think this stinks. Edited: nd Politics39524@blogcritics.org Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:24:19 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/26/135542.php Hal PawlukAs American deaths in Iraq pass 2,000, our President wants to open a new killing field in Syria: Bush told Al Arabiya television channel ... what the U.S. would do if Syria did not change its policies: "We're going to use our military. It is the last, very last option. No commander in chief likes to commit the military, and I don't. But on the other hand, you know, I have worked hard for diplomacy, and I will continue to work the diplomatic angle on this issue." [U.S. and Allies Seek Action Against Syria LA Times 10/26/2005] (Story links open in new windows) It's hard work, but someone has to do it, right? At least that's the neocon view, and apparently the brainwash they did on the W in 2001 has really stuck.Neocons have been pushing for this since at least 1992, when Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby were working for then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney (amazing how the tentacles have captured American power). They've kept up the pressure (see Now That Iraq Has Gone So Well ...) and it seems to be working. What do you think? Was the invasion of Iraq worth it? Do you want to continue spending American lives and our way of life by invading another country to further neocon and Israeli foreign policy? (If you don't believe that's the motivation, check out the foreign policy speech Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave to the American Congress here - it was written by Richard Perle, Doug Feith and several other American neocons. And more on the neocons. )Write your Senators and House Representative and let them know what you think. Politics38567@blogcritics.org Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:55:42 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/21/171205.php Hal PawlukOn Tuesday, the Food and Drug administration (FDA) sent a letter to Bristol-Myers Squibb saying their newest diabetes 2 drug Pargluva was "approvable" once a bit more information was provided. Yesterday, researchers published a study showing that the drug doubled the risk of death, heart attack and stroke, and more than doubled the risk of congestive heart failure and mini strokes. There was also a higher cancer rate among those taking the drug. [JAMA 10/20/2005] (Story links open in new windows) The FDA letter was based on the approval of the drug by an FDA committee by an 8-1 vote. But the committee was clearly not doing its job - protecting you and me from "them." It's hard to tell how much of that was drug-industry fellow-travelers on the committee doing their thing and how much was incompetence. Further, an editorial in the same issue of JAMA claims that Bristol-Myers Squibb deliberately skewed the data to minimize the safety risks by including patients taking dosages well below the levels they planned to market and by excluding many patients with existing heart problems.A spokesman for Bristol-Myers Squibb said: "These trials that were conducted on Pargluva were designed like other clinical trials for a diabetes drug."Do you find that comforting?I find it disturbing, particularly in light of all the recent stories about other FDA-approved drugs killing users.And it may be just me, but I think there's a case to made that this kind of thing became more prevalent since George W. Bush became president.(No, wait - don't flame out just yet - get a few facts first, then jump all over me if you still think it's justified.) One of the first things the President did was to appoint more than 100 industry lobbyists to oversee the industries they used to work for. This included FERC (think Enron), the EPA (to overturn strip mining and coal burning regulations), the FDA, and just about any place where government might stand in the way of unfettered business profits. I wrote a bit about it in Government Of Business, By Business, For Business - Part I 11/11/2004. The major appointee here was Daniel Troy, as Chief Counsel of the Food and Drug Administration.In that post, he immediately started interceding in civil suits on the side of drug and medical device manufacturers "arguing the side of the defendant corporation against the families of people who died after using that corporation's product." U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey "provided evidence that Troy worked in cooperation with the manufacturers in taking these actions [and] found evidence of inappropriate collusion or conflict of interest between Troy and the companies the counsel's office stood up for." Since then, Troy has resigned but the FDA doesn't seem to be working any better, does it? This is the same FDA that last year proved itself to be in the pocket of the drug manufacturers. When a number of states tried to lower costs by ordering drugs from Canada, the FDA joined with Big Pharma lobbyists to pressure Congress prevent this. The FDA even used scare tactics, claiming that it was a safety issue. But when pressed in Congressional hearings, the FDA was forced to admit that they had NO evidence of ANY safety problems with imported drugs, and conveniently overlooked the fact that up 100,000 deaths occur in the US every year from FDA-approved drugs! (See my The Myth of High Drug Research Costs 02/02/2004 about two-thirds of the way down for more details, as well as Time Magazine's Why We Pay So Much For Drugs). Then let your Senators and House Representative know you want government working for you not Big Pharma - it's a matter of life and death versus profits. Politics38307@blogcritics.org Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:12:05 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/11/000254.php Hal PawlukWith Katrina relief costs estimated to be as much as $250 billion dollars, business lobbyists have taken over the process. First, FEMA handed out a series of no-bid contracts to Halliburton and others.Now, the lobbyists have taken over the Louisiana Katrina Reconstruction Act and are handing out billions of dollars to the firms they represent. "Lobbyists representing transportation, energy and other special interests dominated panels that advised Louisiana's U.S. senators crafting legislation to rebuild the storm-damaged Gulf Coast. "The Louisiana Katrina Reconstruction Act included billions of dollars' worth of business for clients of those lobbyists and a total price tag estimated as high as $250 billion. "One advisory panel member [Ivor van Heerden, director of a hurricane public health research center at LSU] who discovered that most of his fellow panelists were lobbyists called the resulting legislation 'a huge injustice' to the state. He said he was shut out after he voiced his concerns." [Lobbyists Advise Katrina Relief LA Times 10/10/2005 subscription] (Story links open in new windows) Specific measure inserted by the lobbyists include: Lobbyists for Entergy Corp. and Cleco Corp. consulted with senators' staffs. The bill includes $2.5 billion to help Entergy, Cleco and similar companies. [Such aid to for-profit companies is illegal, prohibited by the Federal Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act] Two members of the advisory panels were lobbyists for a controversial port canal project. The bill includes a request to prioritize building a lock along the canal for $784 million. Highway lobbyists managed to get $7 billion for highway work.As one observer said: "They are using Katrina to get funding they haven't been able to get in the past. This is congressional looting at its worst."It's not all the lobbyists' fault, though, is it? Write your Senators and House Representative and let them know what you think about government of business, by business, for business.They're supposed to be your representatives, not an Überklasse. Politics37719@blogcritics.org Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:02:54 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/01/144249.php Hal PawlukWe keep hearing how well "the economy" is doing (up 3.8% last year) but somehow or other that doesn't seem to translate into our lives, or those of our neighbors. That's because the gains are going to the rich, the losses are creating even more poor.And even the business press is starting to notice: Business Week 08/08/2005 (Story links open in new windows) "The Rich Get (Much) Richer "The top 1% take a fatter slice now than at any time since the 1920s "Hooray for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal for returning the problems of class in America to the front page. Shame on the rest of us, passive witnesses to the emergence of a second Gilded Age, another Roaring Twenties, in which the fruits of economic success have gone not to the broad populace but to a slim sliver at the top. "We can debate a lot of economic data but not income inequality. Every serious study shows that the U.S. income gap has become a chasm. Over the past 30 years, the share of income going to the highest-earning Americans has risen steadily to levels not seen since shortly before the Great Depression. "Economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez calculated [pdf] (using data from the Internal Revenue Service, hardly a hotbed of partisanship) that the share of income going to the top 1% of households nearly doubled, to 14.7% in 2002, up from a low of 7.7% in the early 1970s. "[T]he share of the top 0.01% -- the 13,000 or so households with an average income of $10.8 million in 2002 -- has multiplied nearly four times." [Business Week 08/08/2005] The trend continues and seems to have accelerated since 2000. Here's how another leading business publication describes it: The Wall Street Journal 08/31/2005 "Recovery Bypasses Many Americans "Despite Economic Growth, Median Household Income And Wages Fell Last Year "Although the U.S. economy grew robustly last year, the income of the median household slipped a bit, wages of full-time workers fell, the number of Americans living below the poverty line rose and more Americans went without health insurance, the Census Bureau said in its annual report on consumer income. "The snapshot suggests that the recovering economy, while adding jobs and showing productivity gains since the recession of 2001, isn't paying dividends to everyone. Last year, 37 million Americans were living in poverty, about 1 million more than the year before and 5.4 million more than in 2000 when poverty bottomed out as the economy peaked." [The Wall Street Journal 08/31/2005] But "the economy" is doing very well [Corporate Profits Rise Sharply The Wall Street Journal 09/01/2005].Why is this happening? Uncontrolled globalization, huge and untenable tax cuts for the wealthy, and a very non-partisan display of greed by your elected representatives, manipulating tax breaks and subsidies for deep-pocket special interests. (In 2000 there were 16,342 registered lobbyists in Washington, DC; today there are 34,785.) Write your Senators and House Representative and give them some 'tude. They're supposed to be working for you. Politics35267@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:42:49 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/25/191229.php Hal PawlukFirst, go to the Skype site, download their software and install it on your computer (Mac or Windows). (Story links open in new windows) Now - assuming you have a sound card, microphone and speakers - you can make a voice call to any other computer with Skype installed. And you can conference up to four people at a time. Free.Sound quality is far better than the phone system, although you sometimes get brief-but-slightly-noticeable network dropouts. For me, though, the best part may be Skype Out - this allows you to call land line and mobile phones from your computer, but this isn't quite free. For about 2 cents US (€ 0.017) per minute, you can call land line phones in the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Chile under the SkypeOut Global Rate (calls to mobile phones cost more). Per-minute costs for other locations vary: Mexico is € 0.080 (except Mexico City which is the same as the US - 2 cents), Iraq € 0.302, Israel € 0.026 (Israel mobile € 0.091), Beijing € 0.022 - it's a steal.I did have a problem before signing up. Initially, they wanted me to send a whole bunch of ID plus € 10 to a bank in Europe. With the state of identity theft as it is, I declined. Instead, I - and many others, I would think - whined and suggested they add PayPal to their payment methods.They now accept PayPal and I'm live.The other problem I had was a bit of feedback from my computer speakers to the microphone. This generated an echoey sound. I used headphones to get around this. I also understand that mics built into computers generally sound fine, but "your mileage may vary."This may sound like a Skype commercial, but I swear I have no ties, neither personal nor professional, to Skype or anyone there.I'm just jazzed. Culture26008@blogcritics.org Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:12:29 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/23/174839.php Hal PawlukWe keep hearing how well the economy is doing. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew 4.4% last year. Total household net worth is up to $45 trillion. Unemployment is down to 5.2%. Productivity is projected to grow at 2.75% for the next several years. Sounds great, but many people hear the words and wonder, because their own reality doesn't feel that good.They're right, because this recovery has worked differently than those in the past. This time, those who had got Corporate profits have risen 60% over the past three years while wage income is only up 10% [The Economist 02/10/05], less than increased costs for housing, health care, energy, education and food. (Story links open in new windows) Corporations have nearly doubled the amount of cash in the bank, while the overall savings rate for individuals has gone down. [Business Week subscription] The total net worth of households has indeed risen, but the average net worth of households has dropped from $89,000 to $84,000 since 2000 [Business Week subscription] and the number of poor has increased by millions. And the unemployment percentage and "productivity" aren't telling us what many people think they are.Unemployment: stats vs. realityThe latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) release indicates that there are now 132.6 million jobs filled in the US. This preliminary number is about the same it was when president Bush was sworn in for his first term four years ago (132.5 million then).So we're finally back to ground zero on jobs. This isn't great, but it's not even as good as it looks since much of the gain was in temporary jobs - 2.5 million in January, up 10% from a year ago.And the job growth in the last year was 1.7%, but the historical average has been 3%, so we're still not nearly out of the woods on jobs. Worse, there are several million people out of work unaccounted for in the unemployment percentage.In the last four years, about 7 million more new workers entered the work force and there were no jobs for them. Unemployment was 6.6 million in January, 2001 and 8.4 million in January 2005, so that takes care of about 2 million. But that leaves another 5 million out of work. Adding them to the 8.4 million unemployed, we get a real unemployment figure of as high as 8%. Productivity growth should have a payoff The productivity we're talking about is labor productivity as measured by the BLS. Their definition is reasonably complex, but a useful way to think of it is as a function of the GDP and the number of workers. For a given economic output, lowering the number of workers produces a growth in productivity."Productivity growth" was 4.4% in 2003 and 4.1% last year. It was sold as keeping interest rates down (it did), prices down (somewhat, on some things) and providing a better quality of life for all of us (it didn't and won't).Productivity growth has raised living standards in nations in the past, so what's wrong this time? Off-shoring.Not only are jobs being sent off-shore, so are profits earned in this country, and the payoff from improved productivity happens in someone else's economy. When Levi shut their last US factory, this raised productivity because their sales level stayed the same with fewer workers - because the jobs went off-shore. When General Electric took profits earned in this country and hired 1,800 research engineers in Bangalore instead of Bangor, the benefits of increased productivity went to India, too. And the exportation of the American living standard is going to continue, according to an item in the Wall Street Journal: '[O]ne reason job growth may continue to disappoint is that productivity isn't really expected to fall all that much when viewed over the longer term, which is really the best way to interpret the meaning of productivity anyway. 'And in manufacturing, the winds of productivity keep blowing strong -- ending any hope that this part of the economy will see a bounce in jobs. '"Now that information technology has been improved, it's going to be easier to offshore more of the service sector," says Mr. [Daniel] Meckstroth [an economist at the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI].' [A Big Burst of Hiring Appears Unlikely Wall Street Journal 02/14/05 subscription] What to do?There's not much you can do.Globalization and US government corporate welfare have pretty much - in a bipartisan, non-gridlocked kind of way - set the course for a further decline in American living standards. With us being in the same economy and job market as India and China now, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. We and the other more developed economies will see our quality of life decline as it improves in lesser-developed nations. It's a done deal. Oh, you could write your Senators and House Representative and at least tell them to stop subsidizing off-shore jobs.And you might deep-six those rose-colored glasses. Politics25909@blogcritics.org Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:48:39 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/18/144620.php Hal PawlukAustralia has turned all of Sydney into a high-speed hot-spot, and users get much faster broadband service than we do - for less.In America, on the other hand, the political right wing is trying to kill a similar low-cost system. The battleground is in Philadelphia right now, but all was peaches and cream in 2002.Back then, businesses were backing the One Economy Corporation's efforts to bring low-income Americans into the economic mainstream. One Economy was working to provide "digital inclusion" for residents of affordable housing by helping wire buildings, the acquisition of computers and with special localized content. Their Beehive site provided information about money, health, school, jobs and family. Cisco, for example, was helping, and proud of its efforts to Bridge the Digital Divide. (Story links open in new windows) By the following year One Economy had expanded to 12 cities. Telephony Online described their work in bringing broadband to low-income residents in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn [Broadband For Everyone 2/24/03]. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and John Kerry (D-MA) introduced a bill that would amend the tax code to include broadband availability as one of the factors in determining low-income housing credits. The Beehive now provided health care assistance and jobs listings in English and Spanish.The government liked this and came up with the E-rate program to help subsidize the wiring of schools and public libraries, as well as efforts to provide broadband to rural areas. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and then-Minority-Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) backed the efforts. And then last year Philadelphia decided to provide poorer neighborhoods with wi-fi hot-spots. With less wiring required, broadband access would be less expensive. Families could buy computers for $120 and get high-speed access for $10 a month. [Program Aids Urban Poor In Accessing The Internet 08/09/04] So Verizon got pissed.Verizon lobbied the Pennsylvania legislature and had a law passed and signed that would "prohibit a government or any entity it creates from offering broadband for a fee." [Philadelphia Faces Wi-Fi Woes PC World 11/23/04] This year, even the big guns of the right-wing are being leveled at the program.Last month the Heartland Institute, which has ties to the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, issued a paper on Why Muni Wi-Fi Is a False Hope (02/01/05). This largely argues that because prior attempts at wired networks failed and that gosh, it's going to cost $75-150 to set up so they can't afford it anyhow (never mind how much more it would cost to set up and buy broadband access from Verizon or Comcast), it shouldn't be done.A few days ago, the libertarian Cato Institute entered the fray. They're jaw-boning against the Philadelphia plan now, and will soon release a study attacking it. [Philadelphia aiming to get wired for less 02/17/05] On c|net, Frank Rizzo argues illogically that because Boston's "Big Dig" tunnel was a financial disaster, Philadelphia's wi-fi for the poor will be too. Why all the fuss and fury from the right? Because while it will be good for America it will be bad for their business interests. If Philadelphia puts in low cost broadband access, telecom and cable companies won't be able to maintain their essentially monopolistic high prices. In the U.S., wireless broadband powered by a type of cellphone technology is planned or already being offered by companies including Verizon Wireless, owned by Verizon Communications Inc. and Vodafone Group PLC. Verizon Wireless's business-oriented service runs over a beefed-up, "third generation" cellular network using a technology called EV-DO. Users obtain service by slipping a modem card into their laptops. The service is available in about 30 U.S. cities for $79.99 a month, though its speed of data transmission can be slower than that of the Australian systems. Other U.S. wireless carriers including Sprint Corp. also offer such services in many cities, though their transmission speeds are even slower than Verizon Wireless's. [Unbound Down Under Wall Street Journal 02/17/05 subscription] Australia is doing it right.For one thing, they, unlike America, have a competitive market in telecom. This has resulted in more and better services at a lower cost to consumers.With their advanced technology, Personal Broadband Australia provides high speed wireless broadband (not wi-fi) that allows Internet access from cars and trains moving at up to 60 miles an hour.Unwired has turned 770-square-mile Sydney into a broadband hot-spot with 70 base stations and it costs a user only $35 a month.We really need to allow telecom competition or go back to regulation of phone and cable companies. Write your Senators and House Representative and give them some what-for on wi-fi and broadband. Politics25672@blogcritics.org Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:46:20 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/09/145342.php Hal Pawlukfunction graphnum(colbar,colfill,thenum,thebase,thewidth){ // need to convert 'thenum' into an integer var theint = parseInt(thenum.split(/[^\d]/).join('') ) var barwidth = parseInt(thewidth*(theint/thebase)); var blankwidth = thewidth - barwidth; var thegraph='' +' '+thenum; document.write(thegraph) }The administration is trying to "baffle you with bullspit," as we used to say back on the farm. The White House has pulled out all the stops on shady, shifty and sly, so here's what you need to know in a nutshell: 1. "Privatization" will not cure the Social Security shortfall. 2. The president's "$11 trillion" is meaningless and an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes. 3. This president appointed most of Social Security Trustees and they're shading things to make you think there's a crisis. 4. He's using 1, 2 and 3 to mask the real issue: sneaking in "re-indexing" to cut your benefits in a major way. 5. I'll also get into why they might be doing all this. 1. "Privatization" is not a solutionThe White House and those on the right know this.Last month, a memo from Bush adviser Peter H. Wehner got out and it explicitly says so: "We simply cannot solve the Social Security problem with Personal Retirement Accounts [PRAs] alone. If the goal is permanent solvency and sustainability — as we believe it should be — then [PRAs], for all their virtues, are insufficient to that task." [Washington Times 01/13/2005] (Story links open in new windows) We hear the same story from the Heritage Foundation, bastion of right-wing thinking: "Says David C. John, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who is a leading advocate of private accounts: 'It's wrong to say that private accounts can fill Social Security's shortfall. They're not a magic bullet.'" [Business Week 01/24/2005 subscription] So it's agreed - by the left, right and center - that "privatization" will not cure whatever ills Social Security may have. Which begs the question: So why do it? (I'll suggest an answer later.) 2. The magical, mysterious $11 trillion You may have heard the president and the vice-president using that number recently as a measure of the problem with Social Security.What you need to know is that is a number cooked up by 4 of the 6 Trustees appointed by the president.Their "lifetime" projection 75 years into the future is $3.7 trillion. This projection is the one that has been used for policy purposes since the inception of the trust fund. This is the one you should use. But last year, the president's men added an "infinite horizon" projection to their report for the first time in history and this number came to about $10 trillion.Actuaries immediately objected because not only is it a bad number, it is misleading and deceptive: "[We believe] that the new measures of OASDI’s unfunded obligations included in the 2003 report provide little if any useful information about the program’s long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise in the demographic, economic and actuarial aspects of the program’s finances into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated." [Letter from Eric Kleiber, Chairperson, Social Insurance Committee, American Academy of Actuaries pdf] So the big number has never been used before, isn't of much if any use and is likely to mislead? Do you think that was an accident? 3. The Trustees picked and chose assumptions to make a case If you look at the Trustee's projections based largely on historical growth rates, rather than their more pessimistic ones, you'll find that these show there will be no shortfall at all.None, nada, zip.Using historical rates as the right way to go is reinforced by what has happened during the last seven years, right through the recession, to today:Each year, the date when Social Security goes negative has been pushed further and further away. In 1997, it was supposed to happen in 2029. Today, the projection is 2042 (or 2052 if you believe the less-partisan Congressional Budget Office). So in the last seven years, doomsday has been pushed back at least 13 years.That doesn't mean that nothing should be done, but it does mean that there is no "crisis."And remember Point 1: "Privatization" will not solve the problem, if there is one, anyhow. So why privatize? 4. A cut in benefits is part of the real agenda All the hand-waving, crying "crisis" and huge numbers [are meant to?] take your attention away from a proposed cut in benefits.What makes the benefit cut happen is "indexing." That's not as esoteric as it might sound to some, but people tend to skip over it.But you really should pay attention to it, because that's "the rabbit in the trick bag." The deal is that benefits are currently "indexed" so they rise as wages rise. If they weren't, recipients would be stuck with payments at levels from 40 years and more ago.The White House wants to change the basis to the consumer price index, instead.It sounds harmless, but let's see what happens when you do that. Here's what the system promises today, using wage indexing: Today's promise with wage indexing graphnum('colgreen','coltan','$2,032',2032,160) If nothing is done, the Trustees' pessimistic "intermediate" projection tells us that the benefits will be reduced: Do nothing scenario graphnum('colgreen','coltan','$1,525',2032,160) What nobody seems to be telling us is what happens if indexing is changed to the consumer price index: Using the consumer price index graphnum('colgreen','coltan','$1,099',2032,160) The take-away here is: Even if "privatization" is killed because it's a bad idea, don't let them change the "indexing" if you think the promise should be kept. 5. If it's that bad, why would anyone want to do it?You tell me, but here are a few excerpts from my own version of CliffsNotes to help you with your thinking: "Privatizing" your benefits will throw at least $940 billion dollars to financial services firms in management fees. They're slavering over this, and the stock prices of some of the firms have already risen on the expectation of this windfall. [See my earlier The "Privatization" Rip-Off for details and sources.] "Indexing" will have such an extreme effect that not only will it deal with the shortfall, it will transfer more than $1 trillion dollars in excess taxes to the Treasury. And that number is from Stephen C. Goss, the SSA's chief actuary, so it may be low. [Business Week 01/24/2005 subscription ] Then, some simply want to eliminate Social Security entirely ("it's socialism," "they're all freeloaders") and this would be a great way to do it. First, you take away two-thirds of workers' contribution (4% of the 6.2% deducted from your paycheck) through "privatization." Wait a bit, then within a year or two, businesses start agitating: "Workers aren't putting anything into the system, so why should we?" and poof, a few campaign contributions later, there goes another third. At this point, the fund doesn't have enough money to do much good for anyone, so it's eliminated. So what's a person to do?That depends on how you see Social Security.I see it for what it was meant to be: insurance.In my career, I've gone through an almost embarrassing amount of money, but don't resent the FICA tax. To me, it was simply the "entry fee" that allowed me to participate in American society. You might want to think of it as a "tithe" that goes to the less able and the less fortunate, or a membership fee in the Greater American Club.I think it should be kept.And because it's insurance, that suggests straightforward ways to heal whatever financial problems it may have. I'll get into that next time.In the meantime, you might want to bone up on more background by checking my The "Ownership" Scam posts. Politics25318@blogcritics.org Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:53:42 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/07/154709.php Hal PawlukThe new Bush budget starts with a lie. President Bush promised to cut the deficit in half during this term, so he starts his cost-cutting crusade with an inflated deficit number. The real 2004 budget deficit was $412 billion dollars, so he adds another $109 billion to make his deficit target half of $521 billion.It's a lie, pure and simple, that betrays the trust of every American, whatever their political persuasion. So where did this number come from? The White House and thin air.And the White House has used it deceptively before. Last year, when it became apparent that the deficit was going to be over $400 billion dollars, the White House started saying that the deficit might be as big as $521 billion. The idea was simple spin: once the real budget came in, they planned to say: "Look, we did better than expected." At the time, that number was seen for what it was - flimflam - and not taken seriously by most of the business community. [Bushies About to Spin the Deficit 07/28/04] (Story links open in new windows) It's just hocus-pocus this year, too. With that for openers, Bush then goes on to shape-shift on his promise of fiscal responsibility.Until this year, he was promising to cut the deficit in half in absolute dollars. This year, he has weaseled that into reducing the deficit as a share of the economy. With this new approach, the deficit could stay as big as it is yet still be considered "reduced" as the economy grows.Then, to make it easier to hoodwink us into thinking he was successful, he simply omits a number of deficit-raising items.That's right - he simply doesn't count very major expenditures that will be made. The military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not counted in the budget, even though this already eliminates $80 billion in a supplemental request before Congress and will require at least another $50 -100 billion over the next year, an unknown amount for the full extent of the American occupation.Alternative minimum tax "reform?" Not counted, even though this would add $44 billion to the deficit in 2009.Extending the expiring tax cuts? Not counted, even though this will cost nearly $3 trillion over the next ten years.Privatization of Social Security? Not counted, even though this would cost $750 billion over the next ten years.If you ran your budget like this, I'd be waving to you as I passed you in your new home under the over-pass.If I were a conservative (I am, fiscally), I'd worry. Your leader's approach to fiscal matters is irrational and potentially very destructive to the quality of life in America At this point, I can read your mind: you're echoing the spin that deficits don't matter except as a percentage of GDP.That's wrong, too.Even Bush's top economic adviser, N. Gregory Mankiw, tells us that a government deficit "pulls resources away from investment in new capital and, thereby, depresses the living standards of future generations." Serious, non-partisan economists agree: "Two international economic watchdogs warned that President Bush's budget plans will make the U.S. and other countries poorer in the long run. "The International Monetary Fund (IMF) ... estimates that even if the budget deficit is cut in half from $521 billion [they got caught in the spin, too] by 2009, as the Bush Administration projects, U.S. gross domestic product would be 1.4% lower by 2020... For the world, GDP will ultimately be 2.6% lower by 2050. "Yesterday's report was the latest in a drumbeat of warnings from the IMF in recent years about the deteriorating U.S. budget picture. Like the others, it is likely to fall on deaf ears." [IMF, OECD See Economic Risks In Bush's Budget Wall Street Journal subscription] It's not just a matter of duplicity, although I certainly expected better from a born-again Christian - Bush's mishandling of the budget will hurt this country and the world forever. Write your Senators and House Representative.They need reminding that Diogenes wouldn't have given Bush a second glance. Politics25225@blogcritics.org Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:47:09 EST