The Wall Street Journal: “Stress Rises on Social Security”

The Los Angeles Times: “Social Security is slipping closer to insolvency”

The New York Times: “Social Security’s Financial Health Worsens”

And you know, come to think of it, it’s not just Republicans and the press. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) tweeted yesterday: “SocSec to run dry in 2033 – Medicare by 2024. Trustees: ‘more options/time’ if Congress acts ‘sooner, not later.’”

All of these reactions would be acceptable if they even vaguely resembled what the Trustees reported.

They don’t.

Social Security does not “run dry” in 2033. It doesn’t. “Run dry” and “insolvency” mean dead. Out of money. Nothing left. The trustees, in fact, reported that Social Security will run a surplus until 2033. 21 years. I can’t emphasize this enough. Two decades! Can you imagine if any program in the federal government was projected to run a surplus for even half of that time? Budget hawks would crap their cages demanding immediate action to give back the taxpayers’ money by slashing the program to the line. (To be fair, the date was adjusted back in time due to the Great Recession. Other years, however, the Trustees move the date forward in time. Either way, 2033 is barely on the horizon.)

Are Republicans trying to kill social security?

And once 2033 rolls around, Social Security will be capable of paying 75 to 80 percent of total benefits in 2033 money, which, accounting for inflation, is more than Social Security recipients receive today. Furthermore, these are projections based on zero legislative action. In other words, if Congress does nothing by way of tweaking payroll taxes, Social Security will be perfect until 2033, then it’ll still be capable of paying benefits after that.

But, naturally, something will happen to tighten the loose ends. It always does. Preferably that “something” will be low-key and non-disruptive. For example, lost somewhere in the American memory hole, President Reagan raised the payroll tax.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

Without touching benefits or raising payroll taxes, Congress could follow suit by entirely eliminating the income cap on the payroll tax (the FICA tax found on your paycheck stub), forcing everyone who earns more than $110,000 per year to pay into the system based on their full income. That’s around six percent of the population. According to experts, this would allow Social Security to pay full benefits until 2087. To put that date into perspective, in 2087, if they retire at age 65 and survive to their 100th birthdays, Tim Tebow, Bradley Manning, Hilary Duff, Ke$ha and every American born in 1987 could collect full Social Security benefits for 35 years each.

So why all the fuss and panic?

For starters, far-right Republicans have been trying to kill Social Security since it was established during the Depression. It’s socialistic commie pinko welfare, they say in private. And so they act like the world’s most duplicitous concern trolls by exploiting minor setbacks and lying about “bad news” in order to sell their unbelievably stupid privatization plan — a massive giveaway to corporate America. They twist logic and pretend to “rescue” Social Security by disbanding it — investing the trust fund in the totally safe and never unstable stock market.

They’ve been so good at framing and branding unmitigated fiction about this issue that they’ve successfully shoved the broader discussion well beyond reality into some kind of brutally dishonest phantom zone where “full benefits for 20 years, and much longer if we tweak the payroll tax” means, “OMFG! Social Security is DOOOOOMED! AAAAAAAHHH!” If they’re not pitching their awful privatization scam, they’re deliberately undermining the system by proposing things like raising the retirement age or cutting benefits. Both of these ideas only manage to hurt old people while simultaneously breeding disillusionment about the reliability of Social Security among younger people.

President Eisenhower once wrote:

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

Modern far-right Republicans are aware of Eisenhower’s prediction and so instead of killing Social Security outright, they’re trying to kill it by a thousand cuts and even more lies. Sadly, it seems like the rest of the D.C. establishment is going along with their framing in spite of the reality from the Trustees themselves, making the “insolvency” panic-mongering the biggest lie being foisted upon the American people today.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

The paratroopers had their assignment: Check out reports that Afghan police had recovered the mangled remains of an insurgent suicide bomber. Try to get iris scans and fingerprints for identification.

The 82nd Airborne Division soldiers arrived at the police station in Afghanistan’s Zabol province in February 2010. They inspected the body parts. Then the mission turned macabre: The paratroopers posed for photos next to Afghan police, grinning while some held — and others squatted beside — the corpse’s severed legs.

A few months later, the same platoon was dispatched to investigate the remains of three insurgents who Afghan police said had accidentally blown themselves up. After obtaining a few fingerprints, they posed next to the remains, again grinning and mugging for photographs.

Two soldiers posed holding a dead man’s hand with the middle finger raised. A soldier leaned over the bearded corpse while clutching the man’s hand. Someone placed an unofficial platoon patch reading “Zombie Hunter” next to other remains and took a picture.

The Army launched a criminal investigation after the Los Angeles Times showed officials copies of the photos, which recently were given to the paper by a soldier from the division.

Read more at the LATimes….

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

The military has spent over $42 million to test Soldiers brains

by Lena Groeger: The aftermath of last week’s killing of 16 Afghans has prompted a flurry of speculation into the mind of 38-year old U.S. combat staff sergeant Robert Bales. In particular, the injuries to it.

Traumatic brain injuries are so common among today’s troops that the military has spent over $42 million for a test to detect them, a test that Bales most likely took before his final deployment to Afghanistan. The problem is, that test has failed miserably.

More than a million soldiers have taken the 20 minute computerized test, known as the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics, or ANAM test. But as we reported last year in a ProPublica investigation, the test has been heavily criticized as an ineffective tool to detect brain injuries.

Many news outlets, including the New York Times, have cited military officials saying Bales was treated for a traumatic brain injury during his past deployments in Iraq. Bales was reportedly injured in Iraq when his vehicle rolled over. The Army Medical Command would not comment on any specifics of Bales’ medical history or testing, but spokeswoman Maria Tolleson said that Joint Base Lewis McChord, where Bales was stationed, was fully operational with the ANAM testing program.

“It would be expected that a deploying Army service member from that base would have a pre-deployment cognitive baseline completed,” said Tolleson.

Problems have plagued the test since its introduction. Critics charge the military chose the test through a biased selection process and then ignored years of warnings that the test was fraught with problems. They also say the military has not administered the test properly.

Soldiers are meant to take the test twice 2013 once before deployment and then again after a suspected head injury. Soldiers must answer a series of questions that score basic thinking abilities such as reaction time, short-term memory and learning speed. In theory, the initial test serves as a baseline to compare the results of the second test; a discrepancy signals a possible injury and the need for more evaluation.

But the test 2013 which a former Army surgeon general has called no better than a “coin flip” 2013 is rarely implemented that way. The Army was so unconvinced of the test’s accuracy that it issued an ordernot to send soldiers with a troublesome score for further medical evaluation.

While there is no scientific consensus on the best test for traumatic brain injuries, alternatives do exist. Both the Army Special Forces and the National Hockey League chose a different test, called ImPact. Researchers are also developing new technologies to detect brain injuries, but right now the ANAM test remains the prime military TBI test.

The precise nature of Robert Bales’ brain injuries and subsequent testing is one issue, but linking his injuries to his outburst of violence is another matter altogether.

Scientists have not establis

hed any clear-cut connection between traumatic brain injures and later violence. This article from Wired explores some of the most recent studies on the topic, while the Los Angeles Times breaks down the many interacting factors that make drawing a clear line from injury to violence nearly impossible.

This article was originally published on ProPublica.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Image via Wikipedia

The revelation that Arnold Schwarzennegger fathered a child with a member of his household staff shouldn't really be surprising. As a Los Angelino, I have heard many, many stories about Arnold's sexual indiscretions, and the only thing shocking is that this didn't come out earlier. 

As with all gossip stories, I try not to pay it too much attention. Schwarzenneger's personal life is his own business, and has nothing to do with the job he did as governor. The media's obsession with the personal lives of politicians (and in this case, a retired one) is symptomatic of a deeply corrupt industry that cares little for serious news and more about ratings. It is a giant distraction and not something I will be spending much time discussing. However, given the media's unquenchable thirst for these type of stories, I do think it interesting that Schwarzenegger was able to keep this away from them for so many years. Breaking a story like this would have made a newspaper or website millions, and knowing the Los Angeles rumor mill, I am astonished no one came forward to spill the beans. Andrew Sullivan concludes the following:

It seems to me that this proves that when a small group of people all have a powerful incentive to lie, it's amazing what can be done. And this is not the governor of a small-population state far away from the national spotlight. This is the governor of the biggest state, a global super-star, a man known across the planet, subject to massive press exposure, married to a Kennedy. And he got away with it.

While Arnold didn't turn out to be a particularly good governor, his ability to do what Bill Clinton, John Edwards and a plethora of highly visible politicians could not is incredible.

I'm sure the press will be kicking itself for not digging deeper into Schwarzenegger's personal life as they missed a potential goldmine. And it's a pity they wouldn't feel the same way about a story that actually mattered.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below: