NY Times misrepresents Obama op-ed on Social Security
SUMMARY: In a blog post, New York Times reporter Larry Rohter claimed that in a statement in a September 2007 op-ed that "[i]f we kept the payroll tax exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall," Sen. Barack Obama was laying out his plan to address future shortfalls in Social Security. Rohter misrepresented the statement, claiming that Obama has now changed his position. But in the op-ed, Obama did not present removing the payroll tax income cap as his "plan" but, rather, as "[o]ne possible option."
In an August 15 post on The New York Times blog The Caucus, headlined "Obama pulls back on Social Security Plan," reporter Larry Rohter falsely asserted that in a September 21, 2007, op-ed in Iowa's Quad City Times on tax reform for seniors, Sen. Barack Obama laid out a proposal to remove the cap on income subject to payroll tax. Rohter reported that aides to Obama have recently made statements that have "made more modest" Obama's payroll and Social Security tax plans and that Obama's plan "[i]n its original form" was "far more ambitious" than recent iterations of the plan. But contrary to Rohter's assertion, in the op-ed, Obama did not offer removal of the income cap as his "plan"; he merely stated that removing the cap on income on which the payroll tax is assessed was "[o]ne possible option" in addressing future shortfalls in Social Security.
Specifically, Rohter quoted from the op-ed as follows:
In its original form, though, Mr. Obama's plan was far more ambitious. "If we kept the payroll tax exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall," he wrote in an op-ed piece that appeared in the Quad City Times, an Iowa daily newspaper, in September 2007.
But that is not what Obama wrote in the op-ed. Obama did not present removing the payroll tax income cap as his "plan"; rather, he simply wrote that doing so was "[o]ne possible option":
First, I will fight against efforts to privatize Social Security, as I and others did when President Bush proposed private accounts a few years ago. Privatization is wrong. It tears at the fabric of Social Security -- the idea of mutual responsibility -- by subjecting a secure retirement to the whims of the market.
Second, I do not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors. One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall. [Emphasis added.]
Ya gotta love those options!
It kind of reminds me of Bill's endorsements.
Ok...I'll bite.
What is Obama's plan?
I have.
What is Obama's plan?
For more specifics, call him up, check out the internet, etc. As for the TRUE nuts and bolts, whatever they may end up being, the republicants in congress are going to have to swallow their pride, grab their nuts, and vote for what's best for the country, NOT their ideanonlogical base of voters.
MR. L:
Sure, I'll look it up and check the Interent as will reporters who want to do a good job and then when those reporters ask him questions about it he needs to ANSWER. Not dance around the question and have things both ways, wich he does on EVERY issue.
Mr L,
"the republicants in congress are going to have to swallow their pride, grab their nuts, and vote for what's best for the country, NOT their ideanonlogical base of voters."
I really do hope that you are not seriously considering holding your breath...... are you?
Wes,
As of this point, we can see by the two answers above, no one knows.
AA,
Obama's plan from his website contains 2 small paragraphs about his plans for social security...pledging to protect it...hot damn, there's something new.
It's nothing more than his many speeches...long on feel good and short on how to get things done.
-- Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people...He will work with members of Congress from both parties...As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years. -- BarackObama.com
Just hot air...to be attributed to the long list of "famous last words".
-- If he tells them to come up with a plan to ensure it's survival then they'll do just that -- demintx
Let's just skip the election...the sooner we elect Obama the better.
It's obvious he's the right man for the job.
You wrote, "Obama's plan from his website contains 2 small paragraphs about his plans for social security...pledging to protect it...hot damn, there's something new.
It's nothing more than his many speeches...long on feel good and short on how to get things done.
-- Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people...He will work with members of Congress from both parties...As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years. -- BarackObama.com"
Here's what Obama's page says, "Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. He will work with members of Congress from both parties to strengthen Social Security and prevent privatization while protecting middle class families from tax increases or benefit cuts. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, he would ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound.
Despite the many smears of his opponents, Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he is considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee). This change to Social Security would start a decade or more from now and is similar to the rate increases floated by John McCain’s close adviser Senator Lindsey Graham and that McCain has previously said he “could” support."
I suspect it's Obama's commitment to protect Social Security from those greedy bastards on Wall St. that has your lying ass quacking today. It's so typical of cons like you to lie. So easy for jerks like you act like liberals have no plan unless it's in lock step with your dip-shit con dream of handing our money, our commonwealth, to private interests.
Well, it's called social security, not private security.
Everything is for sale with you cons, it's always profit over people.
AA-
And we can see by your response that you, like John McCain, don't know how to use the internet. I have to assume you know how to read, because you've posted here before, so I'm assuming you're just having trouble cutting and pasting the link.
Here is some of the good stuff:
Barack Obama would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee). This change to Social Security would start a decade or more from now and is similar to the rate increases floated by John McCain’s close adviser Senator Lindsey Graham and that McCain has previously said he “could” support.
No wonder they have to ask everybody else to spoon feed the info to them.
1 point to Wes for giving it a try. 0 for Barney, who just gave up.
Obama's plan for social security:
-- Obama would ask...would start a decade or more from now --
And you left out..."he is considering plans".
I suppose that one could diligently search the web for some meat to go with the thin broth that Obama is serving up...but I'll just stick with his web site to see if he offers up something real.
Social Security will pay 80% of benefits in 50 years. Not quite 100%, but we'll get there. You don't think the government is capable enough to have its programs ironclad generations out, do you?
Steve,
80% is called insolvency.
I can't believe you asked that.
For one thing, it's lying to the American retirees over the amount they were promised at retirement. Are you okay with that? It's another way of saying the government is defaulting. People lose homes when they default on their promises to pay.
You are a liberal, try this on for size. Lets say McCain promises to cut Medicaid promises by 20%. How would you react to that news? What if McCain promised to cut welfare payments by 20%? Unacceptable or are you cool with it. Now just change the name to Obama and the Democrats and make it SS and there you have it.
People complain now about SS. How do you think they'll react if they only get 80% of it? ...and then 70%... and then 60%...
Governments are not insolvent, they can go into default. But all this requires, as in the business world, refinancing or restructuring keep the whole thing healthy.
My contention is that the problem with SS can be fixed. The system has been adjusted in the past, many times. We simply need to adjust it again. You can keep buying the crisis hype from the private accounts crowd, you'll just end up fighting to enrich wall St. bankers instead of providing a safety net for retirees.
You can believe those talking points if you want.
Social Security savings accounts are a fraud. There is no money being saved. It is being spent as it comes in.
Of course they can cook the books again and again to make it sound like it is solvent. The other options that Obama keeps obfuscating on, is increasing the amount that is paid in. It's the old "tax the rich" class warfare, socialistic arguments all over again.
What you leave out is that if people were given the option of taking a part of their contributions and investing in the market in a way that spread the risk, there would be no insolvency crisis looming and the retirees would have far, far more than they are promised by the government in SS.
Why not give the power to the people. Let them decide where their "forced" retirement contributions are held. If you want to give your money to the government, go ahead. If I don't why can't I take my own money and invest it as I see fit? Lets move away from a method that constantly requires greater and greater contributions for less and less benefit and give people the option of taking ownership of their own retirement savings and participate in the growth and wealth that is only created in the private sector.
But you're operating under fundamental myths of the market, anyway. So your name calling has no merit from jump.
There are always losers in the strongest of markets, so this privates accounts biz simply introduces an unnecessary risk for seniors. Most folks who are already investing know damn little of what they're doing anyway, then to force even less informed people into that maelstrom, especially the unregulated market we have, is begging for more sub-prime style swindles to be perpetrated on the most vulnerable among us. I can't get with that.
Lastly, the CBO reports that the social security trust fund will be in surplus until 2019, so I really have no idea what the hell you cons are griping about.
I call bullsh!t on AA's comments that "Social Security savings accounts are a fraud. There is no money being saved. It is being spent as it comes in."
Social Security is not an investment account, and so there's no problem wtih the fact that it's not a savings account!
How can you be a breathing adult who's visited this site repeatedly and not understand that it's not a savings account that has money sitting in it?
It's been pay as you go forever. They built up some surplus since the mid 80's to cover the baby boom generation, but it's still mostly a pay as you go type of plan where people working today pay for retired people.
How can you explain getting such a fundamental thing 100% wrong, AA?
I don't know man, it sounds fairly dishonest to me. For one thing nobody is promising cuts, period. What is being promised is a rescue mission for Social Security.
You and I may disagree on this, I don't think AA is naive or even dumb. I think he is very cunning, I think most of the cons here are very cunning. And I think it's a mistake to dismiss them as stupid.
He's trying to inject language that inhibits our ability to consider the whole truth of the issue. He's a salesman. He does it knowingly and that disgusts me. It's not honest.
I have.
What is Obama's plan?
It doesn't matter what his plan is, just like we don't have to come up with solutions to problems when your pal Tommy demands them.
The issue here is that someone in the media didn't portray an accurate picture, and that inaccurate picture furthers the conservative agenda.
-- It doesn't matter what his plan is -- bottleblonde
Thanks for being honest.
That's what a lot of Obama supporters say when they're pressed to give reasons for supporting him for president.
He's for uh...uh...change...you know...like...uh...hope.
That could be why his poll numbers have flattened out...those undecided voters could be waiting for Obama to provide something more tangible.
Thanks for being honest.
That's what a lot of Obama supporters say when they're pressed to give reasons for supporting him for president.
He's for uh...uh...change...you know...like...uh...hope.
That could be why his poll numbers have flattened out...those undecided voters could be waiting for Obama to provide something more tangible.
Like RoundHouse said earlier in this thread, you dishonest punk!
I didn't say that Obama didn't have a plan. He does. I didn't say that I couldn't delineate that plan. I can.
I said that his plan doesn't matter, because the issue is that facts were ignored, and information was unreliable, and accurate information was not disseminated by the media. And that failure to present accurate information forwards the conservative agenda.
I like that name, RoundHouse. Let's call Wesley the dishonest punk until he proves that he's not one.
We know what Grampy's plan is...
Privatize it, so they can continue the destruction of the middle class, and put even more money into the Enrons and World Coms, and Bear Stearns and Fannie and Freddie. Do the Wall Street shuffle.
You know the drill.
Can you tell MMFA is a Clinton operation?
The parsing of words is somewhere beyond absurd or riduculous.
"one possible option" is not his "plan"?
WOW
Grampy doesn't give a crap about social security...
An elitist like Grampy, he owns 8 homes. And they aint 2-bedroom summer homes in Nebraska.
Grampy has got it all covered.
John McCain once said that one possible way to save energy is to turn of your lights a few minutes early. Are we to deduce, by your logic, that McCain's entire energy plan consists of turning out the lights early?
That's the kind of stupid distortion the RNC likes to make, like when they ridiculed the tire gauge suggestion, just because it came from Public Enemy #1, Barack Obama.
Kyle,
Go ahead and make fun of McCain for his turn off the lights. I'll still chuckle over Obama's tire gauge idea... oh and his tune ups... which haven't been done since electronic ignition. Yeah right.
Both "turning off the juice when not in use", (my Dad drummed into us kids, in the 50's and 60's,) and checking tire inflation, are good ideas and simple to do. Will they solve the energy crisis? No. will everyone go out and check their tires monthly? No. They are simply pablum.
Lets get serious. It's going to take a lot more than inflating tires and turning off lights to solve the energy crisis.
ps. On the plus side, my On-Star from good old GM sends me a monthly report telling me what my tire inflation rate is, along with other diagnostics. Right now my tires are about two pounds of pressure light and need rotating. So everyone, if you want to solve the energy crisis and help the American economy - Buy GM and On-Star. :-)
Social Security saved many seniors from dire poverty. It's old age insurance, which all workers pay into, so that everyone that works will have something. Disability allows mentally and physically handicapped people to have the ability to live with some dignity. Obama obviously knows that the system is sound and works, and that the best fix for the future when it will eventually be paying out more than it currently takes in is to lift the cap. There are other options also. The main point is that it is solvent and will need a future fix.
See what privatization has done for <a href="http://c.hileno.com/2008/03/chile-privatized-social-security-reform.html">Chile's social security system </a>
http://c.hileno.com/2008/03/chile-privatized-social-security-reform.html
Sorry, can't get the link to work.
BCVD brings to mind a bit of dogeral from Walt Kelly.
Ahem...kof.kof.
OOOhh Fearless Fred the footpad set fire to his moma's bed!
Obama wants to lift the cap on Social Security which is A fair plan.
Why should those making more money and who will collect more in
Social Security benefits not have to pay in above this low cut off?
Mccain wants to privatize Social Security. Big surprise. He has probably
already picked out who he wants to give this perk to.
Was amazed when the man was surprised that todays workers
contribute to retirees SS income. Wow, talk about being totally
out of touch with what goes on in this country!!
Actually there's a limit to what Social Security will pay out, so for most high earners won't get much additional benefit even though they have to pay more into the system.
They are capable of paying more, and will be hurt less by paying more, and I believe that people who earn a lot of money should carry a higher burden, even if they won't directly benefit from it. We as a nation will benefit from Social Security giving beneficiaries 100% of their entitled payouts each month.