This Fortune/CNN article linked to by Drudge is a breathless call to panic based on speculation, internally inconsistent, and laments SS for not buying “non-Treasury securities, such as government-backed mortgage bonds or high-grade corporates that would have helped cover future cash shortfalls”. Really? We should have have invested our SS money in mortgage bonds? Even high-grade corporate bonds are suspect. My bonds now sell for less than face value and I just pray that the company does not gp bankrupt and default.
Beyond that, either the writing is incorrect or the facts do not support the premise; e.g., "The first number is $120 billion, the interest that Social Security will earn on its trust fund in fiscal 2010 (see page 74 of the CBO report). The second is $92 billion, the overall Social Security surplus for fiscal 2010 (see page 116).
This means that without the interest income, Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30". To me that means SS is $212 billion ahead.
Even if there is a problem, using the word “bailout” is outrageous. SS could raise taxes, lower payouts, do means testing, or delay start of benefits. Even if it becomes necessary to get an infusion of money from the treasury, it has little resemblance to the bailouts. Are journalists really this clueless?
Do you really need anyone to answer this question? Journalism is where sub-standard English majors go to try to graduate before Mom kicks them out of the house. Of course they are that clueless!
Journalists went to journalism school because they’re lazy and bad at math. And economics. And history. And, in many cases, writing. So cut them some slack.
Robin, BA, Communication/Journalism; MS, Communication Studies
A few days ago a big story came out saying a major science journal had revoked the article on the link between autism and vaccinations. The CNN reporter who read the story thought it was a great victory for those who believe autism and vaccinations are linked. She had just read a story saying the opposite, but apparently she didn’t even understand the major point of what she had just reported on. And this was CNN, which I assume employs the best in the business! I was floored!
I think the math is right. The $120 billion is part of what makes up the $92 billion surplus; it’s not added on top. This doesn’t necessarily take away from any of your other points, though.
I’m not familiar with how Social Security’s spending is usually calculated, but the OP looked like he had a point initially. On review I’m thinking Tom Tildrum is probably right.
As always, be careful about confusing a column where someone states and opinion, and potentially plays games with statistics, with straight reporting.
CNN seems to be the worst at that, but I can’t stand any of it. You can’t trust any of these people to evaluate the truth of what they’re reporting because they don’t want to alienate someone who might deny them access later or become a guest on some other show on the same network. I’m still amazed anchors will actually sit there and read Twitter and other viewer comments and then run them on the screen. Who gives a crap?
If i wanted to read the inanities that people post on Twitter, i could do it on my computer, with the added bonus of being able to watch porn at the same time.
That’s the clip I was thinking about when I opened this thread. As I posted in that thread, thetalking head “medical” journalist didn’t even explain to Joe Average why this was a bad thing, and what the repercussions mean. At least she understood what “retracted” meant. :rolleyes:
I’ll give them full marks for allowing people in other countries to see their videos, though.
On re-reading it, you are right. They would have had a $28B deficit if they didn’t have $120B in interest from the trust fund. Instead they just have a $98B surplus.
The next time I see a journalist write something that demonstrates that they understand Social Security is a group annuity plan will be the first time. If they don’t even understand what KIND of program it is, why should they get any of the details right?
Almost six and a half of those 24 hours are filled by commercials. You’ve got a couple of top stories that are going to be repeated and expanded throughout the day, which is going to take up a few hours. And there’s 6.7 billion people, 200-odd countries, I don’t know how many wars, natural disasters and weather every day… and we need Twitter to kill time? I know you’re kidding, but this is a source of perpetual aggravation to me. If you can’t fill all the time you have, sell a few hours in the overnight to the ShamWow guy and the Snuggie cultists. Pocket your money and have a little dignity instead of pretending there just isn’t enough news out there.
The problem is that covering those stories with any sort of journalistic credibility requires hiring actual journalists and getting them to do actual journalism. This flies directly in the face of the business model of 21st century news, which wants to pump out as much inane bullshit for as little money as possible. Using as few journalists as they can get away with.
But yes, many on the left indeed do not see much of a liberal bent coming from the corporate media. Nor do they see any need to come to the defense of shoddy reporting.
