Social Security News Roundup

Social Security in Perspective-COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW. To hear the media tell it, you'd think most Americans agree that this country must drastically reform its Social Security program. As Campaign Desk has pointed out, Social Security and the federal deficit have become Topic A in Washington , but so far the mainstream media haven't had much of substance to say about it . Instead, they are taking their reportorial cues from the deficit hawks, while other voices have been shut out. This is the first in a series of occasional posts that will put the nation's oldest and most successful social program into better perspective. http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/social_security_in_perspective.php?page=all

REFLECTIONS: On Social Security-TIME GOES BY. But Obama has fallen for the cut-the-deficit frenzy, appointing a commission run by banker Erskine Bowles and right-wing, former Wyoming senator Alan Simpson, that began its work by attacking and talking about cuts in Social Security's benefits. The president, who says he is still hostile to such cuts and that its long-term financial problems are easily fixed, adds ominously that "everything is on the table." That makes me nervous because Obama compromises too much with sworn enemies of Social Security, so perhaps he, as much as the rest of us, needs a primer on the crown jewel of the American moral imperative towards its older population. http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2010/07/reflections-on-social-security.html

Is Declining Faith in Social Security Due to the Recession or Peter Peterson?-CEPR. While the recession could explain the loss of confidence in Social Security, it is also possible that the huge public relations campaign by Peter Peterson and others has played a role. Peterson, a Wall Street investment banker, has pledged $1 billion to a foundation that has cutting Social Security and Medicare as its major goals. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/is-declining-faith-in-social-security-due-to-the-recession-or-peter-peterson?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beat_the_press+%28Beat+the+Press%29&utm_content=Twitter

Social Security age 'fix' may not live up to expectations-LOS ANGELES TIMES. Leaving aside that the urge to "fix" Social Security is based on a raft of misconceptions and deliberate misrepresentations about its fiscal health, the so-called reformers always specify that nothing they propose would affect those already retired or nearing retirement. Much of the rest of the population, they're aware, already has been trained by decades of anti-Social Security propaganda to doubt that the program will be around to serve their own retirements, so, again, who cares? But we should care. The major problem with raising the retirement age is that its beneficial effects are likely to be much smaller than its proponents expect. It might even have a negative effect. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20100720,0,901197.column

Netroots Nation: Strengthening Social Security-AFL-CIO BLOG. One attendee of the Netroots Nation panel provocatively titled "Obama's Social Security 'Death Panel'" later told me he had gone into the panel dubious that there is any real threat to Social Security. "But I left mad," he said, questioning how such an important part of America 's social fabric could be threatened. Yet as the panelists detailed, Social Security is most definitely under attack - and it's an attack that could fundamentally alter how we understand the program. http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/07/23/netroots-nation-strengthening-social-security-2/

Groups line up against fiscal commission-THE HILL. One member of that coalition, the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, has aired radio ads in Washington opposing entitlement changes such as increasing the retirement age and indexing benefits to income and inflation. The group released a poll last week showing that more than three-quarters of the country opposes cuts to entitlement benefits to pay for the deficit. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/110225-groups-on-the-left-and-right-line-up-against-fiscal-panel

Save the banks? Yes. Save your federal benefits? No-LOS ANGELES TIMES. The irony must have been lost on him. Neel Kashkari , the first head of the government's $700-billion financial-system bailout program (TARP), argues that Congress needs to bring the same urgency to cutting federal entitlement benefits that it did to bailing out banks -- because they're both "the right thing to do" for the national good. So, going deeper into debt (at least temporarily) to save the banks was in our national interest, he's saying. But now, Kashkari -- who was hired last year to direct a new-investments unit at bond fund giant Pimco in Newport Beach -- says that cutting entitlements to reduce the federal debt burden is the imperative. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/07/neel-kashkari-tarp-bank-bailout-entitlement-spending-cuts.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LaLand+%28L.A.+Land%29