bush to pay for SS and tax cuts by taxing blue states

[zimv20]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/27/nyregion/27taxes.html?oref=login)


Bush Plan Could Imperil Tax Write-Off for New York

As the Bush administration looks to revamp the tax code, New York officials say they are particularly worried about one idea being considered: eliminating the federal deduction for state and local taxes.

If the president pursues this plan, New York State would lose about $37 billion per year in federal tax deductions, more than almost any other state, according to Internal Revenue Service data. The change would affect about 3.2 million households in New York, three-quarters of which are middle- and low-income, tax records indicate.

"This change would be one of the worst things for New York to came out of Washington in a long time," said Senator Charles E. Schumer. "But if they take this route they can expect a serious fight."

With a 7.7 percent maximum state income tax rate, the second-highest in the country behind California's 9.3 percent, New York would be especially affected because its residents use those taxes to take large federal deductions. About 38 percent of households in New York file for some sort of federal deduction of state and local taxes.

New York City residents, who also pay city income taxes, would be especially hard hit as they could expect an 11 percent increase in the amount they pay the I.R.S., or an increase of about $3.4 billion, said Ronnie Lowenstein, director of the city's Independent Budget Office.

Beyond New York, eliminating the federal deduction for state and local taxes would also affect residents in New Jersey and Connecticut. Among the state and local taxes that could no longer be claimed as a deduction would be property taxes, which are particularly high in the New York City region.


Tax experts say that the reason for such a change would be to offset the cost of certain tax cuts that the White House hopes to make in areas like savings and investment.

Max B. Sawicky, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, said that eliminating state and local deductions would also enable the administration to adjust the alternative minimum tax, which was created in 1969 to ensure that the wealthy are not able to avoid paying income taxes by taking large deductions. Since this tax is not indexed for inflation, it has increasingly engulfed larger numbers of people. The administration wants to either eliminate or adjust the tax so that fewer people have to pay it each year, a change that could benefit New Yorkers, whose average incomes are much higher than in most other states.

there's your answer, IJ Reilly.

[blackfox]

BTW, Texas has no state income tax.

Also, the maximum state income tax in Oregon is 9.0%, which should put it above NY...

I don't think this will fly - for example, CO and AK also have high state income taxes(I believe) and they are GOP states...I don't think anyone will like this, either side of the partisan aisle, as States are strapped for cash as it is...

[stubeeef]

ahh the NYTIMES!

Well, blue states have been saying that everyone needs to pay more taxes! here is their opportunity to lead the way! :p

On the subj, my bro-n-law, a big kerry fan, was asking me questions about how to pay less taxes!!!! I howled!!!!!!!!
Answer #1, dont vote democrat. :p

[zimv20]

On the subj, my bro-n-law, a big kerry fan, was asking me questions about how to pay less taxes!!!! I howled!!!!!!!!
Answer #1, dont vote democrat. :p
such a tired generality. do you truly believe the bush administration is the shining beacon of fiscal responsibility? do you have any evidence that the overall tax burden for the middle class has decreased under the bush administration?

also, please point me to the nytimes liberal bias in the article. i'd like the exact line, please.

[stubeeef]

such a tired generality. do you truly believe the bush administration is the shining beacon of fiscal responsibility? do you have any evidence that the overall tax burden for the middle class has decreased under the bush administration?

also, please point me to the nytimes liberal bias in the article. i'd like the exact line, please.

No the W admin is not a bright shining beacon of fiscal responsibility, but I am tired of the so called balanced budget we were supposed to have too. those budgets were built on the lie of the 90s (enron worldcom and dotcom).
I am not aware of war time surpluses in the 20th century, and don't expect them in the 21st.

Liberal bias would be the alarmist title vs the buried quote.
Bush Plan Could Imperil Tax Write-Off for New York

You see there is no particular plan yet, so how could it imperil anyone?!

this is the buried quote which is also conveniently missing from your post as well...

Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said it was too early to discuss specific plans. "The president has yet to appoint the panel that will review the tax code and make recommendations on how it can be made simpler, fairer and more pro-growth," she said. "Until then, he will not rule any options in or out." The president will appoint the panel before the New Year, she added.

[IJ Reilly]

Sorry stu, this cat was out of the bag long before I read about in a NY Times article. The administration began running this idea up the flagpole a couple of weeks ago. Don't believe for a second that this isn't something they'd like to do in the name of "tax reform;" the only question is whether it's politically feasible. I'm going to take a WAG and say it isn't. They'd sooner be able to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction.

Incidentally, I wonder what the administration would call this "reform" -- surely not "tax relief."

[zimv20]

hey stu, here's some data on the kinds of things that are costing people more, even if they have seen nominal declines in federal tax rates. for good measure, i've thrown in some service cuts, too. this list is be no means exhaustive.

CS Monitor: Property taxes rising nationwide (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1203/p01s01-usec.html)

Madison, Wis., is an example of how some of these changes are affecting both the town and some of its residents. Assessments climbed 9 to 10 percent for several years in a row as housing prices have risen, reflecting the city's buoyant economy. This is happening once more, so even though the city is actually reducing the mill rate (the multiple of property value used to determine residential taxes) from 8 mills to 7.8, property taxes are going up 5.5 percent.

[...]

retirees estimate it takes them two full months of their fixed income to pay their property taxes.


CNN: College costs spike again (http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/18/pf/college/college_costs/)

The average tuition for undergrads attending four-year public universities jumped 10.5 percent this year. That helped to push the average price of attendance, including room, board and fees, up $824 to $11,354.

[...]

The tuition increase at public schools isn't as steep as it was last year – when average tuition rose a record 13 percent – but it is still high by historical standards.

[...]

funding for the federal Pell grants, a staple of aid for low-income students, rose 6 percent in 2003, but there also was an increase of 7 percent in the number of Pell recipients. As a result, the average grant fell 1 percent in constant dollars.

What's more, the purchasing power of the Pell grant has declined during the past 25 years. In 1980-81, a Pell grant covered 35 percent of the total annual cost of attending a public university. In 2003-04, it covered 23 percent.


Economic Policy Institute: Weak Recovery Claims New Victim: Workers' Wages (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib196)


Inflation-adjusted hourly wages fell for middle- and low-wage men and women, making 2003 the worst year for wage growth over the 1998-2003 period.

Despite the acceleration of gross domestic product (GDP) growth in late 2003, the wage growth of production, non-supervisory workers (over 80% of the workforce) actually slowed in this period.


[...]

Despite the fact that it is now over two years since the economy began growing after the downturn that lasted from March to November 2001, the U.S. economy has yet to achieve significant or sustained job creation. In fact, 33 months into this business cycle there are 1.8%, or 2.4 million, fewer jobs than when the recession began. This lack of job growth has been well documented, but its negative impact on the growth of wages has received little attention.


LA Times, on job training funds (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-riskshift10oct10,1,3174836.story)

Washington once sought to help people adjust to global competition, industrial restructuring and technological change by offering job training. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government spent $27.3 billion annually (in 2003 dollars) through the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, or CETA. Even if one doesn't count CETA's "public service" jobs, which were widely criticized as boondoggles, it was still spending $17.1 billion. By contrast, the government now spends about $4.4 billion on CETA's successor, the Workforce Investment Act. "It's largely a place holder," said Anthony P. Carnevale, an authority on education and training who was appointed to major commissions by presidents Reagan and Clinton. "It gives politicians something to point to but doesn't do much good."


Detroit News, on job training (http://www.detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0409/29/a01-286728.htm)

Federal job training budgets have dropped $597 million during the Bush administration, making it more difficult for those living in poverty to find work and get off government assistance. Job training programs, rooted in the war on poverty, are critical elements of welfare-to-work initiatives.

The funding cuts, which have affected the poor and the suddenly unemployed alike, happened even as the nation experienced one of the longest employment slumps on record.

The funding cuts were made as Congress and the administration pushed through more than $600 billion in tax cuts that went primarily to those making more than $288,800. The money cut from job training is less than 1 percent of the tax breaks received this year by those earning an average of more than $1 million, according to an analysis of the Bush tax cuts by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

[pseudobrit]

hey stu, here's some data on the kinds of things that are costing people more, even if they have seen nominal declines in federal tax rates. for good measure, i've thrown in some service cuts, too. this list is be no means exhaustive.
[chomp, chomp, chomp]

Yeah, but gas prices are down like 15 cents!

BTW, my out-of-pocket health insurance costs tripled this coming year while the benefits were slashed. Yay!

[Roger1]

ahh the NYTIMES!

Well, blue states have been saying that everyone needs to pay more taxes! here is their opportunity to lead the way! :p

On the subj, my bro-n-law, a big kerry fan, was asking me questions about how to pay less taxes!!!! I howled!!!!!!!!
Answer #1, dont vote democrat. :p

#2 put all your excessive spending on credit. Why increase income?? :rolleyes:

[Taft]

Liberal bias would be the alarmist title vs the buried quote.
...
You see there is no particular plan yet, so how could it imperil anyone?!


So I guess 'could' and 'will' now mean the same thing? :rolleyes:

The meaning of the title is very simple and in keeping with the content of the article: Bush's tax plan for his upcoming term COULD (as in: might, maybe, we'll see in the future) cause New York to pay more in taxes through losses in eligible write-offs. Did not the president say all options were on the table? Has his administration, as well as other Republicans, not indicated this is a possibility? Would that change not be bad for New York state?

Friggin' unbelievable. No excuse to label the Times as biased is too low for you, Stu.

Taft

[stubeeef]

So I guess 'could' and 'will' now mean the same thing? :rolleyes:

The meaning of the title is very simple and in keeping with the content of the article: Bush's tax plan for his upcoming term COULD (as in: might, maybe, we'll see in the future) cause New York to pay more in taxes through losses in eligible write-offs. Did not the president say all options were on the table? Has his administration, as well as other Republicans, not indicated this is a possibility? Would that change not be bad for New York state?

Friggin' unbelievable. No excuse to label the Times as biased is too low for you, Stu.

Taft

I guess I'm the lowest, but please tell me what plan that they are refering to! I'll be waiting, cause they don't have one yet!!!! So you read things differently, so what. But in your argument it COULD also mean they will pay less taxes, only the liberal bias would have W making hilliary's constituents panicing early.

Friggin Unbelievable! No excuse to defend the Times as not biases is too quick for you, taft.

[Taft]

I guess I'm the lowest, but please tell me what plan that they are refering to! I'll be waiting, cause they don't have one yet!!!! So you read things differently, so what. But in your argument it COULD also mean they will pay less taxes, only the liberal bias would have W making hilliary's constituents panicing early.

Friggin Unbelievable! No excuse to defend the Times as not biases is too quick for you, taft.

So when the Chicago Tribune reports on comments made by Governer Blagojevich indicating changes in State tax policy and how that might impact the Chicagoland area, that is conservative bias? Maybe, but don't you think it is something Americans want to know about? And when the Economist reports on likely effects of, say, privatized social security (something Bush has indicated support for, though he doesn't have a concrete "plan" for at this time), are they exposing their liberal bias? Maybe, but don't you think that Americans might want to see an analysis on the likely effect of that policy which is being considered for future implementation?

I understand that Bush doesn't have a "plan" yet, so long you define plan as a concrete set of steps or policies that have been layed out. But the fact remains that politicians routinely indicate support for or opposition to ideas and possible future policy changes, and those indications are routinely analyzed by the press. And when the policies being explored by politicians are going to have a large effect on a particular region, the press in that region--*shock* *gasp* *horror*--usually reports on those issues. I know it might seem crazy to you, but the Times might have concluded this policy being considered is newsworthy for New Yorkers. If I was a New Yorker, I'd want to hear about possible future policies which would impact me.

BTW, I REALLY enjoyed how you slipped a conspiratorial reference to the Clinton family into your post. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll find that the French, the UN, the ACLU and John Kerry were somhow involved in getting this article published as well.

Trust no-one! ... unless they are a conservative...

Taft

[mactastic]

Stu, how can you accuse democrats of wanting to raise taxes then? I haven't heard any specific plan yet, but that doesn't stop you from assuming that's what they're gonna do. Sure they've talked about repealing the Bush tax cuts, but where's the plan, man? Without a specific plan you cannot criticize them, right? Or are those rules suspended when a Democrat is in your sights?

[stubeeef]

First, prices have risen since the dawn of time and will continue to do so. College, property taxes etc...have risen under Dems and Repubs so spare me. Almost all tax relief since JFK ( who had it right ) has been under republican control ( congress or prez ).

If the press wants to report possible changes they shouldn't predict doom, or atleast state the other possible changes. But thats the press.
Zim, I am hopeful for service decreases/cuts, or at least the privatizing of them-government is awful at it. Taft, I refuse to address every article about every person you want to dredge up. NYTimes article has a liberal bias, period.
Mact, I have accused the dems based on historical precidence, not on any particular new quest.
My position on taxes has been stated adnausem.
The article is biased.
Good day.

[zimv20]

First, prices have risen since the dawn of time and will continue to do so. College, property taxes etc...have risen under Dems and Repubs so spare me.
you exhibit a serious flaw of reasoning which ignores degree and specificity. yes, prices go up, but it's folly to dismiss all mention of price increases as partisan because of that while ignoring what is increasing in price and by how much.


NYTimes article has a liberal bias, period.

because they speculate on a possible outcome? is imagination itself liberal? is concern for future situation liberal? you'll have to do better than that. way better.

[blackfox]

Stu, what is your opinion of Medicare and/or the reforms passed during Bush's first term?

[IJ Reilly]

I'm a little confused by stu's opinions on this topic. I can't determine if he is for or against this possible change in federal income tax law, or if he just doesn't want to believe that the Bush administration or Republicans in Congress would consider making it. The only thing that seems apparent is that he'd rather we don't know or talk about it (which perhaps answers my other questions).

[zimv20]

I'm a little confused by stu's opinions on this topic.
it's that the new york times has a liberal bias. therefore, democrats like to raise taxes.

[IJ Reilly]

it's that the new york times has a liberal bias. therefore, democrats like to raise taxes.

Ah, I see. Thank you. :cool:

[stubeeef]

it's that the new york times has a liberal bias. therefore, democrats like to raise taxes.

zim, darn close but actually

it's that the new york times has a liberal bias, AND democrats like to raise taxes. :cool:

[Taft]

Taft, I refuse to address every article about every person you want to dredge up. NYTimes article has a liberal bias, period.


I didn't dredge up any articles. I just gave some similar situations which occur in conservative leaning publications as an illustration of my point: the press analyzes hints left by politicans and the possible impacts of those hints on the populace. Everybody does it, but when its the Times, their bias is showing.

Whatever. Your mode of argument is frustrating beyond belief.

The earth is flat. Period.
Liberals hate America. Period.
I am the Lord almighty. Period.

Amazing! I've just proved three highly dubious statements in only three lines!

Ahhh, the power of "Period"...

Taft

[stubeeef]

I didn't dredge up any articles. I just gave some similar situations which occur in conservative leaning publications as an illustration of my point: the press analyzes hints left by politicans and the possible impacts of those hints on the populace. Everybody does it, but when its the Times, their bias is showing.

Whatever. Your mode of argument is frustrating beyond belief.

The earth is flat. Period.
Liberals hate America. Period.
I am the Lord almighty. Period.

Amazing! I've just proved three highly dubious statements in only three lines!

Ahhh, the power of "Period"...

Taft

Your argument that the world is flat will not float, but believe what you choose.
I don't think liberals hate america, but I believe you are allowed your opinion.
I am positive that you are not the Lord Almighty! but that may reveal part of the problem here.

Because this liberal bias theme seems strange to some, it has been discussed to death in the rest of the world. An example

Results 1 - 10 of about 650,000 for new york times liberal bias. (0.30 seconds)*

[blackfox]

Stu, you ignoring my question?

Regardless, here is a link for you to read:
http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm
(everyone else feel free to look also)

I found it interesting...

[zimv20]

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

wow, that's quite a page.

[Thanatoast]

stubeef,

How would you have titled or reworked this article in order remove its liberal bias? As far as I can see, boiled down it said "Bush considers plan that could raise taxes in NY". How is that biased? Would you prefer "Bush bravely leads nation in raising freedom-revenues to destroy evil-doers"? :confused:

[mactastic]

You gotta do better than that Stu...

Here's proof the Times has a conservative bias:

Results 1 - 10 of about 701,000 for new york times conservative bias. (0.29 seconds)

Plus I say it's conservative. Period.

[pseudobrit]

You gotta do better than that Stu...

Here's proof the Times has a conservative bias:



Plus I say it's conservative. Period.

I'm sold. What was the topic of this debate again? (distract! distract!)

[stubeeef]

stubeef,

How would you have titled or reworked this article in order remove its liberal bias? As far as I can see, boiled down it said "Bush considers plan that could raise taxes in NY". How is that biased? Would you prefer "Bush bravely leads nation in raising freedom-revenues to destroy evil-doers"? :confused:

"Considers" would pretty much do it, at least it would sound unbiased and not yet a plan. But the nytimes is a biased paper, so is dan rather and cbs, and many other outlets. Fox is biased too! At least I will admit it, but many here can't admit that the nytimes and cbs are.

Standby blackfox, btw I have been posting between nieghbor visits, so don't feel slighted!

[stubeeef]

You gotta do better than that Stu...

Here's proof the Times has a conservative bias:



Plus I say it's conservative. Period.

And depending on how liberal you are, you may feel that way.

[zimv20]

"Considers" would pretty much do it, at least it would sound unbiased and not yet a plan.
well, check out the headline and first paragraph, then. i really don't understand what your objection is, should you choose to be open-minded about it all:

Bush Plan Could Imperil Tax Write-Off for New York

As the Bush administration looks to revamp the tax code, New York officials say they are particularly worried about one idea being considered: eliminating the federal deduction for state and local taxes.

If the president pursues this plan,

i threw in the first clause of the second 'graph. it all seems pretty clear to me that nothing's written in stone here. liberal journalism, my ass.

[mactastic]

Please Stu, the point is that using google results as 'proof' isn't acceptable. And there are degrees of bias as well. The Worker's World newsletter is very biased. The NYTimes is slightly biased. Huge difference.

[zimv20]

there are degrees of bias as well.
as i indicated in an earlier post today, stu seems immune from degrees. biased = biased.

[mactastic]

as i indicated in an earlier post today, stu seems immune from degrees. biased = biased.

Life is so much simpler when things only come in black and white.

[stubeeef]

well, check out the headline and first paragraph, then. i really don't understand what your objection is, should you choose to be open-minded about it all:

i threw in the first clause of the second 'graph. it all seems pretty clear to me that nothing's written in stone here. liberal journalism, my ass.

You said a bad word.

The title is BUSH PLAN, now get off your A** and show me the plan. You cant cause there isn't one!!! It is just more liberal hyperbole, now wipe zim.

Kerry plan could cause world collapse. Democratic Plan would eliminate all human life on earth. Liberal Plan calls for total destruction of everything everywhere all the time!

It doesn't matter that there really isn't a plan though, but it will play well to it's constituents won't it.

[blackfox]

"Considers" would pretty much do it, at least it would sound unbiased and not yet a plan. But the nytimes is a biased paper, so is dan rather and cbs, and many other outlets. Fox is biased too! At least I will admit it, but many here can't admit that the nytimes and cbs are.

Standby blackfox, btw I have been posting between nieghbor visits, so don't feel slighted!
Stu, it is best not to make comparisons between different kinds of Media (ie print, TV, radio).

The charge of bias against the NYT (or any other paper) is usually derived from their Editorial pages. Otherwise, other than choosing which stories to cover, the regular articles are written to journalistic standards.

If you want to call the NYT biased because it employs Krugman and Dowd, that is an unfortunate simplification.

We have gone over the bias issue ad nauseum, so I won't continue. Still, I have to wonder what was so wrong with the article. It states what could happen under a set of circumstances, and it is relevant info to the State of NY.

Thanks for the acknowledgement, I am atwitter with anticipation.

[stubeeef]

Please Stu, the point is that using google results as 'proof' isn't acceptable. And there are degrees of bias as well. The Worker's World newsletter is very biased. The NYTimes is slightly biased. Huge difference.


I got it mact, not that dim. but you seem to have not gotten my point that these things are somewhat relative, dosed with sarcasm.

[mactastic]

I got it mact, not that dim. but you seem to have not gotten my point that these things are somewhat relative, dosed with sarcasm.


What things? Media bias?

[stubeeef]

Stu, it is best not to make comparisons between different kinds of Media (ie print, TV, radio).


I see no problem with it. If you do, ok, but media is media, print, voice, tv.

There is no difference as to wether I hear Rather on cbs radio or tv. Of limbaugh on radio or tv, or read his books.

[stubeeef]

What things? Media bias?

Judging bias.

[mactastic]

OK, POTENTIAL Bush Plan Could Imperil Tax Write-Off for New York. Better? Can you discuss the merits of a POSSIBLE plan now?

[zimv20]

what's the point? if he's not ignoring when others are pointing out the fallacies of his arguments, he's busy telling us what he'd asserted earlier was just a joke after all.

[stubeeef]

what's the point? if he's not ignoring when others are pointing out the fallacies of his arguments, he's busy telling us what he'd asserted earlier was just a joke after all.

:confused:
A bit much of the eggnog zim?

[stubeeef]

[IJ Reilly]

Hmm. I guess this means this thread is now officially about nothing.

[stubeeef]

Hmm. I guess this means this thread is now officially about nothing.

Now that is a great idea!
Actually, I mis hit some buttons, and don't want to rebuild the post. But you have a much better ideal for this thread.

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe you'd better hold the complement. I thought it started out to be about something. It was only dragged kicking and screaming into irrelevance.

[Xtremehkr]

CNN is liberal what?

Which major news outlet isn't owned by a corporation?

I love my NPR. And the BBC, can't for get Aunty Beeb.

[Taft]

Maybe you'd better hold the complement. I thought it started out to be about something. It was only dragged kicking and screaming into irrelevance.

Isn't it just amazing, though. All it takes is one very poorly supported allegation of bias and the whole thread goes to crap.

Liberals take notice: Stu has given you an important lesson in framing the debate. I for one, will take his lead and will begin destroying any threads I don't like by making baseless claims of bias and various other character attacks instead of commenting on the actual content of the thread.

However, just making the claim would be insufficient. No, I also have to ignore all evidence against my claims and then make authoritative claims on disputed facts.

Taft

[blackfox]

To get back on track, as to the potential of this coming to pass, I would say not very likely. A similar provision by Reagan in his '86 tax bill was withdrawn because of lack of support. I expect the same.

I do wonder about the AMT and how that will play into things, something not present in '86.

[IJ Reilly]

This editorial fits better here than anywhere else at the moment I suppose. Unfortunately, the online version does not include the rather stunning bar chart that was printed in the paper edition which vividly illustrates the steady creep of projected insolvency dates for the trust fund. (If anyone is interested I can scan it.)

Stop Sweating Social Security -- the End Is Not Near

By Kevin Drum
Kevin Drum is a writer for the Washington Monthly.

December 29, 2004

I used to be a Social Security doom-monger. Like everyone else my age, I knew the familiar drill: Social Security is a demographic time bomb. Life expectancies are increasing. The baby boom generation is getting ready to retire. Every year we have a smaller number of workers supporting a larger number of retirees.

Politicians were eager to feed my fears. Bill Clinton urged us to "take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system." Al Gore made the Social Security "lockbox" a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. And George W. Bush insisted earlier this month that Social Security was "headed toward bankruptcy down the road." As a result, most young people today are convinced that Social Security will be gone by the time they retire.

But what if something that "everybody knows" turns out to be a political myth? What if Social Security isn't in trouble at all?

Ten years ago Social Security trustees predicted that the system would become insolvent in 35 years, meaning 2029. Five years later they were still predicting that insolvency was 35 years away — doomsday had been postponed to 2034. Today, they're predicting that insolvency is 38 years away, in 2042.

What happened? Why does the insolvency date keep getting further away? How could the trustees have been so continually wrong?

The answer is all in the numbers. For instance, the future of Social Security is highly sensitive to predictions of economic growth, and the trustees assume a very conservative growth rate of 1.8% per year. That compares with expected growth of 3.9% this year, a fairly average year for the U.S. economy.

Another example: Because young people are the ones who support the system, Social Security projections are also sensitive to immigration rates. Immigrants tend to be young, so the more immigrants, the stronger the system. But despite the fact that immigration to the U.S. has been steadily increasing for more than half a century, the trustees assume not just that it will stop growing — itself a conservative estimate — but that it will actually decline.

What this means is that every few years, as reality outpaces the previous year's predictions, the trustees move the insolvency date forward. What's more, there's every reason to think they're still making the same mistake.

Robert Gordon, a respected economist at Northwestern University, recently took a fresh look at long-term economic trends. His conclusion? The trustees are continuing to be far more pessimistic than the evidence warrants. His projections, based on recent increases in national productivity as well as more reasonable estimates of immigration, show an economic growth rate for the next two decades that's nearly a percentage point per year higher than the trustees' projections.

If you plug Gordon's more realistic numbers into the model that the trustees use to project the health of Social Security, it turns out that the program is solvent for the rest of the century. In other words, Social Security needs no changes at all. Everyone alive today, young and old, will be covered in full when they retire. Surprised?

But if that's the case, what accounts for the persistent and widespread Social Security doom-mongering? In the case of the Social Security trustees, the answer is easy: Their projections are made by professional actuaries, and actuaries are conservative by nature.

And politicians? Each has his or her reason. Clinton, for instance, recommended using budget surpluses to "save" Social Security because he wanted to fend off Republican attempts to eliminate the surplus by cutting taxes. President Bush, for his part, has long been a fan of private accounts as a replacement for government guarantees of retirement income — but the only way to convince the public that it's worth risking their retirement income on the stock market is to claim that Social Security is in crisis and requires radical changes.

It's true that Social Security is going to cost more in the future than it does today. We are living longer and there are more retirees than in the past. But reforms crafted by Alan Greenspan and signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1983 included a phased series of modest Social Security benefit cuts and modest tax hikes to take care of that. So far, their plan is working flawlessly.

Still, you might be wondering what happens if the gloomy predictions of the Social Security trustees turn out to be right. Here's another thing you probably don't know. Even in the worst case, even if we do absolutely nothing for the next 38 years, Social Security won't go bankrupt.

On the contrary, benefits will continue to be paid forever. They won't be as generous as we'd like, but they'll still be higher than they are today.

For now then, making drastic and risky changes to Social Security is like performing major surgery before you even know the results of a biopsy. A more prudent course is to wait and see — act only if problems really develop down the road.

In the meantime, I've stopped being a Social Security doom-monger. On the list of things to worry about, it shouldn't even be in the top 10.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-drum29dec29,1,1637594.story

[Xtremehkr]

Isn't it just amazing, though. All it takes is one very poorly supported allegation of bias and the whole thread goes to crap.

Liberals take notice: Stu has given you an important lesson in framing the debate. I for one, will take his lead and will begin destroying any threads I don't like by making baseless claims of bias and various other character attacks instead of commenting on the actual content of the thread.

However, just making the claim would be insufficient. No, I also have to ignore all evidence against my claims and then make authoritative claims on disputed facts.

Taft

Stu's diposition has been anything but merry lately. Come on Stu, it's the holiday season

[stubeeef]

Sorry everyone is upset with me, but that is the way it goes.

Here is a wonderful example of NY times story line vs reality.

**** Thursday's story from Albert Salvato has a mild grabber of a headline: "Ohio Recount Gives a Smaller Margin to Bush." Just how far did Bush's margin of victory fall?


**** Not far at all, actually, despite the provocative headline. As the first line of the story notes, "A recount of the presidential election in Ohio that was finished on Tuesday showed that President Bush won the election here by about 300 fewer votes than initially recorded."


**** That adds up to very nearly nil, as blogger*Tigerhawk points out: "The 318 vote reduction in Bush's margin amounts to 0.0058% of the total vote cast in Ohio, and 0.27% in the size of the margin of Bush's victory. Both of these percentages are so miniscule that they are far within the margin of error of the recount. So while it is literally true that the recount gave 'a smaller margin' to Bush, the change was so slight and so meaningless statistically that it is ridiculous for the Times to have framed the story this way."

[blackfox]

Stu, I have been patiently waiting for you to respond to my posts, as you said you would. I doubt you are still shuttling between the neighbor's.

I hesistate to put you on ignore, as I have enjoyed some of your posts in the past. Besides, I have yet to put anyone on ignore.

Please don't disappoint me on either count.

BTW, you could use some punctuation in your signature, the nature of which I choose not to comment on.

I am not the grinch.

-Blackfox

[Taft]

Sorry everyone is upset with me, but that is the way it goes.

Here is a wonderful example of NY times story line vs reality.

Bastards!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ohio-vote,1,7865829.story?coll=chi-news-hed

And look! The Chicago Tribune ran the same story with the headline "Ohio Recount Ends, Shows Vote Closer". Left wing rag! How dare they imply that the vote was close when Kerry gained only 300 votes! I'm writing a letter to the editor.

But wait just a goddarn sec. Isn't the Trib a right wing paper? Didn't they endorse Bush in the last two elections? Aren't they constantly bickering with the Democratic political machine in Chicago?

Could it be that single articles like these aren't necessarily reflections of coverage as a whole? Does one "attention grabber" of a headline define the bias of an entire press organization? Could it be that, along with the articles biased to the left, there are plenty of articles which are biased to the right?

Naw! Who am I kidding? The press is biased. That's what everyone is telling me, so it must be true. Why dig any deeper or keep an objective mind? It is so much easier to accept these things on blind faith.

Taft

[pseudobrit]

It is so much easier to accept these things on blind faith.

And prove them with Google search result figures.

Results 1 - 30 of about 27,500 for mary poppins the baby eater. (0.27 seconds)

****, everyone's talking about it, it must be true!

[Taft]

And prove them with Google search result figures.

Mary Poppins?!? A baby eater?!?! My whole world is crumbling around me! :( :(

Taft

[pseudobrit]

Mary Poppins?!? A baby eater?!?! My whole world is crumbling around me! :( :(

Taft

Results 1 - 30 of about 2,640 for george bush is a puppy crusher. (0.37 seconds)*

Results 1 - 30 of about 854 for george bush crushes puppies for fun. (0.34 seconds)

Pure evil.