Payolagate and Social Security

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D, NY-28, wants to know more (emphasis mine):
We recognize that a comprehensive survey of federal departments and agencies may be a large undertaking. We ask that you focus your initial attention on covert propaganda related to the following seven topics:

The No Child Left Behind Act and its implementation;
The Medicare Modernization Act and its implementation;
Tax legislation signed or proposed by President Bush;
Social Security reform;
The war in Iraq;

Homeland security;
Energy and the environment,

We are available to work with you to refine this request as you proceed with the investigative work.

About half of my immediate and extended family lives in Slaughter's district, and I myself was born there, so this makes me proud. She asks a question that is so obvious and so important that I'm a little jealous I did not think of it first: what "opinion leaders" are the Bush administration paying to promote the destruction of Social Security? What "opinion leaders" did the administration pay to promote the invasion of Iraq? As much as the Medicare and education legislation formed centerpieces of Bush's agenda to date, Iraq and Social Security destruction remain his most ambitious targets. Surely, if the administration was willing to engage in covert propaganda to promote the first two, (as well as their drug policy), they are also were willing to engage in covert propaganda in order to achieve the second two. We need to expose Iraq payola in order to expose the truth about the run-up to war. We need to expose Social Security payola before the program is destroyed.



Display:


slaughter (none / 0)

i am quickly taking a liking to louise.  why in the world haven't we heard of her before now?
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST

I can hear (none / 0)

the shredding machines already but hold out hope that the GAO can find a few rocks with a nugget underneath that connects this crap to a least one big right wing media type in radio or television that will catalyze public demand for serious reform of publically licensed radio and television media.
by dicta on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:24:23 PM EST

David Brock hinted at this in "RNM" (none / 0)

He said that many of the "pundits" were paid by institutions such as the Heritage Foundation and its ilk. He named some names, too; I'd offer somne if I hadn't had to return the book to the library.

I'm pretty sure he named Coulter and Ingram as a couple.

It isn't much of a stretch to think that it could go deeper.

BTW, this is my first post here, though I've lurked for some time now.

by blondeburro on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:10:28 PM EST

welcome! (none / 0)

good to have you here.
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Republican Word Frames (none / 0)

Slaughter is emphasizing the important issues, and hooray!   BUT...she ,along with the rest of us ,does NOT CHALLENGE the use of 'Medicare [Modernization]'.  This really means we accept the concept of revamping Medicare to make it modern?  And,, how about the use of 'Social Security [Reform]'...does this mean Social Security is flawed and therefore needs reforming? It seems we just don't challenge the very language (which embeds a code of propoganda), and expose this along with the position itself.  Every time we use these terms unchallenged, we lose ground, as the GOP message itself is emphasized and replicated. Re-framing these issues is important, and we should all read Lakoff on this! Framers....start your engines!!
by morris1030 on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 06:15:20 PM EST

Payola would explain a lot (none / 0)

The numbers are out there in plain sight. They are ridiculous. No one would believe them in any other context. My longstanding belief was that this clinging to the 2018 and 2042 dates was just fundamental laziness on the part of the media and that all we needed to do was link them to real numbers: "Hey look over here! The economy didn't grow 2.7% in 2004, it grew 4.0%! That moves the numbers!"

I still think most of it is laziness, certainly there is still much unawareness on our side. But think of them what you will people like Safire, Will, Krauthammer and Armstrong are not stupid. They have to know the score. Are they being willfully ignorant ("don't look there") or paid off?

And for those still skeptical about Social Security take a look at a chart that shows that a "crisis" that was left unaddressed and assumes very pessimistic growth numbers still requires an ever shrinking fix going forward and has a date that keeps getting pushed out besides:
EPI: Changes in Trustees Projections
Then look at this figure and realize that economic growth above 2.1% on average makes result ( I ) a floor and not a ceiling. Trust Fund Ratios. And then check out the numbers for yourselves. Economic Projections

I think we have discovered a strong weapon here. Because the question for privatizers moves to "Are you honestly ignorant of these numbers or just paid to ignore them" and we win either way.

Because they don't have honest numbers.

by Bruce Webb on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:51:42 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.