Disregard the sideshow controversy over whether or not Matt Bai in the New York Times misrepresented Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer as describing Social Security as "existing on make-believe money." Blumenauer now says that he was misrepresented (Bai did not place this phrase in quotes so I can't exactly say 'misquoted').
Regardless of what Blumenauer said or meant, let's focus on the deeply repellent Mr. Bai, conventional wisdom's most faithful weathervane. Even if Blumenauer uttered the repugnant stuff that Bai says he said, let's talk instead of Bai's rush to embrace that toxic sludge. If Bai also committed the further sin of lying about Blumenauer, well, so much the worse for him, but even without it, Bai's article was bad enough.
The liberal groups that are already speaking out against the debt panel's unfinished work have chosen to start with Social Security because it is likely to be at the center of any budget compromise. "If there's a place where it looks like Republicans and Democrats can reach agreement, we're afraid it's Social Security," says Frank Clemente, the director of Strengthen Social Security. (In other words, the two parties might actually work together on something. They must be stopped!)
Classic Versailles, unadulterated. Bipartisanship regardless of content, is always a good thing. But never ask it of Republicans. It's always a matter of Democrats giving up their "unrealistic dreams" like Social Security in spite of its seventy-five year history of success.
Let's also note the projection by which liberal Democrats can be accused of blowing up bipartisanship - when it's as obvious as the nose at the end of Bai's face that it's Republicans who have been gleefully about the business ever since Obama was elected of spurning all of the President's increasingly pathetic efforts to secure "bipartisanship". It never occurs to the Bais of the world that seeking agreement with an adversary who "negotiates" by moving further and further away from your position is basically negotiating with yourself.
However, it's not quite unadulterated Versailles. In its pure form of course, Versailles logic simply accepts Republican talking points as undebatable, thereby protecting itself from inconvenient facts.
But this is the New York Times, America's liberal paper of record. So the devil must appear to have been given his due. Thus, Bai actually deigns to make an "argument" about the facts of the matter.
The coalition bases its case on the idea that Social Security is actually in fine fiscal shape, since it has amassed a pile of Treasury Bills - often referred to as i.o.u.'s
often referred to as i.o.u.'s by Republicans and Wall Streeters, that is - who in their own businesses and investment schemes are more than happy to leverage all kinds of debt to the hilt
- in a dedicated trust fund. This is true enough, except that the only way for the government to actually make good on these i.o.u.'s is to issue mountains of new debt or to take the money from elsewhere in the federal budget, or perhaps impose significant tax increases - none of which seem like especially practical options for the long term. So this is sort of like saying that you're rich because your friend has promised to give you 10 million bucks just as soon as he wins the lottery.
Sigh. As Paul Krugman repeatedly notes on the pages of the same newspaper, Wall Street money owned by the deficit hawks is currently flowing massively into these same T-Bills, these supposedly worthless Ponzi Scheme papers. Lottery tickets indeed.
Ah, the "Liberal Media".
Can you do as well or better this week? Only if you try!
(A) We're looking for inane blather that is blissfully indifferent to the actual facts of the matter being commented on. These are the "Chatty Cathy" Awards, not the "Archie Bunkers." Of course, this doesn't exclude wingnut punditry, it's just that cluelessness is what we're looking for, more than hatefulness. If you can find examples that combine both, though... I think you've got a real winner.
(B) You may nominate any pundit from the M$M-print, broadcast tv/radio or cable-or from any online extension or associated outfit. (If this really catches on for some reason, I may decided to break the awards into separate categories at some point.) Nominations should include the name of the person nominated (preferably in the subject line), the outlet and date, an exact quote of what they said or wrote, and a link to where it can be found-original, transcript, or first-hand report (such as Media Matters).
(C) You may submit as many nominations as you want, but each must be in a separate comment.
(D) People vote for each nomination by giving recommendations. There is no limit on how many recommendations you can give.
STATE BLOGS
