David Brooks, hack .:. grubbykid.com

David Brooks, hack

I was going to write a long article about David Brooks long decent into hackery, but it just seems too much. His article, Calling Democrats' Bluff, is chalk full of blatant distortions of the truth, it is amazing that the New York Times has the gall to chastize bloggers for inaccuracies on the previous page. I can respect a writer who actually uses facts to support a conservative view - George Will often fits into this category. But Brooks' neoconservative hackery is just too much.

Take this gem:

Over the past few weeks, the president has called their bluff. By embracing the progressive indexing of Social Security benefits, the president has asked us to make a shared sacrifice for the common good. He's asking middle- and upper-class folks to accept benefit cuts so there will be money for the people who are really facing poverty.

Wrong. This so-called "progressive indexing" instead of indexing benefits to inflation (so that you can afford milk when it will eventually cost $10), the Bush "plan" would index benefits to some sort of arbitrary price index. The long and short of this, is that your money (which is yours) is slowly eroded by inflation. It's like your Grandma giving you 10 cents in order to buy candy - you can't buy good candy today for 10 cents because of inflation. Well, you won't be able to live under the Bush plan because of inflation, too. But Brooks crouches this indexing as socking it to the rich to help the poor. Sadly, no! The poor's benefits will also be indexed but not cut like everyone else's, so that inflation will cut into their benefits, too.

But the most egregious lie comes in the very next paragraph:

He has asked us to redistribute money down the income scale. Why should programs for children and families be strangled so Donald Trump can get bigger benefit checks?

Wrong. Under the Bush plan, benefit cuts would begin for anyone making over $20,001 a year - hardly Trump material. Don't believe me? Here's someone who, unlike David Brooks, actually knows economics: economist Paul Krugman,

The average worker - average pay now is $37,000 - retiring in 2075 would face a cut equal to 10 percent of pre-retirement income. Workers earning 60 percent more than average, the equivalent of $58,000 today, would see benefit cuts equal to almost 13 percent of their income before retirement.But above that level, the cuts would become less and less significant. Workers earning three times the average wage would face cuts equal to only 9 percent of their income before retirement. Someone earning the equivalent of $1 million today would see benefit cuts equal to only 1 percent of pre-retirement income.In short, this would be a gut punch to the middle class, but a fleabite for the truly wealthy...

So there you go: I would instantly get at least 10% of my benefits cut.

Furthermore, this whole talk about Trump and rich people is a distortion and besides the point. There is a salary-cap on your yearly income at $90,000 which Social Security does not tax. So Donald Trump doesn't have any of his yearly income above $90,001 taxed - and we can all agree that he makes much more than that. In fact, the bulk of his wealth is in investments and already acquired wealth - not income. Things like the Estate Tax are designed to tax the rich who cash in their already accumulated wealth.

The best part about this "plan" is that it doesn't do what the President says it will do. The plan to cut benefits doesn't bring the Social Security system any closer to long-term balance:

Another irony: The plan to cut benefits doesn't bring the Social Security system any closer to long-term balance, which was Bush's prime rationale. Since the money saved by the benefit cuts would go to underwrite the gap caused by the proposed private accounts, the traditional part of the system would actually be further from long-term solvency than under present law. Greg Anrig of the Century Foundation calculates that Bush's private accounts, even with the benefit cuts, would still require additional borrowing of $4.9 trillion during the first 20 years.

Back to Brooks, he ends his article basically calling Democrats names - it is as if there were two articles smashed together: one pulled from his archive of school-yard taunts and the other from RNC talking points.

I can't continue - his hackery really is too much. A better critique is by Publius - The Intellectual Decline of David Brooks, here's an analysis of the plan (by a real economist), here's a roundup of the coverage.

Check out Paul Krugman's takedown:

Hell hath no fury like a scammer foiled. The card shark caught marking the deck, the auto dealer caught resetting a used car's odometer, is rarely contrite. On the contrary, they're usually angry, and they lash out at their intended marks, crying hypocrisy.

And so it is with those who would privatize Social Security. They didn't get away with scare tactics, or claims to offer something for nothing. Now they're accusing their opponents of coddling the rich and not caring about the poor.
...
But defenders of Mr. Bush's Social Security plan now portray benefit cuts for anyone making more than $20,000 a year, cuts that will have their biggest percentage impact on the retirement income of people making about $60,000 a year, as cuts for the wealthy.

David Brooks, hack

Comments

Post a comment