Let me first condemn them for their biased coverage, their blaming of the Tea-party, Sarah Palin and all things “right-wing”.    Even if the truth had been that the killer was a right-wing fanatic, there is no one [...]]]> The horrible tragedy in Arizona has once again proven to me that the traditional media is lost.

Let me first condemn them for their biased coverage, their blaming of the Tea-party, Sarah Palin and all things “right-wing”.    Even if the truth had been that the killer was a right-wing fanatic, there is no one to blame but the fanatic looking for a reason to strike.   In this case, the evidence was easy to find.  His own postings or his list of favorite books. A little more digging would have found his suspension from Pima Community College,  his classmates or his failed military application [go ahead and follow-up but let me finish].   I do not believe this information was ignored, I believe it was not sought.   And this is the main point.

The media today, awash in the Internet and unsure of their standing, has lost control.    Seeing their traditional model destroyed by free content, blogging and ever-present public postings, they have jumped in full boar.     This is not the answer.   You cannot cover sensationalized and outright biased reporting by simply qualifying it with, “We have no proof” or “the story is still developing but…”   You also cannot run a for profit business, employ professional journalists and compete on equal footing with free content.   But they continue to try and do so and to try and beat the public to the stories.    Like many failed businesses (especially of late) they try to compete and fail and then push for regulation of the alternative to regain their position (Atlas Shrugged anyone).  This is the conflict in media today.  The path they have chosen has to stop.

The media, a once respected group of high-profile professional journalists, are now over-paid bloggers in a New York office.   What is required, and what should be learned from this tragedy, is not that 24-7 media is bad or evil, it just IS.   It is the users that make it what it has become and the users that will make it what it will be.    You cannot compete with sensationalism by trying to be more sensational and maintain any part of objectivity.   There is a gaping hole in this country for well thought out, well researched and, yes, well debated content.   The goal is not to compete on their terms (free and sensational) but to create a competitive and superior model to the one that exists today.

It would be self-serving to say that this is the model that I plan to create.    But it is my blog.  This is the reason I started blogging and why I don’t like the model to which I subscribe.  I am working on a new model.   One that I believe serves the needs of professional journalists and can compete head-to-head with the free content Internet that is here to stay.   I look forward to the day when I can sunset this blog for the new and improved medium that will supplant this domain.

If you can get through this whole article [Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year] without swearing, [...]]]> This is the kind of article this site was built to find (and eventually expose).   A stunning misrepresentation of facts around social security insolvency and lack of intent to give a balanced view of the issue.

If you can get through this whole article [Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year] without swearing, yelling or shaking your head, you need to read related articles and begin thinking for yourself.   Even if you are shocked by the article, I would appreciate you reading ahead and seeing what we saw and adding in more that we may have missed.

Here is a bit of truth from the CBO.

Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, said “that payments have risen more than expected during the downturn, because jobs disappeared and people applied for benefits sooner than they had planned. At the same time, the program’s revenue has fallen sharply, because there are fewer paychecks to tax.”

The times follows this with a general review of how the CBO and Social Security got this wrong.  “Officials foresaw an average unemployment rate of 8.2 percent in 2009 and 8.8 percent this year, though unemployment is hovering at nearly 10 percent.”   Buehler?…anyone?… This projection was before the stimulus bill was passed which was a massive expenditure so that unemployment would  “reach a peak of 7.8%”.   Did they forget that; or would that fact make the “experts” missed estimate even larger and possibly make one think that increased spending and debt may not have been the best solution for job creation?

In this and the following paragraph they bring out two more facts.   That Social Security “last year projected revenue would more than cover payouts until at least 2016.”  And that is because of this data “they moved the year of reckoning forward, to 2037 from 2041.”  The year of reckoning being the point where Social Security is completely bankrupt.    I find it a bit hard to believe that being wrong by 6 years on the short term estimate would give you confidence in a smaller four year move on the long term.  Basic math would say that less short term revenue would mean less interest and a faster decline in long term value.   But this is an opinion which I can excuse…until “Goss said that large cushion could start to grow again if the economy recovers briskly.  Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office’s projection shows the ravages of the recession easing in the next few years, with small surpluses reappearing briefly in 2014 and 2015.”    And if it does not we end it all when?

In an unrelated thought, The CBOs estimates of the intakes and outlays of Social Security are still wrong after over 50 years of practice.   Yet we think they are accurate on the 10 and 20 years projections of a brand new health care system.   Another unrelated, unrelated thought from design:  You can not predict changes in behavior.

Moving on, The NY times states, “politicians, who are already struggling over how to reduce the nation’s debt.”   Maybe their definition of  “struggling over” is a bit different than mine.  Or did they choose this over “unable” or “unwilling” purposefully?

Then it gets fun.  “The United States’ soaring debt — propelled by tax cuts, wars and large expenditures to help banks and the housing market — has become a hot issue as Democrats gauge their vulnerability in the coming elections.”  and…and… No that was it.   No mention of stimulus [does this explain why it was ignored above as well?].  No mention of a billion dollar health care bill.  Even if you think it will curb health care costs, you think it would be mentioned as a potential risk.

But that is not the worst of it, the fact is that the tax cuts increased jobs and amounted to over 1.5 Trillion more dollars of tax revenue to the federal government over the years from 2004-2007.   But even that is really not connected because tax cuts have nothing to do with gross income which is the basis for FICA and Social Security.   Having a job is the basis for Social Security income and that is the problem.

They end with this, ““Even if the trust fund level goes down, there’s no action required, until the level of the trust fund gets to zero,” he said. “At that point, you have to cut benefits, because benefits have to equal receipts.”   Fact, truth and a PONZI scheme [definition: "pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."]    The fact is your money, as paid in, is gone.  It was given to current recipients with the knowledge that we will go bankrupt in less than 30 years,  yet ” there’s no action required.”  And this has no impact on the NY Times.   The fact is,  Bernie Madoff is in jail for 150 years for this same thing.  In pronouncing the sentence, Judge Denny Chin called the crimes “extraordinarily evil.”  I agree.

There are a few more things missing that I believe should have been mentioned.  For example, George Bush tried to reform Social Security in 2004 and was saying, “allow younger workers at their choice to invest some of their own money in the private markets to get a better rate of return so that the Social Security promise will be kept.”    The argument against it was that he was fear mongering and it required significant cuts in retirement benefits and heavy borrowing during the transition to the private system.

MSNBC covered it back then subtitled “How credible are President Bush’s dire predictions?”, “By exaggerating the severity of Social Security’s problems, Bush risks alienating even many of those who might be inclined to support [his plans]“. ““In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes,” Bush said.  That is just plain wrong.”   Well it was wrong, it will happen two years earlier.   At least they got that part right.

Update 8/5: Social Security in the red in 2010. They were off by a mere 6 years in a 6 year prediction from less than 6 months ago.     But that is ok,  “The deficit will last through 2011, then an improving economy [emphasis added] will put it back into balance for three years, then it will dip back into the red in 2015, the actuary said.”  So we have nothing to worry about.  These “experts” obviously know what they are talking about.

I was surprised [...]]]> I seldom read Parade magazine in the Sunday paper but these weeks caught my eye.   The lead story was about Shia LaBeouf of Transformer, Indiana Jones IV and Holes fame.  But that was not what caught my eye.  What caught me was the “In Over His Head?”   Interesting…what was up?

I was surprised to read a well written article about young stars and their propensity for getting into trouble.  But what was almost unbelievable was the honesty of  Shia about his own actions and Hollywood as a whole.  ”I don’t handle fame well.  Most actors on most days don’t think they’re worthy.  I have no idea where this insecurity comes from, but it’s a God sized hole.”   This explains a lot but he goes on, “Actors live dependant on being validated by other people’s opinions, ” he continues.   “I have no credentials. To my mind talent doesn’t really exist.  Talent is like a card player’s luck.”     Maybe it is because he is still young but old enough to articulate his position but his words struck me square in the face.

What am I going on about?  The clarity with which he explains the Liberal tilt in Hollywood.     I believe it was Barbara Streisand that said something about “being a winner of life’s lottery.”   The powerful in Hollywood reach a level so high above “normal” and with so little self-confidence and hard work that they believe they are not worthy.  That guilt and self loathing makes them grab on to charities and other equally public actions to create worth and positive self-opinion.

Beyond that, they believe that noone else of means is worthy either.   Those that are not involved in similar public philanthropy are even less deserving.    In a general sense, Liberals believe we are all born with the same abilities and same chance to be successful and they were simply the lucky one(s).     They have very little  understanding about real business and hard work that creates the majority of wealth in this country.  This lack of understanding leads to policies to redirect that wealth to those that “luck” has somehow avoided.

This article drove these points home in his own words, it is worth a read.

This would not be so bad if this was Entertainment Tonight or even the Today Show, which are “almost- news agencies” already. But this was Politico. They spend about three written pages showcasing his “accomplishments” in being hip. Sighting authors of hip culture. I thought they we somewhat [...]]]> For Obama, hipness is what it is

This would not be so bad if this was Entertainment Tonight or even the Today Show, which are “almost- news agencies” already. But this was Politico. They spend about three written pages showcasing his “accomplishments” in being hip. Sighting authors of hip culture. I thought they we somewhat still a decent news source. My bad.

But there is a silver lining to all of this. In fact two. First is that it shows the absolute need for a change in media and they way in whcih the report. A refocusing on the facts and news and away from all of the emotion driven suck-up-id-ness. The second point is, “this is what they have to tout for 100 days of effort?” So he is hip. Ineffective, destructive and moving us towards Statism. But he is hip! The struggle to find something of value to portray on behalf of this president has gotten this tough.

Politico, in trying to showcase his talents, has also highlighted his weaknesses. Unfortunately, his weakness at this point is being President.