Sibby Online

Krugman taking a beating

Glenn Reynolds points us to a Tom Maguire post that also shreads the Krugman NYT column on Social Security reform. Excerpts:

Now, here comes Krugman's first misrepresentation:

In fact, the actuary said, "careful research reflecting actual work histories for workers by race indicate that the nonwhite population actually enjoys the same or better expected rates of return from Social Security" as whites.

Really? That was the actuary summarizing a backward looking study, since the excerpt continues with an admonition to "See Duggan, et. al., "The Returns Paid to Early Social Security Cohorts," Contemporary Policy Issues, (October), pp. 1-13." Here is a good summary of the discussion prepared by the AARP (which also mentions Duggan). The gist - once the disability component is factored in, blacks have done roughly as well as whites with Social Security.

But the privatizers aren't talking about changing the disability part of the plan, now are they? In fact, as the Times reported, it is far from clear how disability might be changed, if at all, if personal accounts are adopted. So if we limit ourselves to what the President was actually talking about, which was the Social Security retirement plan, the lower life expectancy of blacks reduces their return.

…

Yes, the life-expectancy at birth is not useful. However, the life-expectancy at age 65 is also misleading, since it overlooks the many folks who pay taxes for a lifetime and then die before retirement. The reduced life expectancy of black males at age 20 (who have survived the childhood issues and can now look forward to a lifetime of Social Security taxes) is also relevant - at age 20, the gap relative to white males is about 5 years. [MORE: Jim Glass is, as usual, quite insightful on this point. Clearly, I let Krugman off easy on this.]

Second, the formula determining Social Security benefits is progressive: it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their advantage.

Gannon responds to attacks

Jeff Gannon seems to be wearing the attacks form the left as a badge of honor. Here is his response to the attacks from a cohort of MoveOn.org, Media Matters:

Media Matters For America Goes on the Attack! READ  (WARNING: EXTERNAL LINK)

I guess I've really made the big time!  The Media Matters piece has produced a huge spike in my hate mail.  I am pleased to share what these lovers of free speech and diversity say to people who have a different viewpoint.  FEELING THE LOVE...

The Lefties are going bonkers over this posting at MMFA:  Hysteria!  Just for the record, all material in these articles come from White House PRESS RELEASES, (you know, those things that a PRESS OFFICE puts out for use by the PRESS) and speech transcripts that are attributed to and accurately reflect the position of the President.  In many cases I have liberally used the verbiage provided on key aspects of the issue because it is the precise expression of where the White House stands - free of any "spin."  It's the ultimate in journalistic honesty - unvarnished and unfiltered.  If only others would be as forthcoming. 

Check out these headlines:
 
"Bush Pushes Ownership Society" - he did and I reported what he said!
"Bush Announces Major Troop Deployment" - he did and I reported what he said!
"Bush Signs Historic Medicare Bill" - he did and I reported what he said!

NOTE TO MMFA: What you say is an RNC Fact Sheet was a press release issued by the White House Press Office, America's Ownership Society: Expanding Opportunities

Also - You guys really listened to my show?  Why didn't you call in?  And by the way, thanks for all your hard work.  My phone has been ringing all day with interview requests.

What others are saying

American Spectator:  Bush Among the Morans

Rush Limbaugh:  Fantastic White House Presser Features Facts, "Soup Line" Harry Reid Line

Accuracy in Media:  Lefty media watchdog group gets the vapors over Talon

I bet you didn’t know this

The Aberdeen American News posted an AP report regarding the 2004 economy. Here is the introduction:

The economy finished 2004 with its best performance in five years despite slowing in the final stretch. The outlook ahead: a moderate jog, rather than a sprint.

The broadest barometer of the country's economic standing, the gross domestic product, clocked a 4.4 percent increase for all of last year spurred by brisk consumer and business spending, the Commerce Department reported Friday.

I thought this excerpt was very interesting:

"When you add it all up, you can't help but be pleased with how the economy performed last year," said Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at LaSalle Bank. "The economy in 2004, in some cases, was like the Rodney Dangerfield economy. It didn't get a lot of respect. We spent so much of last year worrying about high oil prices, deficits, employment ... yet through it all we were able to turn out an outstanding year economically."

Could this Rodney Dangerfield economy be the result of the MSM not wanting the Republicans to get credit, and instead focused on the negative during the election year? I bet the Argus Leader will not be publishing this AP report on their front page, if at all. If anybody finds this in the Argus, please let me know.

Democrat leading abortion ban

From the Argus Leader:

Sen. Frank Kloucek, D-Scotland, said Friday he has decided to sponsor a bill banning abortions in South Dakota. He said the measure is written to avoid problems that resulted in a similar measure being vetoed last year.

Kloucek had said earlier in the week that he was being counseled by some anti-abortion lawmakers not to sponsor the bill but to allow the 2005 session to be focused on a bill to limit the procedure. He decided against that course.

"This bill will address concerns that the governor had in vetoing HB1191 last year," Kloucek said in a statement. "It should be in the proper form that he and every pro-life, pro-family legislator can both support and sign. This legislation is needed to be consistent with the voters' wishes in the last election and to meet the expectations of many of my constituents."

Heritage calls NYT’s Krugman a propagandist

This is a very disturbing example of how the MSM pushes Democrat talking points or the description used by Heritage…propaganda. (Compliments of Social Security Choice):

Heritage hits back -- hard!

Don Luskin

The Heritage Foundation has come out with a devastating rebuttal to Paul Krugman's bigoted New York Times column today. Some choice quotes:

Krugman cites a 1998 memo from Social Security Administration actuary Steve Goss criticizing some aspects of the methodology that we used and leaps to the conclusion our study is nothing but “damned lies.” ...We answered Goss’s critique (and others) long ago, in our December 11, 1998, report “Social Security’s Rate of Return: A Reply to Our Critics.” This paper has been available on our website for many years now and proves that we did account for Social Security’s progressive retirement benefits formula, as well as disability and survivor benefits and other elements of the program that disproportionately benefit minorities.

In short, we used the same benefit formula that Social Security uses to calculate retirement benefits for our study. We included the cost of a life insurance policy that duplicates the survivors benefits offered by Social Security. Most importantly, we treat disability benefits as a separate program from the retirement and survivors benefit program that we studied.

Indeed, we went so far as to rerun the numbers using an alternate methodology suggested by Goss and found that it reinforced our initial finding that African Americans generally receive a far lesser return on their “investment” of Social Security taxes than whites.

...A major factor in African Americans’ poor returns from Social Security is the sad fact that so many black workers die before they can receive significant benefits. When measured in terms of the proportion of a worker’s pre-retirement income that is paid in Social Security benefits, all lower income workers receive more than higher income workers do. However, they often receive these benefits for a shorter period of time.

Krugman tries desperately to minimize, even dismiss, this problem. “Blacks’ low life expectancy is largely due to high death rates in childhood and young adulthood,” he assures us, before noting that the typical African-American male who makes it to retirement age can expect to collect benefits for only two years less than his male counterpart.

However, the difference between receiving benefits for 14.6 years instead of a white worker’s 16.6 years is 12 percent. A 12 percent “cut” may be no big deal to Krugman, but it often determines whether workers realize a net gain or loss from Social Security. ...fully one-third of African-American men will die between the ages of 50 and 70. Contrary to what Krugman claims, the difference in Social Security rates of return between African Americans and whites is not primarily due to high death rates in childhood and young adulthood...

Rather than acknowledge and consider the inconvenient facts, Krugman resorts to base name-calling. Those who would reform the system to give Americans—and especially African Americans—a better return on their investment and the ability to amass a nest egg that can be passed on to their heirs are charged with “playing the race card” and bigotry.

Paul Krugman was once a respected academic, but sadly, he now stoops to produce superficial and poorly researched propaganda. Krugman’s January 28 attack is no more than an artfully executed piece of propaganda; Only when one examines the facts behind his charges does its veneer of reason shatter.

No comments…why

I have been traveling around the blogosphere at various web sites, including those on the dark side. Many allow visitors to leave comments. Some have challenged me as to why I do not allow comments. So here is why.

This is not what I do for a living. I have a daytime job, so I do not feel I have the time to administrate comments. Instead I have provided an email account to allow communications with those who visit. I receive positive and not so positive comments there. I sometimes don’t have time to respond to all the emails, so I would like to apologize to those that I have neglected. Your feedback is important to me.

The reason why I started this web site is to be able to bring to light what the mainstream media chooses to ignore. Those on the left have that platform to express their viewpoint. I see no reason why I have to provide them with another platform at my cost.

But I do believe those who allow comments provide a great service. Anything that increases dialogue only supports the First Amendment. I have left comments at various sites. I have learned something with that experience. Many on the left will delete comments from conservatives. I have even had my access to comments blocked. The left will give me crap for not allowing comments and therefore denying freedom. But then these hypocrites delete comments they don’t like. It’s just one more facet of the lying left.

Argus Leader snubs abortion forum

Here is a letter published in today’s Argus Leader:

A press conference was held at the Abstinence Clearinghouse in Sioux Falls, where at least five state senators and representatives gave statements regarding the anniversary of Roe. vs. Wade.

A release was sent out alerting the press to this opportunity to hear from our elected officials.

KELO-TV was there; where were you? Is this the kind of reporting we can expect from the Argus Leader?

I would like to know when and what my elected officials say in public forums.

Bias is not so much what you print, it has more to do with what you don’t print. The link does not disclose the letter’s author. It is The Rev. Randall L. Pekari.

New York Times wrong again

Social Security Choice has a couple of posts that demonstrate the con job the New York Times is performing by spewing the Democrats talking points on Social Security. Here is one, then another. Then there is this:

Spoken like a white man

Paul Krugman today on why Afro-Americans don't get a bad shake from Social Security:

African-American men who make it to age 65 can expect to live, and collect benefits, for an additional 14.6 years -- not that far short of the 16.6-year figure for white men.

So, Paul, can we assume that since two years of life is a negligible matter to you, you would be happy to give up two years of your life so that an African-American could live two years longer? Or are two years only negligible when they are somebody else's -- and especially when that somebody happens to be an African-American?

Democrats are bad shots

From ChronWatch:

It is appalling that you did this when you knew full well that Ms. Rice would be overwhelmingly confirmed. The 13 no votes on Ms. Rice’s confirmation were the most no votes for any Secretary of State appointment in the past 180 year history of this nation. This clearly shows the partisan, mean-spirited nature of the present Democratic Party.

Continuation of this behavior will assure that you and other Democrats will not be elected. Tom Daschle is one example. Go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot.

On second thought

Yesterday I posted an excerpt from Ann Coulter that stated, "Who was it who said, ‘Free speech should be safe, legal and rare’?" But does this apply to other constitutional rights?

Like the Second Amendment, the right should be legal, but we should be safe about it. Of course using that right in self-defense hopefully would be rare. Dan at tdaxp also argued this applies to bankruptcies.

So I would be careful about making Coulter’s argument beyond the scope of the First Amendment.