Dear Politi"fact" Wisconsin

by folkbum

Sirs,

It has come to my attention that you have recently deemed two Democrats worthy of "pants on fire" status. This is amusing, no doubt, to those who find immolation to be a hoot-n-a-half. But beyond the offense that may be taken among the pre-immolated and the professional firefighting community, the awards--to Julie Lassa (via the DCCC) and Rep. Steve Kagen--betray a frightening amount of willful ignorance on the part of the, I think you call them, "fact checkers" at your employ when it comes to Social Security.

To wit, a small but not insignificant portion of this morning's laugh riot:

Here is what [Up Nort' candidate Reid] Ribble actually said, based on a longer video of the same statement posted on YouTube. We’ll highlight where the new words pick up.

"Somehow we have to establish a phase-out of the current Social Security system to a new system. And that will have to happen over time. It could happen in a single generation."

Ribble goes on to discuss how the life expectancy of Americans has grown since Social Security was established in the 1930s, and its effect on the system.

"It has to change," Ribble said of Social Security. "It will bankrupt this country if it doesn’t change."

It is remarkable to consider that your application of the "pants on fire" label was not awarded to this very statement itself. For you see, Mr. Ribble--are you sure he's not a Muppet?--is spinning quite the tale about bankruptcy.

The numbers, unlike Mr. Ribble, do not lie. If you believe, as the right-wing hand-wringers do, that the moment Social Security starts dipping into its trust fund, the sky will shatter and fall impaling us all with sharp daggers of fiscal doom, then 2015 is the big date. 2037 is the other big date. Over the course of those 22 years, the Social Security Trust Fund will pay out about $4.2 trillion in interest and principal on the treasury bonds it holds. Or an average of $191 billion a year.

This is a lot of money. It is more money than you or I put together can ever hope to make in a lifetime. It is, however, small potatoes comparatively. The Pentagon's annual budget is nearly four times that, for example. And the total federal budget today is 18 times that. To suggest that such a small number is enough to "bankrupt" us, particularly when no such claim is made about hugeanticon defense budgets or the ginormous hole favored tax cuts would leave in the budget, is a bald lie. Indeed, expiration of all the Bush tax cuts, on schedule for the end of the year (but possibly to be stopped in a lame duck session that may or may not still let them expire for the very wealthy dear jebus just shoot me in the head now the Democrats are blowing this one too) would cover the Social Security Trust Fund and then some.

After 2037, when the fund would be exhausted, there would still be a shortfall of about 22% of promised benefits between income (in the payroll tax) and outflow. This would amount to $5.4 trillion through 2084. Over those 47 years the annual cost to cover that shortfall is a mere $115 billon, even less than the non-bankrupting amount already discussed.

In short, sirs, the technicality by which you ascribe liarliar status to anyone who accuses Republicans of wanting to dismantle Social Security ("they'll replace it with something!" you cheerily wave into the ether), is a mere whiff of smoke compared to heaping mounds of burning Dockers Republicans have been shoving at Americans for decades. Social Security is not going broke. It is not going to bankrupt the country. It is not going to disappear before you or I or your grandkids retire unless Republicans destroy it.

Which they will. Mr. Ribble says he wants to replace Social Security with "something"--perhaps pixie dust and bottled genii. Rep. Paul Ryan wants to give people "guaranteed personal accounts," whatever that means, which is "a good starting point," according to Reality TV wunderkind Sean Duffy. Now, you want to talk about bankruptcy, Ryan's plan will do it. In spades.

Howso? Because Ryan is promising the same dollar to two people. You and I are paying into Social Security right now, and that money is going out to grammy in her monthly check. Ryan wants the money you and I pay to go into a "guaranteed personal account" and in grammy's monthly check, since he promises currently and nearly retired folk won't see their benefits change. Suddenly, the shortfall goes from almost nothing in 2011 to hundreds of billions, years earlier than expected. By the time currently and nearly retired folk finally keel over and stop soaking up the gummint largesse--say, 25 years from now, maybe--the cumulative new debt from the transition would be somewhere on the order of an additional $4 or $5 trillion!

And remember, Paul Ryan is the serious numbers guy!

So, sirs, in the future, please be certain that you aim your pantsafire judgments squarely at those telling the greater falsehoods. Mr. Ribble, Sean Duffy, Paul Ryan, and Republican Senate candidate Ron Johnson have all been spreading lies about Social Security and need to be called to account. And, as you have appointed yourselves arbiters of all that is true or false in the world, get to work on that, please.

Another Duffy moneybomb question

by folkbum

So far, I haven't heard an answer as to whether or not Sean Duffy (who's trying to eke some milage out of the falsehood that the economic stimulus package passed a year ago by Congress is a failure) thinks Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, and the countless other Republicans taking credit for stimulus funds, is being dishonest.

The next question Duffy should have to answer is whether the good folks of Ashland County, his home turf and where he currently District Attorneys from, should give back the $13,939,620 in stimulus funds so far distributed there. Ashland, in fact, has raked in more per capita than the state or national average when it comes to stimulus (in large part because of distributuons to tribal authorities, granted), so I'd say his constituents are currently getting a good deal out of the package.

Ask Sean Duffy if Northland College should take back the more than a quarter of a million dollars' worth of students loans it has given out under the stimulus, to keep students in college who might have had to drop out due to the poor economy.

Ask Sean Duffy if the recipients of well over a million dollars' worth of guaranteed home loans should move back into their cars.

Ask Sean Duffy if Historic Red Bridge over Armstrong creek, a century old and a tourist attraction, should be allowed to fall further into disrepair.

Ask Sean Duffy if the Mathy Construction Company there in Ashland should return its $3 million and lay off the workers called in for the highway projects they're doing.

If Duffy is going to make this an issue, then he needs to answer these questions.

When you righties give to Duffy tomorrow, ask if he thinks Paul Ryan is a liar

by folkbum

Sean Duffy is running a losing campaign (so far) up nort' against Dave Obey, Wisconsin's elder House statesman. One of Duffy's longest-running themes is that last year's economic stimulus package was an abject failure. That is, of course, an utter lie.

The broad consensus of economists? It worked. And it continues to work (.pdf). (Many economists note that the original stimulus was probably too small, and too focused on things like tax cuts (.pdf) that don't actually stimulate the economy. And that guy was a McCain supporter!) (UPDATE: More here.)

But don't just rely on economists. I mean, it's just their job to know about these things, but that doesn't mean anything in this day and age. I mean, experts? Come on.

But what about Paul Ryan?

Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who called the stimulus a "wasteful spending spree" that "misses the mark on all counts," wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in October in support of a grant application from a group in his district which, he said, "intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs."

Why would Paul Ryan encourage people in his district to use stimulus money to create jobs? Is it perhaps because the stimulus really does, you know, stimulate the economy? (And note that Paul Ryan is hardly the only Republican around reaping the benefits of the stimulus bill that they voted against.)

So your task, conservative readers, should you choose to accept it, is add a question to any donation you might want to give to Duffy (assuming you want to throw that money away). Ask Duffy about Ryan's tacit admission that the stimulus creates jobs and helps the economy. Ask Duffy who's right--him or Paul Ryan (or the scores of other Republicans celebrating stimulus success). Ask Duffy how he can keep calling the stimulus a failure with a straight face.