Page 31 - Flathead Beacon // 6.17.15

CLOSING RANGE DAVE SKINNER ZOMBIE JOURNALISM
GUEST COLUMN JIM ELLIOTT
ACOUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, MON- tanans got the bad news that Lee Newspapers was sacking two of its most-experienced reporters, Mike Dennison and Chuck Johnson. Along with John Adams and Eve Byron, that’s at least four “name” Montana journalists gone the past year or so.
Frankly, as a conservative, I could only count on getting about half of any story – I learned how to dig up the rest. But now, what was bad news is turning into no news at all.
I was already upset when another news item caught my eye. The Beacon headline was “Group Asks States to Investigate Utah Lawmaker’s Lands Push,” written by Michelle Price of Associated Press.
A “watchdog” group called the Cam- paign for Accountability announced it had asked three state attorneys general (in Utah, Arizona and Montana) to inves- tigate Utah legislator Ken Ivory (R) for fraud.
One or another version of the AP’s original ran in at least 58 outlets, with many using CFA spokeswoman Anne Weismann’s claims of “fraud” and “snake oil” either in headlines or ver- batim, full quotes, with return quotes from ambushed-and-outgunned Ken Ivory. Some local reporters chose to add some “local color,” with the basic outline unchanged.
Um, did any of these reporters think to watchdog the “watchdog?” Nope, so I did. Within one minute, I’d found CFA’s website, and a minute later learned it was first registered on Jan. 21, 2015 by Ben Fortney, who used a New York address and a Washington, D.C. phone number assigned to a woman. That should get the journalistic sniffer going, right?
CFA happens to be so new (Karl Puck- ett of the Great Falls Tribune did note CFA “opened its doors a month ago”) with the first public hint of CFA existence occurring May 13, regarding a lawsuit over corporate political activity. Then, on June 1, the lawsuits against Ivory’s activities.
Now, how can a puppy-new “watch- dog” nobody has ever heard of crank out multi-state news coverage? It uses expe- rienced operatives, silly!
One is Mr. Fortney. According to LinkedIn, until September 2014, he was New Media Director at Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). CFA spokesman and executive director Anne Weismann has 10 years as chief counsel of a nonprofit – Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washing- ton. What a coincidence!
Now, CREW is famous inside the Belt- way (and with political geeks) for taking down Republican politicians (some justi- fiably so) for general sleaze and self-deal- ing. But the “nonpartisan” CREW leaves Democrat hairballs mostly alone.
In August 2014, Megan Wilson of The Hill reported that “Democratic operative David Brock has become the chairman” of CREW. Brock is famed as a former Clinton-hating conservative journalist turned Bolshevik, the founder of both that trusted, credible news source Media Matters for America, which “takes aim at conservative media,” and the American Bridge super PAC, “which does opposi- tion research for Democrats.”
Basically, Brock took over and some CREW people either left in a huff, or CFA is a friendly spinoff. Might a decent reporter find that context relevant for readers?
Finally, all the stories covered Amer- ican Lands Council’s income ($209,888) and how much went to Mr. Ivory ($95,000 in 2013). What about CREW and Ms. Weismann, since records for CFA don’t yet exist? Try $2.6 million total in 2013, with $1.8 million going to sala- ries – including $174,000 in salary plus $15,000 in benefits for Weismann. Pot, meet kettle!
It only took me 20 minutes to find all this guff, and much more. Yet this “news” story sailed past at least 58 editors, and a possible 58 reporters, who took what “she said,” added some token lines of “he said,” and called it journalism.
No wonder journalism is in a world of self-inflicted hurt for myriad reasons – including gross lack of initiative. I can understand why so many reporters pre- tend to report in response to media com- panies that pretend to pay.
So now there are too many journal- ists who are merely going through the motions, like zombies. Trouble is, while everyone else knows zombies are dead and don’t know it, I guess I can look for- ward to when the zombies of journalism figure it out for themselves.
ISOCIAL SECURITY RAN ACROSS AN EXTREMELY
else.”) One possibility, of course, is to eliminate or adjust the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes. Cur- rently only the first $117,000 dollars of wages are subject to the Social Security tax. Increasing or eliminating the cap could greatly increase the amount being paid into the Trust Funds.
Is the government stealing, raiding or borrowing money from the Trust Funds? No to the first two and yes to the borrowing, just like the government “borrows” from anyone who invests in Treasury Notes. If Social Security runs a surplus, it stands to reason that it has to be invested somewhere, if only be- cause it is really hard to stuff $2.8 tril- lion bucks into a mattress, even in large bills, and there is probably no mattress in existence that will pay 3.8 percent (in 2013) on what you stuff in it. So there are two choices, government securities or the stock market. Don’t think me rude if I remind folks that in 2008 the stock market tanked, but the government didn’t. The difference is low risk or high- risk investment, and there is no lower risk investment than U.S. Treasury se- curities. The government of the United States has never defaulted on a loan.
So, yes, the government is borrowing the money, just as it does from private investors who buy Treasury securities, but Social Security has unrestricted access to its investments at par, mean- ing that even though the price of the notes fluctuates, the value of Social Security investments doesn’t. Invested in the stock market the value of the funds would fluctuate.
How did we get here? The Baby Boom- ers born after WWII are retiring, and there are a lot of them. There are also more people in the age group that is most prone to disabling injury, 50 years old and up; and there are fewer wage-earn- ers who contribute to Social Security.
But the most important thing is for politicians, including the president, to stop scaring people with doom and gloom, and get to work and fix the prob- lem. This is an issue that affects all Americans, and should not be treated as a political football.
SIMPLE FACTS ABOUT
“HOW CAN A PUPPY-NEW ‘WATCHDOG’ NOBODY HAS EVER HEARD OF CRANK OUT MULTI-STATE NEWS COVERAGE?”
Mike (Uncommon Ground) Jopek and Dave (Closing Range) Skinner often fall on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to political and outdoor issues. Their columns alternate each week in the Flathead Beacon.
“STOP SCARING PEOPLE WITH DOOM AND GLOOM, AND GET TO WORK AND FIX THE PROBLEM. THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT AFFECTS ALL AMERICANS.”
Jim Elliott served 16 years as a Montana legislator. He is from Trout Creek.
interesting article on Social Security
put out about a year ago by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (www. cbpp.org). Frankly, I have never been much worried about the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds and have regarded the controversy surrounding the issue as so much political hot air. I was gratified to learn that, while the facts are real enough, the problems can be fixed with relatively easy measures if Congress is actually willing to use them.
Two main issues that seem to arise time and time again are that Social Security is broke and that the govern- ment keeps borrowing from it or steal- ing from it–your choice. Here’s what I learned. First, it’s not broke. There are two major Social Security Trust Funds, one that retirees get paid from – the Old Age Survivors Insurance (OASI) with $71 billion paid out in April 2015 and the much smaller Disability Insurance Trust Fund (DI), with $11 billion paid out. Taken together, they have run a sur- plus since 1984 and are expected to con- tinue doing so until 2020. That surplus is invested in U.S. Treasury securities and has been since the mid-1930s.
Taken separately, it’s a bit of a dif- ferent story; the DI Fund will run out of money to pay full benefits in 2016, the OASI in 2034. The DI issue is easy to fix, if Congress wants to, by reallo- cating the payroll tax split and giving a higher share to DI and a lower share to OASI. That keeps both trusts sol- vent to 2033. Between 2020 (the last year Social Security is projected to have a surplus) and 2033 full benefits can still be paid by using the principal and interest it has invested in Treasury securities to supplement regular payroll tax income. After 2033 Social Security will still have enough income from pay- roll taxes to pay 3/4 benefits. Granted, that’s not good, but it’s not the end of the world, either.
So there’s plenty of time for Con- gress to figure out what to do at the last moment. (Churchill said, “You can count on the Americans to do the right thing after they’ve tried everything
JUNE 17, 2015 // FLATHEADBEACON.COM
31