Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Tuesday Mashup Part Two (8/17/10)

(Part One is here.)

  • I give you The Orange One on the 75th anniversary of the passage of the Social Security Act last Friday (here)…

    “For 75 years, the Social Security program has served the needs of millions of American seniors, and Republicans are committed to protecting Social Security and preserving this invaluable program for current and future generations of retirees. The Social Security and Medicare Trustees have repeatedly warned Congress and the American people that reforms are necessary or future benefits will be threatened.

    Some Democratic leaders – from Vice President Biden to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to Majority Whip Jim Clyburn – have expressed a willingness to have an open and honest conversation about preserving the future of Social Security, but most Democrats, including President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, refuse to even acknowledge the challenges it faces. It’s time to have an adult discussion about the future of this crucial program. Working together, we can protect Social Security and ensure these critical benefits are there for America’s seniors for generations to come.”
    “Republicans are committed to protecting Social Security”; Boehner makes a funny – tee hee hee…

    In response, I give you Paul Krugman (here)…

    Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future. But their math doesn’t add up, and their hostility isn’t really about dollars and cents. Instead, it’s about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.

    About that math: Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax (“FICA” on your pay statement). But it’s also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.

    But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.
    However, I will agree with Boehner on one point in his Hill post; I believe he is right to say that we should have an “adult discussion” on Social Security, among other topics.

    And I think that discussion should start with an explanation as to whether or not Boehner really wants to raise the retirement age to 70 for purposes of benefit eligibility, as noted here. Also, I’d like to hear him say categorically that he opposes privatization (noted here), even though, as noted here, many actually support that (fools…in that awful event, watch and see what would happen to your monthly benefit the next time the market lost 260 or so points in a single day).


  • Next, this story in the Philadelphia Inquirer tells us of the recent controversy surrounding Woods Services in Langhorne, PA, the residential facility that “has housed, taught, and served thousands of disabled adults and children for nearly a century.”

    The school has been in the news over the recent death of Bryan Nevins, a severely autistic 20-year-old man who was left alone in the back of a parked van on a day of record-setting heat for five hours (as the story tells us…Bucks Country prosecutors have charged a veteran Woods Services counselor, Stacey Strauss, with felony neglect in Nevins' death).

    Another autistic client, 17-year-old Robert Percaro of New York, ran from his building late one night last October and fell to his death from a Route 1 overpass; police and state Welfare Department officials found no fault with Woods Services in that case.
    As nearly as I’ve been able to determine from my reading about Woods Services (known for a long time in these parts as The Woods School), it provides an invaluable service, enjoys a fine reputation, and is run by dedicated professionals.

    However, the reason why I’m taking note of this is the following (which was also noted immediately by online commenters to the story)…

    The nonprofit care center employs nearly 1,900 people in the region, from a president and chief executive, Robert Griffith, who collected $735,000 in salary and compensation two years ago to the hundreds of residential counselors, like Strauss, who earn as little as $11 an hour.
    Geez, sounds like Griffith is in the running for a “Marrazzo Award” (based on this).

    I have no grounds to critique Griffth’s performance in running this facility; it’s possible that he is an exemplary administrator and is thoroughly dedicated. Also, the story doesn’t tell us if this is annual salary and compensation or accumulated over a longer duration.

    The fact remains, though, that we’re talking about nearly three quarters of a million dollars for running a nonprofit (and $11 an hour to pay counselors for dealing with a population of young and older adults with difficult developmental issues?).

    As noted here, though, Griffith and the school have been extraordinarily generous to the Middletown Township Police Department, contributing about $35,000 per year.

    What matters most in this story is resolving the matter of Bryan Nevins’ death as thoroughly as possible, from taking any and all corrective action to proceeding with the charges against counselor Stacey Strauss.

    After that, though, I have a feeling that Woods Services needs a financial audit for public benefit, if for no other reason than to improve the pay rate of the individuals responsible for its day-to-day operation.


  • Finally (and believe me when I tell you that I tried to stay away from this topic), Larry Gatlin (??) bloviates as follows at the Fix Noise site (here)…

    I have expressed my disdain for most of the president's policies. I have not been shy about "giving him what for" here on these "pages," as they say in The Wall Street Journal. I think he is totally inept and out of his depth. But inept and heartless are two different things.

    I just find it hard to believe that a good, decent, smart, God-fearing Christian (ask Rev. Wright, he will vouch for him) like Pres. Obama, could be so cavalier, so out of touch, so...how can I say this... so afflicted with Cranial Rectamitis, that he would so blatantly shove his heartlessness right in the face of the good folks of Arizona, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and yes, even Kansas, by sending the first lady and one of the first daughters to SPAIN to hang with, well, SPANISH NON-AMERICANS. I just do not believe it!!
    It’s been a long time since I read what passes for a post which is, in fact, a continuous comment thread IN WHICH THE AUTHOR APPARENTLY FORGOT TO UNLOCK THE “CAPS” KEY on his or her keyboard. And I suppose Gatlin is trying to be a bit tongue-in-cheek here, though the floating “Impeach Obama” ad at the top of the page kind of belies that.

    Besides, I recall hearing nary a peep out of idiots currently frothing over the trip by Michelle Obama and her daughter Sasha when Laura Bush and her daughters visited Africa and took time for a “safari” (here; and when it comes to the proverbial blind squirrel finding the nut, I give you this).

    As anyone with even a passing familiarity with this site knows, I had a ton of issues with a certain 43rd President of the United States and his pals, and still do, but overseas travel was not one of them.

    I thought that some of the posts here about the importance of travel were well worth reading. There is no better way to acquire the perspective of other people and cultures, and though many of us don’t have this luxury because of the economy, I certainly don’t think taking advantage of this is a bad idea (contrary to the media “conventional wisdom” that apparently sprung up overnight stating that, during bad economic times such as these, those in the public eye are supposed to stay within our borders).

    And for disclosure purposes, I should note that I’ve barely traveled outside this country myself. But the next time I get a hankerin’ for some Conch Fritters and a “Goombay Smash,” I’m diggin’ out my passport and hoppin’ a jet to you-know-where!
  • No comments: