When America Speaks, the organization bankrolled by deficit scold Pete Peterson, held its series of meetings last month, the results basically showed that the public favored progressive options to lower the deficit and stabilize the budget. But a couple anomalous results were included in there, allowing America Speaks to say that Americans preferred balanced solutions. A review of the data shows that a technical error led America Speaks to initially promote that a majority of their participants favored raising the Social Security eligibility age, when in actuality a far smaller minority approved of that solution.
The original press release from America Speaks said that the option to raise the age for receiving full Social Security benefits to 69 was “preferred” by participants in the town hall meetings. In particular, America Speaks said that 52% of their attendees endorsed raising the retirement age to 69 in order to close the long-term actuarial imbalance in the program. People voted using keypads to identify their opinions on dozens of options for closing the budget gap.
But their final report, Our Budget Our Economy, you can see that the numbers have shifted. Whereas 52% endorsed the retirement age increase initially, now the numbers on Page 16 show that only 39% endorsed it.
America Speaks has explained this discrepancy by identifying a technical glitch in the software that they used to count up the responses. They claim that on certain questions, participants hit the button multiple times, and that all of them counted, increasing the perceived support. Despite dozens of issues, this affected only a mere five questions, including the increase of the retirement age. And the widest discrepancy came with that question, from a simple majority to a clear minority. This tracks with the independent, nonpartisan, scientific polling on the subject.
It’s interesting that the retirement age increase was the one policy prescription that had inaccurate results. Because that’s precisely the policy that politicians on both sides of the aisle, from John Boehner to Steny Hoyer, have forwarded as a possible solution to Social Security’s “problem.” Whether this was a coincidental mis-tabulation or not, the support in DC for this age increase, which represents a benefit cut of up to 20%, tracks with the supposed “support” at the America Speaks meetings, now seen to be inaccurate.
The shift in the numbers on this issue means that the only solution favored by a majority of participants in America Speaks was an increase in the payroll tax cap to cover 90% of
all earnings. This has been traditionally the major solution that the public supports.
You can see another report from America Speaks on their meetings, called Finding Common Ground 071910, at the link. The group plans to report their findings to the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission. One wonders if the 52% support for the retirement age increase becomes a zombie lie.




32 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
These fiscal corpses are mostly multi millionaires on paper, and who knows how much they are really worth if Peterson is throwing away money like a drunken crypt keeper.
I knew it.
Thanks for this David. I’ve done a series on AmericaSpeaks. Altogether, I found 32 instances of bias distributed across every major step in the event process. Part Seven, the conclusion of the series, is here. The parts were also posted at the Seminal and are linked to from here.
Why isn’t this reported on other blogs, like Huff Post?
If they raise the retirement age by 2 years they’ll have to go back and extend unimployment by 104 weeks.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Boxturtle (What else need be said?)
“Glitch”. Is that what they are calling propaganda these days?
Don’t you ever get tired of spooning around your malicious snark? Here’s to hoping that your boss catches you commenting on blogs instead of doing your job. A little dose of the reality of a day to day struggle to live would do you some good IMO.
Because HuffPo wants to be Politico. There are good reasons I avoid it.
Raise the retirement age? Increase the length people are subservient to corporate interests and at retirement decrease “BENEFITS” because the corporate slime in legalized crime have again raped America blind!
All are now Dred Scotts… subordinate to the due process rights
of corporations and a government controlled by monopolies….
Bend over and smile!
When do these aholes recommend raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 85? More accurately when do they begin the propaganda campaign that raising medicare eligibility is wildly popular?
Because the Huffington Post has become the National Inquirer of the Internet. It has turned into a turd. It has fallen for the social network of me toers. They have added more and more visual pablum to their website that it is just about unusable. She has turned into a money whore.
The same would apply to you as well.
OT:
over 18,000 posts to:
Obama Blames Media For His Administration’s Firing Of Shirley Sherrod
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/22/obama-media-shirley-sherrod_n_656499.html#comments
… last straw
Probably sooner than you think, based on the video I saw where what’s-his-face was explaining that SS was set at 65 because life expectancy was 58.
I think “glitch” is what they call it when they get caught.
Jim White has a fresh cross-post up: Tropical Storm Bonnie on Direct Path Over Blown Out Macondo Well
How do you figure that? BTW, I’ve been unemployed since January 13, 2009. It’s unlikely my boss will say anything to me about it.
The best way to protect SS is for the Congress to keep thier @#$%@ hands off of it. Put it in a “lock box” — problem solved.
The thing that surprises me is that even after the correction, 39% still supported raising the retirement age. Really? In the world we are most likely to see heading on down the road – think The Long Descent, the Long Emergency, etc., – a steadily increasing life expectancy may not be in the cards at all. Do you suppose anybody had a means of indicating they would like to see the retirement age lowered?
Did America Speaks get their keypads from Diebold?
We keep using “as much as 20% decrease” without saying that the decrease will not be in effect for 15 years and when it goes in effect it will be phased in over many years so the deduction 16 years from now will be much less for new retirees at age 62.
Plus the early retirement factor is 5/12 per month after the first 3 years, so going from Reagan’s 67 payment at age 62 reduction of 30% (pay 70% of normal) to an age 70 reduction means an additional 3 years which is an additional 15%, meaning reduction of 45% and being paid 55% of “normal” – rather than 70 % current law of “normal” – a 22.4% of prior Reagan level payout after reduction. If it is set at age 69 the reduction is 40%, and a 60/70 of prior payout – or a 14.3 reduction from prior Reagan level payout at age 62.
We really need to use the correct numbers
Republicans are just like auditors (not as good as auditors)….but they are after the same thing – SCREWING THE LITTLE GUY… The OTHER way to stabilize the SS Fund is to RE-INSTATE THE SAME TAX RATES that were present during the late 90′s..but NO.. fat-assed, dumb-as-rock resluglicans won’t hear of it – not now – not forever…
The other option is let it go broke…bail it out – just another handout to the big banks and the third term of Chipmy has arrived.
There are other options that are rational but seeing that this is not a rational comment section, I decided to pass.
Or are they proposing to change the early retirement reduction factors?
Coincidence?
Not a chance. Obama’s handpicked Catfood Commission is composed of thieving snakes preselected to deliver a specific verdict, regardless of the actual situation.
They’re just making it up.
““glitch” is what they call it when they get caught.”
Ha!
And who could argue with that.
No, there was no option for rolling back the age for full benefits to 65 or 63 or 60. See here.
People could suggest new options, but there was o way to conveniently place them on the option scorecards and have people vote on them.
HuffPo published a lot of “deficit owl” posts that are strongly opposed to Peterson and the hawks and that also frequently appear here at The Seminal. But I think whether you get posts into HuffPo or not depends on the strength of your social networking into Arianna, more than it depends on how opposed you are to the deficit terrorists. I think HuffPo has its little “village,” and you have to be part of that “village” to get in. It’s too bad HuffPo doesn’t have a section like The Seminal where others who aren’t villagers can post.
You can find a lot of the deficit owl posts here, if your search on “Modern Monetary Theory.”
Soon after they had those meetings a poster appeared here telling us all how great they were. He looked like a shill to me. A quote from him, I tried to open this can of worms.
“In response to transparait @ 67
by the way i spammed REDUCE DEFENSE SPENDING BY 25% about 100 times during the day to the HQ tabulating all the responses. i was the one in charge of recording responses at my table. it was awesome.
transparait shall i assume you are NOT anti-war or what?
i must admit that i also spammed AUDIT THE FED. is that ok with you or what?
In response to transparait @ 78″
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/06/26/america-speaks-in-la-they-want-economic-recovery-no-social-security-cuts/#comment-40729
“Wait, are you saying that you added responses that weren’t in your counts? How did you ’spam’ exactly?
absolutely. there was a text screen on every page that allowed other suggestions. they did not tabulate toward the goal (they had a seriously nifty calculating software im sure youll agree :) but you could still send in suggestions. and frequently. it updated your responses if you changed them. i just kept sending it. couple times i cut and pasted CUT DEFENSE SPENDING BY 25% 50 times in the text box and sent right before question cut off.
i was having serious fun.”
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/06/26/america-speaks-in-la-they-want-economic-recovery-no-social-security-cuts/#comment-40739
Thank you. I wish people could have been polled on that, though.
I doubt it was an accident, but I can’t figure out what the point would be for “fudging” the numbers like that and then fixing it and coming up with a silly excuse like that. Either way, though, at least they DID fix it.