The Jeff Hussain Follies

Okay, maybe I haven't got the Matrix nailed down as to its sinister workings.

In a very recent reply to misinformer Jeff Hussain at PolitiFact's FaceBook page, I limited myself to one short quotation of existing material and followed that up with three substantial paragraphs with three associated hotlinks.

No go, so far as publishing it to the general audience.

I tried republishing it minus the quotation of Jeff Hussain.  No go.

I tried republishing just the first paragraph minus the second two.  No go.

Of course, it may be that the spam filter counts my own semi-privately published posts against me in terms of reproducing existing material--that is, I'm a spammer for repeating myself even if nobody at all sees it but me.

Blue pill:

Red pill:

If that first post was caught in a spam filter then the spam filter is too sensitive by half.

The invisible dialog between Jeff and me might have helped inform readers at PolitiFact's FaceBook page.  I'll have to settle for reproducing it here so that it's visible to the Web.

Jeff's part first (bold emphasis added to contrast it to the following reply):

(I) just want everyone know that social security has billions of dollars sitting there but the amount decreases annually. why? for the past 10 years the govt has been running at a deficit so to cover the deficit they have been taking money from social security. why is the govt running at a deficit? when clinton left office the govt had a surplus but after the bush tax cuts and 3 trillion dollars spent on 2 wars you dont have to be a mathematician to figure this out. they are giving tax cuts to the rich and using social security to pay for it.

And my unfit-for-general-audiences reply:

Whether or not Jeff is personally confused, his statement is confused. The billions in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent money that the government has promised to pay back with interest. It does not change the fact that Social Security pays benefits with present-day contributions, it just means that there was a surplus left over after paying benefits. As for surplus from the Clinton era (with a Republican Congress, don't forget), that really has nothing to do with it at all. Social Security is off budget in the current era.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

The so-called "Clinton surplus" was a budget surplus, meaning that the nation still ran a huge debt, but the debt came down a bit for a short time before proceeding to climb again. A climb would have occurred regardless of Bush's tax policies simply because of the economic slowdown that started during Clinton's last year.
http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

The FactCheck.org graph shows 2001 as part of Clinton's last budget (FY 2001). Bush was actually in office for the bulk of that fiscal year, and the effects of the economic slowdown are partly apparent in the way the budget surplus dropped in that year. Reduced economic activity produces lower federal revenues.

Bottom line, Jeff's just wrong to associate federal budget problems with Social Security's fiscal problems. Social Security has periodically faced solvency problems since its inception simply because of its method of financing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6827519/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/t/social-security-solvency-political-spin/