Did Obama Really Tell Pelley Social Security Checks Are in Jeopardy if Debt Ceiling Isn't Raised?
As a result of Scott Pelley's interview with President Obama on the "CBS Evening News" Tuesday, the media are once again scaring seniors with the absurd notion Social Security checks won't go out in August if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
An examination of the video and transcript of the relevant sections of this exchange bring into question whether or not that's actually what the President said (video follows with transcript and commentary):
SCOTT PELLEY: Good evening. It was a striking thing, today, to hear the President of the United States say that he cannot guarantee the 27 million Social Security checks that are due to be mailed August 3rd. August 3rd is the day after the government will default on its debts if Democrats and Republicans do not agree to increase the nation's borrowing limit.
As NewsBusters previously reported, that's how Pelley began the opening segment of Tuesday's broadcast after ominously teasing, "Tonight, the President tells us Social Security checks may be in jeopardy."
But is that really what the President said? Here's what transpired minutes later:
PELLEY: Can you tell the folks at home that, no matter what happens, the Social Security checks are going to go out on August 3rd? There are about $20 billion worth of Social Security checks that have to go out the day after the government is supposedly going to go into default.
OBAMA: Well, this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans’ checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out each month.
Notice that the President didn't answer the question about the $20 billion worth of Social Security checks. Instead, he broadened it to include veterans, the disabled, and a whole host of outlays totaling 70 million checks.
But Pelley's follow-up did not redefine the matter back to exclusively Social Security:
PELLEY: Can you guarantee, as president, that those checks will go out on August 3rd?
OBAMA: I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.
As you can see, the follow-up question and answer were vague. As far as the President is concerned, "those checks" might mean any number of checks to go out August 3rd not just Social Security.
As such, Pelley didn't actually pin down the President concerning Social Security checks and may have misrepresented - accidentally or on purpose - what he was told.
If this is the case, the fear-mongering of seniors going on right now may be based on a misinterpretation and is therefore totally unwarranted. This could have been easily rectified if Pelley would have followed up with another question specific to Social Security.
But there's a significantly larger issue here.
Much like his colleague Bob Schieffer negligently did in his Sunday interview with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Pelley neglected to ask Obama the really crucial question that Americans and investors the world over would like an answer to: Are there enough tax revenues coming in during August to cover whatever costs are associated with our Treasury bonds, notes, and bills so that America doesn't default on its debt if the ceiling isn't raised?
As NewsBusters reported Thursday, the Treasury is expecting $172 billion in tax receipts next month. From what I can estimate based on Treasury data from this and previous years, it is unlikely that August interest payments will exceed $35 billion, thereby leaving $137 billion for other bills such as Social Security, Medicare, and military salaries.
Why didn't Pelley, in an exclusive interview with the President, ask him about these numbers? This is simple arithmetic, not rocket science.
If Pelley knew about the $20 billion of Social Security checks going out on August 3rd, and was willing to ask the President about it, why not ask him about the $172 billion in tax receipts Treasury is projecting to receive and work through what his priorities will be concerning which checks to pay if the debt ceiling isn't raised?
Wouldn't that have been good journalism - or is it too good for the likes of Pelley?
The reality is that with the $172 billion in tax receipts projected for August - a figure that was reported by Reuters last Thursday, mind you! - it is going to be very simple for the government to pay the majority of its bills next month including Social Security.
It is in fact a lie that seniors are at all at risk of not receiving their benefits next month, and America's media are allowing this fallacy to spread throughout the country in order to scare people into pressuring their elected officials to raise taxes.
We saw this in 1990 when President George H.W. Bush was similarly pressured to go back on his "Read my lips - No new taxes" campaign pledge in order to solve that year's "budget crisis." The difference this time is that journalists have access to all the data via the Treasury's website, which obviously wasn't the case in 1990.
If Pelley wanted to really get to the bottom of this issue, he or any of his staffers could have gotten all the recent data concerning Treasury's debt payments, as well as the figures concerning monthly receipts and expenditures, and had a truly informative discussion with the President about what's coming in and what the priorities will be if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
But that's clearly not the kind of conversation the media want to have with any White House official at this moment, including the President.
They'd rather continue to gin up fear throughout the population so they can get taxes raised along with a victory for the man they helped get into the White House.
If this is indeed the case, and there really is no risk whatsoever of a default on our debt or on Social Security payments, aren't media members like Pelley participating in a fraud?
It's one thing for politicians to lie. They do it all the time.
But isn't it the responsibility of so-called journalists to uncover the truth and disseminate it to the public?
Exactly when did it become acceptable for press members to intentionally report falsehoods in order to achieve a political outcome?
Or are they all too stupid to go to Treasury's website and get the answers that anyone with a computer anywhere in the world can now easily obtain with a couple of mouse clicks?
Whatever the answer, they're clearly not qualified for the solemn responsibility of reporting facts to the American people.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
stop over parsing the conversation... duh!
Submitted by wizardjr on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:26am.
The threat was there. It was pretty well strongly implied by the entire conversation.
In the end it doesn't matter what was actually said. The Make Believe Media has the headline it wants and will run with it - "Old people to die. Republicans at fault!"
Parsing
Submitted by CarlosS on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:33am.
"Nice little social security check you got there, granny..., it'd be a shame if something bad was to happen to it".
YOUR RIGHT Wizard!
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:42am.
He DID infact say the HE could not guarantee the checks would go out. This is known as an IMPLIED THREAT, as Wizardjr says above. He surely was trying to get seniors scared, getting them to call their representatives and force the Republicans to bend on raising taxes. Its an obvious ploy, and he has unfortunately for him exposed his hand early. It will not be easy for us to calm the seniors into understanding just what Obama and his "prison wives" in the media are up to. As we all know they (the Obama prison wives) will do ANYTHING to see that their man is protected, while whoring themselves out for him!
Throwing seniors and the disabled under the bus - for votes!
Submitted by Mary Louise Turner on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:30am.
Ears and his media toadies have taken a page out of Bill Clinton's handbook of dirty, mean politics by scaring seniors, veterans and the disabled into thinking that their money isn't coming in August. Ears is so determined to get re-elected that he'll throw anyone under the bus, including those he claims he wants to protect...
Has there ever been.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:31am.
a President so unqualified, so dishonest, so deceitful? All who voted for this pathetic, pusillanimous, charlatan should be removed from the voter rolls permanently!
Well Cowboy.......
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:44am.
as someone once said about Obama voters "Stupidity is not a crime... so I guess they are free to vote"........
Yes, they are "free to vote".
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 12:47pm.
However, I think the founders had it "more right" when they said only property owners could vote. I'm sick of my rent-paying relatives voting to increase my property taxes and they're too dumb to realize that if their apartment's owner's taxes go up, so will their rent!
By the way, I'm an "oldSeaBee" who depended on lots of "oldjarheads" while in Viet Nam.
Thanks for your service.
almostacowboy77
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 7:40am.
SeaBees Can Do!!! I was a BU2 - it's how I wrecked my stupid back!!!
Ronald Reagan
Social Security checks
Submitted by ken johnson on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:38am.
the administration will check your voting record. You vote republican SORRY no check
Time for accountablity
Submitted by Mutantone on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:40am.
I am a firm believer that the Constitution limits the terms of the congress to years and not decades. They have interpreted it in their own way to assure their jobs over and over again. It is time to follow the Constitution as written, where it states how long they can hold the office. Far to many of them have made a career out of running for or holding office to the determent of the people.
They have shown us what they want to cut benefits for the citizens, let them start with their own benefits and funding first. Remove their staff instead of giving them a raise of 3.5%, make them work for their constituents. Take away all foreign donations to the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood, and any other nation that is against us. Stop funding 22% of the UN which has placed enemies to civility in positions of power. How in the world is North Korea going to be in a position to watch over weapons. How is Iran going to be in charge of human rights when most Muslims think that a woman that has been raped needs three male witnesses to prove her claim and if not is put in jail herself for being an adulteress?
Stop supporting others until we can care for ourselves and the needs of our population. Eliminate funds to Unnecessary projects like how much booze does it take to make a monkey drunk, or the number of aids carriers in the prostitution field in Asia. There are far to many supercilious programs being funded by the tax payers.
Time to change all that instead of cutting the necessary programs for the citizens of our nation remove the funds going to other programs first and if they do not come to the budget, freeze their pay all of it until they come to a balanced budget.
“ the People of the United States are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Never happen
Submitted by another_old_veteran on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:55am.
The chief clown knows that he is definitely toast next November if any checks are not sent out. It is a shame that this doofuss has stooped so low as to use this kind of rhetoric to get his way. He well knows that the revenues due to come in in August will easily cover the 'checks' and the interest on the debt. Some bureaucrats may be out of luck though.
“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton C. Arp
The new Abbot and Costello
Submitted by Farley on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:48am.
Abbot: Are you gonna pay the 20 billion for Social Security?
Costello: We gotta a lotta bills to pay.
Abbot: Are you gonna pay 'em?
Costello: Nah. We can't pay 'em.
AbbotL Which ones you gonna pay?
Costello: Exactly.
rofl
Submitted by buddyc on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:57am.
rofl
IMO, he expanded the threat
Submitted by robert108 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:51am.
IMO, he expanded the threat to the military and veterans, along with SS recipients. He's just playing the Marxist "fixed pie" game, where when someone gets more, someone else gets less. It's a key element of the class warfare game.
Obama laid out the implied
Submitted by celator on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 12:00pm.
Obama laid out the implied threat that the SS checks "might not" be sent out. That's all he had to do to set up the shake down to rattle the old timers over debt limitation.
If he had any principles, concept of leadership or was even remotely acquainted with the concept of truth telling, he would have said, "Of course the checks will be sent out"--which, of course they will be.
Pure thuggery.
This old-timer
Submitted by StarAZ on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 2:20pm.
I won't be able to pay my mortgage if the checks stop--more trouble in housing, grocery business, clothing....I guess the Rolls Royce dealership will pull through. Does this economic genius ever think of these things--or the fact that he is supposed to be on OUR side, be OUR president? He is disgusting. Honestly. Like he ever wanted for anything...even when his single Mom was dragging him around the third world countries or his dad was being kicked out of Harvard for having too many girlfriends, whatever that means..
Obama - "Scaring Seniors" has long been his MO
Submitted by Gary Hall on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 12:06pm.
Even the liberal Democrat run FactCheck.org found this to be the case.
Something tells me that Scott Pelley didn't pick up on that back then. Just a feeling.
Result? Obama was successful. He scared seniors -- and he's doing it again.
His MO.
(;~> gary
PS - would someone please sign Obama up for a couple of classes. Ethics 101 and Economics 101 would be a great starting point.
I smell bullcrap.
Submitted by Roger the Shrubber on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 12:31pm.
I smell bullcrap.
Eau de Obama!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 12:48pm.
.
It's funny
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 12:33pm.
You know, it's funny how Obama is claiming that the tax increases he insists upon as part of the "compromise" on raising the debt ceiling won't "possibly take effect until 2013," yet, at the same time, he claims that it's vital that these tax increases be passed because the rapidly approaching debt limit ceiling is going to bankrupt our Government. Well, which one is it, Obama, Is the debt limit ceiling so catastrophic that immediate action is required, in the form of a ceiling increase, or is it not really that important so that the money needed to pay the debt obligation of that higher debt, let alone the existing debt, and the spending reductions that go along with those tax increases, can be deferred to 2013?
Obama, and democrats, and republicans, if you think it is vitally important to raise the limit and that Congressional action is needed to address this, then please, limit the discussions to just that. Leave revenue spending and collection debates and deliberations to the Budget authorization process, where they belong!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Note to Standard and Poors
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 1:27pm.
Note to Standard and Poors and Moodys bond rating agencies. Barack Obama as Chief Executive of the US has publicly implied the government doesn't either have the funds or is considering defaulting upon the Social Security Special Issue bonds. Social Security has been running at a negative cash flow and therefore is cashing in their Special Issue bonds, any refusal to honor these bonds is a default by the US government which affects it's credit worthiness.
As credit rating agencies you have a fiduciary trust to warn ALL bond holders of the signaled unwillingness of the US to honor it obligations. You have the ethical and legal obligation to warn all the creditors of a material fact as related by Barack Obama.
Given the GM and Chrysler bond defaults via the Bankruptcy courts not honoring the long standing priority of debtor in financing over all other obligations, there is no longer any assurance the US government will in a timely manner honor it's financial obligations of any kind as further demonstrated by the implied threat of Barack Obama to not allow Social Security funds to be used for their intended purpose. It matters not whether the US government has the funds, it matters that the decision makers are prepared to default on their obligations for political reasons as publicly stated by Barack Obama, the decider.
To China and Japan, your bonds are now de facto worthless since if Barack Obama is willing to suspend payments supported by US issued bonds (which are supposedly more secure than yours) for the most vulnerable of our society, then he clearly has no need to pay you either, much less see to it you get any of your investment back.
Well, it seems a down grade
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 2:35pm.
Well, it seems a down grade in US debt is going to happen:
Dagong is likely to downgrade US rating
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-07/13/content_12889286.htm
"BEIJING - The US' sovereign credit rating is likely to be downgraded regardless of whether the US Congress reaches an agreement on raising its statutory debt limit, Chinese rating agency, Dagong Global Rating Co Ltd, said on Monday.
"If the debt limit is raised and the public debt continues to grow, it will further damage the US' debt-paying ability, which is a key factor in Dagong's evaluation, and we will consider lowering its ratings accordingly," said Guan Jianzhong, chairman and CEO of Dagong.
"If the raised limit fails to pass and the US faces default, the rating will be immediately and substantially downgraded," he said.
According to Guan, the downgrading is really just "a matter of time and extent"."
So at this point S&P and Moodys are going to probably follow suit to down grade US debt. Gee thanks Obama, now the monthly debt service will skyrocket from $30 billion/month to something like $150 to $300 range PER MONTH depending on how high the interest rates go (5 to 10%). So the annual debt service now has jumped from $360 billion per year to somewhere in the range of $1.8 TRILLION to $3.6 TRILLION. So much for that $2 billion in savings you condescended to. Now what are you going to cut???? Are you then going to raise taxes another $2 to $4 trillion to cover the debt service are you? Obama is an incompetent boob. So what's next, tell the Fed to print up trillions to pay for your continued wild spending sprees? Hyper inflation here we come, lay in a 6 to 9 month food supply because when this happens you aren't going to be able to afford to buy anything.
I think we can now stick a fork in it, the goose is cooked.
As a side note: Now why do I have to read this from the China Daily? If I didn't know any better I would think this reporting came from FNC. The MSM have so badly failed its customers, the US citizen, that they are simply unusable as a reliable source of information.
dan, Somehow I get the feeling Obama is not going to be...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 3:09pm.
...the least bit distressed over this.
It's going to be one hell of a wreck.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Moody's may downgrade U.S.
Submitted by dscott on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:53am.
Moody's may downgrade U.S. triple-A rating
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/moodys-may-downgrade-us-triple-a-rating...
Somehow saying I told you so is just not enough...
Felony
Submitted by paulnashtn on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 5:18pm.
What is missing here is simple law. By law all FICA taxes are collected for S.S. any leftover monies go to the general fund, there are almost enough FICA taxes collected to send out all S.S. checks. To NOT use this money to send out the checks would be grand theft — an impeachable offense for ANYONE instrumental in the theft of these funds
"Exactly when did it become
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 5:31pm.
"Exactly when did it become acceptable for press members to intentionally report falsehoods in order to achieve a political outcome?" Rhetorical, right?
Ronald Reagan
He should be forced to sign
Submitted by shirtsbyeric on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 9:44am.
He should be forced to sign every check.
sign every check
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 9:47am.
great idea but that is too close to physical labor for a community organizer - just ask Jessie, Al or Wright.