Britt Hume Misquotes FDR on Privatization

Fox News' anchor Britt Hume is quoted as misquoting FDR thusly:

"In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, quote, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, quote, “ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

In fact, according to James Roosevelt and the actual archival record, here is what FDR said:

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." (emphasis added by Al Franken)

FDR was proposing three separate and distinct programs:

1. A temporary "old-age pension" for seniors who wouldn’t have time to pay into the "new" Social Security system;

2. A compulsory-contribution annuity--meaning, Social Security as we know it today--which would become a "self-supporting system" (i.e., contributions of workers would support retirees initially, but ultimately the imputed interest on the bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund would pay the benefits so that ultimately, the initial, start-up old-age pensions (item 1, above) would be supplanted by the self-supporting annuities from the earnings of the Trust Fund - meaning, Social Security.) and,

3. Voluntary private accounts. These are the "Add On" (not "carve out") private accounts - like IRA's. 401(k), and Keough's proposed by Pete Peterson, President Clinton, and Senator Moynihan.

Fox News' Britt Hume turned this completely on its head. He pulls two unrelated snippets out of the FDR quote, and adds the phrase "government funding" between them.

Al Franken and Media Matters both concluded that because the misquote and rewrite was so artfully crafter, it was deliberate and dishonest. it’s clear that it’s deliberate.

Al Franken says that it is a particularly nasty form of dishonesty because it is manipulating Americans’ trust of FDR in order to build support for dismantling FDR’s legacy.

Links:

Al Franken: http://www.ofrankenfactor.com/
Media Watch: http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200502040010

Nothing more needs to be said, does it?

Or would that be Oxymoran?...

and then you can sell it with out actually telling a lie.
The fundies have done this for years, they use the Bible quoting only the verses that fit their need at that moment.
It isn't about what is right, to the Reich wing, it is about ends justifying the means.

Does anybody in the media fact check?

Why are Brit Hume's lies not a huge media scandal?

Britt Hume's lies are part of the GOP-Rove spin machine.

He says, "Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

He's talking about people contributing to voluntary annuities but he doesn't say whether they are government annuities or private. Since he's speaking in the context of Social Security and refers to "voluntary contributions" to the annuities as a way to "increase the annual amounts received in old age." you could argue he's speaking of government annuities.

Bush and Company are talking "Carve Outs" -- and Hume is attributing "carve outs" to FDR.

I don't know if such a paperback exists. But between "Nolo Press" and most state Bar Associations, there are a collection of books on "Elder Law".

These books hit Social Security (including Survivors' Insurance and Disability), Disability Claims and Appeals, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid (including integration of Private Long Term Care Insurance with Medicaid to protect your assets), as well as 401(k) and IRA and Keough distributions, etc.

As you skim through these books (I think Nolo, NY State Bar, and California State Bar have the same book with different covers :-) ) you realize that Bush and company are just adding increasing levels of unneeded complexity.

Simplest "fix" -- favorable tax benefits for low income people to buy into IRA's, 401(k)'s. That's what FDR was talking about - "add ons" not "carve outs"

FDR's talking about an expanded voluntary social security system where you could contribute more than the government requires and get more in your old age. He's talking private government accounts.

When I was in Law School - 40+ years ago - we had a course called "Life Time Estate Planning" where we went over those savings vehicles as the tax code existed at that time -- and I worked for my dad who did a lot of that stuff.

Back in 1935 when Roosevelt spoke taxes were lower -- and the tax deferral issue (for the recipient) and tax deductibility issue(for the settlor or employer) of IRA's, and Keough's, and 401(k)'s were really non issues. (Because there were no such things as IRA's, and Keough's, and 401(k)'s in 1935 - just trusteed accounts). The issue was the Estate tax -- which in 1935 was not that much of an issue.

But the REAL policy issue was still the same --- personal savings over and above FICA - which does not cut into your social security pension,

Remember - what Bush is proposing is taking your "Personal Account Estate" out of your Social Security Virtual Estate. What FDR was describing is adding your "Personal Account Estate" to your Social Security Virtual Estate. Seventy one year ago differences in the Internal Revenue Code are not relevant to the "Big Picture" of "Add Ons" versus "Carve Outs."

Bush and Company are talking "Carve Outs" -- and Hume is attributing "carve outs" to FDR. All of these post 1972 tax code gimmicks do not change the fundamental issue -- FDR was describing "Add Ons" and not "Carve Outs", and Bush is talking "Carve Outs" - with a "Claw Back" Zinger - Britt Hume is conflating FDR's "Add Ons" with Bush's "Carve Outs" and saying they are Identically Equal.

In 1935, the lowest marginal tax rate was 4%, and the majority of hourly workers paid no income taxes.

So, tax preferences of today's IRA's etc. would have been irrelevant.

Note - FDIC was just two years old -- so there was not a lot of faith in the banking system in 1935. And, of course, in 1935, most working Americans had neither access to nor faith in the stock market.

in "title 7" of that bill simply asked for permission to accept extra over and above the payroll tax - voluntary monies with IRS making final decisions as to everything. FDR wrote - and told the actuaries of the time - like Myer who is still alive - that he expected the folks to be willing to invest in the stock market in a few years once he had calmed the markets.

Indeed folks thought the post office would be the place the payroll tax was paid - until the IRS decided otherwise!!

Hume misquoting FDR I dont think was an attempt to slander him. its not like he was pushing for private accounts. I would be nice to have a transcript so we can see the context of the comment.