Saturday, July 09, 2011

Pelosi Pontificates

Politicians are frequently somewhat opaque in their promises, and Nancy Pelosi is not only no exception to that but sets new standards for opacity. There are times that I wonder what the hell language she is speaking, because I didn’t know there was a foreign language that sounded so much like English. Maybe something from another planet, and since I’ve been following Pelosi for quite some time I’m unwilling to rule that out.

A reporter asked her about the possibility of a change in the method of calculating cost of living increases for Social Security and her answer was, even for her, lengthy and confusing. Something about what “some people” thought and “other people” thought but nothing, of course, about what she thought or about what she planned to do. That’s assuming that she had any thoughts, which is not really a safe bet, and that she actually planned to do anything, which is even less of a safe bet.

She did go on to say that “any savings from changing the CPI would have to go back to the Social Security Trust Fund.” That’s a pretty weird statement. Weird statements is one of her specialties, of course, but still…

Presumably by “changing the CPI,” which only the economy itself can do, she meant changing the method by which the CPI is calculated when determining Social Security cost of living increases. After declining to reveal whether or not she thought that would represent an “effective benefits cut,” she basically admits that it would be by referring to “savings from” doing it. Maybe she hoped we weren’t paying attention.

What am I saying? Politicians always hope we aren’t paying attention.

The part about those savings “going back into the Social Security Trust Fund” is really odd given that, being “savings,” they would not have come out of it in the first place.

1 comment:

bruce said...

Goes to show that not only do they hope we don't pay attention, they don't know what they are talking about. Especially when it comes to economics. But that is no real surprise, since very few are economists or financially trained anyway.

Wait - they hope thepublic pays attention to the slander they say about the opponent, and ignore the slander the opponent is saying about them. Did I say slander? Sorry , I meant political and campaign speeches. Sorry.

Post a Comment