Scumbag Brit Hume lying about FDR, found on google video search

[johnnyrocket]

This is cool ( technology wise ), yet scummy, content wise:

http://video.google.com/videopreview?q=hume+roosevelt&time=15000&page=1&docid=6144297943659363756&urlcreated=1109378313&chan=Fox+News+Channel&prog=Special+Report+With+Brit+Hume&date=Thu+Feb+3+2005+at+9%3A00+PM+PST

Hume lying about FDR ideas and Bush's dismantling-of-Social-Security plan.

HUME:
"But it turns out that F.D.R. Himself planned to include private investment accounts in the social security program when he proposed it. In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any social security plans should include, quote, voluntary contribute toir 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 anewelty plans."

[Massacure]

1. Who cares if he said it or not.

It doesn't change the fact that Bush is gonna bankrupt it if his current plan stays.

[TexasSissy]

2. Is there any indication that FDR did not say that?

He cites a specific written statement, so I'm wondering if there is evidence that that statement was not FDR's or was never made. If Hume can be proven to be lying, I'm going to post this on a bipartisan forum.

[johnnyrocket]

3. It's based on work by Media Matters...

here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010

"In an attempt to promote President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security, nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett and FOX News managing editor and anchor Brit Hume falsely claimed that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt advocated replacing Social Security with private accounts."

[rodeodance]

5. media matters.org did a piece on this lie last week. and YES it does

matter what Brit and his types lie about---He has a huge market--and Fox news is broadcasted to our troops.

[K-W]

7. He is misrepresenting the statement.

Go read the source he is citing. What he is saying is a clearly dishonest reading of roosevelts words.

Roosevelt never suggested privitization. He suggested some method aside from SS where people could electively put aside money for themselves, but that wasnt meant to ever replace social security, just to provide people the ability to have retirement savings.

Its hard to explain how he is wrong becaues he just completely made it up. The source he cited doesnt say that at all.

The thing he was talking about fazing out was the money the government was going to pay to older people who were old when SS started so had never paid into the fund. And he didnt say he wanted to replace it with private funds, he said SS would replace it.

[papau]

8. have fun in your bipartisan forum! :-) data and links below

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010
http://mediamatters.org/static/video/specreport-200502040010.wmv

Distorting FDR: Bennett and Hume claimed father of Social Security system wanted privatization

In an attempt to promote President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security, nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett and FOX News managing editor and anchor Brit Hume falsely claimed that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt advocated replacing Social Security with private accounts. In fact, while Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits, he never proposed replacing those benefits with private accounts.

On the February 3 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes, Bennett declared: "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the guy who established Social Security, said that it would be good to have it replaced by private investment over time. Private investment would be the way to really carry this thing through."

Earlier that evening, on FOX News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume provided the alleged historical basis for Bennett's claim:

HUME: 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."

But Roosevelt was not advocating that the present system of guaranteed Social Security benefits "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." Rather, he was proposing that both mandatory contributions and voluntary annuities would eventually eliminate the need for a different fund which was established to provide pension benefits to Americans who were already too old in 1935 to contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security system.

Roosevelt outlined the three major tenets he envisioned for Social Security in the January 17, 1935, speech that Hume quoted. As the Social Security Administration (SSA) has noted, these tenets are: 1) "non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance"; 2) "compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations"; and 3) "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

The second element, "compulsory contributory annuities," is the backbone of Social Security's current system of guaranteed retirement benefits, which are funded with payroll taxes that employees pay throughout their working years. But it was the first element, a retirement benefit fund for those who would never pay into the new system due to advanced age, that Roosevelt said would eventually be "supplanted" -- or made unnecessary -- by both voluntary annuities and compulsory contributions like those in the current system. In his January 17, 1935, speech, he noted: "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." As the SSA noted, "It was the President's view ... that ultimately the welfare pensions funded by the states with federal contributions would become unnecessary as the two programs of annuities would gradually come to obviate any need for such welfare type programs."

During 1935 congressional hearings on Roosevelt's Social Security bill, Edwin Witte, executive director of the Committee on Economic Security (CES), clearly stated that the voluntary accounts were intended as a "separate undertaking" meant to "supplement" the compulsory system, not replace it: "The voluntary system of old-age annuities we suggest as a supplement to the compulsory plan." Further, voluntary annuities would be "similar to those issued by commercial insurance companies" -- as Witte explained -- but they would differ from private accounts in that their funds would be deposited into and paid out of the Social Security trust fund, and they would provide a government-guaranteed benefit like mandatory contributions. Prominent contemporary Democrats support Roosevelt's idea of supplemental government-sponsored investment accounts that are paid for by non-Social Security funds, although unlike Roosevelt's plan, these accounts would not be linked to the trust fund.*

Former Social Security associate commissioner James Roosevelt Jr., Roosevelt's grandson, noted in a January 31 Boston Globe op-ed http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/01/31/dont_use_fdr_to_undermine_social_security/ piece: "The implication that FDR would support privatization of America's greatest national program is an attempt to deceive the American people and an outrage."

*Correction: When this item was first published, it incorrectly suggested that Roosevelt's plan for "voluntary contributory annuities" was similar to Democrats' proposal for supplemental private investment accounts funded by non-Social Security funds. In fact, the two proposals differ as noted above. Thanks to a reader for pointing this out.




http://www.airamericaradio.com/weblogs/alfrankenshow/index.php?/franken/hume_resign/

As Media Matters noticed: here’s Brit Hume, the Fox News Channel’s top news anchor, on February 3:

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.
Hume’s claim is that FDR wanted to replace Social Security with private accounts. Hume is lying. Here’s the FDR statement that Hume is misquoting http://www.ssa.gov/history/voluntaryannuities.html :

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.
So, FDR was proposing three things: a temporary “old-age pension,” for seniors who wouldn’t have time to pay into the Social Security system; a compulsory-contribution annuity--meaning, Social Security as we know it today--which would become a “self-supporting system,” and, third, voluntary individual accounts. Ultimately, the old-age pensions would be supplanted by the self-supporting annuity system (meaning, Social Security.)

Hume turns this completely on its head. He pulls two unrelated bits out of the FDR quote, and adds the wrods “government funding” between them. Because it’s so carefully done, it’s clear that it’s deliberate. And it’s a nasty form of dishonesty. Hume is manipulating Americans’ trust of FDR in order to build support for dismantling FDR’s legacy.

That same day on Fox, Hume’s dishonest point was echoed by Bill Bennett:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the guy who established Social Security, said that it would be good to have it replaced by private investment over time.
It’s just not true. But we know where it came from--Brit Hume.

Although it won’t be as explosive politically, this is worse than Dan Rather’s memo scandal. First of all, it’s deliberate. Secondly, it’s untrue. Dan Rather was guilty of being insufficiently skeptical of forged, true documents. But Brit Hume, Fox News Channel’s #1 anchor--not commentator, not editorialist, anchor--is deliberately perverting the words of a hero to destroy the hero’s legacy.

Brit Hume should resign.

Tell Fox:

Show email: [e-mail]
Brit Hume’s email: [e-mail]

FOX News Channel
1-888-369-4762
[e-mail]

[EVDebs]

4. FDR's grandson went on the toob and denounced this Hume crapola !

I think on Keith Olbermann or Tweety's show. This is just more of the Operation Mockingbird Bush-payola media-whoring that's got to stop !!!

[rodeodance]

6. the grandson thought Brit should resign and apologize--so far Brit

has ignorned him!!!

[EVDebs]

9. I heard the same on Al Franken's show. And it took some

convuluted reworking of FDRs' speech for Hume and Fux news to have their conclusions come out the way they wanted. Fairly premeditated and unbalanced.

[Hidden Stillness]

10. How the Bastard Lied, and FDR's Grandson Explains It

This whole thing was explained very clearly on the February 15th, 2005 "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," a segment with the grandson of FDR, James Roosevelt, Jr., who was also once associate commissioner for Social Security.

What James Roosevelt first said was, "Social Security when it was enacted almost 70 years ago ought to first of all have a part that took care of people who didn't have time to build up a Social Security account, and the Government should fund that out of General Revenues. Secondly, Social Security should have a self-sustaining portion that was funded by contributions by both employers and employees--that's what we know, and have known for 70 successful years as Social Security, and thirdly, those who wanted, and who needed, to, as many, as almost everybody did, to have a higher income in retirement, should have accounts where they could pay in voluntarily in addition to the guaranteed Social Security benefit; and then my grandfather said, that eventually, the self-sustaining portion of the guaranteed insurance would phase out the Government-paid portion. That's because we'd have a fully functionong Social Security system, as we do today. What Brit Hume and others have done is take portions of that paragraph and rearrange it, so that it says something entirely different from what he intended." Roosevelt correctly referred to it as an "amazing distortion."

Then Franklin Roosevelt's original plan, part of the January 17, 1935 speech to Congress on security for our old people, was read on the screen. "In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 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 the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Olbermann then explained, "So, where he raised the prospect of self-supporting annuity plans, it was not to replace Social Security, it was to replace the money the Government was contributing to Social Security, for the people who were born in, say, 1870 and earlier." It was NOT to ever end the program, but instead was the very way it would become self-sufficient after the first generation(s) of people, who never could have saved enough money to contribute when it started, 1935, began to die off and the system was from then on made up of those workers who had always contributed.

James Roosevelt mentioned that when Social Security was being studied, to set it up, one suggestion was just to fund it out of general revenues, but Secretary of the Treasury Morganthau, heading the commission, said, (quoting James Roosevelt), "No, it has to have a payroll tax dedicated to Social Security, because if it doesn't, it'll either get to look like welfare, or it'll be traded off against other good things."

Social Security is probably the most popular and successful program there is, one that James Roosevelt is rightly very proud of, and defends brilliantly. As Roosevelt pointed out, the poverty rate among older people, extreme desperate poverty, was about half their population; now most older people are above the poverty line. Even though this "Countdown" segment was only about 6-7 minutes, it explained the whole complicated thing very well. Roosevelt's grandson was really fabulous, with the same fighting spirit on behalf of those who need help,and against these archcon liars, even saying, about the prick Hume, "..and he rearranged those sentences in an outrageous distortion, one that really calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation." Keep in mind also, by the way, although it was not mentioned on this program, that although people on Social Security do not pay taxes on it, if it were changed to some Wall Street commercial scam, they would then pay taxes, suddenly. This would "cut their benefits" right there.

Social Security--it's the greatest!

[AuntiBush]

11. ANYONE that puts down FDR is just that - SCUM!

Not worthy of our time, thoughts or response. Brit HUME + FOX = SCUM. Period!