{"id":1076,"date":"2004-10-13T18:20:16","date_gmt":"2004-10-13T22:20:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/000af36.netsolhost.com\/wordpress1\/2004\/10\/13\/no_more_a_mcnew\/"},"modified":"2004-10-13T18:20:16","modified_gmt":"2004-10-13T22:20:16","slug":"no_more_a_mcnew","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/2004\/10\/13\/no_more_a_mcnew\/","title":{"rendered":"No More a McNewspaper"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A memo from the editor of USA Today to his staff is <a href=\"http:\/\/poynter.org\/forum\/?id=memos\">posted on the Poynter web site<\/a>.<br \/>\nIn the memo, Ken Paulson tells the staff that the paper should strive for uniqueness.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>That unique content comes, to some extent, from scoops; the kind of exclusive news content that our industry has always chased. But it also means taking a fresh look at old subjects and approaching stories with a fresh eye.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In the past, I had joined the snobs who dismissed USA Today as the McNewspaper.  I\u2019m still a little frustrated that some of the paper\u2019s stories leave me hungry for more.  But no one can dismiss USA Today any longer.  In fact, many times USAT trumps its highly respected competitors.  <\/p>\n<p>Which leads me to a couple of stories that I found compelling earlier this month.  Indeed, the writers and editors took \u201ca fresh look at old subjects and approach[ed the] stories with a fresh eye.\u201d  I had meant to comment on them before, but it\u2019s never too late because this series of stories are a \u201cmust read\u201d for anyone who cares about the \u201cbig issues\u201d facing us in this election season.<\/p>\n<p>One of the biggest issues is the deficit.  Both candidates have blinders on about it.  USAT <a href=\"http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/news\/nation\/2004-10-03-debt-cover_x.htm\">puts the issues  in stark and accessible terms<\/a>.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>A USA TODAY analysis found that the nation&#8217;s hidden debt \u2014 Americans&#8217; obligation today as taxpayers \u2014 is more than five times the $9.5 trillion they owe on mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other personal debt.<\/p>\n<p>This hidden debt equals $473,456 per household, dwarfing the $84,454 each household owes in personal debt.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>But it\u2019s really not our debt.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;The baby boomers and the Greatest Generation are delivering an economic disaster to their children,&#8221; says Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economist and co-author of The Coming Generational Storm, a book about the national debt. &#8220;We should be ashamed of ourselves.&#8221; <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Here\u2019s what it would take to \u201cpay the obligations of federal, state and local government:\u201d<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>*All federal taxes would have to double immediately and permanently. A household earning $100,000 a year would see its federal taxes double from an average of about $20,000 to $40,000 a year. All state taxes would have to increase 20% immediately and permanently. <\/p>\n<p>*Or, benefits for Social Security, Medicare and government pensions would have to be slashed in half immediately and permanently. Social Security checks would be cut from an average of $1,500 per month for couples to $750. Military pensions would drop from an average of $1,782 per month to $891. Medicare spending would fall from $7,500 to $3,750 annually per senior. The Medicare prescription-drug benefit enacted last year would be canceled. <\/p>\n<p>*Or, a combination of tax hikes and benefit cuts \u2014 such as a 50% increase in taxes and a 25% reduction in benefits \u2014 would avoid the extremes but still require painful changes that are outside the scope of today&#8217;s political debate. Savings also could come in the form of price controls on prescription drugs, raising retirement ages and limiting benefits to the affluent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>One issue that has intrigued me is the history of social security.  In his message to the Congress in 1934, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/history\/briefhistory3.html \">FDR said<\/a> \u201c[W]e are compelled to employ the active interest of the Nation as a whole through government in order to encourage a greater security for each individual who composes it . . .\u201d<\/p>\n<p>That sounds to me that, as the USAT article states, \u201cSocial Security was created in 1935 to help the elderly avoid poverty during the Great Depression.\u201d  \u201cAvoid poverty\u201d are the key words for me.  But is that true?  Was it sold as help for the indigent or was it an entitlement?  <\/p>\n<p>Maybe no one ever thought about it because \u201c[w]hen the government set 65 as the retirement age in the 1930s, most people didn&#8217;t live that long. But life expectancy for women has increased from 66 to 80 since 1940 and for men from 61 to 75.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Should Social Security and Medicare be means tested?  The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/news\/nation\/2004-10-04-debtsolutions-cover_x.htm\">next day&#8217;s USAT article<\/a> briefly (maybe USAT falls victim to its brevity here) explores the alternatives.<\/p>\n<p>All in all, the articles and sidebars are worth reading.  No, they\u2019re required reading, making USAT no more a McNewspaper but often an accessible, thorough and compelling read.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A memo from the editor of USA Today to his staff is posted on the Poynter web site. In the memo, Ken Paulson tells the staff that the paper should strive for uniqueness. That unique content comes, to some extent, from scoops; the kind of exclusive news content that our industry has always chased. But&hellip; <a href=\"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/2004\/10\/13\/no_more_a_mcnew\/\">Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1076"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1076"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1076\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1076"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1076"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1076"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}