Delay's Days Dwindling?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
W/r/t SS estimates, I want to focus here:

BostonBarrister wrote:
First, with respect to the problem with Social Security, I don’t know where you’re getting a 1.8% productivity growth as the key – the key is the change in demographics, unless somehow a slighty higher productivity growth that is reflected in the wage of 1 worker but in the benefits to 10 retirees (just to pull some numbers out of my ass - I forget the precise ratio). In the actuary’s report, it states explicitly that demographics are the cause for the rising costs that will drain the system.

100meters wrote:
1.8 is the number used to get to doomsday by 2042. Actually it’s 1.8 for like the next 10 years then it goes down to like 1.2 or something like that.

You didn’t seem to get what I was getting at, which is namely that the 1.8% productivity growth number isn’t the driving force behind the SS projections, even if it is the number used in the mid-range projection. The productivity growth projection is just one of many factors in the assumptions. The driving force is the demographic numbers.

And changing the productivity number to a higher number should actually have a NEGATIVE effect on the future viability of Social Security if benefits are figured under the current Social Security inflator, which increases them with productivity gains rather than with cost of living gains. THis is because benefits would be rising faster than the tax base on which social security taxes are collected – the cap is $90,000 in current dollars, so as more and more people got higher salaries, more and more income would escape the tax, while the benefits would continue to grow.

The actuary stated in the report that the most important factor in the rising costs for social security were the demographics – namely, the aging of the population, which gives us many more retirees supported by many fewer productive workers. That’s the key. Not the 1.8% productivity gain assumption.

While a higher productivity number would be a good thing generally, and could be part of a fix if the SS inflator was changed to reflect only cost of living increases, I don’t see that the productivity measure has the power that you’re ascribing it.

[/quote]

Ok, but:

…While [faster] economic growth makes it easier to sustain some government spending programs, this does not apply to Social Security… (Council of Economic Advisors, “Three Questions About Social Security,” February 4, 2005.)

does not apply hmmm… but further down

Simulations in the [2004] Report [of the Social Security Trustees] indicate that an 0.5 percentage point increase in real wage growth would improve the 75-year actuarial balance… mean a 75-year deficit of 1.35… instead of… 1.89 percent of taxable payroll… The date of Trust Fund exhaustion would be pushed back from 2042 to 2048.

doesn’t apply unless it, well, applies.

If you increase productivity, you increase the tax base in relation to current obligations. Remember initial benefit is tied to wage, post retirement tied to price:

…"Now let’s consider two alternative worlds–one with zero and one with two percent per year productivity growth–and look at the situation halfway through her retirement, when she reaches 73. And let’s suppose that in alternative world 1, the world with zero percent productivity growth, her share of the taxes that Social Security collects cover only 90% of her benefits: with zero percent productivity growth, the Social Security system is running a deficit.

Now let’s look at what happens in alternative world 2, the world with two percent per year productivity growth. The economy has been growing 2% faster for 11 years. That means that wages and the Social Security tax base are 22% (actually 24%–compound interest you know) higher than in alternative world 1. Instead of collecting revenues that cover only 90% of her benefits, the Social Security system collects revenues that cover 112% of her benefits: no Social Security deficit. No Social Security problem. Faster productivity growth affects the cost of Social Security (initial benefits go up faster the faster is productivity growth) and it affects the revenues of Social Security (a richer economy pays more in Social Security taxes) but it affects revenues more…"

“The key is that the current price indexation of benefits after retirement adds a wedge between Social Security’s costs and its resources roughly equal to half of life expectancy at retirement times the trend productivity growth rate. Each 0.1 percentage point increase in the growth rate of productivity reduces the long-horizon Social Security deficit by approximately 0.1% of taxable payroll…”

“… Real wage and productivity growth of 3.0% per year (as opposed to the 1.1% per year assumed by SSA) would wipe out the 75-year deficit.”

But still my larger point is
a.dishonesty in the proposal of personal accts, based on differing productivity numbers.
b. reality of projected returns in personal accts.

142

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
OK B.B.

yes or no?
should both scenarios use the same productivity number? For honesty’s sake?

when did you start valuing honesty?[/quote]
eh? doesn’t everybody? weird.

143

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
[/quote]
yes,yes,yes, but still the presentation as you know is:
a. s.s. will be bankrupt(president says based on the pessimistic assumptions)
b. but returns on personal accts will be… (president says based on optimistic assumptions in line with the historical rate of return)

stocks will(probably) not give the historical rate of return if (IF) a. is assumed. voter should know that.

S.S. may not be bankrupt at all if b. is assumed and voters should know that, but they don’t!

144

Something about what you excerpted here doesn’t make sense.

[quote]100meters wrote:

Ok, but:

…While [faster] economic growth makes it easier to sustain some government spending programs, this does not apply to Social Security… (Council of Economic Advisors, “Three Questions About Social Security,” February 4, 2005.)

does not apply hmmm… but further down

Simulations in the [2004] Report [of the Social Security Trustees] indicate that an 0.5 percentage point increase in real wage growth would improve the 75-year actuarial balance… mean a 75-year deficit of 1.35… instead of… 1.89 percent of taxable payroll… The date of Trust Fund exhaustion would be pushed back from 2042 to 2048.

doesn’t apply unless it, well, applies. [/quote]

Was there something missing in the middle, like a proposal to index increases in Social Security to cost of living, rather than to increases in wages. Look below – it seems that this is what is being used for the calculations:

[quote]100meters wrote:

If you increase productivity, you increase the tax base in relation to current obligations. Remember initial benefit is tied to wage, post retirement tied to price:

…"Now let’s consider two alternative worlds–one with zero and one with two percent per year productivity growth–and look at the situation halfway through her retirement, when she reaches 73. And let’s suppose that in alternative world 1, the world with zero percent productivity growth, her share of the taxes that Social Security collects cover only 90% of her benefits: with zero percent productivity growth, the Social Security system is running a deficit.

Now let’s look at what happens in alternative world 2, the world with two percent per year productivity growth. The economy has been growing 2% faster for 11 years. That means that wages and the Social Security tax base are 22% (actually 24%–compound interest you know) higher than in alternative world 1. Instead of collecting revenues that cover only 90% of her benefits, the Social Security system collects revenues that cover 112% of her benefits: no Social Security deficit. No Social Security problem. Faster productivity growth affects the cost of Social Security (initial benefits go up faster the faster is productivity growth) and it affects the revenues of Social Security (a richer economy pays more in Social Security taxes) but it affects revenues more…"

"The key is that the current price indexation of benefits after retirement adds a wedge between Social Security’s costs and its resources roughly equal to half of life expectancy at retirement times the trend productivity growth rate. Each 0.1 percentage point increase in the growth rate of productivity reduces the long-horizon Social Security deficit by approximately 0.1% of taxable payroll…"

“… Real wage and productivity growth of 3.0% per year (as opposed to the 1.1% per year assumed by SSA) would wipe out the 75-year deficit.” [/quote]

Aside from that, from what I’ve read there would still be problems beyond the 75-year scenario, even under the best assumptions.

Secondly, the math doesn’t seem to work. A higher productivity growth number won’t automatically translate to more SS tax base, because salaries at the higher end will be growing outside of the cap on SS taxes – and as real wages rise, a greater and greater percentage will be growing outside the cap, which is currently $90,000 in today’s dollars.

Also, I thought the the SSA was using 1.8% according to what you wrote above?

Finally, the mean long-term productivity growth number is 2%. So…

[quote]100meters wrote:

But still my larger point is
a.dishonesty in the proposal of personal accts, based on differing productivity numbers.
b. reality of projected returns in personal accts.[/quote]

See what I wrote yesterday.

145

Interesting article.

Wage Gap Figures in Social Security’s Ills

By GREG IP
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
April 11, 2005; Page A2

The debate over Social Security has managed to drown out other longstanding issues in American society, including the widening gap between rich and poor and surging health-care costs. Yet these two phenomena play an important, though little appreciated, role in Social Security’s problems. That is because they are eroding the base of taxable wages available to support Social Security benefits.

As the population ages, benefits paid to retirees will steadily outstrip payroll taxes of workers. Between 2030 and 2080, the annual shortfall will soar from 3.5% to 5.8% of wages subject to the Social Security tax (called “taxable payroll”), the Social Security trustees say. Compared with gross domestic product, the imbalance rises far more gently, from 1.3% to 1.9% of GDP.

The reason is that taxable payroll is expected to expand more slowly than is GDP and, by 2080, to equal just 33% of GDP, compared with 38% now. Stephen Goss, Social Security’s chief actuary, says there are two main reasons why. One is that a “somewhat increasing share of all the earnings in the economy [is] above our taxable maximum,” and the second is that a growing share of “employee compensation…is going not to wages but to fringe benefits, which are not included in our tax base,” Mr. Goss says.

Social Security payroll taxes are levied on wages up to a certain cap, currently $90,000 a year, which rises annually with the average wage. In the past 25 years, a growing share of income has been paid to people who earn more than the cap.

This increasing concentration of income at the upper strata of society is an important reason why, from 1980 through 2000, taxable payroll fell to 83% of wages of contributing workers from 90%.

Both these trends partially were reversed in 2001, but there are signs inequality is growing again: The Federal Reserve estimates that the pay of managers and supervisors is rising much faster than that of production workers. Meanwhile, Social Security actuaries expect taxable payroll, which rebounded to 86% of total wages in 2002, to return to 83% by 2013.

Even if inequality stopped widening, Social Security’s tax base probably would continue to be eroded because of rising health-care costs. Since 1996, health-care costs have risen to 7.3% of employee compensation from 6.3%, and Social Security’s actuaries expect it to keep rising. This is a big problem for Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly, but it also affects Social Security, because payroll taxes aren’t levied on health-care insurance premiums. Mr. Goss says that is the main reason for taxable payroll’s shrinking share of GDP.

Can policy makers do anything about these phenomena? Income inequality defies any easy solution. Mr. Orszag says its impact on Social Security revenue can be alleviated by raising the payroll cap. This would fall hardest on those earning between the old and new cap: They would get higher pension benefits, but not enough to outweigh their increased taxes.

The erosion of the taxable payroll due to health costs could be dealt with either by taxing health-insurance benefits, as some tax-overhaul advocates have proposed, or finding some way to slow health inflation.

Ultimately, income inequality and health-care inflation are thornier than the more basic problems that policy makers now are dealing with on Social Security. Still, their role demonstrates that the program’s problems aren’t simply the result of demographics.

Write to Greg Ip at greg.ip@wsj.com

146

[quote]100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
OK B.B.

yes or no?
should both scenarios use the same productivity number? For honesty’s sake?

when did you start valuing honesty?
eh? doesn’t everybody? weird.

[/quote]

well then how come you don’t practice it in your “debates” here, and how come you don’t hold your side as accountable as you try to hold the other?

147

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Something about what you excerpted here doesn’t make sense.

100meters wrote:

Ok, but:

…While [faster] economic growth makes it easier to sustain some government spending programs, this does not apply to Social Security… (Council of Economic Advisors, “Three Questions About Social Security,” February 4, 2005.)

does not apply hmmm… but further down

Simulations in the [2004] Report [of the Social Security Trustees] indicate that an 0.5 percentage point increase in real wage growth would improve the 75-year actuarial balance… mean a 75-year deficit of 1.35… instead of… 1.89 percent of taxable payroll… The date of Trust Fund exhaustion would be pushed back from 2042 to 2048.

doesn’t apply unless it, well, applies.

Was there something missing in the middle, like a proposal to index increases in Social Security to cost of living, rather than to increases in wages. Look below – it seems that this is what is being used for the calculations:

100meters wrote:

If you increase productivity, you increase the tax base in relation to current obligations. Remember initial benefit is tied to wage, post retirement tied to price:

…"Now let’s consider two alternative worlds–one with zero and one with two percent per year productivity growth–and look at the situation halfway through her retirement, when she reaches 73. And let’s suppose that in alternative world 1, the world with zero percent productivity growth, her share of the taxes that Social Security collects cover only 90% of her benefits: with zero percent productivity growth, the Social Security system is running a deficit.

Now let’s look at what happens in alternative world 2, the world with two percent per year productivity growth. The economy has been growing 2% faster for 11 years. That means that wages and the Social Security tax base are 22% (actually 24%–compound interest you know) higher than in alternative world 1. Instead of collecting revenues that cover only 90% of her benefits, the Social Security system collects revenues that cover 112% of her benefits: no Social Security deficit. No Social Security problem. Faster productivity growth affects the cost of Social Security (initial benefits go up faster the faster is productivity growth) and it affects the revenues of Social Security (a richer economy pays more in Social Security taxes) but it affects revenues more…"

"The key is that the current price indexation of benefits after retirement adds a wedge between Social Security’s costs and its resources roughly equal to half of life expectancy at retirement times the trend productivity growth rate. Each 0.1 percentage point increase in the growth rate of productivity reduces the long-horizon Social Security deficit by approximately 0.1% of taxable payroll…"

“… Real wage and productivity growth of 3.0% per year (as opposed to the 1.1% per year assumed by SSA) would wipe out the 75-year deficit.”

Aside from that, from what I’ve read there would still be problems beyond the 75-year scenario, even under the best assumptions.

Secondly, the math doesn’t seem to work. A higher productivity growth number won’t automatically translate to more SS tax base, because salaries at the higher end will be growing outside of the cap on SS taxes – and as real wages rise, a greater and greater percentage will be growing outside the cap, which is currently $90,000 in today’s dollars.

Also, I thought the the SSA was using 1.8% according to what you wrote above?

Finally, the mean long-term productivity growth number is 2%. So…

100meters wrote:

But still my larger point is
a.dishonesty in the proposal of personal accts, based on differing productivity numbers.
b. reality of projected returns in personal accts.

See what I wrote yesterday.[/quote]

The number starts as 1.8 or 1.9 and then is further reduced out (I mentioned this before I think), so the average till doomsday is lower than 1.8. I’m pretty sure that’s its 1.5 percent over the next 75 years, about half the rate of the last 75 years, and again if this projection turns out to be true, then the last place you would have wanted your money to be is in the stock market, because we would have had a recession for about 75 years!

The trustees provide projections for 2.2 percent and lo and behold s.s. is solvent indefinitely. Take it to 2.5 (still less than the historical rate) and it’s running surpluses. It’s a simple, simple matter of tweaking here and there to come up with a solution providing for solvency of the plan. Raise the cap. Scale the benefits more wage based for lower-income, more price-based for upper incomes,etc.

The only good argument I’ve heard for personal accts is accountability.(As you’ve mentioned B.B.) But even that is questionable considering the current admin and party in power. Remember that Greenspan, and Reagan raised S.S. taxes to help save the Trust fund that Bush now says is worthless IOU’s (believe that a U.S. president said it!) Would taking the 200 billion a year of surplus off the books really stop them? It’s not something I’d bank such a critical, and fully functioning program on.

148

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
OK B.B.

yes or no?
should both scenarios use the same productivity number? For honesty’s sake?

when did you start valuing honesty?
eh? doesn’t everybody? weird.

well then how come you don’t practice it in your “debates” here, and how come you don’t hold your side as accountable as you try to hold the other?[/quote]

I do and I do. Why don’t you? Look It may bother you that Pelosi’s aid took a 4000 dollar trip to spain that is within ethical rules. (For some reason lobbyists from a foreign country can’t pay for trips but the companies can) and it bothers you (and me) that Reid helped his sons out (again within the rules), in the same way it bothers me when Delay helped brother Randy and Mexican company cemex (whom Randy was lobbying for)by using his influence.

And Delay’s support and effort to continue slave labor in the marianas(with vacations as rewards) really bothers me (I’m against slave labor, especially in american terr.) I have a hard time squaring Delay’s pro-birth stance with the forced abortions of pregnant women in the Marianas, but perhaps you don’t. I have a hard time with his talk on values while he allowed the evironment of slavery and sex tourism to continue in the marianas(and he has the support of the Family Research Council no less!) I have a hard time squaring statements like:

“The time has come that the American people know exactly what their representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special-interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know. I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure.”

But perhaps you don’t. Russian golf trips at the expense of the military of a foreign power to support America’s enemies may not bother you, but it pisses me off. If we assume that nobody is innocent like Rainjack says, then we have to go with relativity right? And relative to Pelosi and Reid, I don’t like Tom Delay. (and this thread was about Delay–start a “Rosty went down” thread and I’d be all too happy to join in, or Liberals pissed that Clinton got b.j. and I’ll angrily rant)

149

100meters,

I think we’ve established that we don’t agree on the numbers or the math.

Moving on from that, what do you think should be done to provide long-term, perpetual stability (i.e. stability beyond the normal 75-year horizon of the projections)?

From your post above, you seem to favor raising taxes on those with higher incomes and lowering benefits for those with higher incomes – which in my mind turns Social Security into even more of a welfare program (though not completely if you still have to pay in to get benefits).

Firstly, I’m not convinced those will work (this will go back to the SS actuary numbers you don’t like), and secondly I want to know what kind of effects the marginal tax hike and benefit cut on the most productive earners will have on economic growth projections.

For me, a real solution would involve increasing the return the whole system gets on the overhang. If this means investing money from SS into the diversified stock and bond markets like Canada does, then that should be considered. We should also add more supplemental tax-free savings accounts to encourage savings and investing outside the SS system.

I would also be strongly against any change that includes having different benefits calculators (cost of living vs. productivity) based on different income levels. Everyone’s benefits should be calculated based on cost of living.

150

Back on topic,

This National Review editorial does a good job of capturing the feeling of most conservatives I know on this subject:

Tom?s Travails

House majority leader Tom DeLay is now officially ?dogged by ethics questions,? a description he can add to the others routinely applied to him by the media: ?controversial? and ?right-wing.? Conservatives must be willing to make cold-blooded calculations about their leaders, since the cause is bigger than any one man. But DeLay has not committed any crimes or ethics violations that merit his ouster. Nor has his effectiveness been so diminished that the Republican caucus would be better off without him ? even if he has sustained damage from the drip-drip of allegations against him.

The chief reason the Democrats and the press are ganging up on DeLay is obvious: He is an effective leader of the House Republican majority, and they hope to do damage to the GOP caucus and agenda by taking him out, on the model of former Speaker Newt Gingrich. After all, many of the offenses DeLay is being accused of ? taking foreign trips funded by outside groups, attending events with lobbyists ? are committed by every congressman on Capitol Hill.

There are three sets of allegations against DeLay, and it is worth going through each one, since so much of the case against DeLay depends on piling up as many charges as possible to create the impression of irredeemable corruption. The first has to do with foreign trips. One was a trip to Seoul funded by the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, a group that registered as a foreign agent days before the trip. It is against House rules to accept trips from a registered foreign agent. But there was no way for DeLay to know the group had registered, and other Republicans and Democrats ? including a Nancy Pelosi staffer ? had gone on similar trips sponsored by the group. DeLay disclosed the trip to the Ethics Committee, a sign he believed it was within the rules. Another trip came courtesy of a conservative outfit called the National Center for Public Policy Research. It turns out that the bill for that travel was indirectly picked up by gambling interests represented by the disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who accompanied DeLay on the trip. It?s against the rules for a congressman to accept a trip paid for by a lobbyist. But DeLay denies knowing that the center wasn?t really paying. Critics link the trip with a DeLay vote against an anti-gambling bill a few months later. But other members of Congress who generally oppose gambling, as DeLay does, also voted against the legislation, for technical reasons.

The second set of allegations was handled by the House Ethics Committee. The committee dismissed two charges made by outgoing Democratic representative Chris Bell having to do with DeLay?s relationship with an energy company called Westar and his staff?s contacting of the Federal Aviation Administration when Texas Democrats were fleeing the state by air to avoid voting on a redistricting plan. It also dismissed a charge having to do with DeLay?s strong-arming of Republican representative Nick Smith to try to get him to vote for the prescription-drug bill. The committee did warn DeLay to be more careful, the ?admonishment? that has played in the media as an official sanction, although it wasn?t.

Finally, a Democratic prosecutor in Texas has indicted associates of DeLay for alleged fundraising abuses related to a PAC founded by DeLay, Texans for a Republican Majority. The prosecutor has a reputation for politicized indictments, including a meritless one years ago against Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison. No evidence presented at trial has directly tied DeLay to any of the alleged illegal practices at the PAC, which the prosecutor says involved funneling corporate contributions to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state campaign-finance law.

Conservative groups have rallied around DeLay, as they should when he is being unfairly attacked. But the majority leader should know that even if conservatives reject the Democratic effort to smear and oust him, they are disillusioned to find Republican leaders so comfortable with the perks of power. You can choose your friends, and DeLay?s supporters cringe to see sleazy insiders like Jack Abramoff profiting from their relationship with him. It is notable that DeLay?s lobbying of Representative Smith was part of an effort to pass a massive new entitlement that not too long ago would have turned DeLay?s stomach. So, by all means, let?s defend Tom DeLay, but let?s hope that we will see more of the old conservative insurgent Tom DeLay.

BTW, I want to add on that Texas campaign finance law, I’ve read a little more about that stuff, and it’s a complicated legal morass – there are a lot of questions as to whether the law is even Constitutional under 1st Amendment free speech principles, and that is aside from the technical complaints the prosecutor is alleging under the law.

151

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters,

I think we’ve established that we don’t agree on the numbers or the math.

Moving on from that, what do you think should be done to provide long-term, perpetual stability (i.e. stability beyond the normal 75-year horizon of the projections)?

From your post above, you seem to favor raising taxes on those with higher incomes and lowering benefits for those with higher incomes – which in my mind turns Social Security into even more of a welfare program (though not completely if you still have to pay in to get benefits).

Firstly, I’m not convinced those will work (this will go back to the SS actuary numbers you don’t like), and secondly I want to know what kind of effects the marginal tax hike and benefit cut on the most productive earners will have on economic growth projections.

For me, a real solution would involve increasing the return the whole system gets on the overhang. If this means investing money from SS into the diversified stock and bond markets like Canada does, then that should be considered. We should also add more supplemental tax-free savings accounts to encourage savings and investing outside the SS system.

I would also be strongly against any change that includes having different benefits calculators (cost of living vs. productivity) based on different income levels. Everyone’s benefits should be calculated based on cost of living.[/quote]

I agree with most of what you said.
I think that investing the surplus in the market is one step. Raising the cap will definitely help—On this I’ve seen a variety of plans. And I totally agree with you on adding more tax-free or tax-reduced savings accts! S.S. is not an investment account! It’s goal is to provide a minimum standard of living for seniors, disability, survivors, etc. The tax is already regressive so scaling benefits on wages to price isn’t that unfair…considering those in higher incomes were able to contribute to their 401ks, have savings etc. My consensus based on the same numbers you’re looking at is that minor changes have to be made over time to provide stability. If the recent history of the projections is correct:

"…What’s more, there is a strong case to be made that the agency is erring on the side of being overly pessimistic. If its more optimistic projection turns out to be correct, then there will be no need for any benefit cuts or payroll-tax increases over the full 75 years.

No one can definitively predict that outcome, either, of course, but David Langer, an independent actuary who made a study of Social Security’s previous projections compared with the actual results in 2003, thinks the ‘‘optimistic’’ case is its most accurate. Over a recent 10-year span, the trustees’ intermediate guesses turned out to be quite pessimistic. Its optimistic guesses were dead on, and its pessimistic case – sort of a doomsday situation – was wildly inaccurate.

And, contrary to widespread belief, recent demographic trends have been modestly better (from an actuary’s gloomy standpoint) than anticipated. For instance, longevity hasn’t increased as much as expected. Partly as a result, since 1997 the agency has pushed back, by 13 years, the date at which it projects its reserves will be exhausted. In other words, as the cries of impending doom started to crescendo, the guardians of the system have grown more optimistic…"
A Question of Numbers - The New York Times 724735416bdbfdd8&ei=
5090&partner=rssuserland

there may very well be no problem at all, and if there is it’s easily fixed, And I think with personal accts removed it would be a fairly simple thing to have a bipartisan solution. Getting the government back to solvency also might help, In my opinion, there are current real “crises” that probably should be solved first.

152

The latest on Tom DeLay’s legal fracas with Ronnie Earle - also an example of how bias can sneak into a news story.

The main things to note here are that half the charges were thrown out on a motion to dismiss before a trial – that is a very hard standard to meet. You essentially need to demonstrate that, before any facts are heard, the prosecution’s indictment is so flawed and/or baseless and/or legally wrong that the prosectuion COULD NOT possibly win at trial.

So, half the charges are thrown out, and what’s the headline: Court Upholds Charges. The idea that the court refused to throw out the charges before any evidece is presented is a much different idea than that the court upheld or somehow favored the charges.

And it’s damn embarrassing for a prosecutor in a case of this magnitude to have charges thrown out at this stage.

But to read this article, you’d think DeLay had suffered a setback – this ruling just means he actually has to begin the process of actually defending himself against the charges that weren’t tossed out.

Texas Judge Upholds Charges
Of Money-Laundering for DeLay
Associated Press
December 5, 2005 5:47 p.m.

AUSTIN, Texas – A judge upheld money-laundering charges against Republican Rep. Tom DeLay but dismissed charges related to any conspiracy to violate Texas’s election code. The ruling ends, for now, Mr. DeLay’s hopes of quickly reclaiming his post as House majority leader.

Judge Pat Priest, who is presiding over the case, issued the ruling after a hearing late last month in which Mr. DeLay’s attorney argued that the indictment was fatally flawed.

When he was indicted in September, Mr. DeLay was required under House rules to relinquish the leadership post he had held since early 2003. While Monday’s ruling was a partial victory for Mr. DeLay, he cannot reclaim his post because he remains under indictment.

“The court’s decision to dismiss Ronnie Earle’s numerous charges against Mr. DeLay underscores just how baseless and politically motivated the charges were,” Mr. DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said, referring to the Democratic district attorney who brought the case.

“Mr. DeLay is very encouraged by the swift progress of the legal proceedings and looks forward to his eventual and absolute exoneration based on the facts and the law.”

Mr. DeLay and two GOP fundraisers, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, are accused of illegally funneling $190,000 in corporate donations to 2002 Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature. Under Texas law, corporate money cannot be directly used for political campaigns, but it can be used for administrative purposes.

In asking that the case be thrown out, Mr. DeLay’s lawyer Dick DeGuerin argued that one of the charges – conspiracy to violate the Texas election code – did not even take effect until September 2003, a year after the alleged offenses occurred.

Prosecutors, however, said the crime of conspiracy was already on the books, and could be applied to the election code even though such uses were not explicitly in state law at the time.

The judge was not persuaded by that argument, and dismissed the conspiracy charge. But the judge upheld charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Those charges involve an alleged attempt by Mr. DeLay to conceal the source of the campaign contributions by funneling the money through his own political action committee and then an arm of the Republican National Committee.

Conspiracy to violate the election code carries up to two years in prison. Money laundering is punishable by five years to life. Conspiracy to commit money laundering carries two years.

Copyright ? 2005 Associated Press

153

Hate to bust your bubble Boston, but the full title says the court upholds the charges of money laundering.

Funny, that would seem to be the real news of interest to the general public. The fact that the case isn’t dismissed, that this is going forward.

What kind of retarded reporter/editor would write a headline:

“Some Charges Not Upheld”

Speaking of bias… what a crock!

154

Damn BB, you’re going to seriously hurt yourself spinning that hard.

One of the charges was dropped due to a technicality. The more serious charge still stands. Five to life, Tommy-boy.

155

He still has to be proven guilty. Having a judge throw out one of the two charges is a big deal and a huge embarrasment for the prosecutor.

Things are looking better for DeLay and worse for Ronnie Earl.

156

Ronnie “The Weasel” Earle will not get a single felony conviction. Tom Delay will be completely exonerated, and return to the USHOR bigger, badder, and with even more attitude.

You guys pulling for The Weasel should really read up on this partisan hack. This is SOP for a guy that is a very sore loser, and as vindictive as a woman scorned.

157

How hard do you think it is going to be to hang that jury anywhere in Texas(even Austin)?

158

[quote]doogie wrote:
How hard do you think it is going to be to hang that jury anywhere in Texas(even Austin)? [/quote]

Dick DeGuerin’s a shark. I have my doubts as to whether or not the trial will even get to deliberation.

If it gets to the jury, selection will be key. Earle’s not known for his ability to pack a jury. He operates on the Wal-Mart model - just prosecute as many charges as possible and something is bound to net a conviction.

159

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hate to bust your bubble Boston, but the full title says the court upholds the charges of money laundering.

Funny, that would seem to be the real news of interest to the general public. The fact that the case isn’t dismissed, that this is going forward.

What kind of retarded reporter/editor would write a headline:

“Some Charges Not Upheld”

Speaking of bias… what a crock![/quote]

Actually vroom,

You’re betraying a lack of legal sophistication.

In most instances, it is wholly expected for a judge to reject a preliminary motion to dismiss. As I stated above, these are filed PRIOR to any factfinding taking place – in other words, before any part of the trial.

In order for a preliminary motion to dismiss to win, the defendant must demonstrate to the judge that the indictment is so flawed that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the prosecution to prove its case, even assuming everything the prosecution said in its indictment were true.

The fact that one was granted was the news. The fact that the other was not was not. To put it another way, the “man bites dog” story was the dismissal. The only thing that was “upheld” was the prosecution’s right to try to prove its case for the charges that weren’t summarily tossed out.

BTW, further to my bias meme, check out this collection of headlines:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/media_spin_the.html

Here’s a selection of titles for stories about the Texas court’s recent decision throwing out the conspiracy charge against Tom DeLay but retaining the money laundering charges. But by these titles, it appears that there were two very different results in the case:

Washington Times, DeLay’s Conspiracy Charge Rejected

Washington Post, Felony Charge Is Upheld For DeLay

New York Times, Texas Judge Lets Stand 2 of 3 Charges Against DeLay

Fox News, Judge Tosses DeLay Conspiracy Charges

LA Times, Judge Upholds DeLay Money-Laundering Charges

CNN, DeLay Conspiracy Charge Tossed Out

MSNBC, DeLay Money-Laundering Charges Upheld

160

[quote]mark57 wrote:
Damn BB, you’re going to seriously hurt yourself spinning that hard.

One of the charges was dropped due to a technicality. The more serious charge still stands. Five to life, Tommy-boy.

[/quote]

One of the charges was dropped because the prosecution was so incompetent (to give them the benefit of the doubt) that they charged DeLay with an Ex Post Facto charge, saying he violated a law before it was passed. Quite a technicality.