Anti-Union Media Twist - Cutting Pensions 'Smart'

Cutting Pensions and 'Responsible' Politics

By Peter Hart 9 Comments

Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate Gina Raimondo: Corporate media loved her anti-worker stance

It's unusual for the Rhode Island Democratic gubernatorial primary to attract national media attention. But this year's race was seen as a referendum on cutting workers' pensions, so corporate media outlets wanted to weigh in–against the workers.

The race saw state treasurer Gina Raimondo prevail, and this was good news for those who believe that the right thing to do about underfunded state pension is to cut benefits. We're told again and again that states simply cannot pay what they've promised to public sector workers–who are often targeted for being overpaid anyway (Extra!, 1/11).

The Washington Post (9/10/14) was unsurprisingly happy with the primary's result, noting that Raimondo faced down "ferocious opposition from labor" because she had dared to explain "the plain budgetary impossibility of maintaining pensions" as promised. To the Post, "her primary victory is an encouraging sign that many voters, including Democrats, have woken up to the peril posed by years of reckless promises by office-holders beholden to public-employee unions."

Anything that hurts labor unions, workers and moves Democrats to the rightmust be something to cheer about.

Dean Baker

Economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 9/11/14) took exception to the Post's argument pointing out (as he has for years now) that the Post used scary-sounding big numbers ($1 trillion!) to portray this looming fiscal disaster–a far more effective tactic, Baker writes, than saying that "the shortfall is equal to about 0.2 percent of projected GDP over the 30-year planning horizon of public pensions." That doesn't sound nearly as frightful.

Baker offered a modest proposal for an alternative way to balance the state budget:

If the state of Rhode Island really can't afford to pay its bills, why should public sector workers be the only ones to pay the price. The state has hundreds or even thousands of contractors. Why not short them all 10 or 20 percent of their payments? That would be the fairest way to deal with the situation if the state really can't pay its bills or raise the taxes needed to do so. Obviously the Postdoesn't believe that contracts with workers are real contracts.

But such opinions are for the editorial page, right? Except when they creep into news reporting, as in a New York Times story (9/9/14) about the Rhode Island primary. FAIR alum Ben Somberg spotted this language from theTimes:

Analysts were already predicting that if she won in November, Ms. Raimondo could go on to become a national star in the party, showing fellow Democrats that responsible policy is not necessarily bad politics, although organized labor may choose to differ.

Whoever the "analysts" are, the message is pretty clear: Cutting workers' promised benefits is considered the "responsible policy." Times public editor Margaret Sullivan received a few complaints about the language, and she wrote (9/12/14) that she agreed with the critics. Though not always spelled out so explicitly, such attitudes permeate pension coverage.