In a Post titled, “It’s Alive! Despite GOP Warnings, Ponzi Scheme Meme Is Alive and Well on Capitol Hill,” Talking Points Memo’s Evan McMorris-Santoro reports today that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WIS) has joined Rep. Mike Coffman in saying, on the radio, that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.

He points out that “GOP superstar” Mitch Daniels told the New York Times that the phrase is not wrong but “too frank.”

McMorris-Santoro links to a Huffington Post piece by Jordan Howard quoting Ryan on the Laura Ingraham show today:

When asked by host Laura Ingraham on Tuesday whether the country’s social insurance program is a Ponzi scheme, Ryan replied, “That is how those schemes work.”

“So if you take a look at the technicality of Ponzi — I would — it’s not a criminal enterprise,” he said, according to a transcript. “But it is a pay-as-you-go system where … earlier investors or, say, taxpayers, get a positive rate of return and the most recent investors — or taxpayers — get a negative rate of return.”

Coffman didn’t explain last week on KNUS why he thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, because KNUS host Steve Kelley failed to ask him about it.

A call to Coffman’s office yesterday for comment was not returned.

In a post last week, I asked why Denver talk-show host Michael Brown airs, during the intro to his KOA radio show, the audio clip of Bush saying, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a Job.”

I asked if Brownie was actually proud of the disastrous federal response to Hurricane Katrina. And I quoted a recent radio show during which Brownie essentially said that anyone who did not evacuate from New Orleans got what they deserved.

Ugly stuff, and I tried repeatedly to get Brownie’s answers to my questions, but he ignored me.

But, to his credit, Brownie addressed some of the issues I raised for the Huffington Post, in a piece published Monday. He wrote:

Salzman asks in his essay, “is [he] proud of his claim to fame?” Jason, it doesn’t make any difference whether I am proud of the President’s phrase or not. It will stick with me for the rest of my life, giving people like you ample opportunity to continue to “blame Bush” for the ills of the world, regardless of the occupant of the White House. I am proud of my time at Homeland Security and FEMA.

So, yes, he’s proud, I guess, but he did say he made mistakes.

Bownie also wrote:

Salzman wrote in typical hatred fashion: “sadly enough…[Michael Brown] is easily the most famous media figure in Colorado.”

Really? Says who? What does it matter? And if it is true, why is it sad? To progressives like Salzman it really isn’t “sad” that I might be the most famous media figure in Colorado – it gives them great pleasure for now they have a target on the conservative side of the aisle they can attack. It gives Jason Salzman something to write about that makes him feel superior, better than others, while pointing out how “sad” it is that I might be, at least in his mind, the most famous media figure in Colorado.

I have to admit that Brownie is partially right. I liked writing about the fact that Brownie plays the heck-of-a-job clip every night and verbally assaults Katrina victims on his show. I wish he didn’t do this, and it’s ugly, but I like airing it out.

If Brownie were right, and I enjoyed having famous evil right wingers around Colorado to beat up on, then he’d say I’d love to have Dick Cheney move here, to sell his book that attacks everyone he knows. God no.

To paraphrase Fiddler on the Roof, god bless Cheney and keep him, far away from us.

No, sorry Brownie. I wish you weren’t the most famous media figure in Colorado. I wish you’d stop playing the “heck of a job” audio on your radio show every night.

I wish Colorado’s most famous media figure was known for doing something great, not for being the enduring symbol for an avoidable human catastrophe within our own borders.

Politico’s David Catanese posts Coffman’s Ponzi-scheme comment and writes:

Even as recent as today, Democrats are attempting to link GOP candidates to Perry’s Social Security position, but it appears some are willing to openly embrace it without prodding.

Right now it’s mostly a talking point, but if Perry continues to gain steam towards the presidential nomination, House and Senate candidates will inevitably be pressed on whether they hold the same view as the sharp-tongued Texan.

The question is how many of them fall into the Coffman camp and how many are forced into verbal gymnastics to show separation without seeming disloyal to the nominee.

On a Denver radio program, “Kelley and Company” Wed., Rep. Mike Coffman called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and aligned himself with Gov. Rick Perry over Mitt Romney and other candidates in the race to be the GOP presidential nominee.

That’s news, if you ask me, especially the Ponzi scheme part, but it has yet to be picked up by other media outlets. I think Social Security is a hot topic, being the third rail of politics and all, but journalists could spice up this angle on the topic by interviewing Ponzi scheme experts, like Bernie Madoff. (Maybe not him, but his ilk.) Do they think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?

Here’s what Coffman told Steve Kelley, host of “Kelley and Company,” on KNUS-710 AM:

I am obviously going to support whoever the nominee is. But I have to admit to you philosophically I am closer to Perry. Obviously, I hope he gets better on the debate stuff. I think he did good. I think he did better on Social Security. I think obviously it is a Ponzi scheme, but he has to say he is going to fix it. And he did that in the last debate where he didn’t do that in the first debate. Now I think that was positive. [BigMedia emphasis]

Listen to the audio clip here:

The trouble with Coffman’s statement is, obviously, that Social Security isn’t a Ponzi scheme, and Kelley should have called him on this.

My online dictionary defines a Ponzi scheme as an “investment swindle in which supposed profits are paid to early investors from money actually invested by later participants.” Maybe that’s what Social Security sounds like to people who think government shouldn’t collect taxes and devise programs to help people, but if you’re not one of those people, you probably understand that Social Security is no swindle, but actually a successful government-run retirement system based on a funding formula that’s worked, with rational adjustments, for 76 years. It will continue to be a lifeline for many seniors for 25 more years with no changes at all. And with minor tweaks, it can be made to work indefinitely, as the LA Times pointed out Sunday in an editorial titled “Social Security Is No Ponzi Scheme.”

Why does Coffman think Social Security an investment swindle? Kelley should pose this question to Coffman next time he’s on his morning show. But it looks like Coffman is thinking less about Social Security and more about Rick Perry.

Coming before Thursday’s GOP presidential primary debate, Coffman may be illustrating that people (like him) believe in Perry so much that they’ll say that something (Social Security) is obviously something that it’s not (a Ponzi scheme) just to make it look normal for Perry to say it (when it’s not). And to help him connect with his core GOP audience.

Even while Gov. Mitt Romney has attacked Perry’s “Ponzi scheme” comments, he’s  on record supporting the George Bush plan for partial Social Security privatization and has been attacked by Perry for likening the funding mechanisms of the program to “criminal” activity.

This sentiment against Social Security, if not the same phrasing, was echoed by Perry supporters, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, who agreed with the arguments Perry was making while stopping short of going the Full  Ponzi.

Further complicating the storyline for Romney are recent polling data showing that Republicans are just as likely to be attracted to Perry’s Ponzi Scheme message as they are to be turned away, and may in fact break his way in the context of a conservative primary electorate.

And just yesterday came reports in Politico that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, once a speculative candidate for president, came very close to the same wording in his upcoming book.

In Colorado Jane Norton did the same during her 2010 primary race against Ken Buck, but no one has resurrected this message at such a level in the presidential race.

In other words, the substance behind Rick Perry’s Ponzi scheme attack is in keeping with a broad range of Republican thinking. The question is whether his supporters will go once more into the Ponzi breach with him.

Coffman decided to do so.

Partial Transcript of KNUS morning radio program, “Kelley and Company,” Wed, Sept. 14, 2011.

KELLEY: Before we let you go, Congressman Coffman, the debate the other night I thought was excellent on CNN. It was a little more refined and a little opportunity to get a back and forth going. Of course Tim Pawlenty has backed Romney. Where do you stand right now, even 14 months out?

COFFMAN: I am obviously going to support whoever the nominee is. But I have to admit to you philosophically I am closer to Perry. Obviously, I hope he gets better on the debate stuff. I think he did good. I think he did better on Social Security. I think obviously it is a Ponzi scheme, but he has to say he is going to fix it. And he did that in the last debate where he didn’t do that in the first debate. Now I think that was positive. [BigMedia emphasis]

KELLEY: I see CNN really trying to blow up the HPV vaccination. The executive order he signed down in Texas. You don’t think that is going to haunt him?

COFFMAN: Not in the general election. I think it is certainly going to cost him some in the Republican primary. That is why I am interested in why CNN is weighing in on the issue. Because it is actually more a moderate position that he quite frankly took. I wouldn’t have done it. But that is probably more sympathetic with the general electorate than it is with a more conservative Republican primary voter.

KELLEY: With that, we thank you and will talk with you down the road, Congressman.

I don’t think too many people realize it, but Michael Brown is a regular weeknight talk-show host on Denver’s KOA radio.

That’s, Michael Brown of “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” fame. And Hurricane Katrina fame. That’s not a little bit of fame. It’s a lot.

I mean, he’s easily the most famous media figure in town, when you think about it. Maybe he’s even an historic figure, thanks to W.

But what do you do with fame like that, if you’re Michael Brown?

If I were in his shoes, I’d run from it and be thankful that “Michael Brown” is an utterly generic name that won’t immediately be associated with the phrase, “heck of a job.”

In other words, you could probably move on and avoid your past.

But Brownie acatually plays the clip of Bush delivering the heck-of-a-job line every time he opens his radio show on KOA–and after most commercial breaks. It’s part of his intro, as you can hear here.

It made me wonder, what’s up with Brownie? You recall he was apparently forced to resign in 2005 from his post as Director of FEMA, after the disastrous federal response to Katrina, which was probably the beginning of the end for Bush. In the wake of Katrina, Brown was exposed as a political appointee, without proper qualifications to head FEMA in the first place.

So, is Brownie proud of his claim to fame? Proud of his response and W’s to Katrina? And whether he’s proud or not, why remind people of Bush’s embarrassment by playing the Brownie line over and over again.

I emailed Brownie and got this response:

Brownie: Hello, Jason. I just returned from Seoul and will get you a non-jet lagged response tomorrow.

After he sent this promising response, I emailed him five times but he never got back to me.

But Brownie’s response to a caller Aug. 29 gives us a hint that he likes listening to the Bush quote every night becaue thinks he did indeed do a heck of a job at FEMA, and he blames the victims. At least that’s what this exchange would have you belive:

Caller: And Katrina, I was actually down there a day before, two days before it happened. I was going through when I was driving cross country. And I went back a week later, or a few days later. You know, it’s hard to feel sorry for people when they were told to leave.

Brown: Bingo! (laughs)

Caller: I just find it difficult, you know, you were told this was going to happen and you wanted to take a chance. Well, you took the chance, and you lost.

Brown: And you lost.

Caller: And why….

Brown: Exactly, you took the chance and you lost. Thanks for the call. I appreciate it.

KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show is drifting rightward these days, as Silverman talks about registering as a Republican so the GOP will select an electable prez candidate in 2012.

But Silverman, who leans right but says he’s an independent, can’t convince GOP-talking-point-machine Caplis that Rick Perry is unelectable. Caplis seems warm to Perry and is keeping an open mind.

Silverman put his sharp questioning skills to work on this topic Sept. 9, when GOP National Committee Chair Reince Priebus was on the show. Silverman was hoping Priebus would agree with him that Perry’s views on Social Security make him look more like a loser.

But Pribus wouldn’t bite. He rejected Silverman’s assertion in this exchange.

Silverman: Mitt Romney went on our KHOW colleague Sean Hannity’s show today and said, “If we nominate someone who the Democrats can correctly characterize as being opposed to Social Security, we will be obliterated as a party.” Romney’s read Perry’s book, Fed Up. So did I. I watched that debate the other night. Didn’t Rick Perry make himself unelectable or at least start down that road.”

Priebus: No. You know, first of all, refereeing between the candidates, that’s a pretty dicey spot for me to be in, and I try not to do that.

Maybe he tries not to, but Priebus turned against Romney here by disagreeing with Silverman. He sided with Perry, who obviously thinks his position on Social Security will not obliterate him from being POTUS.

When it comes to being insensitive toward minorities and women and others, sometimes the line between humor and insult is obviously in legitimate dispute, and, in any case, the best course for those offended is to ignore and move on.

But there are cases when, clearly, righties (and lefties) deliver racial slurs and other verbal assaults that I don’t want to sit there and accept as ok.

Here’s an example from the Jimmy Lakey Show, on KVOR-740 AM in Colorado Springs.

A caller says Michele Obama reminds her of “one of the main characters in Planet of the Apes.”

This comment sends talk-show host Lakey into complete hysterics, howling with laughter.

You really have to hear it to believe it. It’s only 30 seconds, and here it is if you’re interested:

I contacted Bobby Irwin, Operations Manager for Citadel Broadcasting, which owns KVOR, to find out if he agreed with me that Lakey’s behavior crosses the line.

Here’s Irwin’s response:

Thanks for the opportunity to respond for your blog.

Regardless of whether one is rightie or a leftie, the comment from the caller was unfortunate. Neither Jimmy nor the station could answer whether
his laughter following her Michelle Obama observation was out of humor or simply discomfort.

I know how I would have preferred him to respond, but our station can not dictate what callers say, and as long as our hosts are observing FCC
guidelines, we will not dictate how they are respond to callers.

Lakey could level some horribly indecent insults and remain within FCC guidelines, but Irwin is correct, isn’t he, that we don’t really know why Lakey is laughing. Maybe he’s uncomfortable. Or maybe he thinks it’s hilarious that Brenda said something so brazenly offensive. I mean, it’s possible.

The easiest way to know what he was thinking is to ask him. Maybe he’ll apologize.

I tried to contact Lakey, but he didn’t get back to me. Here’s an email address (jonathan@jimmylakey.com) and phone number (888-285-4669) I found for him, if you want to try your luck. Please forward any response you get to me.

Here’s a memory of 9-11 that, it’s pretty safe to say, you won’t be seeing in the media today.

Take a look at this YouTube of Colin Powell on Meet the Press back in 2007.

He said he would close Gitmo “this afternoon” if he could. What’s often forgotten is that he didn’t stop there. He went through and outlined the steps for transferring the detainees to U.S. civilian facilities that Obama tried to do but was blocked by Congress.

To my knowledge, nobody has asked Powell about that specific part of his recommendation or why he never spoke up when politicians started demagoguing the issue. He might have helped close the prison, but true to form, he shied away from a public fight. He’s being included in a bunch of 9-11 stories about Iraq, but they’re not going near Gitmo.

Bill Ritter, as much as people like to forget him, accepted that Colorado maximum security prisons could handle the detainees, and he was pilloried for it. If Bloomberg had that same courage, we’d be holding civilian trials in NYC, Gitmo would probably be closed, and America would be proud and respected for doing the right thing.

This falls in the category of small-minded media criticism, but when you consume the same TV and radio shows over and over again, the small stuff can start eating at your brain.

That’s what the introduction to KBDI Channel 12’s otherwise excellent public affairs show, “Colorado Inside Out,”  has been doing to me lately. The weekly show starts with:

“Welcome to Colorado Inside Out, the public affairs roundtable that brings together informed journalists, pundits, and activists to break down the issues that matter here in Colorado.”

What’s so bad about this, you might wonder. It has something to do with hearing the phrase, “informed journalists, pundits, and activists” over and over, especially since the line doesn’t give viewers any information that’s not immediately clear once the show gets started and the camera hits Westword’s Patricia Calhoun and the smirking Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute.

I reached the tipping point the other night, as I watched Calhoun deliver the intro, when she was subbing for regular host Raj Chohan. Calhoun has been around a long time and has managed to fight off staleness, and she looked like she was handing us petrified wood.

I dropped a line to Colorado Public Television Producer Dominic Dezzutti, and he replied that he’d been thinking of changing the opening line.

“The more elaborate open is an artifact of when the show was initially transferred from Peter Boyles to Raj Chohan,” he emailed me. “Frankly, it’s been an idea in my head recently to change or cut it.”

This puny criticism aside, Colorado Inside Out is the best of  bunch of excellent public affairs shows on local television. It manages to be both informative and entertaining.

Colorado Public Television’s regular lineup and specials reflects its commitment to public affairs programming.  Other shows on Channel 12 include  “Studio 12” and “Devil’s Advocate with Jon Caldara.”  (I have to admit that I enjoy this show, even though it absurdly presents the Independent Institute’s Caldara as the moderator, and it’s under-written by Caldara’s right-leaning organization.)

Other local public affairs prgrams are: KRMA Channel 6’s “Colorado State of Mind,” 9News’ “Your Show,” and  HarberTV’s  “Aaron Harber Show,” which often addresses national topics.

Fox 31’s “Zappolo’s People” addresses lots of public affairs topics, too.

Check them all out.

Colorado Public Radio’s Colorado Matters aired a great interview yesterday about the impact of 9-11 on Muslim Americans, as part of its thoughtful “Colorado Remembers 9-11” series.

Sahar Babak, who was a student at Rocky Mountain High School in Fort Collins, recalls how teachers, who were worried about angry students, suggested that she leave school on the day of the crime, even though she was upset and crying about the tragedy, like other kids. She took their advice and went home that day.

In the interview, CSU sociologist Lori Peek describes her conversations with 140 Muslim Americans about their lives after the 9-11. She’s just published a book about her research, titled Behind the Backlash, Muslim Americans after 9-11. 

Peek explained that one Muslim man had his car scratched, and he didn’t know if it was a hate crime or not. But his parents were so concerned, they wanted him to shave off his beard. Peek says this type of uncertainty is a hiden “burden” that a community under scrutiny deals with.

“Clearly the most violent acts of hate have tapered off,” Peek told Ryan Warner. “Using FBI hate crime data, there was a clear and dramatic spike in the first three months after 9-11. There was a 1600 percent increase in hate crime. And in the years since 9-11, those numbers have dropped off, even though they are three to five times higher than the pre-9-11 levels.”

But, citing data that made me sad as someone who endures the anti-Muslim bigotry on talk radio, she points out that national surveys show that Americans’ perception of Muslims has gotten worse since 9-11.

Listen to the interview here.