By David Hogberg on 1.27.05 @ 12:06AM
USA Today joins the dishonest critics of Social Security reform.
WASHINGTON -- Thomas Sowell recently remarked, "There are still
people in the mainstream media who profess bewilderment that they
are accused of being biased." I suspect that USA Today
reporter William M. Welch would fit that description. For yesterday
he had a humdinger of a hit job against Social Security reform.
First up was Welch's "statement of fact" that Bush and his surrogates
aren't warning you of the fine print about personal accounts:
President Bush is selling his idea to transform Social
Security with private investment accounts as part of a new
"ownership society" for Americans. The accounts, Vice President
Cheney says, would be "a retirement fund they control themselves
and can call their own."
But the reality would produce a lot less individual control than
Bush and Cheney suggest.
Yet barely a month ago Bush was talking about just that reality:
"You can't take [money in personal accounts] to the race track
and hope to really increase the returns. It's not there for the
lottery," Bush said at an economic conference promoting his
domestic proposals, including Social Security, his leading
legislative issue for next year….
"There will be reasonable guidelines that already exist in other
thrift programs that will enable people to have choice about where
they invest their own money, but they're not going to be able to do
it in a frivolous fashion," Bush said.
Funny, but I only had to put "Bush," "Social Security" and
"Lottery" into Google to find that article -- I didn't even have to
use Lexis/Nexis! I wonder why the reporter didn't mention Bush's
previous statements? Could it be that it is easier to discredit
Social Security reform if you can portray Bush as not being fully
honest?
Welch next displays his liberal bias with his use of
modifiers:
Major proposals, including those from the president's
own commission, to revamp Social Security with private investment
accounts include provisions that place big limits on how
much money individuals can invest, where it can be invested, what
they can do with it when they retire and how much they can pass on
to heirs. [Italics added].
Not just limits, mind you, but BIG LIMITS! I wonder if an
article in the mainstream media ever described the regulations in,
say, the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation as containing "big limits" for
businesses? I took that question out of the rhetorical realm and
ran those terms through Lexis/Nexis. It informed me that, "No
documents were found for your search."
The Welch article also displays its bias by comparing the
proposed reforms to an ideal, that of a system in which you would
be able to do just about anything with your personal account, even
investing in Zimbabwean yak futures:
One of the commission's plans sets a limit of $1,000 a
year, which Graham would raise to $1,300. The plans would require
that investors choose from among three to five conservative funds,
to prevent the accounts from being ravaged by administrative fees
and high-risk investments. Only after accounts grew in size -- to
$10,000 under Graham's plan -- could investors move outside a
federally sponsored investment system. Individuals could change
their investment choices just once a year.
Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., chairman of the Social Security
subcommittee, acknowledges that there would be more limits on the
accounts than Bush's rhetoric has suggested.
"These are not totally private accounts that are separate from
Social Security," McCrery says.
(I wonder, did Representative McCrery actually "acknowledge"
that Bush's rhetoric doesn't tell the full story, or is that
Welch's spin on his remarks? I can't know for sure, but I'll bet it
was the latter.)
What's most troubling about that passage is nowhere does it
mention how much freedom we have under the current Social Security
system. Effectively, none. Even if reform limits me to only putting
$1,000 of my payroll taxes annually in a personal account and I
have to wait until it accrues to $10,000 before I can invest it in
mutual funds outside the three-to-five conservative funds, that's
still a lot more than I can do with my payroll taxes at present.
Isn't the relevant comparison how much freedom we'd have with
reform versus how much we have with the current system? It makes no
sense to only compare reform to an "ideal system" -- unless your
goal is to make reform seem less attractive.
And, indeed, that is Welch's purpose as can be gleaned by
reading the rest of the article. Nearly half of it is devoted to
hyping potential benefit cuts. What better way to put reform
proponents in a bad light?
topics:
Taxes, Mainstream Media, Business, Social Security
