Surprise, Surprise

David Hogberg

Could the New York Times and the Washington Post be any more predictable? This morning you’d swear they had the same headline writer. The Times:

Bush Cites Plan That Would Cut Social Security Benefits

The Post:

Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits

Feeble minds think alike, I guess. I’ll give the Times a smidgen of credit because its article gets the plan right in the first paragraph:

President Bush called Thursday night for cutting Social Security benefits for future retirees to put the system on sound financial footing, and he proposed doing so in a way that would demand the most sacrifice from higher-income people while insulating low-income workers.

As for the Post, well, the only thing that surprised me is that it wasn’t written by Jonathan Weisman:

President Bush called on Congress last night to curtail future Social Security benefits for all but low-income retirees in an urgent new effort to address the popular program's shaky finances. With virtually every Democrat, as well as many Republicans, opposed to his plan for private investment accounts, Bush sought to shift the focus of the Social Security debate to a new proposal that would reduce benefits more as workers' incomes rise.

You have to wait until the third paragraph where you get any details of the plan:

"I believe the reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most," he said in a nationally televised news conference. "So I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off." This is the first time Bush has backed a specific plan to reduce future benefits for tens of millions of Americans.

Two thoughts: First, Social Security reformers have to hope that enough Americans read beyond the headlines. But a recent FoxNews Poll shows that a substantial number may not be. The key question asked,

Based on what you know about the Social Security proposal for personal investment accounts, is it your understanding that individuals could continue under the current system if they wanted or is it you understanding that everyone would be required to put a portion of their retirement money in stocks and mutual funds?

After three plus months of debating this issue, 27% said they thought everyone would be required, and another 17% said they were not sure. The MSM couldn’t have confused the public on this issue any better than if they had intended to do so. Second, I really wish there was a futures market for counterfactual scenarios. Can there be any doubt that if the plan advanced last night had been proposed by the previous administration, the headlines would have read, “Clinton Social Security Plan Boost For The Poor”? I’d put at least a $100 on that.
Posted by David Hogberg on April 29, 2005 10:02 AM to Social Security Choice