The story’s reliance on Greenspan is also a bit of a problem. Sure, as the Times points out, he played a central role the last time Social Security was restructured. But these days, he’s busy explaining what he saw—and did—at “The Crisis,” and this story could do with another voice from outside the Social Security Administration that isn’t his.
The Times also falls into that Internet-era trap of thinking more information is necessarily better.
This CBO chart linked to in the piece shows “total income” exceeding “total outgo” for as long as the eye can see. That looks like a healthy account to me. Is the problem revenues v. benefits? And what does that footnote on “other income” really mean?
The Economic Policy Institute put out a useful “fact check” after that AP story earlier in the month that addresses some of these questions. A little explanation for the reader who bothers to click through goes a long way. Maybe next time?
There certainly will be a next time for this story. Even today, the Times is hosting a discussion among five experts, asking whether there are “fixes Congress can make to Social Security that are politically palatable.”
Not surprisingly, the answers run the gamut—raise the retirement age, reduce benefits for the wealthy, the system isn’t broken—and make clear just how nettlesome this public policy question really is. It’s something the press has to cover, and cover well enough that readers can understand.
How can one be "alarmist" (assuming that alarmist is meant as a negative term) about a national debt of $13 trillion on a $14 trillion GDP? Social Security cannot possibly have a $12 trillion surplus to draw from, because the government doesn't have $12 trillion.
I suppose that if I threw all my money in to savings and refused to pay my bills, I'd be able to claim a decent cash position. Your job is to explain how the surplus in Social Security is anything but that sort of financial massaging, if that's what you're claiming.
#1 Posted by Don, CJR on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 08:11 AM
Hmm, maybe Bush had a point after all when he tried to reform SS? Funny that the Times is now concerned about the Social Security program, but excoriated Bush when he tried to reform the system (compared to the paper favorable reaction to Obama's plans for health care "reform").
Back in January 2005 the Times was telling us to calm down, reporting that we would not hit this particular threshhold until 2018. Now it's arrived. Who says the rest of the landmarks won't follow much more quickly than the Times expected?
#2 Posted by SamTyler, CJR on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 11:07 AM
More accurate headline for NYT: "Social Security Fund Hit By Recession Too"
The headline they chose may have generated more traffic -- but it is and was fundamentally misleading in the context of what most folks know about this issue. It was alarmist instead of enlightening.
#3 Posted by Doug, CJR on Sun 28 Mar 2010 at 08:22 AM