politics

Reading Between the Lines

Yesterday the Arizona Republic ran an editorial titled “Solving Solvency,” taking the position that “[r]eforming Social Security is a vital goal, not a GOP plot.” Without going into the nitty gritty details of the argument right now, let’s note that the piece applauded the president for taking on the Social Security issue and dismissed all […]

March 21, 2005

Yesterday the Arizona Republic ran an editorial titled “Solving Solvency,” taking the position that “[r]eforming Social Security is a vital goal, not a GOP plot.” Without going into the nitty gritty details of the argument right now, let’s note that the piece applauded the president for taking on the Social Security issue and dismissed all detractors’ concerns that the president is trying to phase out the social welfare program. To the contrary, the editorial contends, “It is what it is: An attempt to shore up a vital intergenerational social compact.”

Editorials, of course, are supposed to be opinionated; but they’re also expected to be intellectually honest, and it’s here that the editorial falls short. The Republic argues that “[d]efenders of the Social Security status quo contend (seriously, we must note) that nothing needs to change now because even by 2042, Social Security still will be able to meet three-quarters of its obligations. This is a recipe — and a mindset, we should add — for bankruptcy.”

Seriously, we must note, this is a classic example of a bait-and-switch straw man.

Early on in the Social Security debate, a major Republican talking point, oft-times trumpeted by the president, was the assertion that by 2042 the Social Security system would be “bankrupt.” (See Bush, State of the Union 2005.) First, as we’ve noted before, this talking point represents either a misunderstanding of the term “bankrupt” (in fact, Social Security cannot go “bankrupt” in any meaningful sense) or a lie. Second, while it’s true that some Democrats (and Republicans) do argue that there are other welfare programs with more pressing problems — Medicaid comes to mind — no one out there, especially any Democrat, has suggested that cutting expected benefits by one-quarter in 2042 is an acceptable solution to Social Security’s solvency issues.

Yet the Republic editorial is carefully worded in a way to give the impression that unnamed Democrats champion a future with reduced benefits for the nation’s elderly. That’s not just opinion; it’s dishonest — and the type of logic that debases the national debate, instead of adding to it.

–Thomas Lang

Sign up for CJR's daily email
Thomas Lang was a writer at CJR Daily.