Pat Hynes Getting Results On Social Security Already?
The Washington Post published a misleading account of President Bush's plan to save Social Security. A "Social Security strategist type" wrote over to
K-Lo at the Corner:
The Old Media has given us an uncritical regurgitation of the anti-reform crowd’s argument that needs to be debunked. Jonathan Weisman’s article on the Post is dead wrong. There is no “clawback” in the Social Security proposal the President outlined last night. The stuff about account balances and the amounts taken out is completely made up. People would own the entirety of their accts -- opponents are seizing on the fact that people would give up bennies up front to get the acct to sow deliberate confusion about a clawback -- which there is not. I don’t know if this is an example of a journalist being hoodwinked by the opposition, or a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, but the truth is this is a basic actuarially fair offset. An offset is based on how much you put into your account, while a clawback is based on your account's end balance. With the second, all the risk and reward lie with the govt, which undermines the ownership element.
This afternoon, the
Post recants.
Correction to This Article
An earlier version of this article incorrectly described how new private accounts would work under President Bushs Social Security plan. This article has been corrected.
But wait, as Ron Popeil says, there's more, or should I saw Moore. The fat tub of goo waddles in with a
post on Social Security this afternoon, which is taken from the original, uncorrected WaPo account (and posted after the correction), and gets
mauled by the Ankle-Biters.
Great job, guys!
