Elusive honesty in the Social Security debate

I would never say an unkind word about Robert Samuelson who is unsparingly analytical in his articles, (unlike a certain NY Times columnist whose last name rhymes with “Strugman”). In “Journalistic Malpractice,” Samuelson fairly criticizes:

1.) The Media, for an aversion to arithmetic that results in a failure to properly frame the issues it reports: “Reporters have to reach independent judgments, but this founders on math phobia.”

2.) President Bush for pushing personal accounts which, by themselves, will not solve the long-term funding problem of Social Security: “Judged by this arithmetic, Bush's Social Security program is a hoax. He's claiming to make Social Security sustainable. In 40 to 50 years, Bush's approach might work. But in the next 25 years -- when the real budget problem occurs -- it does little. Bush wants it both ways: He wants to appeal to younger voters by offering personal accounts; and he doesn't want to offend older voters (including baby boomers) by cutting their benefits. This may be smart politics, but it's lousy policy.”

3.) Democrats: “Journalists echo Democratic criticisms, but that's not balanced or clarifying, because the Democrats, like Bush, aren't acknowledging the unpopular choices posed by an aging baby boom generation.”

To be fair, while he hasn’t been entirely forthcoming while pushing personal accounts, President Bush has at least hinted at cutting benefits (through price indexing) or raising the payroll income tax cap. The Democrats on the other hand airily wave their collective hand and declare “there is no crisis” in a limp effort to play politics, thereby abdicating any leadership on the issue of entitlement spending. If anybody can find a Democrat who has taken a meaningful position on Social Security, please contact me. Because as Samuelson forcefully notes, there is no way to change the numbers:

Once you've done this math, you recognize that benefit cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are inevitable. They're the only other way to limit massive tax increases or immense budget deficits. Moreover, the benefit cuts have to affect baby boomers, because they will be the people on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

By reviewing the way the MSM reacted to the prescription drug benefit debate, Samuelson makes the case that J-school graduates either don’t have the mathematical capacity or political objectivity to competently report on the Social Security issue. That’s why the bloggers need to fill the void and bring some much-needed honesty to the debate.