Too many news outlets have bought into the BC04 spin that Kerry’s characterization of Bush’s Social Security plan is untrue. Jonathan Chait helps set the record straight today.
If you relied on the press coverage, you might conclude from the phrases surrounding Kerry’s charge — “unsubstantiated attacks,” “shaky evidence” — that Bush has no plan whatsoever to change Social Security. But, of course, he does. He has publicly stated that he plans to make the program solvent, and to allow younger workers to divert some of their Social Security taxes into private accounts. So why is Kerry lying? As the Times put it, “Mr. Bush has never endorsed a specific plan and has insisted that benefits for current retirees and people near retirement would never be reduced.”
So, there you have it, right? Not exactly. As it stands, Social Security taxes pay for the benefits going to current retirees. So, if you divert that money away from the program, you either cut benefits or you dig the Social Security hole deeper.
It’s really that simple. Bush has embraced the approach of privatization, if not the word. Kerry said Bush’s numbers don’t add up — and they don’t — but the conventional wisdom is that Kerry is relying on “scare tactics” when it comes to Social Security. This is absurd.
Some, including the NYT, have insisted Kerry’s been unfair because Bush has “never endorsed a specific plan.” If there is no plan, the argument goes, then Kerry’s wrong to attack a proposal that doesn’t actually exist. But this, too, gives Bush way too much credit.
[Bush] has repeatedly emphasized the potential upsides of his approach — dandy new personal accounts for young workers — without having to acknowledge the inevitable downside. And he’s getting away with that because he has declined to offer any specifics. Indeed, his lack of specifics affords him blanket protection to do this. The very fact that Bush has no specific proposal means that Kerry can’t even point out its arithmetically necessary implications without the media alerting the public that he’s lying.
Exactly. Forget specific plans. Bush has said we can take up to $2 trillion out of the Social Security system without cutting benefits for recipients. Kerry is trying to remind people that as a simple matter of common sense, this is literally impossible. For his efforts, he’s accused of “scare tactics” and “unsubstantiated attacks.” The whole thing is backwards.
What’s worse, Kerry is getting slammed for things he’s not even saying.
Part of the controversy revolves around the question of current beneficiaries. Bush says he’ll leave them alone. But if he allows Social Security taxes to be diverted into private accounts without cutting any benefits for years to come, then he’ll massively increase the deficit. (Which would violate another promise, to cut the deficit in half in four years.) And even if Bush does leave current beneficiaries alone, Kerry doesn’t say otherwise. Reporters are whacking Kerry for merely implying it.
“Mr. Kerry’s implication, though he did not explicitly say it, was that current retirees would have their benefits cut if Mr. Bush won,” wrote the Times. So now the truth standard is that candidates are lying if they state an incontrovertibly true fact but fail to add disclaimers that would soften its political impact. Somehow I doubt that Bush has been held to that standard.
But wouldn’t it be great if he were?