Yesterday I wrote about Matt Bai's stunning mischaracterization of Social Security as a "lottery ticket." In focusing just on that ridiculousness, I left out the role that Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) payed in Bai's story, specifically:
But Mr. Blumenauer argues that the program can’t exist on make-believe money, and he says Democrats should remain open to changes in the benefit structure, including what is known as "progressive price indexing." What this means, essentially, is that more affluent Americans would have their benefits — at least when they first retire — pegged to the consumer price index, rather than to wages, which would have the effect of reducing payouts.
That seemed pretty out-of-character for Blumenauer, particularly when you examine--as David Dayen did Blumenauer's policy statements on his own Web site. Turns out, it was out character for Blumenauer, because Matt Bai "misintrepreted" his comments. Here's Blumenauer himself:
While I appreciate Matt Bai's article in The New York Times focusing on my commitment to cut wasteful government spending, such as military and agricultural subsidies, I would like to point out one area where I take modest exception to how my comments have been interpreted in this story.
I do not believe, nor have I ever said, that the Social Security trust fund is either like a "lottery" or "make believe money." As my Congressional Website points out, and as anyone who has heard the countless number of presentations that I have given will tell you, the Social Security trust fund is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government which has never and will never default on its commitments....
I will continue to strongly oppose any effort to privatize or weaken the Social Security system. I also encourage all Americans--whether they're Progressive, Conservative, or somewhere in between--to join me as we have the discussion of how Social Security can remain strong and solvent for generations to come, and how we have a meaningful conversation about what America needs and how to pay for it.
Seems a correction from the Times is in order, no?
Dayen has done tremendous work on following up with Blumenauer and focusing attention on the policy aspects of Social Security which Bai so glibly glossed over. He makes a very good point as well about Blumenauer's call for a discussion on Social Security:
Blumenauer wants to "have a conversation," but the deficit commission has taken away that entire conversation and put it in the hands of an unelected panel operating in secret. Congress would only be able to vote up or down, and wouldn’t have any say over changes. So it’s Barack Obama, by empaneling the commission, who stifled that conversation. What’s more, it’s deeply disheartening to the base, who don’t expect Social Security to be cut on a Democratic President’s watch.
At this point, since the deficit commission apparently has Obama's blessing to go forward with Simpson still at its helm, the only opportunity for that discussion to go forward is for Congress to reject the commission's recommendations on Social Security--and they should do so pre-emptively--and commit to having a full and open debate on the things that will work to actually strengthen the program.