Demagogue

Just as it did during the presidential campaign, FactCheck.org is analyzing the statements being made by both sides in the debate over Social Security reform. This week, FactCheck.org has criticized a MoveOn.org TV ad, saying the liberal advocacy group "falsely claims Bush plan would cut benefits 46 percent." FactCheck.org writes:

By using images of over-65 workers and using the words "before long," the ad creates the false impression that Bush's "cuts" would apply to [current retirees], and soon.

That's a fair point. But I take issue with FactCheck.org's analysis of a related point:

What MoveOn.org calls "Bush's planned Social Security benefit cuts" is actually a plan that would hold starting Social Security benefits steady in purchasing power, rather than allowing them to nearly double over the next 75 years as they are projected to do under the current benefit formula.

FactCheck.org bases its conclusion on the fact that Bush's plan doesn't cut the actual dollar amount of benefits. But there's another, more reasonable way of assessing the impact of Bush's reform plan.

If the current Social Security formula (left in place) will result in a significant increase over the coming years in starting SS benefits, then changing that formula to reduce initial benefits amounts to a benefit cut. At the very least, this has to be considered a de facto cut.