February 25, 2011
I have just finished reading a book entitled Flat Earth News, by a British newsman, Nick Davies. It’s a critique of the news media, here as well as in the UK. He argues that they publish and broadcast many stories which are false, misleading or incomplete, but are as resistant to correction as the ancient belief about the shape of the earth. (In the age of Limbaugh, is that an old notion?)
He offers several explanations, including the commercialization of television news departments and the obsession of newspapers with the bottom line, both leading to understaffing and the consequent reliance on various types of PR. He also cites the practice of reporting what people say, however illogical or suspect, on the ground that the statement is news. There is the strong tendency to take whatever line is currently fashionable and therefore safe. Stories, regardless of merit, spread because each news agency copies the others. Finally, the selection and presentation of news caters to the interests, beliefs and intellectual limitations of the audience.
We are witnessing a prime example of flat earth news: the widespread claim in articles, columns and editorial cartoons that reducing the deficit requires tinkering with Social Security. The kindest explanation is that this originated in an honest misunderstanding. The Social Security system will need some adjusting in the next few years because outlay has caught up with income. It is not a problem requiring an immediate solution, because the trust funds will cover outlays until about 2037. However, because both Social Security and the government’s general fund need attention, the latter because of a huge deficit, the two become confused, and people think that “fixing” Social Security is necessary to a reduction of the deficit. In fact, the only contribution SS has made to the deficit is to make it look smaller. Government reports long have shown a composite number, combining the SS surplus with a general account deficit, burying the former and making the latter look less awful.
Attempts to point out the fallacy haven’t had much impact. One who has tried is Rep. Pelosi, who said recently, “Whatever we do for Social Security is not about reducing the deficit, it is about strengthening Social Security — the solvency of Social Security. Those are two separate, different questions." She made the same point some months ago:“When you talk about reducing the deficit and Social Security, you’re talking about apples and oranges.”
However, there is too much chatter on the other side, and some of the confusion is intentional, coming from those who want to eliminate, privatize or cut Social Security. One ploy is to treat Social Security and Medicare as one, even though they are separately funded. Since general fund revenue provides about three quarters of Medicare B and D funding, they have a direct impact on the deficit. Leaving funding sources aside, Medicare poses a more serious long-term problem because of the increase in the cost of medical care. Treating the two programs as one serves to mislead people into thinking that SS is in trouble too. Paul Krugman has pointed out that fallacy more than once, with an equal lack of success.
The Health Care Act will improve the financial status of Medicare,19 but conservatives want to repeal it. That too seems to be a mix of misunderstanding and ideology.
______________________________
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
