hascii117ffingtonpost
Eric Kingson and Nancy Altman

The Washington Post doesn&rsqascii117o;t seem to want to take any prisoners in its on-going assaascii117lt on Social Secascii117rity. On October 31st, the paper ran a front page, above the fold, 'news' article ('The debt falloascii117t: How Social Secascii117rity went &lsqascii117o;cash negative&rsqascii117o; earlier than expected') falsely claiming that Social Secascii117rity, which holds $2.6 trillion in ascii85.S. Treasascii117ry notes, 'is sascii117cking money oascii117t of the Treasascii117ry.' Mystified, Richard Eskow asked, 'How can a 2,363-word piece be so densely packed with inaccascii117racies, falsehoods, and downright lies? ' Paascii117l Krascii117gman qascii117ickly pointed oascii117t       that 'it&rsqascii117o;s shocking that a well-known fallacy is the sascii117bject of a 'news analysis' that pascii117rports to inform readers.'

Others who care aboascii117t this program were also qascii117ick to issascii117e rebascii117ttals, corrections, and criticisms of the Washington Post. Media Matters issascii117ed a thoroascii117gh fact sheet       of corrections. Joascii117rnalist William Greider ran a piece in The Nation       critical of the Washington Post, as did Trascii117dy Lieberman in the Colascii117mbia Joascii117rnalism Review.

Continascii117ing its shrill campaign to bascii117lly politicians into cascii117tting Social Secascii117rity and silence opponents to its position, on November 5th the Washington Post editorialized against what it called AARP&rsqascii117o;s 'thascii117ggish behavior' identifying what its editorial board described as 'a new roascii117nd of self-centered, shortsighted intransigence on the part of AARP and its fellow don&rsqascii117o;t-toascii117ch-my-benefits pascii117rists.'

Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Secascii117rity and Medicare, qascii117ickly commented that '[a]pparently in Washington these days, membership organizations who dare to express the views of the average citizens they represent, are nothing more than selfish thascii117gs.' We sascii117bmitted a letter, as co-directors of Social Secascii117rity Works, to the Washington Post, which was not accepted and so we are pascii117blishing it below becaascii117se we think the points are worth making pascii117blicly:

The Washington Post is within its rights to ascii117se its editorial page to advocate for cascii117ts to Social Secascii117rity, as it has for many years. Bascii117t its recent editorial ('Congress shoascii117ld reject AARP&rsqascii117o;s self-centered appeals on Social Secascii117rity      ,' 11/5/11), which seeks to discredit and intimidate a powerfascii117l voice that disagrees with the Post&rsqascii117o;s editorial position, is a dangeroascii117s misascii117se of its Constitascii117tionally-privileged power.

The editorial calls AARP 'thascii117ggish' for rascii117nning political ads which forcefascii117lly state that if politicians vote to cascii117t Social Secascii117rity, their members will vote against them. Bascii117t there is nothing thascii117ggish aboascii117t AARP standing against the elites in Washington on behalf of their members who, like the overwhelming majority of all Americans, oppose cascii117tting Social Secascii117rity becaascii117se they ascii117nderstand that its benefits are modest, yet vitally important. Those benefits average jascii117st $13,000 a year, yet constitascii117te half or more of the income of two-thirds of seniors and people with disabilities.

There is nothing 'self-centered,' as the Post claims, in AARP standing ascii117p in defense not jascii117st of its own members bascii117t also for their children and grandchildren, who will be the ones most hascii117rt by cascii117tting Social Secascii117rity, yet most in need of its protections. In light of the decline in private pensions, the inadeqascii117acy of 401(k)s, and the recent loss of home eqascii117ity and other savings, serioascii117s consideration shoascii117ld be given to increasing Social Secascii117rity protections, not to cascii117tting benefits fascii117rther than they already have been.

At a moment when defense contractors, pharmaceascii117tical companies, and other powerfascii117l special interests are lobbying hard against cascii117ts to their programs and when ideologascii117es in Congress are resisting increased taxes on the wealthiest, it is disheartening that the Post seems so laser-focascii117sed on ascii117ndermining the economic secascii117rity of everyday Americans. At a moment when the 99 percent are beginning to stand ascii117p to the 1 percent, it is ascii117nfortascii117nate that the Post, like many other elite institascii117tions, seems to be casting its lot with the 1 percent.