Questions reporters should ask about Social Security

Dan Froomkin (a Washington Post writer when he's not managing the Nieman Watchdog project) has written a thoughtful piece suggesting questions that reporters should ask as they cover the ongoing story about the Bush Administration's plans to privatize Social Security. It's worth reading to understand what mainstream media reporters are NOT doing in their coverage:

Q. Why is the Bush White House so dead-set on transforming Social Security? What’s the motive?

Q. What does Bush mean by “ownership society”? What becomes of the safety net?

Q. How have workers been affected by the somewhat analogous shift in the private sector from defined-benefit to defined-contribution pension plans?

After a slow start, more and more reporters are making it clear that no matter how many times President Bush says so, Social Security isn't going broke and private accounts aren't going to help keep it solvent. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth.

But members of the press, by and large, are still not getting at the real Social Security story, because they're not asking themselves the obvious follow-up question: What's the motive? If indeed the program isn't in trouble, and private accounts won't make things better − then why are Bush and associates so dead-set on transforming it?

Part of the answer is that letting individuals manage their own retirements is a key component of what Bush calls the "ownership society." That’s shorthand for a Republican and libertarian ideal in which taxes are low, government is small, and people supervise their own retirements and choose their own health insurance rather than depend on the government to do so.

Critics argue that Bush's vision of an ownership society would mainly benefit the wealthy and corporations – and would leave the poor, working poor and middle class in even worse shape. They believe there is great value in collective institutions, particularly when it comes to sharing risk and building a safety net for the unfortunate.

So instead of just putting quote marks around the phrase "ownership society" and regurgitating it, reporters should explain it to their readers and viewers and explore what its effects might be. Who would the winners and losers be? Would it make the gap between those who own the most and those who own the least wider or narrower? What would happen to those so unfortunate they own nothing? Would there be any social safety net left at all?

...continues: Important questions about Social Security by Dan Froomkin, Nieman Watchdog Project, 24 January 2005