Factcheck.org puts words in AARP's mouth

FactCheck.org's summary of their latest article on Social Security:

Can the current Social Security system -- without individual accounts -- be fixed with only "a few moderate changes," as AARP suggests in a recent newspaper ad?

What the ad (PDF) actually says:

Let's not turn Social Security into Social Insecurity. Yes, the program is in need of reform, which can be done with a few moderate changes, but it is not in need of a radical overhaul.

These are not the same thing. AARP said "the program is in need of reform, which can be done with a few moderate changes." Despite Factcheck.org's claims, it's not clear that AARP was suggesting that moderate changes could "fix" the program. It said they were all that was needed for "reform." Those may or may not be the same thing for AARP.

Moreover, "fixing" Social Security is a highly subjective standard, but FC implies in the article that "sustainable solvency" plans that restore solvency for longer than the standard 75-year window are necessary to do so. That's an arbitrary and eminently arguable claim. 75-year projections vary dramatically depending on underlying economic assumptions. We should take action to strengthen Social Security's finances, but why do we need to close the actuarial deficit for more than 100 years? That seems extreme to me, and it's hardly grounds for contesting AARP's claims.

Comments

[mark]

"...as AARP suggests..."

Suggests? That's a word which reduces AARP's strength of message. AARP is not making a suggestion. They are declaring a position.

This (the actual wording):

'Yes, the program is in need of reform, which can be done with a few moderate changes, but it is not in need of a radical overhaul.'

Is not the same as this:

'Yes, the program is in need of reform, which we suggest can be done with a few moderate changes, but it is not in need of a radical overhaul.'