NYT attributes "privatization" to Dems

Here's another example of the bizarre relativism of "objective" news reporting -- the New York Times describes John McCain's support for private accounts in Social Security as "an approach that Democrats call privatization":

Mr. McCain also stuck by his support for allowing workers to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in stocks and bonds, an approach that Democrats call privatization and that Mr. Obama has used to suggest Mr. McCain would subject retirees to excessive market risk.

Actually, John McCain called it "privatization" as recently as 2004 (via Think Progress):

Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.

And of course, McCain wasn't the only one -- literally dozens of conservatives called it "privatization" before 2005. But once Republicans discovered that the word polls poorly, they ran away from it. The sad part is that the New York Times has acquiesced to their insistence that the term is some sort of Democratic invention.

Update 9/23 10:19 PM: Media Matters has more.

Comments

[Howard Craft]

The phrase used - "privatization" - is generally neutral and is used by both parties.

You can advocate for it (in some certain specific context) or you can advocate against it (in some certain specific context).

That one sentence was poorly written but I think you are reading more into it than you should.

They are saying that some proposals to modify Social Security were criticized as a "risky form of privatization". It's that criticism that's being attributed to Democrats.

[David]

The Times was accurate. They used the present tense when they wrote, "...that Democrats call privatization..." Brendan's post actually supports the point that as of today Democratic opponents of such plans are the ones typically using the term.

The word "privatization" is not an accurate description of Bush's proposal. Dictionary.com defines "privatize" as

"to transfer from public or government control or ownership to private enterprise: a campaign promise to privatize some of the public lands."

However, Bush's proposal would leave the government fully in control of SS. I suppose "partial privatization" would be acceptible, although that terms is not particuarly descriptive of the specific proposal.

[Howard Craft]

There is the matter of "privatizing control" - which could be substituting 'deferred savings plans' for 'income insurance plans' (or augmenting the later with the former).

Then there is the issue of how Social Security funds (held by the Government) should be invested.

If the funds are invested in the capital markets (such as the equity markets) that can be seen as a form of "privatization" as well.

So called private accounts would probably (?) have the same capability. That was a "selling point" for some in the discussion of private accounts (and also a point of significant criticism for others).

Seems that using the term "privatizing" is inappropriate, as it is too general or undefined (with regard to Social Security).