In the runup to the election Factcheck.org was a pretty powerful tool for us. They were one of the only organizations that consistently pointed out the big falsehoods of the Bush campaign, and didn't seem quite so beholden to the "fair and balanced" rule that required the MSM to compare Cheney's continual lying about Saddam/911 with Kerry's overstating unemployment figures by 10% as examples of "both sides taking liberties with the truth."
However one issue they totally dropped the ball on was Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. Just like the draft issue, Bush was able to totally avoid any specific, substantive discussion of how he would handle the aftermath of his radical intentions. And just like the MSM, factcheck.org pussed out on the whole discussion.
And now we're going to pay for it:
[Senator] Grassley said Congress would also have to put benefit reductions and tax increases on the table, in part to hold down the need for borrowing and in part to assure that any changes restore Social Security's long-term financial stability.
Surprise surprise. In light of the recent news about the
decline in the interest of foreign governments in financing our exploding national debt, borrowing on this scale is simply out of the question.
In case you don't remember factcheck.org's breathless, summary dismissals of Kerry's and the Democrats' warnings on this very issue, here's a refresher:
Kerry Falsely Claims Bush Plans To Cut Social Security Benefits
It's not Bush's plan, and it wouldn't cut benefits.
A Kerry ad claims "Bush has a plan to cut Social Security benefits by 30 to 45 percent." That's false. Bush has proposed no such plan, and the proposal Kerry refers to would only slow down the growth of benefits, and only for future retirees.
...
Unless taxes are increased, the system's trustees say currently scheduled benefits would have to be cut 32%.
It doesn't take a genius (or a political hack) to make the assumption that a candidate whose economic policy can be distilled down to two words--tax cuts--can be counted on not to raise taxes. Add to that Bush's well known disdain for the entire "socialist" New Deal framework and it should have been patently obvious to anyone what the specifics of Bush's privatization of Social Security would entail.
But the press and Factcheck didn't have to take our word for it--how about ask the candidate himself? Ahh, why bother. This is enough:
The Kerry ad is wrong on several counts:
*Bush hasn't proposed any specific plan.
He may propose something similar if elected, but so far hasn't spelled out for voters exactly what he has in mind.
Note to future Democratic candidates: if your policies involve something you feel would be mildly politically unpopular, just don't talk about them! Nobody will mind.
It's obvious that the MSM has abdicated their responsibility to ask the tough questions. Many of us had hoped that the internet would raise the status of independent organizations like factcheck.org to step up to the plate and do the hard work necessary to keep politicians honest. They did to a certain extent. But on this issue at least, the struck out looking.