Senior's Pay

MoveOn's anti-privatization ad is a direct takeoff on Charlie Fisher's Bush in 30 Seconds-winning ad Child's Pay. Nice. I wonder if he directed the new one, too.

(In a previous life, I used to blog political ads.)

Update: Duh, I need to learn how to read links. The ad was directed by Charlie Fisher.

Also, FactCheck doesn't like this ad, but Max Sawicky fact checks the fact check and finds it lacking:

[T]hey accuse MoveOn of unfactuality because the latter claims that the White House is scheming to reduce Social Security benefits. I would have said any fool knows this, until today. There is no reason to talk about the long-term shortfall in the program unless you mean to either raise taxes -- which Bush has ruled out -- or cut benefits. Nor is there any ambiguity about how much. If you eliminate the shortfall in perpetuity, you hammer benefits. It's not a haircut.

These benefit cuts apply to the elderly because, duh, that's who retires. So the MoveOn ad has pictures of elderly persons. Factcheck sez this is wrong because the benefits of the presently elderly are not on the table. Oh please."

Update 2: The GOP is back to their old tricks, using pressure tactics to try to get TV stations to pull this ad. From today's edition of The Note:

And how's this for hardball? The RNC is asking television stations to stop airing the MoveOn.org ads, incidentally. This morning, the party sent out the letter from deputy counsel Michael Bayes that said the spot "falsely and maliciously" claims that the President's Social Security plan cuts benefits up to 46 percent to pay for private accounts, and reminded stations that as FCC license holders, they have a responsibility "to avoid broadcasting deliberate misrepresentations of the facts."

Update 3: MoveOn responds to the RNC:

Tom Matzzie, Washington Director of MoveOn.Org responded today to false charges by RNC Deputy Counsel, Michael Bayes:

"The President is continuing a campaign of deception. The fact that the President's plan would cut benefits by up to 46 percent is drawn directly from analysis by the chief actuary at the Social Security Administration. ('Estimates of Financial Effects for Three Models Developed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security,' page 75: Estimated change in monthly benefit for retiree at 65...row 42 sets 2, 3 and 4). We stand by the ad. All stations are airing our ad as scheduled.

"Ironically, the president is coming after us while he is deceiving the public. The president is misleading when he says 'Social Security is going bankrupt.'

"Our statement is supported by an ideologically-broad range of prominent economists, including Henry Aaron of The Brookings Institution, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute. Further, the benefit cut figure has been widely reported in major daily newspapers, including The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

"Instead of threatening TV stations and trying to infringe on the free speech rights of MoveOn.org, the administration should come clean and answer the following questions:

-- How big will the benefit cuts be for future retirees?

-- How much new debt will be required for their proposal?

-- How many billions in fees will financial services corporations profit from privatization?"

Update 4: MoveOn and a stable of economists respond to FactCheck (and take FactCheck to the woodshed):

In referring to a cut against scheduled benefit levels, MoveOn was using the standard framing for the whole debate. There would be no Social Security shortfall whatsoever, if the goal was simply to provide the current benefit level. President Bush and proponents of privatization have consistently used the scheduled benefit as their benchmark when they have warned of benefit cuts, if no changes are made. This statement is not true if a benefit cut means a cut against current benefit levels -- it only could be true if they are referring to scheduled future benefits. In this sense, MoveOn.org has referred to benefit "cuts" in exactly the same way as the president. If Fact Check only considers a cut as a reduction against current benefit levels, then it should correct the president and other proponents of privatization who routinely warn of benefit cuts....

Since the longstanding debate on Social Security has proceeded from the standpoint that not paying currently scheduled benefits is a "cut," and that is the framing that both sides in the debate have adopted, and FactCheck itself finds it difficult to avoid this framing, I suggest that you adopt the standard framing. At the very least, you should not accuse an organization that uses the standard framing of being misleading or inaccurate.

I like Lee Price's response:

Your analysis of what constitutes a “cut” is internally contradictory. While asserting that price indexing initial benefits would not constitute a “cut,” your analysis asserts that “current law will force an actual cut in benefits eventually.” In fact, average benefits will grow substantially between now and 2042. As a result, your assertion that “all benefits would have to be cut 27% when the Social Security Trust Fund is exhausted in the year 2042” is “false” in your own framework because benefits would never fall below where they are today. On the other hand, if that would be a 27% “cut” (and I think it would), then Plan 2 would cause a 46% cut and there is nothing false about the MoveOn.org ad.

Your commentary also ignores the central point of the ad – that the Bush initiative would lead to “working retirement.” Administration spokesmen and their allies have consistently touted as one of the advantages of their proposal that it would cause many more people to stay in the work force longer.

I've updated the date on this post so more people will see the new developments.