Readers who saw the coverage of former Senator Fred Thompson's proposal for cutting Social Security can be forgiven for thinking that the NYT reporters are supporting the strike by the Writers Guild. Thompson proposed changing the SS benefit formula so that benefits would be indexed to inflation rather than wages. Thompson then proposed using general revenue to make up the remaining Social Security shortfall.
If the NYT reporters weren't on strike, the article would have told readers that with Mr. Thompson's proposed benefit cut, the SS program would be in surplus forever. In other words, this change is far more than sufficient to eliminate the shortfall projected by either the Congressional Budget Office or the Social Security trustees. Therefore there would be no reason to ever use general revenue to pay Social Security benefits. Perhaps the NYT will clarify this point for readers after the strike ends.
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
