...And Bingo Wednesday Night

"AARP Opposes Bush Plan to Replace Social Security With Private Accounts," blares the headline of this article from Friday's New York Times. At least columnist Robert Pear had the decency to expose himself as a partisan hack before the first paragraph.

Not that the first paragraph gets off to any better of a start...

Gearing up for battle over the future of Social Security, AARP, the influential lobby for older Americans, said Thursday that it opposed President Bush's plan to divert some payroll taxes into private retirement accounts.
The Bush plan does not "replace" Social Security. The Bush plan does not "divert" payroll taxes. The Bush plan gives individual contributors the option to put some of their money into a private account. You'll find this out if you manage to make it all the way to paragraph 21 of Pear's article.
"I do not favor 'privatization' of Social Security,'' Mr. Bush wrote last month in the AARP Bulletin. "Those workers who do not want a personal account would continue to receive their benefits from the federally administered Social Security system. Even those who choose a personal account would continue to draw traditional Social Security benefits.''
The editorial board of the Times serially refuses to correct these characterizations when they show up in the articles of their columnists. Either they consider the characterizations to be accurate, or they're happy with misrepresenting the facts when it serves their agenda.

In either case, the Times' credibility is fast approaching that of a church bulletin; fascinating to the congregation, and irrelevant to just about everyone else.