The Washington Post apparently finds it impossible to write an article that mentions Social Security without pushing its line about cutting Social Security. In a front page article on the budget standoff the Post told readers:
"Both sides agree that a potential deal could involve replacing deep budget cuts known as the sequester with cost-saving adjustments to Social Security and Medicare, such as using a less generous measure of inflation to calculate cost-of-living changes."
The "cost-saving adjustments" to Social Security in normal English are known as "cuts." When a worker gets their pay reduced by 10 percent, it would usually be referred to as a pay "cut," not a "cost-saving adjustment" to the worker's salary.
In the same vein, the issue is the size of cost-of-living increases. The only possible cost-of-living changes for Social Security are increases. The law only allows for increases. (We haven't seen a year over year decline in prices since the program's inception in any case.) The issue is that beneficiaries will see smaller cost-of-living increases under this plan.
The article also commits two other noteworthy errors. It uncritically presents the misleading material from the White House implying that the 2011 debt standoff had serious negative effects on the economy. The White House material ignores the euro crisis which hit a peak at this time, creating the real possibility of the breakup of the euro.
The article also discusses the medical device tax without explaining that its purpose is to take away a windfall that the Affordable Care Act is giving to the medical device industry.
(Only one link allowed per comment)