Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

Paging Brad DeLong. Please help with this passage from the CS Monitor's Peter Grier Wednesday.

The idea of private control of government retirement assets may have begun with the prominent University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman, who promoted them as early as the 1950s. In Latin America, where Chicago-trained free market economists had great influence on governments in the 1970s and '80s, they are already in use in a number of countries. Great Britain features private accounts in its pension system as well. "They're actually quite widespread," says Mr. Tanner.

Please. The whole piece is pretty egregious (although it does get the Cato Institute's Tanner to admit that solvency isn't the issue, it's privatization for privatization's sake), with lines such as "Critics charge" the administration is exaggerating, etc., but Grier doesn't bother to question Tanner as to whether these "widespread" privatization plans are successful.

In fact, Brad does weigh in with a little Krugman.

And how about the UK? Norma Cohen, writing in The American Prospect, finds that privatization may be "pretty widespread," but in the UK, things aren't so pretty.

A conservative government sweeps to power for a second term. It views its victory as a mandate to slash the role of the state. In its ?rst term, this policy objective was met by cutting taxes for the wealthy. Its top priority for its second term is tackling what it views as an enduring vestige of socialism: its system of social insurance for the elderly. Declaring the current program unaffordable in 50 years’ time, the administration proposes the privatization of a portion of old-age bene?ts. In exchange for giving up some future bene?ts, workers would get a tax rebate to put into an investment account to save for their own retirement.

George W. Bush’s America in 2005? Think again. The year was 1984, the nation was Britain, the government was that of Margaret Thatcher -- and the results have been a disaster that America is about to emulate.

For all the fanfare that surrounds the Bush administration’s efforts to present a bold new idea on pension reform, the truth is that it is not new at all. In fact, the proposal looks suspiciously like the plan set in train during Thatcher’s ?rst term in 1979 and which has since led Britain to the brink of a crisis. Since then, the nation’s basic pension, which is paid for out of tax receipts, has shrunk dramatically. The United Kingdom has the stingiest state pension program of any G8 nation, and there is growing consensus -- even among British conservatives -- that reform is needed. And ironically enough, considering that America is on the verge of copying Britain’s mistake, most experts seek reform in the direction of a more generous, and simpler, basic state pension -- one similar in design, in other words, to America’s Social Security program.

Just as George Bush is calling for pouring trillions out of Social Security and into private accounts, conservative MPs in Britain are expressing open admiration for the US Social Security system, the British equivalent of the Chamber of Commerce is calling for a more generous state-provided retirement benefit even if that means raising taxes, and the British insurance industry is telling customers to abandon their private accounts and return to the state benefits system.

Krugman, again, has more this morning.

And there is at least one reporter covering this issue who is doing an excellent job.

Rex Nutting, in a story headlined, "Fact-checking President Bush on Social Security. President exaggerates problems in retirement system," he writes,

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - President Bush made several factual errors Tuesday about Social Security's long-term financing problems at a photo op event designed to educate the public about the retirement system.

Bush is expected to offer a plan in the next few weeks to cut future benefits and to divert about one-third of Social Security's tax revenues into individual private savings accounts in order to "save Social Security."

Before a specific plan is unveiled, the White House is holding a series of events to convince the public that the system must be radically altered to prevent a crisis.

According to the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office, the retirement system faces long-term funding problems, amounting to about 0.7 percent of gross domestic product over the next 75 years, or $3.7 trillion. Read the Social Security trustees report here. Read the CBO's analysis here.

The SSA says the system's trust fund, financed by payroll taxes and interest payments, will probably be exhausted in 2042, requiring the government to reduce benefits by about a fourth or a third. The CBO says the fund will be exhausted by 2052.

Bush vs. facts

Bush: "As a matter of fact, by the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt. So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now."

The facts: The Social Security system cannot go "bankrupt," for it has no creditors. By law, the trustees will continue to pay reduced benefits even if the trust fund is exhausted. Payroll taxes will continue to come in and benefits will continue to be paid.

According to the trustees' intermediate economic forecast (neither doom nor boom), the trust fund will be able to pay about 73 percent of scheduled benefits in 2042 and about 68 percent of scheduled benefits in 2078.

Future presidents and Congresses could also choose to fully fund scheduled retirement benefits from general tax revenue.

Bush: "Most younger people in America think they'll never see a dime."

The facts: Social Security says younger people will see a lot more than a dime. Their retirement benefits - even under a "flat-bust" system -- will be significantly higher than today's benefits in real terms.

For low-income Americans, currently scheduled benefits for those who retire in 2080 are $19,906 per year in 2004 dollars. If Social Security can pay only 68 percent of those benefits, that would be $13,536 per year, compared with benefits of $8,804 for low-income retirees who retired last year.

For the highest earners, Social Security is currently promising $53,411 per year for those who retire in 2080 (or $36,319 per year if Social Security can pay only 68 percent). Current maximum benefits are $21,891 per year for those who retired last year.

Bush: "In the year 2018, in order to take care of baby boomers like me and -- (laughter) -- some others I see out there -- (laughter) -- the money going out is going to exceed the money coming in."

The facts: According to the SSA, costs are projected to exceed income, including tax revenues and interest income from the trust funds' bonds, starting in 2028, not 2018. The 2018 date is when tax revenues alone no longer meet costs; workers have been paying extra taxes since 1983 to build up the trust funds' assets for just this eventuality.

Bush: "The problem is, is that times have changed since 1935. Then, most women did not work outside the house, and the average life expectancy was about 60 years old --which for a guy 58 years old, must have been a little discouraging. Today, Americans, fortunately, are living longer and longer. I mean, we're living way beyond 60 years old, and most women are working outside the house. Things have shifted."

The facts: According to the SSA, the life expectancy for a 65-year-old man in 1940 was 76.9 years. Today, a man aged 65 can be expected to live to 81. Most of the increase in life expectancy in the past half century has been for infants, not for the elderly.

The increase in the percentage of women working outside the home has boosted Social Security's resources, rather than depleted them. Today, many women who worked receive a widow's pension rather than their own earned benefits. All the payroll taxes they paid are funding someone else's retirement.

Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of CBS.MarketWatch.com.

Now, press corps people covering this issue, was that so hard?