What Was the Imperative for Anonymity?
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Amy Goldstein's May 13 front-page article, "Alarm Sounded on Social Security," raised confusing points about the Obama administration's response to the impending deficits. Unnamed administration spokespersons were reported as saying "that if Congress were to act immediately, the impending gap could be filled three ways: by raising workers' Social Security payroll taxes by 2 percentage points, from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent; by reducing benefits by 13 percent; or a combination of the two approaches."
As long as these "spokespersons" insisted on their anonymity, why didn't they also suggest raising the retirement age for Social Security or extending the FICA tax that finances Social Security beyond the $97,000 cutoff for wages?
And if they didn't suggest either approach, why didn't your reporters ask them about it?
-- Corbin Lyday
Washington
