LA Times On Obama - Lies When Covering Him Today Re Social Security

[Median Democrat]

The LA Times has the following article in the LA Times:

Obama wields a Wall Street cudgel against McCain

However, in purporting to factcheck Obama's contentions, the LA Times interjects its own lies:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign21-2008sep21,0,5621230.story

The LA Times says this with respect to social security:

/snip

"I know Sen. McCain is talking about a casino culture on Wall Street, but the fact is he's the one who wants to gamble with your life savings," Obama told 2,500 supporters in a theater at Bethune-Cookman University.

In fact, the Republican presidential nominee has favored giving only future retirees -- not current beneficiaries -- the option to invest Social Security savings.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds called Obama's attack "a desperate attempt to gain political advantage using scare tactics and deceit."

"John McCain is 100% committed to preserving Social Security benefits for seniors, and Barack Obama knows it," he said.

/snip

However, the factcheck is wrong. First, how can McCain be 100% committed to anything given that he has not made any proposal, except to suggest another 9/11-style commission to address social security with "everything on the table."

Second, the original 2005 proposal was going to apply to retirees born in 1950 and after, and the debate centered on how the proposal would help the solvency of social security, since social security was in trouble due to the baby boom generation. In other words, why privitize future retirees, when its the current baby boomers who will bankrupt the system? Indeed, the question repeatedly raised in 2005 was why if the proposal was so great didn't the government immmediately switch current retirees to the program? There was also a proposal that social security benefits would be pegged to consumer inflation, rather than wage inflation, which would be a cut in benefits. Finally, NO BILL WAS VOTED ON. As noted in the link below, the proposal kept on shifting throughout the process:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/05/b668125.html