Is Social Security a good deal for workers? That's the question the AP posed in an August 5 piece dredging up a very old argument against Social Security-that workers pay more into the program than they later get back-and presenting it as fresh news. Its lede:

People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Previous generations got a much better bargain, the AP reported, because payroll taxes were very low when the program started in the 1930s. The August 5 story rolled through the media, including the AARP's blog and the Fox News blog, which headlined its post: "New retirees receiving less in Social Security than they paid in, marking historic shift."

But the notion that people are not getting their money's worth with Social Security has been around for about three decades. It's revived by opponents whenever it seems there is a chance to privatize the system or cut benefits-experts on both sides of the debate believe that Social Security changes could be part of a grand political bargain on the deficit struck after the elections. And it's revived even though the argument contains a faulty explanation of how the program works.

Read the full article »