Two of our nation’s best newspapers apparently can’t find reporters who understand Social Security and/or have the courage to state the facts without faux “objective” hedging.

Michael Powell and Susan Saulny in the New York Times (7/28):

Mr. McCain also touched on domestic policy, saying he would not rule out tax increases in discussing Social Security reform with Democrats. He said he favored offering private investment accounts to younger Americans, though it was not clear that investment accounts alone could address the financial shortfall that the retirement system could face in coming decades.

Perry Bacon Jr. in the Washington Post (7/8):

McCain’s aides said he favors a bipartisan approach and is open to working with Congress on finding a solution to the long-term solvency of the New Deal-era program, indicating he could support an array of ideas such as raising the retirement age, reducing scheduled increases in benefits and allowing younger workers to put money they currently pay for Social Security taxes into personal savings accounts.”

As TNR’s Jon Chait points out in a post on the Times article, this phrasing is inaccurate: “Private investment accounts do not improve solvency at all. They make it worse.” In fact, as Media Matters notes in an article on Bacon’s piece, even Vice President Dick Cheney conceded that the transition costs associated with shifting to private accounts would cost trillions of dollars. Any chance the Post and Times could hire reporters who understand this?