On Thursday, Factcheck.org, our former colleagues when we were running Spinsanity, released an article criticizing stupid liberal/Democratic rhetoric about Bush’s Social Security plan being intended to enrich Wall Street — a point I’ve made before. Brooks Jackson, who runs Factcheck, pointed to the low administrative costs of the Thrift Savings Plan, the federal program President Bush has cited as a model for the design of his private accounts, as evidence for his criticism.

But as the Center for American Progress pointed out before I could, the Washington Post had written a whole article that morning explaining why private accounts would have substantially higher administrative costs than the Thrift Savings Plan. I don’t remember Jackson’s article addressing the issue at the time, but it was modified the day it was released and I can’t tell what’s been changed. Does anyone have an original copy? In any case, Factcheck now addresses the costs issue in some detail, though they don’t talk about the Post article specifically.

Update 3/5: I think I’m getting a better handle on this after re-reading the Post article and the Factcheck one. There are two separate issues in question:

1) Would a TSP-style plan have administrative costs that are as low as the Social Security actuary estimates (.3 percent)?

2) Would a TSP-style plan funnel a lot of money to Wall Street?

The Post article suggests that #1 remains an open question, but it doesn’t bear on #2 since the extra administrative costs Bush’s plan would incur (relative to TSP) would cover additional bureaucracy, not Wall Street fees.

(This is what I get for linking to CAP. For those who haven’t read it, here’s my Spinsanity column on why you can’t trust them.)

That said, I think the summary of Jackson’s column is misleading because it suggests that the low administrative costs paid by TSP directly disprove CAP’s claims. I don’t think that follows, but it is true that a TSP-style system is unlikely to be a bonanza for Wall Street.

Update 3/6: Jackson has told me by email that the article was not modified. Also, Factcheck has posted a response to CAP’s criticism that strikes me as correct.