I'm Shocked. Shocked!

The administration would never use government funds to shamelessly promote its own political agenda, would it?

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - Over the objections of many of its own employees, the Social Security Administration is gearing up for a major effort to publicize the financial problems of Social Security and to persuade the public that private accounts are needed as part of any solution.

The agency's plans are set forth in internal documents, including a "tactical plan" for communications and marketing of the idea that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action.

Social Security officials say the agency is carrying out its mission to educate the public, including more than 47 million beneficiaries, and to support the agenda of President Bush. (emphasis mine)

But agency employees have complained to Social Security officials that they are being conscripted into a political battle over the future of the program. They question the accuracy of recent statements by the agency, and they say that money from the Social Security trust fund should not be used for such advocacy. ...

The Bush administration ran afoul of a ban on "covert propaganda" when it used tax money to promote the new Medicare drug benefit and to publicize the dangers of drug abuse by young people. The administration acknowledged paying a conservative commentator, Armstrong Williams, to promote its No Child Left Behind education policy. But on Social Security, unlike those issues, the government has not concealed its role.

The agency's strategic communications plan says the following message is to be disseminated to "all audiences" through speeches, seminars, public events, radio, television and newspapers: "Social Security's long-term financing problems are serious and need to be addressed soon," or else the program may not "be there for future generations."

The plan says that Social Security managers should "discuss solvency issues at staff meetings," "insert solvency messages in all Social Security publications" and spread the word at nontraditional sites like farmers' markets and "big box retail stores." ...

The official policy brief, analyzing the consequences of inaction, was written by Andrew G. Biggs, the associate commissioner of Social Security for retirement policy. Mr. Biggs, 37, joined President Bush in making the case for private accounts at a White House forum this week.

When he was an analyst at the Cato Institute, Mr. Biggs championed private accounts, saying they "would pay substantially higher retirement benefits than the current Social Security program" because some payroll taxes could be invested in stocks and corporate bonds rather than in government securities.

In 2003, just before he became associate commissioner, Mr. Biggs said that AARP, the lobby for older Americans, was "spreading disinformation" about the risks of private accounts. Mr. Biggs, who has a doctorate from the London School of Economics, said critics were wrong to suggest that personal accounts meant large cuts in benefits. In fact, he said, Social Security cannot pay the benefits it has promised.

The combination of benefits from traditional Social Security and a private account would substantially exceed what the current program can actually pay, Mr. Biggs said.

Other analysts, including the Congressional Budget Office, have reached a different conclusion. They say the combination of benefits from the trust fund and individual accounts is likely to be less than actual benefits under the current system.

What? A political appointee, fresh from a neoconservative think-tank, where he was an active promoter of the concept the President is now proposing? There isn't any reason to think that he might be spreading information that wasn't completely objective, is there?

(By the way, when did one of the responsibilites of the Social Security Administration become "support the agenda of President Bush?" Aren't they supposed to be faithfully implementing the laws as passed by Congress? Including the ones against propaganda? The apparatus of government is not intended to be a campaign machine!)