FACT: "Also, even by mid-century, when Social Security is likely to have depleted its trust fund of Treasury bonds, it would still be able to pay 73 percent of promised benefits out of the payroll taxes. Bush asserts the system will then be 'bankrupt,' but opponents question that terminology, since a 27 percent benefit cut would still leave the average payment above today's level, even after adjusting for inflation." -- The Washington Post, January 2, 2005 [Emph. added]

2003 SPIN: "Make no mistake about it. Social Security as we know it is simply not sustainable without either significant benefit cuts or significant tax increases." -- Donald Luskin, December 12, 2003 [Emph. added]

2005 SPIN: "Krugman also lied when he portrayed progressive indexing as 'a plan to slash middle-class benefits.' It’s not a plan to 'slash' benefits at all, or even reduce them. Under progressive indexing, everyone’s Social Security benefits will be greater than they are today, by the rate of inflation or more." -- Donald Luskin, May 10, 2005 [Emph. added]

Well, which is it, Mr. Luskin? Would the 27% reductions you alluded to in 2003 represent "significant benefit cuts"? Or would they not, since "Social Security benefits will be greater than they are today, by the rate of inflation or more"?

I mean, I understand that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and all. But still. . . .