Media "Private account" watch, Day 3

When will the media learn how partisan it is to use the phrase "private accounts" instead of the new Bush literary roll out "personal accounts?" Apparently not today.

BET News pens an article about Bush's meeting with the black caucus:

[Rep Stephanie Tubbs Jones] cited a recent study by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation that found African American children are particularly reliant on Social Security's steady benefits and that private accounts “would not come close to making up for the drastic benefit cuts” the administration proposes.

More importantly, she rips into the idea that the Social Security formula should take into account race:

As for young Black workers “who experience early disability or death, would not have enough accumulated in their individual accounts to cover the amount of the cuts,” she notes.

“Arguments that minorities would receive great wealth from individual accounts are misleading and overlook the fact that existing racial income disparities would remain or even widen under individual accounts even if people of color and whites were earning the same rate of return,” says Tubbs Jones. “African Americans and Hispanics, who have lower earnings and higher rates of unemployment, would be severely disadvantaged by the elimination of a real progressive benefit structure in a system of individual accounts.”

Rep. Maxine Waters makes her feelings known too:

“We have an African American poverty rate of 24.4 percent; there are over 12.9 million children under 18 who are in poverty; there are 45 million Americans without health insurance; there is not a single metropolitan area where an extremely low income family can be assured of finding a modest two bedroom rental home that is affordable; and there are literally millions of people who are homeless,” she says. “At a time when the administration is about to request an additional $80 billion for Iraq, all of us must ask the president squarely: ‘What is your program for the millions of Americans in poverty? How many billions of new dollars are you prepared to devote to addressing the urgent needs of our people?’”

Next we have the AP's Terrence Hunt, discussing the President's news conference earlier today:

[President Bush] recognizes that some people are worried about the political risks and financial costs of overhauling Social Security by creating private investment accounts _ a step that could cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion in transition costs.

Well, I'm sure he recognizes the risks of "personal accounts," anyway.

ill Straub of Scripps Howard News Service has the same topic, same result:

The president has yet to issue details of a plan or even commit to offering a formal proposal, instead citing "the need to work together to get a solution that will fix the problem." He did say that any solution should include a provision for private accounts - permitting beneficiaries to devote a portion of their payments to a personal investment program - and a prohibition against increasing payroll taxes.

And again, the Washington Times:

"I'm open to good ideas from members of Congress. I'll work with both parties to get results," [President Bush] said, adding that any solution had to address the problem "fully and directly" by making the system "permanently solvent" and providing the option of personal accounts.

Bloomerg, also not on the President's payroll, opens:

President George Bush said he is open to a variety of ways to restructure Social Security as long as they include allowing younger workers to create private accounts and not raising the payroll tax.

At my quick count, "private accounts" are referenced six times, "personal accounts" only twice. Does that mean Bloomerg is three times biased against the White House?