November 24, 2012

M.D. HARMON: A look at sources underscores trouble with benefits

Ellen Goodman, the liberal columnist, had a unique policy for corrections. Rather than fixing her errors as she made them, she would run a column at the end of December listing them all for the entire year.

I don't seem to have accumulated that many, at least this year, but I do have one to note: A reader has pointed out to me that in last week's column, I quoted a source that said a new tax under Obamacare (one of the 20 or so that law contains) would add a 3.8 percent surcharge on capital gains.

But I left off the rest of the quote, that the tax "applies to any profit that pushes your income over $200,000." My bad.

That was a useful criticism, as are many I receive. But they don't have to be. I write what I want, and other people can say whatever they want to about it. If the replies are published, readers are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about who has the better argument.

When I cite a quote or a fact, however, I always try to give a source and a date, so readers can check what I've quoted if they want.

Every so often, however, someone doesn't seem to play the game fairly.

The Portland Press Herald printed a letter last week in which the writer took me to task for citing specific Medicare tax and payment levels for a retired couple who made average salaries during their working lives.

Though I had identified my source, a column in the Washington Examiner on Oct. 21, the writer kept attributing the figures to me, as if I had made them up out of thin air.

And the writer's conclusion was that I might as well have, because the amount the article cited for an average couple's Social Security taxes ($150,000) or expected benefits (“more than $350,000”) were in his opinion so far off base as to be "unreal," even "surreal."

The couple, he said, would have had to make $80,000 each to pay that much in taxes, and the benefit amount I cited was "unsubstantiated," "unreal" and "grossly misleading."

He cited no source for his conclusions, however.

So I reread the original article and verified I had quoted it correctly.

Next, I needed an independent source for the figures.

The Internet quickly yielded a report published this year by the Urban Institute, a center-left think tank, listing Medicare and Social Security payments and benefits across a range of incomes.

And, as hard as this may be for the letter-writer to credit, the Examiner's figures closely corresponded with the Urban Institute's report.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)