When is a benefit cut not a benefit cut? When does the repeal of planned future tax cuts constitute a tax increase? When White House spokesman and idiot non-savant Scott McClellan says so.
The day after the President's press conference announcing his support for the Pozen scheme for Social Security progressive price indexing, McClellan was more than a little touchy. The New York Times, the Washington Post and a host of organizations quickly and correctly concluded that the repackaged Bush privatization scheme involves large future benefit cuts, especially for the middle class. The Times print edition front page featured the headline, "Bush Cites Plan That Would Cut Social Security Benefits: Affluent More Affected."
McClellan's response today was the predictable fury, dissembling and assault on plain English:

Q I'm asking about the use of the word "cut," because earlier today you called -- you said it was irresponsible to use that word, and I'm just trying to figure out --
MR. McCLELLAN: No. No. Actually --
Q -- whether that would appropriately apply.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- let me correct you. That's not what I said. That's not what I said. I said it's irresponsible when a headline says that, Bush cites plan that would cut Social Security: affluent more effective. That leaves the impression, one, that it's affecting everybody now; and, two, that that applies to everybody across the board. That's not the case, and you know that that's not the case. And that's not what -- I disagree with the way you characterize the way I cited it.

McClellan's murky math, however, works much differently when it comes to taxes. A February press briefing provides a tragi-comic example. Regarding the possibility of raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax (and not the tax rate itself), McClellan resorted to verbal incontinence that would have made Bush himself proud.

Q Just to be clear, there are no non-negotiable proposals. This isn't a non-negotiable thing, a payroll tax increase, it's just something that it's his principle, he says --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he does believe we should not increase payroll taxes.
Q But it's not --
MR. McCLELLAN: He said he's open to all ideas. Remember, just recently, he said he's open to all ideas with the exception of increasing payroll.
Q With the exception of that, okay.
MR. McCLELLAN: That's what he made -- that's what he made clear --
Q Is raising --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's what he made clear recently.

But it was in campaign 2004 where the McClellan art of the double-standard on such matters was at it hypocritical best. Asked in September 2003 about Democratic deficit reduction proposals that would not implement future Bush tax cuts for the richest 1% of all Americans, McClellan replied simply, "Sounds like a tax increase to me."
Perhaps the only thing more effective for the Republicans than having Chauncey Gardner as President of the United States is having him as press secretary.