home

Destroying Social Security In Order To Save It

Via Atrios. An interesting phenomenon has emerged - taking on Krugman is not a smart thing for a public pundit to do. First, Krugman is usually right. Second, Krugman does a great job of defending his positions, usually making his critic look foolish (see Brooks, David.) And now a new reason, Krugman's views gets defended by a lot of smart people. Today, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post discovers this:

Ruth Marcus shows two things in her commentary today, "Krugman vs. Krugman". First, she hasn't a clue about Social Security financing. Second, she has no problem at all presenting a distorted picture to rationalize her clueless position.

. . . [H]ad Ruth Marcus included this quote from Paul Krugman's 2005 piece in her editorial (or quotes from other pieces of the vast amount Krugman has written about Social Security after 2001), it would have changed the interpretation of the quotes she includes in her article. Here, Paul Krugman explains why the future of Social Security was at issue at that time:

Four years ago, I and many other economists urged policymakers to think about the future cost of Social Security benefits, not because we thought there was anything wrong with Social Security itself, but because we regarded the future costs as a compelling reason not to cut taxes even if the overall budget was in surplus.
Keep that quote in mind, i.e. that the worry was that the Bush tax cuts would eat away at the accumulated Social Security surplus, as they did, as you read Ruth Marcus' desperate attempt to justify her doom and gloom about the future of Social Security . . .

MORE.

Krugman vs. Krugman, by Ruth Marcus, Commentary, Washington Post: In liberal Democratic circles, the debate over Social Security has taken a dangerous "don't worry, be happy" turn.

The argument has two equally dishonest components. The first is to deny that Social Security faces a daunting financing problem... The second is to mischaracterize the arguments of those who advocate responsible action, accusing them of hyping the system's woes.

One prominent practitioner of this misguided approach is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. "Inside the Beltway, doomsaying about Social Security -- declaring that the program as we know it can't survive the onslaught of retiring baby boomers -- is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness, a way of showing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are," Krugman wrote last week. "In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided."

Somebody should introduce Paul Krugman to . . . Paul Krugman.

"[A] decade from now the population served by those programs [Social Security and Medicare] will explode. . . . Because of those facts, merely balancing the federal budget would be a deeply irresponsible policy -- because that would leave us unprepared for the demographic deluge, with no alternative once it arrives except to raise taxes and slash benefits." (July 11, 2001)

"Broadly speaking, the next administration . . . will face two big economic tests. One . . . is whether it can stick to a fiscal policy, including a policy toward Social Security, that prepares this country for the demographic deluge." (Nov. 12, 2000) ...

What Marcus proved of course, is that Krugman was RIGHT to oppose the Bush tax cuts because it is the fiscal irresponisbility of the Bush Administration that COULD put Social Security in danger IF the Social Security trust fund's legal rights are not respected by the Beltway.

Krugman distrusts the Beltway. Indeed, the only way there could be a Social Security crisis is if the 1983 fix of Social Secuirty is not respected by Washington. Which begs the question, why would any future "fix" be respected?

If there is a crisis, the crisis is people like Ruth Marcus, who instead of fighting for the existing fix, insist that the existing one be destroyed so we can have a brand new "fix" that we can break. Remarkable.

< Dog Bites Man: Joe Klein Does Not Know What He Is Talking About | Is Broder Shilling For Hillary? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Ha (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Claw on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 10:42:21 AM EST
    "Taking on Krugman is not a smart thing for a public pundit to do."
    True.  Other non-smart things include challenging Mike Tyson to a fist fight, drinking gasoline, and poking sleeping bears with a stick.  

    Of course smart people like Krugman (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 10:48:40 AM EST
    ... [t]aking on Krugman is not a smrat hing for a public pundit to do. First, Krugman is usually right. Second, Krugman does a great job of defending his positions, usually making his critic look foolish (see Brooks, David.) And now a new reason, Krugman's views get defended by a lot of smart people.

    His columns also aren't solely ideologically based, surrounded by a dense cloud of rhetoric, and don't rely, as a right wing talking point does on repetition and echo for propagation. (Or the "rebuttal" of being shouted down and threatened by the flying monkey squadrons.)

    When one of the Republicult apologists steps to him -- presumably to take down a prominent liberal -- of course they look assinine.

    (a) They're fighting facts-up statements with hot air truthiness which, to belabor the metaphor, does the same thing my steam cleaner does to my deck. Namely, it enhances Krugman's solid facts. (Can you tell I primped it to enjoy the remains of fall weather?)

    (b) As the exodus of rats deserting a sinking GOP ship grows, the remaining ones that might amble forward to defend the sacred WH hooey when taking on a smarty pants like Krugman tend to be the true believers rather than the [charitable] less insane [/charitable] bilge drinkers. (Those with any sense have stepped back to reinvent themselves, clean off the slime and get a quick comb-out for '08.)

    Damn, why can't the expected Krugman pile-on be the marquee holiday betting event instead of armpit-ball, which I can't stand?

    damn ellie, you stole all the good stuff! (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 11:19:17 AM EST
    ruth marcus is one of those people who is too stupid to realize just how stupid she is. i've always assumed she kept her job, because the village didn't want its idiot back.

    dr. krugman is one of those secular liberals who uses fact-based arguments, the cad! frankly, he's one of the few reasons i open the nyt's, i always find him immensely interesting. being an accountant, i probably follow his logic easier than the average bear, but he is gifted with the ability to write so that even the non-professional can easily understand his points.

    and then there is ruth marcus.

    I wonder (1.00 / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    but because we regarded the future costs as a compelling reason not to cut taxes even if the overall budget was in surplus.

    I wonder if Krugman knows that FICA is applied to pretax dollars. In fact, that is one of the reasons many leftists call it unfair.

    The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.[1] The FICA tax is considered a regressive tax on income (with no standard deduction or personal exemption deduction) and is imposed (for the year 2006) only on the first $94,200 of gross wages. The tax is not imposed on investment income (such as interest and dividends).

    So can someone explain what cutting federal income taxes has to do with Social Security?

    And then from Big Tent we have:

    What Marcus proved of course, is that Krugman was RIGHT to oppose the Bush tax cuts because it is the fiscal irresponisbility of the Bush Administration that COULD put Social Security in danger IF the Social Security trust fund's legal rights are not respected by the Beltway.

    So, even though FICA and FIT is not connected, it was irresponsible to cut them because that could..

    huh??

    If we had some eggs we would have some ham and eggs if we had some ham.

    Pardon me while I fall down laughing...

    BTW - It is the existing fix that isn't working.

    Kinda like in 1983 I put a new set of tires on my car.... years later I cut it in half and made it a stretch limo to carry more people. Guess what.

    The tires need to be changed.

    by the way ellie, (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    the deck looks lovely! :)

    Taking on Krugman IS a smart thing for a pundit! (none / 0) (#5)
    by jerry on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 11:46:22 AM EST
    I agree with everything you said regarding Paul Krugman.

    But what is the downside for Marcus?  Will she correct herself?  Is the Washington Post going to correct her?  Will their ombudsman examine this?  Will the WAPO fire her?  Will she not be invited to any TV talk shows?

    What is the upside?  Can you imagine that anyone with a kill SSI agenda WILL reference her?  Interview her?  Invite her on their air?

    I'm afraid she made the smart move this morning.

    In an era of a more responsible press, (none / 0) (#6)
    by jerry on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    Krugman could challenge her to a duel.

    Sadly, while our civility seems to have increased since then and duels are no longer acceptable, the press seems to have become less responsible.

    Parent