MoJoe on SocSec
The New York Times > Opinion > Protecting Social Security
To the Editor:Paul Krugman ("The $600 Billion Man," column, March 15) claims that when I say that every year we do nothing about Social Security's coming insolvency we add $600 billion in unfunded liabilities, I am "helping to spread a lie."
Nonsense. Experts we've consulted at the Social Security Administration have confirmed this estimate.
Everyone knows that Social Security is on a path to insolvency. Every year that we wait to make the program solvent will cost us more.
I know that Mr. Krugman opposes the president's carved-out private savings accounts. So do I. But if we stop there, the victims will be tens of millions of seniors who need Social Security to escape poverty.
As a columnist, Mr. Krugman has the right to just say no. As a lawmaker, I have a responsibility to work with other members of Congress in both parties and with the administration to protect this great program.
And as a Democrat, I feel a special responsibility to preserve one of my party's most effective initiatives ever.
Joe Lieberman
U.S. Senator from Connecticut
Washington, March 16, 2005
Amen.
What's most troubling is the commentary from the "Just Say No" crowd that, at the same time: Social Security has a problem, not a crisis.
Well ... what's the problem, then? And shouldn't that problem be addressed?
if bush keeps stealing the trust fund money for his war, it will be a massive problem
What is really interesting about this story is that it points out the lack of true investigative journalism at one of the premiere newspapers.
Rather than simply call Lieberman a liar, Krugman could have checked the source of the $600 million number. Is there any wonder why the public has lost confidence in newspapers?
Well, Krugman claims the number comes from a page of the trustee report. I checked it. It would seem to confirm what Krugman states in that it is taken out of context. But the weirdness is this:
Now, when Atrios gets this, here's his deduction:
Now ... does anyone - ANYONE - really believe that Social Security is just going to infinitely get cheaper and cheaper to maintain???
Needless to say, the story could use some more authoritative reporting SOMEWHERE. Sadly, for Krugman - a genuinely intelligent economist and well worth a read when he sticks close to the knitting - he's only good for about a handful of really quality reads a year. The rest are just ideological hack routines.
I'll expand more on my blog, but I just want to address the question of Social Security getting cheaper.
No, no one thinks Social Security may get infinitely cheaper to save. But it may get cheaper. The truth is that we have no idea how much money will be paid in or paid out. We can make really good guesses, but that's about it. The birth rate and death rate can change drastically over the next 40-50 years. The probability of that is not high, but it could.
And that inherant uncertainty is what should keep us from making huge changes like drastic cuts in benefits.
Ten years ago, we thought the problem was going to be bigger and sooner. If we had made big cuts then, the current projections would have proved that had been a mistake. I don't think Krugman is advocating doing absolutely nothing. But any changes should be small and adjusted over time to meet current projections.