The New York Times once was the most admired newspaper in the world. It may well still hold that high honor. Clearly, however, partisanship, bias and scandal have diminished its image.
Paul Krugman had a reputation as a respected and insightful economist. While Bush-haters still have a lofty view of the New York Times columnist (and if anything, his never-ending rants fuel their adoration), many now see him as a partisan hack. His irrational hatred of the current president has so poisoned his mind, Krugman now writes columns that an eighth-grader could see make no sense.
Take today's genial offering: "Social Security Scares." In this column and the one just prior to it, Krugman calls Alan Greenspan every nasty name in the book. According to Krugman lore, Social Security is almost right on track until 2077. So far down the road, any threats that the system might be in trouble are nothing but efforts on the part of Republicans to totally dismantle Social Security. Krugman writes:
Here's a hint: while even right-wing politicians insist in public that they want to save Social Security, the ideologues shaping their views are itching for an excuse to dismantle the system. So you have to read alarming reports generated by people who work at ideologically driven institutions — a list that now, alas, includes the U.S. Treasury — with great care.First, two words — "and Medicare" — make a huge difference. According to the Treasury study, only 16 percent of that $44 trillion shortfall comes from Social Security. Second, the supposed shortfall in both programs comes mainly from projections about the distant future; 62 percent of the combined shortfall comes after 2077.
So does the Treasury report show a looming Social Security crisis? No.
Let's see. While Krugman's economic education is vastly superior to mine, it still appears that 16% of a $44 trillion shortfall comes to ........ uh, let's see .... over six trillion dollars!
Again. Krugman knows more about this stuff than I, but in my simplistic brain, six trillion dollars is not chicken feed. Just because Medicare may be worse - does that mean that Social Security ought to be ignored?
It's all part of the Master Plan, Krugman continues, for Evil Republicans to do away with the Safety Net for the Poor:
After Alan Greenspan's call for cuts in Social Security benefits, Republican members of Congress declared that the answer is to create private retirement accounts. It's amazing that they are still peddling this snake oil; it's even more amazing that journalists continue to let them get away with it.
But beware of those who claim that we must destroy the system in order to save it.
Never mind that the commission to study Social Security that recommended partial privatization was co-chaired by Daniel Patrick Moynihan - Democrat.
And included: Tim Penny - Democrat. Sam Beard - Democrat. Robert Johnson - Democrat. Fidel Vargas - Democrat. And other Democrats.
Never mind that partial privatization would be one way for those of modest means to build a little equity for their heirs. For those without 401K's and IRA's to be able to leave something to their children for a downpayment on a house or help with a grandchild's education.
Never mind that people's life expectancies are far longer than they were Social Security was first conceived. And that people are living healthier, more productive lives as they age.
Never mind that such right-wing radicals as John Kerrey (D), Moynihan and John McCain (R) stated that:
"One of the reasons we're proposing this [is] we are so much closer to insolvency than anybody knows. By the year 2015, the revenue of the FICA tax, the payroll tax, will not meet the outlay of the program. And they will tell you, well, you know, there are, there's the trust fund which has the bonds. Well, yes, but you have to use general revenue to pay off these bonds. And suddenly, an insurance system disappears before your eyes. We are trying to preserve an insurance system which everybody has, is entitled to because they paid it, and it's been the most successful program of the century."
Yes. Never mind that respected leaders on both sides of the aisle have cautioned about the dangers ahead for the system, that today only 3 workers are available for every retiree, unlike 42 per retiree in 1940.
No. Believe that everything is hunkey-dorey with Social Security. Believe that nasty Republicans only wish to take away a safety-net from workers. Believe that Alan Greenspan has suddenly become partisan and blinded.
Or believe that Paul Krugman is so consumed with hatred for George Bush that straightfoward math and common sense elude him.
And that Krugman diminishes the reputation of The Paper of Record along the way.
Comments