A defense of a working program
Meet the Press David Gregory brings up Social Security in relation to federal debt (this is the push), but Senator Reid responds at least forthrightly. This is noteworthy given the apparent acceptance by politicos that Social Security needs fixing at all. Here is part of the transcript:
MR. GREGORY: Social Security, how does it have to change? What they put on the agenda is raising the retirement age, maybe means testing benefits. Is it time for Social Security to fundamentally change if you’re going to deal with the debt problem?
SEN. REID: One of the things that always troubles me is, when we start talking about the debt, the first thing people do is run to Social Security. Social Security is a program that works, and it’s going to be–it’s fully funded for the next 40 years. Stop picking on Social Security. There are a lot places we can go to…
MR. GREGORY: Senator, you’re really saying the arithmetic on Social Security works?
SEN. REID: I’m saying the arithmetic on Social Security works. I have no doubt it does. For the next…
MR. GREGORY: It’s not in crisis?
SEN. REID: No, it’s not in crisis. This is, this is, this is something that’s perpetuated by people who don’t like government. Social Security is fine. Are there things we can do to improve Social Security? Of course. But don’t, don’t…
MR. GREGORY: Means testing? Raising the retirement age?
SEN. REID: …don’t–I’m…
MR. GREGORY: Do you agree with either of those?
SEN. REID: I’m not going to go to any of those back-door methods to whack Social Security recipients. I’m not going to do that. We have a lot of things we can do with this debt that’s a problem. But one of the places where I’m not going to be part of picking on is Social Security.
————————————–
Other examples include CBS News reporting slogans on the issue.
This Brookings series is worth a read.
Wow. Harry Reid grows a spine.
I’m impressed!
Cheers!
JzB
Reid is a hack. He is just talking for the press. Wait a year or so when some of the changes to SS come up for a vote. Reid will throw his hat in and vote to cut benefits. Watch.
Krasting
i am afraid you might be right. i don’t know how reid voted on the tax holiday. but i don’t think i want to call someone a hack when he is trying to tell the truth.
i wish he would have put some numbers to it to wipe that smirk off the journalists’ faces.
It was the first time I heard a senator say loud and clear, SOCIAL SECURITY is fine, it is not in trouble. Lets see what he will do in future, for now he stood up and Gregory should do his homework for a change. That is why I like Rachel Maddow she does her homework, knows her subject. Don’t like her hectic and loud style though.
Coberly, re Reid, The Hill reported this today: Sanders told The Hill on Friday that a group of Senate Democrats may support raising the retirement age. But he said there is also a faction of the caucus, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), staunchly opposed to benefits cuts. “I raised my concerns on this payroll tax holiday and it was raised by a number of other Democrats — Harry Reid was very strong on the Social Security issue,” Sanders said. Good article at http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/138121-liberals-warn-of-democratic-schism-if-obama-endorses-social-security-cuts
So we now have on the record the Speaker of the House favoring SS benefits cuts and the Senate Majority Leader opposing them, with Obama preparing his 25 Jan state of the union speech (and his staff purportedly has been considering whether to raise the subject). Personally, I think Obama wants to encourage this argument, not take a side or settle it.
We know what Reid said today. Krasting is only speculating on what Reid or anyone else may say much later. That makes Reid a stalwart and Krasting a bull shit purveyor. We have all read Krasting’s crap on this blog. He is a doom sayer with no facts to back himself up. Reid has now made one of the few positive and strongly supportive statements on Social Security. Krasting and his ilk will try every means to obfuscate Reid’s simple statement. So who then is the hack? Our job now should be to be as supportive of Reid’s position as is possible. There is no need to quibble about what more he could have said. He said enough. Adding numbers is more than the public needs to hear. What needs to be added to the conversation is that Reid’s position is the honest approach to the budget and the right approach to Social Security.
Thanks for the link PJR.
Bravo for Senator Reid.
I think Democrats should come out with a candidate to challenge Obama in 2012 if Obama puts any of the blame for the current budget predicament on Social Security. As was the case in 2005, Social Security isn’t the problem, and clearly stating that is a politically winning position.
We have a general fund problem, and more than half of that problem is on the revenue side. Revenues last year were the lowest as a fraction of GDP in 60 years, and that isn’t just general fund revenues either. General fund revenues were 20% lower than any year since before Pearl Harbor.
Blaming this predicament on Social Security is willfully ignorant.
pjr
thanks for the info. now i wish i knew how to help him tell the people. i keep thinking the numbers are conclusive, but given the response i have gotten, maybe hand waving is more persuasive.
The first question we need to ask anyone on TV that may be commenting on economic issues is: What is GDP per fully employed worker in the US?
Everything else should be viewed in this context.
If they can’t answer this basic question correctly (including the host) their mic should be cut off immediately.
I’m reasonably confident that David Gregory couldn’t pass this test.
eightnine…
More importantly, do they know what it means.
Thanks for those data points, cent21, I didn’t know about the second one–amazing. When focusing on the unified budget, as most do, it’s important to look at the revenue side, and not just the spending side. The spending side make it clear that growing health care costs are the only problem, taking over the budget and raising it as a percentage of the gdp. At the same time, we won’t raise revenues even to historical levels because we insist on lower marginal tax rates for the wealthy, especially the super-wealthy, than those imposed on the middle class (referring to all taxes feeding the unified budget). This is the revenue-side problem. And as Kimel has shown at AB and Presimetrics, this is an economic problem, which also happens to be the biggest driver of deficits (including local and state deficits, although that’s off-topic).
eightnine….., and all other econo-math geeks,
I caution you that presenting numbers in a public forum is often counter productive to having the audience understand the gist of the message. You may understnad the importance of GDP per employed, but the public will be scratching its collective heads at the reference. Reid did just the right thing by stating simply and cleearly thaat Social Security is in good shape and that the SS program is not the cause nor cure to the budget deficit. That same simple message has to be repeated tto the public over and over again. Thich skulls require a barage of simple truths. Yes, the individual with the forum should be prepared to prove the case being presented with data, keep it simple stupid, but only for the purpose of countering th false claims that may be presented in argument. Data presentation should be reserved for the support of the argument within the closed door policy debate forums of the government. So too is it useful in semi-professional presentations of professional econommists.
PJR
even that isn’t really a budget problem. people are going to need health care. costs are going to go up. it’s safer for them to pay for it with a payroll tax while they are working than count on being able to afford insurance after they retire.
that is, if we have to pay for it anyway, it gets kind of stupid to panic because “it” becomes a larger fraction of “the budget.” what counts is “can we afford it?” and “do we need it?” and “is there a better way to pay for it?” and the answer is yes, yes, and no.
not that Medicare couldn’t be made cheaper and better, but that is still not a budget problem.
it isn’t even an “economic” problem. you need food, shelter, clothing, medical care. you may some day need submarines, but you don’t really need las vegas or another new lexus. we are no where near having to deny granny her medicine and sending her out on an ice flow when she is no longer any use to us.
but that’s the picture of the economy that sammy and co rev go to bed with.
jack
i agree. but i got the numbers. or had them until Obomba and the Republicns gave you your retirement money to spend at Wal Mart.
I think having the numbers at hand should force the smirkers to defend their Trillions of Dollars of Unfunded Deficit ™” and explain why it isn’t forty cents per week per year.
On the other other hand, I despair at times when the friends of Social Security get all wonkish and “explain” the details of budget off budget and when a surplus is really a deficit and generally make sure the average reader will walk away thinking it’s all a confusing mess and you get to believe the guy whose iies you like best.
eightnine….., and all other econo-math geeks,
I caution you that presenting numbers in a public forum is often counter productive to having the audience understand the gist of the message. You may understand the importance of GDP per employed, but the public will be scratching its collective heads at the reference. Reid did just the right thing by stating simply and clearly that Social Security is in good shape and that the SS program is not the cause nor cure to the budget deficit. That same simple message has to be repeated to the public over and over again. Thick skulls require a barrage of simple truths. Yes, the individual with the forum should be prepared to prove the case being presented with data, keep it simple stupid, but only for the purpose of countering the false claims that may be presented in argument. Data presentation should be reserved for the support of the argument within the closed door policy debate forums of the government. So too is it useful in semi-professional presentations by professional economists such as Krugman’s columns or postings on AB.
Coberly, rising medical costs dominate projected budget growth (CBO data) and this is a budget “problem” that must be addressed. If we want to purchase that projected medical care at those projected prices, we need to raise the revenues for those purchases. It would be the same for any budget item for which projected spending was skyrocketing–we call that a “problem” that has to be addressed. Must get more money, buy less, buy cheaper, or take money away from other planned or even promised spending (like SS).
It’s also an economic “problem” in that those projected prices are driving health care costs more than anything else. We have perhaps the most economically inefficient health care system in the western world. That’s an economic problem.
That said, I used pronouns where I should not have (apologies), blurring my “economic problem” statement. I meant that our revenue policies are an economic problem (thus my reference to Kimel’s analysis), and economic growth is key to reducing our budget deficits. I made this observation because it underscores the importance of addressing the revenues-side of the unified budget, and economic growth, not merely the spending-side of the budget.
coberly,
that’s the picture of the economy that sammy and co rev go to bed with.
You and I differ on Social Security in only one way: I think it should be means tested, you don’t. My position does not equate to “sending granny out on an ice flow” or denying her medicine. I don’t own a Lexus or go to Vegas.
Making stuff up about other people is a sign that 1) you have a weak argument, 2) you have a very limited debating repertoire, and/or 3) you have a psychological problem. Those are the three explanations.
PJR
i agree with you mostly. we have a semantic difference and it isn’t worth disagreeing about. I only mean that we can pay for our medical care if we want to. even if it costs as much as the Trustees project… which is too much, but still…
according to the Trustees numbers, with the expected rise in Social Security proper (OASDI) and Medicare (HI) and wages, we will pay a little more for SS, a lot more for Medicare and STILL have twice as much money left over as we have today. it’s not a “problem” in the sense that the bad guys are calling it a problem, much less a crisis.
it’s an improvement in the standard of living. longer, healthier retirement, for which, of course, you have to pay something, but that’s what having more money allows you to do.
it’s some kind of insanity to suppose that you can “only” afford some fixed percent of “the budget” to pay for something that you are going to need more of, when you will have more money to pay for it.
Sammy,
or i wasn’t talking about you. you don’t seem to read much if you don’t recognize a literary device when you see one.
means testing would be ugly. i know. i used to be a means tester. and with means testing you would end up paying for everyone’s welfare… that’s what it would be… and they wouldn’t have paid for any of it.
to put it nicely, you don’t know what you are talking about, but it’s hard to explain to someone who already knows everything he is ever going to know.
btw
the picture you and co rev go to bed with is the picture that we are so poor as a country we can’t afford to pay for our own retirement and medical care.
SS does not cost you any money you were not going to have to spend anyway…. unless you were going to gut granny off and send her out into the blizzard…. and of course your kids would do the same for you.
PJR:
It would be helpful if you defined healthcare costs. The term is a catchall for healthcare insurance, doctors, medical industry, hospitals, innovation and procedures, and patients. What is the driving cost within that group?
run75441, I’m obviously talking about the budget categories–mostly Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP–but that doesn’t answer your real question. Certainly “all of the above” (plus pharma industries, plus malpractice insurance, and other items not on your list) contribute to the high costs of what we’re receiving. The ACA does a little to limit cost growth, but I do mean a little. For example, it forces insurance companies to meet minimal standards for their medical loss ratios starting this year. But most cost-control ideas have been effectively beaten back in Washington. I don’t see a lot of brave deficit hawks attacking this issue, explaining how effective their ideas would be, and estimating the impact on the federal budget. Instead, if anybody proposes anything that would reduce the costs of services covered by Medicare, it’s a proposal to put grannies to death. Or worse.
slight clarification
i don’t know sammy. he may be a saint who gives his entire substance to widows and orphans.
but here on this blog he advocates policies or attitudes that would lead to the cruel results i describe.
if he thinks i am wrong about the policy implications he should try to convince, or convince you, but complaining that i am insulting him is, i think the opposite ad hominem: it’s the “hurt paw” defense, which even my dogs have too much character to deploy.
As one the prime offenders here I have to say that it is my opinion this war will be won or lost with the CBO scoring and that the argument will be among the policy makers precisely at that off-budget/on-budget wonkery/wankery level.
That is when the enemies actually produce a plan that includes cuts with an ‘explanation’ that it is designed to cut the ‘deficit’ there need to be some people around that know how to read that CBO score and cry ‘bullshit’. In the meantime it is worthwhile (and satisfying) shooting down opponents who insist how simple every thing is based on talking points they often only half understand.
I don’t need the friends of Social Security to understand everything I put up, only that on balance I know what I am talking about and that they can trust me to not bullshit them on the numbers and their interpretation. And part of that is successfully pushing back at the wonk-wank level.
I see no contradiction in the approach to answering questions in simple form or expert. AB is just one venue that is proud to offer expert.
Much of the battle is fought without much MSM coverage. The slogans of the fix are only currently noisier than friends. Too say as Bruce K. and others do that we are lonley in our advocacy is to merely point out a temporary situation of MSM coverage and well financed campaign (decades old campaign) that is riding the rhetoric of austerity is already collapsing this month. Austerity I believe is not an issue of reality for many in Congress when it comes to being elected and local campaigns. Nor do I think a lot of real focused concern beyond election are evident…
Bruce
I am grateful for your wonkery. But I also feel the need to keep it simple enough for people to understand what’s happening.
This is made difficult when the official language is designed to confuse the issues.
I had a brief exchange with some “experts” who were convinced they were right… because in their highly specialized area of expertise certain words have highly special meanings which, as they say, they can’t explain to laymen.
So I stick with the basics, and I hope that if enough laymen understand them, they won’t care about on budget off budget b.s. They will know that they paid their Social SEcurity tax on the promise of getting benefits in due time. They will not, should not, give a damn, what effect this has on the on budget off budget double talk.
CoRev and MG are not here to make a valid point. They are here to confuse debate and drive away anyone who doesn’t have the time or taste for long pointless arguments. That invariably turn personal, so they can waste more time talking about the rightness and who-ness of personal attacks.
dan
you noticed where all the deficit will destroy us rhetoric went when it came time to cut taxes again.
you may also have noticed where the “broken senate can’t pass anything” went when it came time to cut SS funding.
Coberly,
That is exactly correct. We keep trying to have a reasonable discussion based on facts and figures, as they say. That is not what the princes and their vassals want to do. They lie, cheat and steal with glee. Most of it is legal because the legislature is bought and paid for. Yes, things get done when the doing suits the boss and every thing else is a stall until the next round comes up. Class economic warfare is no joke and the working class getting its ass kicked is the punch line of a humorless circumstance. We can only keep trying to get the point out loudly and clearly. Folks it’s all a scam and you’re being told to bend over and take it like a man. Maybe some time those working stiffs will awaken to discover that they can’t even afford cheap beer any longer. Then watch out, but don’t hold your breath til it happens.