Not really a surprise, after all, it is Monday, and RJS has been at this for quite a long time at his post at WaPo. But the recent release of the Trustees’ Report has not only gotten the Associated Press all bent out and shrieking “insolvency,” but I think with the push coming from the recent massive tax cuts that are swelling the budget deficit, the usual old gang of “cut the entitlements!” VSPs are out in force and raging pretty hard. So Samuelson is denouncing “The Cowardice of the political class,” just unwilling to cut those benefits like they should, darn them, and calling for us “to rewrite the contract between the generations,” even thought about the only new thing in the report is that indeed Medicare is looking more financially troubled, and it has always been in much bigger trouble than Social Security. But it and Medicaid involve medical care, and we know that is a political nightmare, so time to go after those Social Security benefits in the name of helping out those young people by cutting their future SS benefits now, because otherwise they might get cut later.
Dean Baker has an excellent post on this today (I am never abler to link to him for some reason) at Beat the Press, and makes lots of valid and excellent points about how totally misguided RJS is, which I shall not repeat here. I shall simply pound the point in more with some further observations.
One is that while RJS starts out going on about the Trustees report as if it is telling us something new, it really has no new news about Social Security. While he hyperventilates quite dramatically, late in the column he admits that “The trustees’ reports don’t help us much, because they focus on the minutiae of various trust funds rather than fundamental questions about the proper role of government” (which should not be to help old people so darned much!). Darn. The “us” here, of course is all these ranting VSP ninnies who keep crying out that the sky is falling so the benefits must be cut, but the report simply does not say anything of the sort or particularly support such a push.
Also near the end, RJS does admit that “Yes, taxes have to go up…” but that is it on the tax issue, with not a whisper about the massive tax cut we just had. No, undoing that nonsense is not the priority, it is cutting those darned benefits now! Maybe we could have cut the benefits more gradually if we had started way back when the VSPs started all their whining about this, but no, now only drastic action will forestall SS recipients in 2034 receiving real benefits equal to what they do now (no, RJS has never heard of the Rosser equation, poor thing).
Rosser
thanks for telling us this. i can only note that Samuelson makes more in a week than both you and I make in a year.
So maybe the cowardlyness of the political class has more to do with not crossing the people who pay them that it has to do with fearing the wrath of greedy grannies.
now for the hard part: you and I should be allies. we are both good guys. but I cannot avoid saying that “gradually” cutting SS benefits is just as bad as cutting them all at once. it still means starving grannies. or grannies working into their seventies cleaning toilets in the executive washroom.
and i cannot avoid repeating, despite being told you are all sick of hearing it, that the “Looming Crisis in Social Security” can be avoided simply by letting the people pay an extra dollar per week each year for their future SS benefits.
I think I know the psychological (brain function) reasons for this, but the limits of human ability to change their minds can be overcome by increasing the amount and frequency of information presented to them.
We, you and i, and anyone who cares, need to find a way to do that.
I thought I had an idea, but you remind me that the Associated Press is one of the bad guys. Anyone here know anyone who knows anyone?
Coberly,
If somehow it looked like I support benefit cuts of any sort, either sudden or gradual, that is not the case and never has been. I think I still would prefer raising the income cap, if needed to your revenue raising plan, but not by a whole lot, and I do not want to get into some big discussion of that minor difference. Fundamentally, if there is a serious shortfall, I support some sort of tax increase, not a benefit cut, and in fact polls have always showed that this is what a solid majority of the US population supports, including even Republicans.
No, there is no point us getting into some big discussion
but you did say, “Maybe we could have cut the benefits more gradually if we had started way back
as for whether it’s a minor difference… well, that’s the disagreement, isn’t it?
as for the polls, you have noticed all the politicians and talking heads paying attention to polls on this? me neither. wonder why.
Coberly,
That was a reference to an argument of RJ Samuelson’s, not my view. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
yes. and i am sorry that i misunderstood you.
as i said, you are one of the good guys and we don’t need to argue.
there is very little hope of changing anyone’s mind. what we need to do is find a way to reach those who don’t really have an opinion yet. they believe the lies because that is all they have heard, but they would like to believe what we know if they could hear that.
i hope you don’t mind if i add my “truth” to yours. the Rosser equation is true. the one dollar per week solution is true. the “let the rich pay” solution is dangerous because it plays into the Big Lie, but I can certainly understand why some people would like that solution if it were possible.
right now the “make the rich pay” has a constituency and a political voice, loud but not strong. i think the people still need to hear that the cost of saving Social Security for themselves and their children and their grandchildren would be about a dollar per week per year.
the Big Lie about SS is that “SS is broke. it is welfare. it will be a huge burden on us the people who pay taxes.”
the Truth is that SS is not broke. it is not welfare. it will not be any burden at all on the people who pay income tax. the people who pay the FICA “tax” will not even feel the needed increase and they will get their money back with interest when they need it most.