The most dishonest conjunction

Here’s a line from the conclusion of Paul Krugman’s latest half-baked screed “Social Security Scares.”

Should we consider modest reforms that reduce the expenses or widen the revenue base of Social Security? Sure.

Can anybody cite an example of when Krugman ever advocated cutting a government program over raising taxes? Increasing the tax burden on Americans is Krugman’s raison d’etre. In the opening paragraph of the same article, he states: “In fact it would take only modest injections of money to maintain that system’s current benefit levels for the next 75 years.”

When you’re pulling in salaries from both Princeton and the New York Times, a little extra tax probably doesn’t matter that much. But since four out of five American workers pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, a “modest” tax boost will fall heavily on lower and middle-class earners. And how “modest” would the payroll tax increase have to be to “widen the revenue base?” Krugman hides behind euphemisms such as these so that he can ignore an unvarnished fact: demographics are destiny.

On Jan. 31, 1940, a check, number 00-000-001, for $22.54 was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vt., making her the first recipient of recurring monthly Social Security payments. Then, in an act of dubious citizenship, she lived to 100, dying in January 1975, having received $22,000 in benefits. That did not matter because in 1940 there were 42 workers for every retiree. Today there are 3.2 to 1. In 2030 there will be 2.2 to 1.

This is not multivariable calculus: in 25 years there will be one less worker available to pony up for a retiree’s Social Security check. Either the payroll tax on those two workers will have to rise by roughly 50% or benefits will have to be cut by 50%. We can reform Social Security now and spread the pain over a quarter-century, or we can continue to ignore it until we’re all broke.

Update: For the record, I wrote this post before I read Matthew Hoy's blog this morning. He has a similar post that concludes thusly: "Modest infusions of cash and the repeal of the Bush tax cuts can't overcome Social Security's structural flaws. Krugman's contention that they can is a serious disservice to the American people.
(For the record: I don't think Krugman is stupid. I think he's a liar.)"

And Luskin has more on Krugman’s Social Security shiftiness.