Megan McArdle does an admirable job of summing up how history has not supported the Left's insouciance over Social Security:
If economic growth were going to save us, it should have while we were paying for the unusually small age cohort that preceded the boomers. If productivity growth could save Social Security's finances, we should have seen it push back the date at which the government starts paying out more in OASDI benefits than it takes in in taxes. Instead, the reverse is true.If there's one mantra that grips the Left on Social Security it's that the real problem is years away and, therefore, there's no crisis. True enough, but adopting reform today will significantly cushion the reckoning that's going to occur when the SS Trust Fund is dry around 2040. The "no crisis" position means no action and kicking the problem down the road.
Load up on your 401(k) kiddies, you're gonna need 'em.
2 comments:
I was so excited in 04 & early 05 when I thought my team (yes I still claim them - even though I'd like to give them a make-over) the Republicans would begin addressing the president's proposal for SS reform. I truly believe their lack of ability to focus on some of these critical issues (this and immigration) was what killed the publics interest and hope. I know this over simplifies what actually transpired, but, it IS essentially what happened. I could only be for a candidate who will actually be open to some of Gingrich's think tank ideas. Don't know who that is right now...sorry so long...
No, no, no, Freetofly, you just don't get it. The problems with Social Security are ALL the Left's fault. They're unserious! They're feckless! They're insouciant! Left, Left, Left! Get it right next time! And by "right," we mean Left.
Post a Comment