Krugman is as Krugman writes

NY Times columnist Paul Krugman continues to vex the Times' public editors, one of whom forced him into a correction then noted: "When he says he agreed "reluctantly" to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word "reluctantly"; I can't come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism." You would think that an economist who deals with numbers all day would be able to prove a point with geometric precision instead of engaging in red herring arguments and visceral claptrap.

I hardly know where to begin with his latest nonsense titled "Played for a Sucker" about how Barack Obama had the temerity to address the looming Social Security problem. I'm just gonna start typing and see what comes out.

Part I is about how Barack Obama (and Tim Russert and Chris Matthews) said that Social Security is in crisis and, apparently, a lot of people are stupid:

But the "everyone" who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn't include anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided.

I would presume that the chief accountant of the United States, comptroller general David Walker "understands the numbers" but I'm willing to listen to Krugman's counter-argument.

As Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, put it in a recent article co-authored with senior analyst Philip Ellis: "The long-term fiscal condition of the United States has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid to demographic challenges, such as the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation, our country's financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs."

Did you get that? We're misguided on the fiscal burden of an aging population because we're going to go broke from Medicare and not Social Security. I feel so chagrined.

If you think there's more to Krugman's article, you're wrong, because Part III is simply a replay of the first act where everybody is either misinformed or hysterically playing up the "crisis" angle for political gain:

But Social Security isn't a big problem that demands a solution; it's a small problem, way down the list of major issues facing America, that has nonetheless become an obsession of Beltway insiders.

Missing from this article from the Times' chief economist: any kind of exposition whatsoever on the financial burdens facing the country from Social Security, Medicare, health care costs, or rising ticket costs at Fenway Park. Krugman barely has the patience to beg the question, much less support his statement with, you know, facts.

Krugman's right about (precisely) one thing: Medicare is a much more massive problem than the shortcomings of Social Security. The reason I focus on the latter is that while Medicare serves an important public role, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that has a date-certain point of bankruptcy (right when I retire, conveniently enough). Krugman doesn't deign to explain why SS is not a Ponzi scheme, and simply attacks the (numerous) messengers. If it's the "small problem" that he claims, why not propose a solution and move on to the much bigger problem of health care costs? But no: Barack Obama and all the other politicians who want to tackle the looming crises are just "suckers." What childish, tendentious drivel.

Extra - Cafe Hayek is on the same wavelength: "The only evidence that Krugman presents to support his case against the proposition that Social Security is headed for insolvency (unless it undergoes big changes) is simply that Medicare and Medicaid are headed for insolvency that's even worse." (Hat tip: Memorandum)