In which I agree with Peter Orszag - The former OMB director thinks the Commission on the Federal Debt is (mostly) on the right track with regard to reforming Social Security.
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Henry Aaron (not the one with the bat), Brookings Institution: "The plan is profoundly disappointing.... It is vague in key elements, sets targets and then calls on some committee or group to do something unspecified if the targets are not being met. All in all, the draft plan is replete with magic asterisks, that infamous device in President Reagan’s first budget that promised spending cuts that never came. It sets targets for overall spending and taxation so low that it will be impossible to sustain even basic promises to provide pension and health benefits to the elderly, disabled, and poor. The spending cuts are so numerous and so deep, the tax changes are so large and disruptive, that they are not only unlikely to be adopted but would have needlessly adverse effects if they were." http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1112_deficit_aaron.aspx?rssid=LatestFromBrookings&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+BrookingsRSS/topfeeds/LatestFromBrookings+%28Brookings:+Latest+From+Brookings%29
Kevin Drum, Mother Jones: "Any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious." http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/deficit-commission-serious
Paul "Satan" Krugman, New York Times: "They’re talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer — except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever. Still, I guess this is what it takes to get compromise, if by compromise you mean something the center-right and the hard right can agree on." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/unserious-people-2/
Let me start with Kevin Drum first. I've heard this argument forEVER: Medicare is a MUCH bigger problem so let's focus on health care instead of Social Security. But if we can't deal with an inequitable retirement system with relatively simple fixes, why would we believe we could EVER take on the Big Kahuna. I notice that Drum doesn't offer up any solutions on Medicare - it's all a dodge to avoid the SS problem.
Krugman is a Klown. Social Security is the last "universal" program in the federal budget where people get in a proportion of what they put in, regardless of income or life expectancy. If he wants to turn it into a welfare program, go right ahead sir. Just don't whine that political support has disappeared when taxpayers realize what a rotten investment plan they've locked into (by law).
As for Hank Aaron, I don't know what to say. Yeah, spending cuts are hard but do you know what's harder on people? Greece. Or Ireland. Or California.
2 comments:
Henry Aaron (not the one with the bat), Brookings Institution: "The plan is profoundly disappointing.... It is vague in key elements, sets targets and then calls on some committee or group to do something unspecified if the targets are not being met. All in all, the draft plan is replete with magic asterisks, that infamous device in President Reagan’s first budget that promised spending cuts that never came. It sets targets for overall spending and taxation so low that it will be impossible to sustain even basic promises to provide pension and health benefits to the elderly, disabled, and poor. The spending cuts are so numerous and so deep, the tax changes are so large and disruptive, that they are not only unlikely to be adopted but would have needlessly adverse effects if they were."
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1112_deficit_aaron.aspx?rssid=LatestFromBrookings&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+BrookingsRSS/topfeeds/LatestFromBrookings+%28Brookings:+Latest+From+Brookings%29
Kevin Drum, Mother Jones: "Any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious."
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/deficit-commission-serious
Paul "Satan" Krugman, New York Times: "They’re talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer — except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever. Still, I guess this is what it takes to get compromise, if by compromise you mean something the center-right and the hard right can agree on."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/unserious-people-2/
Let me start with Kevin Drum first. I've heard this argument forEVER: Medicare is a MUCH bigger problem so let's focus on health care instead of Social Security. But if we can't deal with an inequitable retirement system with relatively simple fixes, why would we believe we could EVER take on the Big Kahuna. I notice that Drum doesn't offer up any solutions on Medicare - it's all a dodge to avoid the SS problem.
Krugman is a Klown. Social Security is the last "universal" program in the federal budget where people get in a proportion of what they put in, regardless of income or life expectancy. If he wants to turn it into a welfare program, go right ahead sir. Just don't whine that political support has disappeared when taxpayers realize what a rotten investment plan they've locked into (by law).
As for Hank Aaron, I don't know what to say. Yeah, spending cuts are hard but do you know what's harder on people? Greece. Or Ireland. Or California.
Post a Comment