KRUGMAN: "Slanting Social Security"

[nostamj]

Slanting Social Security
By PAUL KRUGMAN

<snip>

Why should we expect a slanted report?

First, this administration has politicized analysis across the board, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Food and Drug Administration.

Second, the White House has been using taxpayers' money to sell its privatization plans in ways that would have been considered out of bounds for any previous administration. The Treasury Department has set up a "war room" to promote privatization; its first three hires were former aides in the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Third, Social Security officials have been playing a clearly partisan role. James Lockhart, the deputy commissioner, has become a regular fixture at pro-privatization rallies - and has been dispensing misinformation. Last week Mr. Lockhart echoed a misrepresentation by President Bush of a statement in last year's report, telling the audience that each year that there are no changes to the program costs "hundreds of billions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/opinion/11krugman.html?
www.jeffreymatson.com design and writing services & online store

[nostamj]

1. sigh... not a single reply for KRUGMAN....

SIGH

[Cassandra]

2. He doesn't always get a reply...

but he always gets read.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. A Little Preaching To The Choir

I read it before i saw your post, and didn't see anything new there to comment upon. I like Paul. Think he is a needed voice. Just nothing earthshattering in this column.
The Professor

[gratuitous]

4. Okay, here's a reply

Krugman is spot-on with his analysis of the social security proposals being floated by the corrupt Bush administration.

Now, since no one reads him, read him for yourself, and get familiar with a bunch of handy little factlets:

First and foremost, the cost. It will be in the trillions of dollars. This is an administration that went from federal budget surpluses as far as the eye could see in 2001 to record-breaking deficits by 2004, and they're looking to top their record in 2005. Are these truly the people you would trust to be looking out for your financial well-being 30 years from now? No way, José.

Second, who's doing the talking? Are these guys likely to be more dependent in their old age on Social Security or kickbacks from brokerage houses? Why then do they want to take your retirement insurance money out of Social Security and put it in brokerage firms?

Third, what happens when your private account doesn't quite pan out as expected? Believe it or not, some people actually lose money buying and selling stocks. Are we going to let the unlucky, the suckers and the swindled go down the tubes with the greedheads who pursued a risky strategy that they knew might not pay off? If we're not going to let them starve in the streets, then their shortfalls will have to be made up somewhere. And your tax dollars look like a good place to start. If we're going to shore up folks anyway, why not just stick with the system we have now?

[PuraVidaDreamin]

5. Don't trust republicans... THEY LIE

I read this quote from some thread earlier, and ya know...
if we repeat this over and over and over, make it a mantra
it might just work. It's a simple 5 word sentence, kinda catchy,
the kind of little catch phrase * uses himself.

Don't trust republicans...they lie!