Professon Krugman does it again. He writes so well.
Nothing for Something By PAUL KRUGMAN, New York Times, 8/8/01: Recently I gave the "bipartisan" commission on Social Security reform — many of its members and staff are actually associated with the ultra-conservative Cato Institute — a very hard time over its interim report. Was I unfair? No. It's even worse than I thought
Let's see: Last year the Social Security system collected about $90 billion more in payroll taxes than it paid in benefits. Mr. Saving says that if that money had been invested in German bonds it would have made a real contribution to the system's future; but because it was used to buy U.S. bonds it somehow disappeared into a black hole. Is he saying that last year's Social Security surplus did not enhance the government's future ability to pay benefits? If so, he's just plain wrong. Last year the government paid off more than $200 billion in debt to the public, largely because of the Social Security surplus. And lower debt implies lower future interest payments, which means that the government can pay more in benefits without raising taxes or cutting other spending. Or is he saying that future administrations will not allow the Social Security administration to apply the interest on its U.S. bonds to benefit payments? That's possible; but future administrations could also, with equal ease, snatch the interest on German bonds and use it for something else. Neither prospect seems likely. Mr. Saving is a competent economist — he's a professor at Texas A&M — but I can't see any way to make economic sense of his argument. It makes sense only as part of a political strategy...
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/08/opinion/08KRUG.html?todaysheadlines
I just added it to the
Tax cut questions http://home.rochester.rr.com/jerryfisher/
web site
If you check out his 2000 campaign promises http://www.georgewbush.com/issues/socialsecurity.html
you will see he indicated
"Governor Bush will build a bipartisan consensus to save Social Security based on the following principles:
Absolutely no change in existing benefits for retirees or near-retirees.
The Social Security surplus must be locked away only for Social Security"
So much for that promise, Now it a black hole. Additionally he is proposing using FICA taxes to fund missle defense. This from the person who promised to bring honesty, character and truthfulness to the White House.
Nothing for Something By PAUL KRUGMAN, New York Times, 8/8/01: Recently I gave the "bipartisan" commission on Social Security reform — many of its members and staff are actually associated with the ultra-conservative Cato Institute — a very hard time over its interim report. Was I unfair? No. It's even worse than I thought
Let's see: Last year the Social Security system collected about $90 billion more in payroll taxes than it paid in benefits. Mr. Saving says that if that money had been invested in German bonds it would have made a real contribution to the system's future; but because it was used to buy U.S. bonds it somehow disappeared into a black hole. Is he saying that last year's Social Security surplus did not enhance the government's future ability to pay benefits? If so, he's just plain wrong. Last year the government paid off more than $200 billion in debt to the public, largely because of the Social Security surplus. And lower debt implies lower future interest payments, which means that the government can pay more in benefits without raising taxes or cutting other spending. Or is he saying that future administrations will not allow the Social Security administration to apply the interest on its U.S. bonds to benefit payments? That's possible; but future administrations could also, with equal ease, snatch the interest on German bonds and use it for something else. Neither prospect seems likely. Mr. Saving is a competent economist — he's a professor at Texas A&M — but I can't see any way to make economic sense of his argument. It makes sense only as part of a political strategy...
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/08/opinion/08KRUG.html?todaysheadlines
I just added it to the
Tax cut questions http://home.rochester.rr.com/jerryfisher/
web site
If you check out his 2000 campaign promises http://www.georgewbush.com/issues/socialsecurity.html
you will see he indicated
"Governor Bush will build a bipartisan consensus to save Social Security based on the following principles:
Absolutely no change in existing benefits for retirees or near-retirees.
The Social Security surplus must be locked away only for Social Security"
So much for that promise, Now it a black hole. Additionally he is proposing using FICA taxes to fund missle defense. This from the person who promised to bring honesty, character and truthfulness to the White House.
).
