The Times gets down and dirty on Social Security
By Nathan Nance
Guest post by Nate Nance
Today's NY Times had a great editorial on the Social Security "crisis" that Bush has been on about for a month. Basically they just reiterated everything I've said about fixing the small shortfall projected 75 years from now and that Bush is being disingenuous when he talks about "reforming" the system by using private accounts, which the editorial points out is a trememdously bad idea. Everything I've said before, only it's the OpEd page of the Grey Lady and not my blog with all its 5 readers.
It's hard to try and pick out a graf that sums up the whole argument, but this one will give you some idea of the tone the editorial takes:
As it often does with dissenting professional opinion, the administration is ignoring the actuaries. But that doesn't alter the facts or common sense. If the $10 trillion figure is essentially bogus, so is the claim that Social Security is in crisis. The assertion that doing nothing would be costlier than enacting a privatization plan also turns out to be wrong, by the estimates of Congress's own budget agency.
It stays snarky right on until the end, which made it a lot of fun to read. It is full of really usefull information, so read up. There will be a quiz tomorrow.
This is a guest post from Nathan Nance. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.
Posted by Nathan Nance at January 3, 2005 08:59 PM
| TrackBack
