Krugman v. Krugman

Ruth Marcus:

In liberal Democratic circles, the debate over Social Security has taken a dangerous "don't worry, be happy" turn.

The argument has two equally dishonest components. The first is to deny that Social Security faces a daunting financing problem -- one that will be much easier to fix (and less onerous for the low-income retirees that the head-in-the-sanders purport to care about) sooner rather than later. The second is to mischaracterize the arguments of those who advocate responsible action, accusing them of hyping the system's woes.

One prominent practitioner of this misguided approach is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. "Inside the Beltway, doomsaying about Social Security -- declaring that the program as we know it can't survive the onslaught of retiring baby boomers -- is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness, a way of showing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are," Krugman wrote last week. "In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided."

Somebody should introduce Paul Krugman to . . . Paul Krugman.

"[A] decade from now the population served by those programs [Social Security and Medicare] will explode. . . . Because of those facts, merely balancing the federal budget would be a deeply irresponsible policy -- because that would leave us unprepared for the demographic deluge, with no alternative once it arrives except to raise taxes and slash benefits." (July 11, 2001)

...

In addition to this fiscal amnesia, Krugman misrepresents responsible voices in the debate.

First, he quoted a new paper by Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag and CBO analyst Philip Ellis. Notwithstanding "all the attention paid to demographic challenges," they conclude, "our country's financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs."

True, but Krugman omits any mention of Orszag's latest book, inconveniently titled "Saving Social Security." Orszag and co-author Peter Diamond wrote that "Social Security's projected financial difficulties are real and that addressing those difficulties sooner rather than later would make sensible reforms easier and more likely."

Krugman then takes on The Post for an October editorial that, in his skewed retelling, castigated Hillary Clinton"for, um, not being panicky about Social Security."

...

Democrats like Krugman actually have a secret plan for Social Security. It involves waiting until the program is broke. At that point they will demand that raising taxes is the only way to save it. But, if that did that now, they would have to consider some of the alternative programs such as investing a portion of the taxes paid. They don't want to give any alternatives a fair opportunity to be heard. That is why they killed the President's proposals in 2005.

Marcus has more examples of Krugman's earlier "alarmism" on Social Security. Read the whole thing. Krugman will be kicking his cat and wishing he could talk about Reagan as running a "segregationist" campaign in 1980. BTW, the Democrat tax scam worked on Reagan which was the last time we "fixed" Social Security.

Update: When Krugman was arguing that Social Security was in trouble it was in the context of a Republican argument for the need of tax cuts. In other words it was an excuse not to cut taxes.