His first post claims Noam Scheiber and Josh Marshall do not wish to save Social Security. Of course, anyone with an IQ above the teens would realize that Josh and Noam are mocking the there is no Trust Fund canard. Ponnuru is not stupid so I suspect he has gone for sheer dishonesty as in his second posts:
The argument ignores the generational point: We're talking about different people. If you want to take money back from the affluent people who got supposedly unfair income-tax cuts in the 1980s, raising taxes on high earners from 2009 on isn't the way to do it.
Wait a second here. I’ve been paying those higher payroll taxes since I was 28 years old but now I’m only 52 years old. Guess what? I’m not retired. Nor are many of the other folks who benefited from the Reagan tax cuts. Ponnuru also leaves out the fact that we did see our tax rates go up in the 1990’s with the current General Fund mess being created by tax “cuts” (more like deferrals) that we passed just a few years ago. We might also remember that rich old people leave estates for their kids who become rich young people – especially with the Estate Tax on its way out.
His third “contribution” was an attack on Robert Ball:
So even if people get checks that keep up with inflation and wage growth and get them just as long as they used to - because the age of eligibility goes up but so do lifespans - it's still a "cut," unless total Social Security spending goes up to cover inflation, wage growth, and rising longevity.
The 1983 Social Security reforms were predicated on the premise that real wages and life spans would inch up over time. As far as I can tell, we have not had an unexpected increase in life spans. We have had faster productivity growth that was expected but that makes the system more solvent not less.