Watching the news I have seen nothing out of Obama lately on social security, and a quick googling shows nothing visible since mid-November, when he went after Hillary on the question, only to get Krugman and a lot of the rest of us on his case. Did he learn to lay low on this, or even maybe change his mind? Or is he still hoping to pander to ignorant youths who think that the probability of seeing a UFO is greater than receiving a social security check? Krugman was on his case on Nov. 30 about the incompleteness of his health care proposal coverage of the population, and compared it to his blunder on social security. All of this has been too bad, given his more reasonable record and position on foreign policy than Hillary or Edwards, if not Richardson.
Again, for the record, anyone who wants to see how totally ignorant American youth is, in this case undergrad econ majors, check out the survey I did with three colleagues up on my website at http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb, entitled "Student Ignorance about Social Security." A very serious question is just how did we get into such a situation where American youth has been so badly misled into such extreme and pathetic ignorance on this important issue.?
8 comments:
I'm sure it wasn't Paul Krugman but my coruscating commentary that put the fear of FDR into the Obama team.
Perhaps he appeased those he wanted to appease.
not such a very serious question.
the peter petersons have been lying about social security in public for decades. now the "non partisan experts" (David Walker) are out there trying a new version of the lie. And Holtz-Eakin tells the same story while pretending to be "moderate."
And watch Bill Moyers eyes get big when Peterson tells him Social Security is going to cost 75 Trillion.. more than the value of all the property in america... but fail to ask a single question. OR watch the Portland City Club react like they were kicked in the gut when Walker tells them their two year old baby girl owes 50,000 dollars already...
and no one asks a question..
now if krugman would keep talking and educate the people, if rosser could get a forum, if Dean Baker could get a forum....
but even Hillary who admits it isn't much of a problem is calling for a "bi partisan commission" and we know what those are like.
Without doubt, it was Dorman invoking the ghost of FDR that made Obama cool it, or at least go more covert on it.
coberly,
Well, there are bipartisan commissions and there are bipartisan commissions. It all depends on how committed or interested the president in question is. Thus, the Greenspan Commission in the early 80s was acted on, and Bush tried to act on his social security bipartisan commission, a few years after it did its thing. But then he deep sixed what came out of his tax simplification bipartisan commission. So, they can be ways to do something, and they can also be ways to bury something, if it does not seem all that doable or necessary. Not sure where Hillary is on this one, but she (and Edwards and the rest of the Dems) do not seem as keen on this as Obama, even if he has gone quiet on it recently. Actually, I don't think any of them besides Hillary and Obama have supported doing anytning to or about social security, good for them.
Barkley
I'll repeat my earlier speculation (us geezers are fond of repeating): SS financing bothers elite centrist thinking because (1) in another decade or so the trust fund ceases to be a source of savings, and (2) they think that increasing savings is #1. This is a different position from the hard right position that looks toward privatization. The crowd I have in mind (and isn't Goolsbee a member of it?) would be happy with some tax increases or benefit reductions that forestall this threat to savings.
And the reason they are obsessed with savings is that they read the international macro identity from savings to the current account, rather than the other way around as I do.
Even if you (mistakenly) hold the savings-determines-current-account view, however, you could criticize this sideswipe at SS for its political dishonesty -- hitching a ride on the same disinformation that spews from the right.
You are right, Peter. I agree, although I do not have the full skinny on Ghoulsbee.
"A very serious question is just how did we get into such a situation where American youth has been so badly misled into such extreme and pathetic ignorance on this important issue.?"
Because the elite wealth in this country has resented SS, and coveted the money. They've spent decades funding a large propaganda program against it.
-Barry
well Obama may have scared the right into understanding that if they keep pushing this issue when Democrats are in power they could see a raise in the cap... which in spite of its potential to win them comverts is not really what they want to see.
i have no faith at all that any politician actually understand Social Security financing.
and, Dorman, I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that even a privatized retirement scheme that takes in the same amount of money as SS and pays out as much as it takes in, would have a zero net effect on "savings." i understand, i think, that if that money coming in can be used to fund productivity improving investments, there would be a net gain... but i think i understand that there is already plenty of money... more than enough... available for investment.
I am no economist, but i have grave reservations about the concept of "savings" as being no longer appropriate to modern conditions.
Post a Comment