Even if Krugman also makes this argument, it's still true. (I was making it before Krugman was.) Two plus two was four long before Krugman added his voice to the chorus.
It's true that "political force" backs the program, but the same is true of the Post Office. Part of the "political force" is people jumping up and calling BS every time someone invokes the "Social Security crisis" hoax. If people were yammering all the time about how the Post Office was going bankrupt, and people who knew better didn't bother to correct the record, you could undermine public confidence in the Post Office too. On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert wrote: > >> No new revenues are needed to make sure "make sure Social Security >> sticks around for as long as the eye can see." CBO projects that >> Social Security will be able to pay all scheduled benefits through the >> year 2049 with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2049, with no change, >> the payable benefit would be 30% higher (in real terms) than today. >> Can your eye see past 2049? I'll be 84 - how old will you be? If I >> live to see the day there is an actual rather than projected shortfall >> (which keeps being pushed back - remember when it was 2030?) in Social >> Security, I'll count myself lucky. > > I know, this is Krugman's argument as well. > > With all due respect to accountants, arguing on the basis of > appropriated vs. mandatory vs. discretionary vs. whathaveyou is > accounting fiddling. There's nothing, aside from political > constraints that can be removed with due political force, that says > that Social Security receipts (plus proceeds of existing balances) can > only be used to fund Social Security payments. As other holes in the > budget get bigger, the temptation to use those funds to plug them only > grows. > > It's telling that Social Security receipts and expenses are listed as > regular items in the federal budget. Social Security can be easily > pushed into a serious crisis if other federal receipts fall and/or > other federal expenditures are starved. And that's not the only way. > An inflationary spiral, not unlikely now that trillions are pledged to > shore up the financials, could contribute to "starve the beast" as > well. > > Borrow (and push the rates up), drop the purchasing power of USD, > whatever. Under no scenario is Social Security safe without resources > and political force behind it. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ambassador Pickering on Iran Talks and Multinational Enrichment http://youtube.com/watch?v=kGZFrFxVg8A _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
