"Conservative" Zuckerman better than "liberal" Kristof on SS debate:

A week or so ago, Mort Zuckerman of US News penned an essay defending the current Social Security program. Most progressives would agree with him. But here comes Kristof with an essay titled, Social Security Poker: It's Time for Liberals to Ante Up

Ante up, you liberals! So says the NYTimes sage. Kristof should stop pretending he knows anything about Social Security and go back to his true love, rescuing sex-slaves in Asia. Here are some elements of his OpEd:

• "... life spans grew by 30 years in the 20th century ..."
  This is a misdirection. First of all, real gains were accomplished in the early decades of the 20th century (water and sewage). Second, the SS program did factor in growth of life expectancy upon reaching retirement age. Third, life expectancy at birth is a meaningless metric.
  
  
• "Mr. Bush is also right to try to promote savings"
  Bush is promoting savings as a substitute for Social Security. And savings does not an insurance program make.
  
  
• "Democratic senators in the 1990's like Charles Robb, Bob Kerrey, John Breaux and Daniel Patrick Moynihan championed Social Security reform."
  Wow, what a lineup. Kerry, co-chair of the Concord Coalition, John Breaux, former Democratic senator from Louisana and co-chair of Bush's tax reform commission, and Pat Monyhihan, safely dead.
  
  
• "True, there is one powerful objection to private Social Security accounts: We can't afford them now."
  No. The objection to private accounts is that they will destroy the insurance aspect of Social Security (lifetime benefit, disabilty benefit, pooling of risk). That's what's at stake.
  
  
• "... both parties are behaving irresponsibly."   "Democrats are trying to shout [Bush] down without offering solutions of their own."
  See Politcial Animal for a run-down on solutions out there.

We've never liked Kristof much. This makes it official: We don't like Kristof at all.

posted by Quiddity at 2/05/2005 03:27:00 AM