Social Insecurity

I haven't said a heck of a lot about Social Security.  For one thing, I really don't consider this a political blog so much, and also because even though I have a background in Economics, I don't have a background in Social Security Economics, so much.  A lot of people know a lot more about Social Security than I.  I simply have attempted reading up a lot on the issue and making up my mind.

 

I had a couple of thoughts coming into the debate - first, that I'm pretty sure that I don't want to lose benefits in the future or present (duh), and second, additional human resources tossed into the Social Security equation will eventually cost bunches more money in some fashion.  By greed or graft, I'm sure.

 

All that being said, though, I think that maybe the way Atrios puts a couple of the salient issues might sum it up for me:

1. The administration's Social Security gurus shove Bush out there with talking points saying that we need to act now to pass the Bush plan, because starting in 2017 Social Security will start taking resources away from the rest of the government and that's a very bad thing--and then they roll out a plan in which Social Security starts taking resources away from the rest of the government in 2011.

2. The administration's Social Security gurus shove Bush out there with talking points saying that passing the Bush plan is essential because if we don't the Social Security trust fund balance will hit zero in 2041, and big benefit cuts will then be necessary--and then they roll out a plan in which the Social Security trust fund balance hits zero in 2030.

3. The administration's Social Security gurus shove Bush out there with talking points about the importance of restoring actuarial balance to Social Security--and then they roll out a plan which closes less than a third of the 75-year funding gap (and refuse to specify the plan in sufficient detail to allow anyone to do a longer-run analysis).

Hm.

Naturally, your mileage may vary.