-
Another weakness of the review is that Samuelson appears of two minds on the dangers of deficits. In belittling the Clinton administration's deficit-reduction efforts, he argues that deficits "do not matter nearly as much as the public and many economists believe" and dismisses the reduction in the deficit by 2.5 percent of GDP between 1992 and 1995 as "such a small change." But, in arguing for significant cuts in retirement programs, he warns that "there could easily be circumstances" in which large, persistent deficits could "trigger a financial crisis" and "reduce economic growth." This inconsistency is reflected in his advocacy of Social Security benefit reductions to curb rising costs. The total increase in Social Security expenditures over the next 75 years will amount to 2.5 percent of GDP, the same amount he dismisses elsewhere as a small change.
2.5% reduction over 3 years is "small." A 2.5% increase over 75 years is large enough to "trigger a financial crisis."
Look, anyone who seriously believes or claims to believe that Social Security in its present form is unsustainable or a threat to the economy is a complete tool. There is no Social Security Crisis. Nothing drastic needs to be done to "save" it.
Medicare is a different story. If people want to start talking responsibly about how to contain the growth in Medicare costs I'd be happy to do so. But, as Bush's own budget numbers admit, pushing people onto private plans is more, not less, expensive. So, that's an option which apparently costs more money. Another option favored by idiots is, you know, just drowning the program in the bathtub. Nice idea, but retiring boomers are going to swell the ranks of seniors. While that's part of what is going to increase Medicare costs, it's also what's going to ensure that pretty soon Medicare is going to cover luxury retirement homes for everyone -- retiring boomers are also going to swell the ranks of senior citizen voters.