Red White & Blue Hens

College students in Delaware who think right is right, and left is wrong. We study hard, party hard, and play hardball.

Saturday, May 07, 2005

Social Security Hypocrisy

A great column from David Brooks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/opinion/08brooks.html
To our conservative readers, this will help when arguing for change in social security. To our liberal readers, this is why you guys have lost ground in national politics, please come up with some ideas and then tell the country! Please stop your blind opposition of all Bush policy and come up with better ones.

3 Comments:

  • At 6:17 PM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    While I agree with Brooks that the Democratic leadership (such as it is) needs to start making counter-proposals to those of the Republicans, I think Brooks over-simplifies things a bit in this column.

    He would do well in reading his fellow columnist Paul Krugman's May 2nd piece (which is linked from the Democrat's blog) that shows some shortcomings of Bush's plan from an economic standpoint. He points out, among other things, that

    "Under current law, low-wage workers receive Social Security benefits equal to 49 percent of their wages before retirement. Under the Bush scheme, that wouldn't change. So benefits for the poor would be maintained, not increased."

    Moreover:
    "The average worker - average pay now is $37,000 - retiring in 2075 would face a cut equal to 10 percent of pre-retirement income. Workers earning 60 percent more than average, the equivalent of $58,000 today, would see benefit cuts equal to almost 13 percent of their income before retirement.

    But above that level, the cuts would become less and less significant. Workers earning three times the average wage would face cuts equal to only 9 percent of their income before retirement. Someone earning the equivalent of $1 million today would see benefit cuts equal to only 1 percent of pre-retirement income."

    The weakness in Brooks analysis is that he fails to consider real critical examinations of Bush's plan, instead only attacking Democratic talking points.

     
  • At 7:57 PM, Blogger eRobin said…

    The weakness in Brooks analysis is that he fails to consider real critical examinations of Bush's plan, instead only attacking Democratic talking points.

    Then he's done his job.

     
  • At 11:07 PM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    No, he really hasn't, because the people who read his columns are going to be people who are genuinely interested like you and I; such people will also have read the Krugman piece and probably many other analyses of the issue. He effectively illustrated that the Dems need to get on the ball; I can't argue that one. However, his attempt at superficial smear does not effectively counter the facts offered by his colleague Paul Krugman. I cannot say for certain that is "his job," but to convince people of the liberal persuasion, he's going to have to offer more facts and less spin.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home