Paul Krugman doesn’t find much to like in the recent report from the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform – the group charged with proposing solutions to the country’s long-term fiscal problems. He makes an interesting point about Social Security. (emphasis added)
There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that’s what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?
The answer is no, for a number of reasons — including the point that working until you’re 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.
But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it’s doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age.
Krugman’s conclusion on the Commission’s report: “[A] process meant to deal with real problems has been hijacked on behalf of an ideological agenda. Under the guise of facing our fiscal problems, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson are trying to smuggle in the same old, same old — tax cuts for the rich and erosion of the social safety net.”
Krugman versus Brooks
In the same issue of the New York Times, David Brooks offers his viewpoint on the same subject – the recommendations of the National Commission. The tenor of each writer’s philosophy is apparent in the difference between the two editorials.
Brooks is optimistic that Americans will rise to meet the serious consequences of the issues we face. The need to overcome the animosity behind our current two-party stalemate may require forming a new third party, but there’s no reason that couldn’t happen. He appeals to the better part of our nature, including our potential for patriotism.
It will take a revived patriotism to motivate Americans to do what needs to be done. It will take a revived patriotism to lift people out of their partisan cliques. How can you love your country if you hate the other half of it?
Is Brooks’ optimistic faith in the American people something he truly believes? Or does he simply want to promote these ideas because they’re so beneficial and necessary. It really doesn’t matter, since we need all the optimism we can muster these days.
Related posts:
The end of the American dream?
Health inequities, politics, and the public option
Déjà vu: Historical resistance to the inequities of health
Health inequities: An inhumane history
Resources:
Image source: P.a.p.-Blog, Human Rights Etc.
Paul Krugman, The Hijacked Commission, The New York Times, November 11, 2010
David Brooks, National Greatness Agenda, The New York Times, November 11, 2010
IF — the biggest word in the English language — it gets out of the committee, which is not certain, I doubt it passes Congress. They cannot change or modify any part of the report. They can ONLY vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the whole thing.
Dennis Kucinich could torpedo the whole thing all by himself. I love Dennis!!!
I think you’re right about that. I’ve read that Simpson and Bowles went public precisely because they know the proposal won’t make it out of committee.
Kucinich is a gem. He should make the great state of Ohio duly proud.
Well, most of Ohio is very conservative. And Kucinich is too liberal for most of them. They are glad he is in the snow belt up way north.
I like him personally. Except on health care this year, I don’t know a time when he did not vote his conscience. I would love to know what they offered him to change his vote, or what they threatened him with.
I never ever thought he, nor Feingold, would vote for anything that was not single payer or universal. I was very disappointed in both. But I do understand there was a lot of heavy arm twisting going on.
I remember when Kucinich endorsed health care. His support was very influential.