The article, “Played for a Sucker,” was published on
Statement from article: “As Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, put it in a recent article co-authored with senior analyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the
How has conventional wisdom gotten this so wrong? Well, in large part it’s the result of decades of scare-mongering about Social Security’s future from conservative ideologues, whose ultimate goal is to undermine the program…….
But Social Security isn’t a big problem that demands a solution; it’s a small problem, way down the list of major issues facing
My point of view: This article is too partisan, and Paul Krugman (a venerable Economist at
Let’s be honest – the New York Times is a liberal paper. Now they have gone too far. The purely opinionated piece (hence, an op-ed article) reveals no statistics to back up the opinion that ‘social security isn’t a big problem that demands a solution.’ Paul Krugmen refers to a non-cited work by Peter Orszag that the ‘country’s financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.’ When taken in the context of the article’s purpose, social security, I presume that Orszag is speaking of per-capita medicare payments to retiring individuals. Medicare, however, is under the blanket of social security! If you qualify for social security, then you qualify for medicare. Then I ask this, why is social security not a problem?
To further understand why the article is too partisan, let’s consider the following statement: ‘But Social Security isn’t a big problem that demands a solution; it’s a small problem, way down the list of major issues facing