I don't understand why the Times can't get conservatives who make sense some of the time to write for them. (Dan Drezner
? Or maybe Andrew Sullivan
?) I also don't understand this paragraph, pulled from Tierney's column
In theory, there is a trust fund to cover this shortfall. When Congress sharply raised Social Security taxes in the 1980's, the idea was to generate surpluses during the baby boomers' working years that would finance our retirement. Instead, Congress spent our money, leaving the Social Security trust fund with a file cabinet full of i.o.u.'s in the form of Treasury bills.
(They're not bills, they're bonds, but that's neither here nor there.) Would he rather Congress stuff $20 bills in a filing cabinet? Okay, I assume he wishes that instead of collecting Treasury "bills", Congress would have put the money into stocks or property or private debt or something, but he doesn't say so or say why it's a good idea or even address whether or not it's legal.
And the biggest flaw of his series of columns is that he's comparing social security to a private retirement savings system, when social security does so much more. He never mentions this.
I don't understand why this man get such a large forum for his opinions. Could it be a clever strategy by the Times to make conservatives look bad?
-Daddy Brooklyn 09:56 EST |