Cynical Nation

The article posted previously by Barry highlights the problem I have with Krugman's columns in general. His economic analysis on the Social Security situation is, in my opinion anyway, pretty accurate. There is no immediate crisis and there won't likely be one for another 50 years. Perhaps not even then if interest rates continue to rise.

It's the interweaving of his partisan views that I find objectionable.

Like this:

"The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq."

It may be less than we are currently spending in Iraq, but what we are spending in Iraq is not sustainable indefinitely anyway. So why the Iraq reference?

And how about this:

"...very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success."

He provides no factual basis for this conclusion. I guess we are supposed to believe that because his economic analysis is correct, that his political opinions are, by default, correct as well.

Sorry, Professor Krugman, but I'm not buying it.