Over the next 75 years [the Social Security] shortfall will amount to just 0.7 percent of national income, according to the trustees. [This is] a real chunk of change, but it pales alongside the 75-year cost of Bush's Medicare drug benefit, which is more than twice its size, or Bush's tax cuts if permanently extended, which would be nearly four times its size.

I believe the current design of Social Security -- pay as you go, with some attempt to amortize future shortfalls with limited savings -- is the ideal way to run this sort of program. It's worked well for decades; if the Government is fiscally responsible, there's nothing to fear. The crux, the problem, the crisis, the horror is that the Bush administration is so fiscally irresponsible. The issue isn't whether or not Social Security is in trouble; if the Governmetn is solvent, we can make minor adjustments for demographics.

The debate is this simple: either you believe the deficits are a problem, in which case there is a BIG problem; or you believe the deficits are not a problem, in which case there is NO problem. You can't point at a fabricated problem in Social Security while ignoring the rest of the budget.

As for deficits, I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve never suggested increasing the deficit permanently.

Well somebody sure didn't understand my post.

On Medicare, demographics is only a part of its problems, and a relatively small part at that. The bigger issue is spiraling medical costs.

Yep, somebody really does need a cluefinder. Your pretty good at reiterating my points Kevin. Good job.

Say, Steve, you did notice that this post was from May 2003, long before Bush’s latest drive to privatize Social Security, didn’t you? It could hardly have anything to do with Bush’s current plans since I wrote it nearly two years ago.

Say Kevin, did you notice that Bush's plan is basically the same one he came up with in his first term? No? Geez, I'm not surprised.

Off the top of my head, SS today is 4.2% of GDP. In 50 years it will 6.5% of GDP. That’s an increase of 2.3 percentage points. The United States is a very low tax country, and the deadweight loss from a tax increase like that is probably on the order of .3% of GDP if the CBO is to be believed. That gets you a total of 2.6 percentage points, which is actually less than my 3 percentage point guess from two years ago. It might amount to 3% over the entire next century, though.

Thank you for verifying that I was indeed correct thank you. That is kind of you.

Off the top of my head, SS today is 4.2% of GDP. In 50 years it will 6.5% of GDP. That's an increase of 2.3 percentage points. The United States is a very low tax country, and the deadweight loss from a tax increase like that is probably on the order of .3% of GDP if the CBO is to be believed. That gets you a total of 2.6 percentage points, which is actually less than my 3 percentage point guess from two years ago. It might amount to 3% over the entire next century, though.

As for deficits, I really don't know what you're talking about. I've never suggested increasing the deficit permanently. Rather, I've suggested (a) waiting around a while to see if we really have an SS problem at all, and (b) raising taxes modestly and cutting benefits modestly if it turns out we do have a problem. If it were up to me, this tax increase (if it turns out to be necessary) would be equal to about 1.5% of GDP. Even the most ardent supply siders don't think an increase like that would have anything more than a trivial impact on the economy, if it even had any impact at all.

On Medicare, demographics is only a part of its problems, and a relatively small part at that. The bigger issue is spiraling medical costs. That's a far, far bigger contributor to future Medicare costs than the increase in the retired population.

By the way, did you find what you were looking for while you were trolling through my archives? I hope so.