The New York Times Doesn't Like Social Security

[Hannah Bell]

That is what readers could infer from Jackie Calmes' blognote in which she listed Social Security alongside Medicare and Medicaid as "fast-growing entitlement benefit program." Social Security is projected to grow at a 5.3 percent annual rate over the next decade, only slightly faster than the 4.4 percent projected growth rate of nominal GDP over this period. By comparison, Medicare is projected to grow at a 7.0 percent annual rate.

It is also worth noting that Social Security is funded by a designated tax that is projected to keep the program fully funded until 2044. It appears that the NYT is unaware of the funding mechanism for Social Security. Given this designated tax it would make as much sense to cut Social Security as it would to cut interest payment on government bonds (i.e. default on the government debt), especially since interest is in fact a much more rapidly growing category of entitlement spending.

The reference to Social Security appears in a statement telling readers that: "many economists" are advocating cuts in these programs "to avert a fiscal calamity in the coming decade." It is also worth noting that many economists, citing extensive evidence, ridicule the "many economists" who make assertions about "fiscal calamity" without any evidence to support their position.

http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press

[ProfessorGAC]

1. I Think People Don't Understand The "Entitlement" Thing

If it's an entitlement, the people are ENTITLED to it. Therefore, if a funding mechanism needs to be adjusted to assure that people receive these saving, it should happen.

Folks like Calmes act like "entitlement" is a hand-out. It's not. If it were, it wouldn't be an entitlement, since nobody is ENTITLED to get something for nothing.

As soon as i see someone like her, using the term "entitlement" as if it were a perjorative, i immediately tune out.
GAC

[unhappycamper]

2. The elephant in the room: An annual one trillion dollar miltary budget.

But this is the New York Times........

[blindpig]

4. Don't go getting all sacroligious....

'that which shall not be named'

Sure is funny how that budget item never comes up. Mebbe they could start billing the multinationals for 'Pax Americana'...hahaha

k&r

[corpseratemedia]

3. It's like they're talking trying to convince their shadows as this kind of argument

doesn't work anymore. Maybe 30 years ago when the largest group of reagan supporters where in their mid-30s to 50s - but not now, when they're actually on SSI and Medicare and know that they've paid taxes towards SS all the years they've worked.


Also there's got to be *some* former reagan supporters who've seen what an obscenely poor liar bush2 was, esp. with his no bid trillion dollar contracts for non-existant wmds for a non-existant threat.

Obviously they don't expect civil unrest from "older" people. They're just going to ram this crap through anyway and it'll do nothing for the deficit, just like when these types gutted the safety net.