Slanting Social Security - By Paul Krugman (NY Times)

[madinmaryland]

Many people involved in the debate over Social Security's future worry that the 2005 trustees' report will be slanted in favor of privatization.

I don't expect to see books that are literally cooked: Stephen Goss, the agency's chief actuary, has an excellent reputation. But it's not out of the question. After all, in 2003 the chief actuary of Social Security's sister agency, which oversees Medicare, was told that he would be fired if he gave Congress accurate information about the cost of the Bush Medicare bill.

Even if the numbers aren't fabricated, however, it's a good bet that they will be presented in a way intended to make Social Security's financial outlook seem much bleaker than it really is.

Why should we expect a slanted report?

First, this administration has politicized analysis across the board, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Food and Drug Administration.

<< snip

Once again, Paul Krugman is dead on. BTW, did anyone see him on the Daily Show last night?


On Edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/opinion/11krugman.html

[T Roosevelt]

1. He said so much in that short interview

Too bad it was probably over many peoples' heads (maybe not TDS viewers, but in general).

[diddlysquat]

2. Link?

[Catchawave]

4. Link here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/opinion/11krugman.html?th

[Catchawave]

3. Great Editorial, he's right....

We ARE being LIED to, which bothers me more than SS going belly up.

If BushCo changes are such a great idea, why do they have to "sell" it to us? Using my TAX dollars too...grrrrr.

[Dudley_DUright]

5. I liked his phrase for how republicans try to scare you with talk of

"gay married terrorists"

[madinmaryland]

6. He hit it just right with that comment,

That's exactly what the pubs are trying to do.