In a short opinion piece today on the New York Times website, Krugman interprets some new information on social security predictions, surmising that the system’s problem is ‘relatively minor’ and doesn’t deserve the attention that many pundits give it.
In fact, however, the actuarial balance has been improving rather than worsening. It’s now better than it’s been since 1993. What this tells us is that projections made in the mid-to-late 1990s were, in the light of subsequent revisions, way too pessimistic.
I hope Krugman is right about the actuarial balance increase being a sign that all is not lost for the future of Social Security. Further, if things are better now than they have been for Social Security since 1993, doesn’t that extend to show that George Bush hasn’t completely destroyed the economy and the business environment like you all have been claiming?
Before we all accept the offered moral of Krugman’s tale, I’ll add this: Many a tale exists of people scraping themselves on a rusty nail and never getting it treated, dismissing it as a little problem. Often those who ignore the little scratch would end up critically sick or worse. Social Security isn’t sustainable and whether we delay the collapse of the current system by a few years or not, it will eventually cripple our budget. Once it is a large enough problem for people like Krugman to take serious notice, it will be too late.
Entries (RSS)