Unfortunately, I don't have a lot add to this debate as I haven't been following the Social Security story but I found
this rant in the Daily Howler distressing. I'm afraid that the Republican Spin Machine is once again dominating the media discussion on Social Security. Anyone care to comment?
Here's a snippet:
THE SPEECH NOT GIVEN: Four Big Pundits stared into air as Russert recited irrelevant facts. Eventually, the pundits all stated their views. But the following speech wasn't given:
THE UNBOOKED PUNDIT: But Tim, that 16-to-1 ratio is wholly irrelevant. Those were the numbers in 1935! But today, we have roughly three workers for every retiree, and the system is producing an annual surplus! We don't need those sixteen workers to finance Social Security! The question is: What will happen over the next five decades as we get closer to a 2-to-1 ratio? And no, the system isn't in "crisis." Come on! According to the CBO, full benefits can be paid until 2052, and minor changes in taxes and benefit levels could make the system fully solvent for decades after that. We don't need sixteen workers for every retiree. Does somebody pay you to mention them?
OK, our Unbooked Pundit should skip that last question. But this speech is never given when Washington's pundits gather to chat. Pundits like Kay know which points to recite--after they get through scolding Williams for depriving folks of all the facts.