The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichelle Malkin Archive
Paul Krugman: for Entitlement Reform Before He Was Against It
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Krugman vs. Krugman

Not that you needed any more evidence that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is a flip-flopping charlatan, but here’s the latest.

Today, he assails GOP proposals to raise the Medicare age and, by extension, the Social Security retirement age. (My column on the subject from earlier this month is here.)

Krugman bludgeons entitlement reform advocates with the class-warfare card, lamenting that “the fervor with which Washington types call for raising eligibility ages is a ‘tell’: it shows how disconnected they are from the way the other half lives (and dies). For in our increasingly polarized society, life expectancy is more and more a class-related issue.” Only elites in society, Krugman writes, like judges and politicians, “think it’s a great idea to raise the Medicare age.”

Funny. In 1996, Krugman had an entirely different view of long-term structural changes to federal entitlements, including raising the age of eligibility. In a lengthy New York Times book review of “How the Coming Social Security Crisis Threatens You, Your Family, and Your Country” by Peter G. Peterson and “America’s Most Powerful Lobby and the Clash of Generations” by Charles R. Morris, Krugman targeted the very kind of short-term politicization of the entitlement/demographic crisis that he now indulges in. Close your eyes, read Krugman’s words circa 1996, and you might think you were listening to Paul Ryan circa 2011:

Generous benefits for the elderly are feasible as long as there are relatively few retirees compared with the number of taxpaying workers — which is the current situation, because the baby boomers swell the workforce. In 2010, however, the boomers will begin to retire. Every year thereafter, for the next quarter-century, several million 65-year-olds will leave the rolls of taxpayers and begin claiming their benefits.

The budgetary effects of this demographic tidal wave are straightforward to compute, but so huge as almost to defy comprehension. Mr. Peterson, the chairman of the Blackstone Group, a private investment bank, informs us that ”the combined Federal cost of Social Security and Medicare, expressed as a share of workers’ taxable payroll, is officially projected to rise from the already burdensome 17 percent in 1995 to between 35 and 55 percent in 2040. And this figure does not include the many other costs — from nursing homes to civil service and military pensions — that are destined to grow along with the age wave.”

But aren’t Social Security and Medicare basically pension funds, in which workers’ contributions are invested to provide for their retirement? Hardly. A private pension fund that planned to pay the benefits these programs promise would be accumulating huge reserves. In fact, the so-called ”trust funds” are making barely any provisions for the future. In another spectacular statistic, Mr. Peterson notes that if Medicare and Social Security had to obey the same rules that apply to private pensions, the reported Federal deficit this year would be not its official $150 billion, but roughly $1.5 trillion.

In short, the Federal Government, however solid its finances may currently appear, is in fact living utterly beyond its means. While the present generation of retirees is doing very nicely, the promises that are being made to those now working cannot be honored.

What did the old Paul Krugman think of Peterson’s proposals to rein in costs and raise the age of eligibility for federal entitlements? He called them “sensible:”

Both Mr. Morris and Mr. Peterson offer plans to avert the crisis ahead. The details differ, and Mr. Peterson’s proposal is more completely fleshed out, but the general thrust is clear: slow the growth in benefit levels, gradually raise the retirement age, impose limits on expensive terminal medical care that prolongs life for only weeks or days and — last but not least — raise taxes moderately now, rather than massively later. We need not dwell on their sensible proposals, however, because there is not the slightest prospect that they will be put into effect — or indeed that we will do anything serious about the looming crisis until it is almost upon us.

Thanks to finger-in-the-wind demagogues like 2011-era Krugman, the obstacles to lasting entitlement and budget reform have grown even more insurmountable than they were 15 years ago when 1996-era Krugman took them seriously.



Paul Krugman Prays That No One Will Figure Out How Frequently He Flip-Flops

Paul Krugman’s ‘Breathtaking’ Hypocrisy

An “Alarming” Flip-Flop: Krugman says Social Security is in crisis. Wait — no — he says it’s fine.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Paul Krugman