That’s “Mr. Learned Liberal” to You

Vincent Fiore

There’s no denying the ideological direction of the New York Times editorial pages. To a large extent, one sees it above the page-one fold as well, where actual news should be and opinion should not. If the Times were a car, its steering wheel would only turn one way.

But the New York Times is not a car, but a tabloid on a mission. That mission is one of progressive inclination toward all things government and policy. It is a methodical whittling down of anyone or anything associated with Republicanism or conservatism. It is a daily loathing of George W. Bush.

Maybe that’s why the newspaper’s string of commentary writers, like Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, and Nicholas Kristof, always seem to be heading in the same leftward-lurching direction, forever satisfying the partisan lust of the now-legitimized Deaniacs of the Democratic Party, and submitting to their own GOP-hating demons that populate their styluses.

Then, there is the “Learned Liberal” of the Times, Paul Krugman.

Though not nearly as obnoxious as Maureen Dowd, nor merely noxious as Bob Herbert, Krugman bestrides the edifices of higher learning, which tends to disguise his editorial pummeling as a resonant effort.

Awash in B.A.’s and PhD’s in economics from such exalted ivory towers as Yale and MIT, Krugman has painted the Bush initiative of personal accounts for Social Security as a “disinformation campaign” and he accuses the right in general of “spreading policy disinformation.” (www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/opinion/25krugman.html?)

Yet for all his high-minded dagger-tossing at the president for even attempting to have an open dialogue over the insolvency of Social Security, Krugman has maintained--in numerous commentaries--that “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.”

If this is so, then why have the Democratic Party and the heavy-hitters that support it changed the formerly parroted party line of “there is no crisis” with Social Security to “Social Security is more of a problem than a crisis.”
(www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52771-2005Jan31.html)

Simply put, Krugman is out to save Franklin Roosevelt’s legacy regardless of the fact that his Social Security Act of 1935 cannot work in 2075. Even Krugman’s liberal brethren among the mainstream media have received the dawning reality that left unattended, Social Security is headed for insolvency.

Typically, Krugman calls for tax increases on the rich, and seems to shrug off future benefit cuts as a means of saving Social Security. He further gives an example of privatization-gone-bad--via Britain--when the underlying problem in Britain seems to be widespread financial company fraud and the “20-30 percent” fees paid to financial managers.

Of course, this fits nicely with Krugman’s basic premise that conservative capitalism is bad, but FDR social dependency is good. If personal accounts become a reality here in the U.S., investing will be heavily scrutinized and controlled by law, as is the case in the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees, 401 K and 457 accounts, and even Social Security itself, which carries an administrative cost of a very manageable 0.64 percent.

If you read the Times and Krugman specifically, do not expect to hear about the realities of Social Security, such as the fact that the monies generated from payroll taxes are government owned, and therefore, not legitimately yours. There is no account with your name on it, and the government, if it so desired, can decide to simply not make good on its “promise” to provide a pension fund for you upon retirement. (1960, Fleming v. Nestor, Supreme Court)

Krugman also omits the numerous success stories regarding personal accounts. Countries like Chile, Australia, Sweden, Poland, Italy, even former Soviet-block countries like Kazakhstan, have added personal accounts to their retirement systems. Russia itself has developed a plan for personal accounts.

Yet, Paul Krugman holds to the myth that “Social Security is a government program that works,” the facts be damned, and the GOP with them. Somehow, I expected more of the Times resident economic intellectual than mooning over FDR’s legacy and lambasting not just the Bush administration, but the very idea of self-enrichment through the economic realities of existing private plans.

But maybe that just shows how wrong I am. I cannot claim credit in writing a single book, much less the twenty that Paul Krugman has written. And no, I hold no degrees in economics, nor are my papers printed in Harvard Business Review.

Yet, even I, an unknown in the ocean of American humanity, seem to know that there is something wrong with Social Security, and it will only get worse as time wears on.

Paul Krugman, by all accounts, is a very intelligent man. But neither he, nor the paper he writes for, has acted as intelligently as one would have hoped in this debate over Social Security, a debate that sorely needs to take place.

As intellectual as Krugman may be, the “Learned Liberal” of the New York Times op-ed page has shown little in the way of economic honesty regarding the merits of overhauling Social Security, opting instead for the stupidity of party politics over people.

###

Vincent Fiore is a small business owner and is an active "Citizen Politician" for the GOP. He currently contributes commentary to several political web sites on a weekly basis, and occasionally has had his commentary posted on NewsMax.com.

ANWAR004@AOL.COM