i don’t have time to track it down now, but i was once doing some research on supreme court cases relevant to social security, and i did discover that the court ruled that the highway trust fund – funded, just like social security with a dedicated tax – is not fungible, that the dollars in the trust fund must be used for the purposes congress defined in establishing the trust fund.
so i can’t see how that same logic doesn’t apply to social security, which is to say that in addition to the two key points that our host already made here, there is a third: there is supreme court precedent that trust funds are, in fact, trust funds and North Dakota title loans not merely another name for an otherwise fungible piece of federal revenues.
I think you know the answer to this as well as I do, Mr
Krugman, and are merely posing a rhetorical question to us. The reason that Social Security has been made into such a boogeyman is that paying back those bonds, once such monies are needed, would require one of two things: A cut in expenditures by the rest of the federal government on their favorite pork-barrel policies or an increase in the federal tax rate. As the former is unthinkable, and the latter would most likely mean an actual long-overdue tax on the wealthiest of this country, it is politically easier to vilify Social Security as being “evil socialism” than it is to confront the real socioeconomic issues confronting our country.
If they roll back Social Security, let them roll back the payroll tax at the same time. Fair is fair.
Why? Because the WS money managers want to manage that huge chunks of money. How dare someone, government pay, manage it responsibly with ?
While they may not show up for work very much, why is it that no one has pointed out that these candidates could introduce their “what I would do if I were president” proposals RIGHT NOW.
The banking crisis is a right now thing; why should the candidates wait until to introduce legislation to fix immediate problems?