Monday, February 07, 2005

Social Security

I'm not an economist, but I did major in Economics in college (and received unsolicited offers of acceptance to a couple of quality grad schools, i.e. "We saw your test scores. Please apply, you've already been accepted"). I think I have the ability to follow a rational argument.

What I find so baffling about the current campaign to defeat social security reform is the relentless lack of logic. As a lawyer, I've watched or read arguments presented in thousands of cases. Usually, both sides manage to make some kind of argument that offers a rational reason to agree with them. The better course is usually clear, but there is something worthwhile to consider from the losing side. In this debate about social security, however, the liberals haven't managed to come up with an argument that even makes any sense.

I would refer two articles today for your review. Kevin Hassett has a piece in the dead tree version of the Wall Street Journal on the opinion page which makes the case that we should reform social security because the current system is so bad (regardless of whether it is in crisis). And David Hogberg addresses the varied foolishness that liberal opponents have been throwing against the wall in hopes of finding something that will stick.



Post a Comment

<< Home