One of the amazing things about the Social Security debate thus far is how many “point, set, match” moments there have been in such a short period of time. These are the moments that, on their face, are so devastating that the other side has no response and, if the debate was driven by the merit of one’s ideas, would effectively end the discussion.
Paul Krugman, for example, raised one of these moments last week, when he explained that the White House scheme is dependent on an inherent contradiction: Bush argues he can transfer money from the trust fund to private accounts without hurting Americans’ long-term returns because economic growth will be strong in the coming decades, while simultaneously arguing that private accounts are necessary because economic growth will be weak in coming decades.
Another “point, set, match” moment came last week when the White House acknowledged that Bush’s plan to boost Social Security’s solvency has nothing to do with Social Security’s solvency. In a reasonable world, proponents would be shamed into admitting defeat by these kinds of developments.
The latest of these PSM moments has been brewing for a while, but became painfully obvious over the weekend.
Vice President Cheney acknowledged yesterday that the federal government would need to borrow trillions of dollars over the next few decades to cover the cost of the personal retirement accounts at the heart of President Bush’s plan to restructure Social Security.
Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Cheney said the government would have to borrow $754 billion over the next 10 years, and conceded that the price tag would involve borrowing trillions of dollars more in subsequent decades.
“That’s right. Trillions more after that,” Cheney said in response to a question.
It’s as if these guys don’t even care about winning the policy debate at all.
Cheney was effectively admitting, on national television, what critics have been saying for months: the White House approach to Social Security would spend $4.5 trillion to fix a $3.4 trillion problem, all the while, lowering benefits for beneficiaries. No serious person could argue that this makes sense, but yet it is the principle domestic policy imitative of Bush’s presidency.
Look what we hear from the administration’s own collective mouth. Their solution to the problem does nothing to solve the problem — not me saying it, them saying it. However, it does cost trillions of dollars. In fact, it will cost — by their own estimation — much more over the next 20 years than it would to keep Social Security going strong for the next 75 years.
At what point does this proposed policy collapse under the weight of its own ridiculousness?
I really don’t think this need be a rhetorical question.