I've been trying to follow the Social Security arguments and I must admit that at some point, the math makes my eyes glaze over much as they did back in Mr. Buck's Geometry class in eleventh grade. The main difference is that I knew Mr. Buck wasn't trying to juggle the numbers to arrive at a certain, desired conclusion. I almost wish I had him back so I could ask him to explain things to me in a non-partisan manner…though, come to think of it, Mr. Buck was never able to explain secants and tangents in a way that I could understand them. So maybe it wouldn't help.
In a way, it's sad that we have no distinguished, apolitical sources that we can go to and get an answer that will be widely regarded as unbiased. There are such folks out there, I'm sure. The trouble is, the minute they say one side is wrong, the other side starts hammering them as partisan hacks and refuses to acknowledge their accuracy or even their sincerity. Can you imagine some think tank or economics authority venturing a view on this issue and having the exponents of the other viewpoint wrong say, "Hmm…maybe we're wrong"? Me neither. So we're all just kinda left here with one side saying the numbers add up, the other saying they don't…and insufficient data and skill to do our own calculations. I get the feeling a lot of pundits think they can say any damn thing they want and if someone disagrees, you just attack their credibility.
The "privatization" side of this issue scares me, first of all because they keep changing the term — it was private accounts, then it became personal accounts…now, it seems to be the "personalization" of Social Security. Well, actually, what really scares me about that is that reporters seem to go along with it…but if the plan is sound, it shouldn't be necessary to dress it up with names that have tested well in focus groups. Secondly, of course, a lot of people who are out there pushing the Bush plan to "save Social Security" are folks who, in the past, have made no secret of the fact that they'd love to see it destroyed. Thirdly, by any estimate the costs of implementing the plan would involve staggering amounts of debt, and they're not addressing that. They just say we'll move it "off the books," which apparently means it isn't a problem. Then, they change the subject, like a couple trillion in new borrowing is no big deal if you're creative in how you keep records.
Those are all things that make me suspicious. But you'll note that none of them involve any math. Before I decide if the plan is good or bad, I'd really like to know if the numbers add up.
Paul Krugman, in this article, says they don't…and he explains it in a pretty simple manner. Says he, those who believe the Bush plan can or will succeed, are presuming that stock investments will yield a rate of return hitting at least 6.5% over the next 75 years. According to Krugman, that's unlikely…but if it does occur, then the current Social Security plan will be in great shape so the changeover isn't necessary.
Is he right? Beats the heck outta me. One can easily find Internet commentators like this guy who will tell you Krugman is wrong. One can also easily find folks like this guy who'll tell you the fellow who says Krugman is wrong is wrong. Both load up their arguments with gobs of personal invective, which also makes me suspicious of their arguments. Then again, it's possible to be rude but right and, once more, we're getting away from the actual arithmetic.
So I don't know what to think, which I guess is okay in some way since others are going to decide this, regardless of what I think. My fear is that it will all pass or not pass, not because of the numbers but because one side did a better selling job on their spin. I certainly don't think the rank-and-file voters will ever really understand it. At best, they'll understand which side they want to trust. Me…I'm going to trust Mr. Buck. He died about twenty years ago but in this debate, that's not necessarily a drawback.