Boston Globe Columnist Defends Social Security for the Rich

Boston Globe columnist Comrade Bob Kuttner defends welfare for the well to do:

So, why does it need a bipartisan solution -- with more cuts on the spending side? The remedy is as simple as the cause -- get rid of Bush's tax cuts, except for tax relief for those of moderate income. (Getting rid of his off-budget war would help, too.) End of budget problem.

The idea that we need absolute balance, by the way, is wrong as well. Mild deficits, as long as the revenues are invested in things that help the economy grow, such as education, worker training, and research, are actually a tonic for economic growth. There's nothing unsustainable about a deficit of 1 or 2 percent of GDP, as long as the economy is growing at 3 percent.

As for Social Security and Medicare, the Concord Coalition is an ideological attack on social insurance masquerading as a concern for the common good. The projected shortfall in Social Security, over the long term, is about 1 percent of payroll. That's an adjustment problem, not a terminal crisis. If you project it out into the indefinite future, you can make the "unfunded liability" seem like a very large number. On the other hand, as economist Dean Baker observes, the Pentagon is going to spend huge sums of money over the next century too, and nobody calls that obligation an unfunded liability.

Numerous people have put forth a variety of plans to balance Social Security accounts without further cuts in benefits. As economist Alicia Munnell observes, past adjustments have already significantly cut Social Security payouts relative to lifetime earnings for future retirees. We don't need more benefit cuts.

Let's examine the logic of Comrade Kuttner:don't give Warren Buffett a tax cut but don't cut his Social Security check.Why does Comrade Kuttner want Warren Buffett to get a free hand out??