I have been trying to figure out a position on the looming Social Security mess. If anyone can tell me the logic of why Obama reduced the individual contribution to Social Security that is now being restored, please tell me. It would have been much more logical to reduce the employer's portion and I do not even agree with that.
Krugman is correct when he says that you need to look deeper into the life expectancy numbers. We are living longer now "on average" but most of the gain is the reduction in infant mortality so it has no affect on the life expectancy after age 65. I agree with that, but what about all the people who put money into Social Security and died before age 65? The jobs in those days required much harder physical labor and thus reduced the years that a person could work, but not now. My grandmother lived a long time and collected Social Security that was paid in by people who died before they reached the age of 65, but not now. I think that Krugman needs to use a better model of the system that more correctly represents the total facts.
Because there is so much misinformation flowing, we need someone who can get above the fray and not play games with the numbers. I think that the voters are ready for honest facts. Krugman has the audience to be such a person, if he really wanted too.
There is a sleeper in these numbers too and that is "Disability Insurance" that is taking money out of the pot. In the old days people who could not do higher paying hard physical labor took lower paying clerk type jobs. Who says that a person has to be able to play nose tackle for the NY Giants until age 65? They should go do something else, like a desk job or night watchman. This is a big leak in the dyke that needs to be plugged too.
