None of the above. It was Paul Krugman of the NY Times today.

In a column actually entitled "Played for a Sucker", Krugman says of Obama:

I don’t believe Mr. Obama is a closet privatizer. He is, however, someone who keeps insisting that he can transcend the partisanship of our times — and in this case, that turned him into a sucker.

and

But if you try to find common ground where none exists — which is the case for many issues today — you end up being played for a fool

Perhaps the Hillary war room has issued their minions their talking points... just watch... the news today will be how she's back on track.

http://politicsofdes...

Quick, everyone run for the hills, the world is coming to an end, there are two things Krugman and I agree on:  1. The remarks about Obama and 2. [I]f you try to find common ground where none exists — which is the case for many issues today  <sarcasm>

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

So, Krugman gets kranky about the need to fix social security, eh?  This just proves to me he is no actuary, and a p*ss-poor economist, to boot.

Social security has not been actuarially sound almost from its beginning.  Almost from the get-go Congress started using Social Security to buy votes, and it has worked for a couple of generations, now.  Congress increased benefits and added new benefits with complete disregard of actuarial principles.

Currently Social Security is funded by a 15% payroll tax, evenly divided between the employer and the employee.  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is 7.5% of your paycheck right off the top for Social Security.  It has been a long time since I read The Coming Revolution in Social Security by A. Haeworth Robinson, so I don't remember the exact dates of his predictions.  (Robinson is the former chief actuary of the Social Security Administration.)  In his book he predicted that in the not too distant future (2015 or 2025, I think), in order to fund the benefits that Congress had promised when he had written the book prior to 1995, it would require a 50% payroll tax.  That means 25% right off the top of your paycheck to fund SS.  Either that, or reduce benefits significantly or let the system go bankrupt and terminate all benefits.  Those are the only choices.

If Congress raises the payroll tax to 50%, what do you think that will do to the prices of all the goods and services we purchase in this country?  If your paycheck is taxed at 25% for Social Security, 15% or more for Federal withholding tax, in addition to your State (and sometimes local) income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline and other fuel taxes, and on, and on, and on, you aren't going to have much to spend on yourself and your family.  Is this what you really want?

Fortunately, especially for young kids (if they'll take advantage of it), we have conventional and Roth IRAs.  But, it will be difficult for anyone to fully fund an IRA if 40% or more of their pay is confiscated by the government.

Unfortunately for Krugman and Congress, money obeys the laws of mathematics, not the laws of Congress.  If Social Security was to remain viable, it should have been brought back into actuarial balance 40 or 50 years ago.  In order to be brought into Constitutional compliance, it should have been terminated the day after it was signed into law. 

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan