December 20, 2004
JURASSIC PORK (via Tom Corcoran):
FDR Is Dead: Time to move on. (Jonah Goldberg, 12/17/04, National Review)
Of course, liberal mythology about the New Deal legend is, uh, legendary. Still, it's worth noting that the New Deal surely prolonged the Depression and did far less for poverty than the textbooks claim. The first point is not even particularly controversial. The second is debatable. But what isn't in dispute among scholars is that it was World War II, not the New Deal, that served to pull America out of its economic doldrums.But in all the propaganda about FDR, a more salient point has been conveniently lost. It would be entirely in keeping with FDR's legacy to rip apart the Social Security system if there was even a chance that it could be improved. The overarching theme of FDR's entire governing philosophy, constantly touted by virtually his entire Brain Trust, was "experimentalism."
When Raymond Moley, a leading early Brain Truster, was asked to provide a philosophical justification for FDR's approach to government, he — along with nearly all of the New Dealers — cited Pragmatism. Moley even noted that FDR had studied under William James, the founder of Pragmatism, at Harvard. The historian Eric Goldman wrote of FDR, "he trusted no system except the system of endless experimentation." FDR himself made this point time and time again. "I have no expectation of making a hit every time I come to bat," he explained in a fireside chat. At Oglethorpe University, FDR declared, "this country needs bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." And always and everywhere, FDR emphasized the important thing was to take action first, and fix the problems later.
Well, here's the problem. Social Security was launched when there were more than 40 workers carrying the costs of each retiree. Today there are three workers for each Social Security recipient, and we're heading to a 2-1 ratio soon. It sounds to me that, whatever its original merits, the experiment has run its course. FDR "batted" Social Security farther than most of his ideas. But it would be nice to believe that the man who derided "horse and buggy thinking" and who most famously said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" would look at all of this fear-mongering about how Social Security is the "third rail" of American politics with disdain (though he might have liked it, given his penchant for demagoguery).
As long as Democrats are being so regressive, why not just reform SS to match it's shape whebn originally passed, with benefits starting at the age of average life expectancy, etc.? Posted by Orrin Judd at December 20, 2004 10:16 AM
Encourage companies to see their older employees as assets instead of replacing them with foreigners. Over 60 is not like over 60 twenty years ago even. We are heathier, live longer, have more energy and didn't go senile. We have a wealth of education, skill and experience that takes years to cultivate. The longer we work, the longer "WE" pay into SS also. A lot of seniors aren't too keen on staying home especially after we get a good taste of it, but there are few companies that will hire older people for various reasons I do not quite understand.
Posted by: JR at December 20, 2004 2:23 PM...or just sent the whole bill to Paul Krugman and let him pay for it, since he sees no problems on the horizon for the system.
Posted by: John at December 20, 2004 3:58 PMWhat JR said--pushing the retirement age 5 years down the road would make a huge difference.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 20, 2004 4:12 PMAbsolutely. It's just a math problem. Krugman can't afford it, when he worked for Enron they gave him stock as part of the compensation. Keep that in mind when he lectures on ethics.
Posted by: Bart at December 20, 2004 5:06 PM