Well, hooray! Real American Hero Ruth Marcus totally nails Paul Krugman on flip-flopping on Social Security! I guess we shouldn't let our unbridled excitement over this policy breakthrough be dampened by the fact that Krugman isn't actually in the position to direct or change Social Security (or by the fact that Marcus is largely wrong on the merits). Should we?
Yes, in lieu of a serious conversation on Social Security, we're treated to an editorial spitting contest, and you'll have to forgive me if behind the fusillade I hear the pitter-pat footsteps of campaign consultants, since this effort from Marcus seems to have slouched from the Barack Obama camp to be born.
Just how unserious is Marcus' effort? Check out this paragraph:
I acknowledge: Medicare is a bigger problem than Social Security. It's also harder to solve, both because it is more complicated and because it involves the larger question of rising health-care costs. That doesn't argue for ignoring Social Security but for tackling it first.
Huh-wha? That doesn't make a lick of sense. But this is what passes for a "debate" on Social Security. Meanwhile, one can't help but notice just how rarely the actual candidates are asked how they will approach "solving" the Social Security "crisis": will they raise taxes or cut benefits. In fact, I can recall only one time the question has ever been posed like that: at the Democratic YouTube debate, where one questioner asked:
There are two solutions, both of which are politically unpopular: Raise taxes or cut benefits. Which would you choose, and how would you convince the public to support you?
Anderson Cooper, inexplicably, threw the question to Bill Richardson, who not only had not participated in the Social Security debates of the Bush 43 era, but who also had not participated in crafting Social Security policy since 1997. One couldn't help but think that the frontrunning Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were only all too relieved to not have to answer the question. And they may not ever have to, as long as we're willing to pretend that the ditherings of op-ed columnists will suffice as a substitute.