Yesterday, White House spokesman Jay Carney was described as a "paid liar" by Congressman Darrel Issa. The phrase made me consider what exactly one had to do to earn that title. If we boil it all down, it seems that to be a "paid liar", a person has to do three things: a) consistently say things that are untrue; b) know that the statements are untrue while making them; and c) get paid for doing this. I began to wonder who else we know who qualifies as a "paid liar".
It did not take long to find the first clear winner of the title: Paul Krugman of the New York Times. In a column yesterday about the federal budget deficit, Krugman earned his place as a paid liar. Let's look at some examples.
First, here is what Krugman said about Social Security:
Start with Social Security. The retirement program’s trustees do foresee rising spending as the population ages, with total payments rising from 5.1 percent of G.D.P. now to 6.2 percent in 2035, at which point they stabilize. This means, by the way, that all the talk of Social Security going “bankrupt” is nonsense; even if nothing at all is done, the system will be able to pay most of its scheduled benefits as far as the eye can see.
Think about that. Let's suppose that a big company like General Motors says that going forward it will only have enough money to pay most of its bills but not all. If GM pays only 95% of its bills from here on out, it will be bankrupt. Indeed, the legal definition of the term usually is stated as a person or company unable to pay its debts as they mature. So Krugman tells us that Social Security meets the definition of bankruptcy but then says that the idea of Social Security going bankrupt is nonsense. It is a false statement that Krugman knows to be false.
Second, Krugman tells us that the increased cost of Social Security and Medicare in the next decades will only come to 3.1% of GDP each year, so there is no need to cut benefits. Krugman knows this is not true. Indeed, the size of the increase is so staggering that Krugman states it as a percentage of GDP because the dollar amount is so incredibly large. In 2013, an increase of this size would be half a trillion dollars. Don't be fooled by all the numbers that have been thrown around in the past deficit debates; those were totals for a decade, and this is the total for one year. The number Krugman is discussing is about 6 trillion dollars over the next decade. Remember that even with the tax increase that Obama forced through and the cuts in spending that the Republicans obtained, the deficit reduction for the next decade was only about three trillion dollars. To get there we had to endure a three year battle and sequestration. Just imagine now the need for twice that amount just to keep Social Security and Medicare untouched. Krugman knows that his point is phony but he makes it anyway. Yup, he's a "paid liar".
It did not take long to find the first clear winner of the title: Paul Krugman of the New York Times. In a column yesterday about the federal budget deficit, Krugman earned his place as a paid liar. Let's look at some examples.
First, here is what Krugman said about Social Security:
Start with Social Security. The retirement program’s trustees do foresee rising spending as the population ages, with total payments rising from 5.1 percent of G.D.P. now to 6.2 percent in 2035, at which point they stabilize. This means, by the way, that all the talk of Social Security going “bankrupt” is nonsense; even if nothing at all is done, the system will be able to pay most of its scheduled benefits as far as the eye can see.
Think about that. Let's suppose that a big company like General Motors says that going forward it will only have enough money to pay most of its bills but not all. If GM pays only 95% of its bills from here on out, it will be bankrupt. Indeed, the legal definition of the term usually is stated as a person or company unable to pay its debts as they mature. So Krugman tells us that Social Security meets the definition of bankruptcy but then says that the idea of Social Security going bankrupt is nonsense. It is a false statement that Krugman knows to be false.
Second, Krugman tells us that the increased cost of Social Security and Medicare in the next decades will only come to 3.1% of GDP each year, so there is no need to cut benefits. Krugman knows this is not true. Indeed, the size of the increase is so staggering that Krugman states it as a percentage of GDP because the dollar amount is so incredibly large. In 2013, an increase of this size would be half a trillion dollars. Don't be fooled by all the numbers that have been thrown around in the past deficit debates; those were totals for a decade, and this is the total for one year. The number Krugman is discussing is about 6 trillion dollars over the next decade. Remember that even with the tax increase that Obama forced through and the cuts in spending that the Republicans obtained, the deficit reduction for the next decade was only about three trillion dollars. To get there we had to endure a three year battle and sequestration. Just imagine now the need for twice that amount just to keep Social Security and Medicare untouched. Krugman knows that his point is phony but he makes it anyway. Yup, he's a "paid liar".
No comments:
Post a Comment