I'd like to see Andrew Sullivan argue this one out rather than ducking behind a different point made by Josh Patashnik. But I guess we'll work with what we've got. Patashnik and Sullivan are now arguing for Social Security reform under the rubric that the government will spend too much in the coming years -- and yes, they grant, the government is spending too much because of health care -- and though Social Security isn't the actual driver behind unsustainable federal outlays, it would be wise to extract savings from it anyway."If you thought one part of your household budget were going to expand dramatically," asks Patashnik, "wouldn't you want to look for savings everywhere?" Maybe. But that's a different argument. Sullivan's post from Monday argued that the entitlements "will destroy the fiscal future, unless we pare them back now." That's a very simple statement: The entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as he defines them (you could also call programs like food stamps entitlements) -- are experiencing such aggressive cost growth that they will bankrupt the government. Okay, Sullivan now seems to be implicitly admitting, that's not true for Social Security. But it's still projected to consume six or seven percent of GDP. Shouldn't we cut it anyway on grounds that it's simply too big and we want the money for other things? Maybe. But that's not an "entitlements" conversation. That's a general fund conversation. You can raise taxes. You can cut education spending. You can close military bases. You can reduce our foreign footprint. There are a lot of options. The question, in that world, is why Social Security cuts are the best option. But before you get to that world, you have to pin down how much money you actually need. And the amount of money you need depends on how rapidly you can get health care costs under control. If you can do it tomorrow, then you don't need any money at all. If you can never do it, then even gruesome cuts in Social Security won't save your finances.
