×
I've read this Firedoglake post calling on me to burn my sources twice and I still don't understand it. My sources didn't lie to me. I reported that the Fiscal Accountability Summit would argue that health care reform rather than Social Security reform should lead the Administration's agenda. That was...correct. I reported that there would not be a Conrad-Greggs style entitlements commission. That was correct. Chris Bowers said that "I reserve the right to remain unnerved about potential Social Security cuts during the Obama administration. Those fears will be greatly reduced if no such cuts appear in the budget outline that will be revealed next Thursday." As I reported at the time, no such cuts were planned to appear in the budget outline and, indeed, none did. In any case, Jane, oddly, doesn't link to it, but the original post is here. Readers can decide for themselves whether it was an accurate predictor of events. What isn't true, however, is Jane's claims that I "dismissed" the concern that the administration planned to cut benefits as "fear mongering." That comes, I think, from here (again, she doesn't link), where I wrote:
[W]hat Orszag and Krugman both realize is that Social Security's unfunded liabilities only look like the sort of problem you need to "fix" if you're mixing it in with Medicare's unfunded liabilities. If there's an "entitlements problem" that requires an "entitlements commission" then that will cut Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. If there's no "entitlements problem" and instead a health reform problem and some small questions about a politically electric program, then what you get is health reform -- which is also a way to slow Medicaid and Medicare growth without resorting to cuts -- and an end to the fear-mongering on Social Security.Fear mongering referred to those claiming the program's finances faced immediate crisis. Whoever Jane's source was on that quote should be burned.
