That's not exactly what the headline of the Post editorial said, but it's pretty close. The editorial, which had the subhead "the candidate has no plan to fix Social Security," denounced Senator Clinton for not having a plan for dealing with Social Security's projected shortfall. Those familar with the Social Security projections recognize that this is an irrational obsession of the Post which permeates both its opinion pages and its news reporting. The Congressional Budget Office's projections show that the program can pay all benefits, with no changes whatsoever, through the year 2046, nearly thirty years after the latest date that Senator Clinton could leave the presidency. The projected shortfall over the whole 75-year planning period is 0.4 percent of GDP, approximately 30 percent of the current cost of the war in Iraq (which has been supported from the beginning by the Post). Even this limited shortfall can be substantially reduced by good policies in other areas. If the health care system is fixed so that the share of compensation going to untaxed employer-provided health insurance does not continually rise, it would reduce the projected shortfall by 10 percent. If we adopted trade policies designed to promote equality instead of inequality (freeing trade in highly paid professional services), it could reduce the shortfall by close to 50 percent by bringing a larger share of wage income under the cap for the Social Security tax. When it comes to Social Security, Senator Clinton would be well-advised to focus on real numbers and real issues, and not the whining of the folks at the Washington Post editorial board, who obviously have a deep-seated hostility to the program. This is both good policy and good politics.
--Dean Baker
