National Review idiocy
The magazine that appears to have no quality control. I have not been following the debate over privatizing social-security in the US, am not familiar with the terms of reference, etc. But even I could tell the National Review is making this upDoing this may have toned down that big, bad $10.4 trillion number by setting it against a big, good $295.5 trillion number. But this is misleading, too, in its own way. If payrolls are $295.5 trillion and the deficit is $10.4 trillion, that means Social Security’s anticipated payments to the infinite-horizon must, by definition, be $305.9 trillion — which is a really big, bad number. But we didn’t hear any panels or committees or FactCheck.org demanding that number be shown. No, the public must only be shown good numbers.
In case you didn't spot it, if payrolls are $295.5 trillion, and the deficit (in social security) is $10.4 trillion, then that means the anticipated payments are $10.4 trillion plus the average % tax on $295.5 trillion. This number is around 14% of that National Review's number (it is 15% of the $295.5). So was it a deliberate mistake, or just stupidty? Bizarrely the author, called Donald Luskin, claims to run an investment fund.
posted by Matthew @ 1/25/2005 05:29:00 PM
Comments: 0
