Reich was a trustee for the Social Security Trust Fund, by the way. I'll take his opinion over Krugman's any day, especially since Krugman
was singing a different tune 6 months ago, before he became a vocal pro-Clinton/anti-Obama partisan. For those who want to know
about "Krugman -- Then And Now," go to MSNBC's informative report:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/30/490207.aspxHere's what Robert Reich had to say recently about the differences between the Obama and Clinton plans for SS and healthcare:
First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn't need a whole lot to keep it going -- it's in far better shape
than Medicare -- but everyone who's looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund 10 years ago,
and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes
me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it's indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security
obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn't have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent --
maybe to $115,00. That's a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue,
and it's irresponsible: a commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that's what Greenspan's Social Security commission
came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama's plan would "raise taxes" and
her plan wouldn't, she's simply not telling the truth.
I'm equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I've compared the two plans
in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's.
That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help -- including
all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated
auto insurance -- and we're learning from what's happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated -- that mandates
still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can't afford to insure themselves even when they're required to do so. HRC doesn't indicate
how she'd enforce her mandate, and I can't find enough money in HRC's plan to help all those who won't be able to afford to buy it. I'm also
impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O's plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of
catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They're both advances, but O's is the better of the two. HRC has no
grounds for alleging that O's would leave out 15 million people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-lo_b_75191.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
