Who is America's worst enemy?

Wouldn't that be the one who killed the most Americans? The one who waged the deadliest war against the US?

And that would be:
a) Al Qaeda and other militant Islamists?
b) Communists?
c) Nazis?
d) Someone else?

Thirty percent of Americans older than 60, and more than half of those between 45 and 60, erroneously believe that Social Security will not have the money to pay them their benefits.

This is according to the Washington Post-ABC poll, which was shamefully misinterpreted by the Post itself. I have debunked the Post's pro-Bush lies in my blog, but the actual poll results are quite interesting and reveal that, despite all the stumbling on the way, most people arrive at the correct decision. Read on...

We liberals are stupid.

We pick the fights where we have weaknesses and we surrender indestructible fortresses without fight.

If there is one issue in the Social Security reform comedy where the reform proponents are unquestionably right, it is that borrowing to finance the transition is nothing but a change in accounting terms. That money has, implicitly, already been borrowed when future benefits were promised without securing revenues of equal value.

If there is one issue where they are so obviously wrong that they can't find a single economist willing to speak for them, it is the idea that investment in markets can create a free lunch, providing more benefits with less taxes and no extra cost for anyone. This is not only ridiculous, but totally inconsistent with every standard, conservative, market-based argument, so it can be beaten to death using conservatives' own weapons. After all, the person credited with the phrase "There is no such thing as free lunch" was none else but Milton Friedman.

Two articles in leading SCLM papers, one yesterday and one today, while generally critical of Social Security private accounts, nevertheless concede the one point that should never be conceded: that equities are less risky in the long run and hence the best investments for pension plans in general. But this is where opponents stand on firm scientific ground and privatization advocates must rely on some kind of economic Creationism.

Bush has not revealed the details of his Social Security plan, but there are already many commentaries analyzing the weaknesses and inconsistencies in the outline known so far. This is a good thing, not just because privatization of Social Security is a bad idea, but also for the sake of principle. Major policy decisions should be publicly and critically debated - the sooner, the better.

However, I cannot resist comparing this activity with the dearth of meaningful criticism of the Administration's claims in the months leading to the war in Iraq. Major media generally bought all Bush's claims at face value then.

Comparing the media reaction to two such different issues makes sense because the strength of Administration's cases is easy to compare - and they are much stronger now then they were then.

There was never any reasonable argument in favor of attacking Iraq. Barring outright evil motives, no one in their right mind could ever have supported this war. Even if one had been so naive as to believe the WMD claims, there were still many missing links to the imminent danger that would justify a preemptive attack. For all the talk that "Bush misled us," everyone who believed him ought to be ashamed; Bush never said anything that, even if his facts had been correct, should have convinced a thinking person that war was necessary.

With Social Security, things are far from that simple. There are legitimate reasons to try to fix the system; something will have to be done in the next 40-50 years. We may disagree about the size of the problem and the best approach, and it may be ridiculous to fix something that far in advance when we normally procrastinate with all other public issues until it is way too late. The shell game of transition costs confuses (and is meant to confuse) everyone who is not an expert, and if the plan were adopted, the rich would keep avoiding taxes and the poor would be stuck with more risks. But the national saving could rise, leading to more wealth for everyone in the long run. The working poor might actually benefit if the stock market performs anywhere close to historical levels. And even the moral maxim that the rich should not screw the poor isn't anywhere near as universally accepted as the maxim that we shouldn't kill people unless it is truly necessary.

I am glad that the mainstream media are critical of Bush's Social Security plan. But, if they have the will and wit to do it now, I wonder why they lacked it when we were rushing into war.