More Strategery, Redux

Greenspan addressed the elephant in the living room yesterday, calling for cuts in Social Security benefits to address the federal defecit. I expect that to happen right around the time I expect small primates to ascend the heavens from my rectum, but it's the kind of statement that jars a public already dealing with many big issues (on thing about this election, it's definitely going to be about something) My liberal pal at Skeptical Notion is already making "cut taxes for the rich, cut benefits for the elderly" hay out of it. I take his point.


But, as Greenspan said, Social Security is going to start running out of money sooner than we think. The system cannot go on as currently devised. I'm starting to sound like scratched vinyl, but the Democrats have NO PLAN to deal with this (I'm sorry, but "we're gonna lock the money away in a big box" is not a plan). The Republican plan is, keep SS as devised for those already retired or about to do so, and let the rest of us have personal accounts to be invested and managed similar to a 401(k). We can argue about the details of this, but I'm convinced that it's the way to go. Greenspan is merely underlining the reasons why, in language we're likely to notice.


All of which reminds me of a post I made back in August, in which I speculated that Bush's fiscal flamboyance was a means of bringing this issue to a head, "forcing Atlas to shrug," as I put it. The entitlement empire is far and away the biggest drain on our public finances. It's getting bigger and bigger and bigger, year by year. Perhaps now, with even Democrats arguing about fiscal restraint, we can finally do something about it. Strategery? Maybe...