To the Editor:
Paul Krugman ("The $600 Billion Man," column, March 15) claims that when I say that every year we do nothing about Social Security's coming insolvency we add $600 billion in unfunded liabilities, I am "helping to spread a lie."
Nonsense. Experts we've consulted at the Social Security Administration have confirmed this estimate.
Everyone knows that Social Security is on a path to insolvency. Every year that we wait to make the program solvent will cost us more.
I know that Mr. Krugman opposes the president's carved-out private savings accounts. So do I. But if we stop there, the victims will be tens of millions of seniors who need Social Security to escape poverty.
As a columnist, Mr. Krugman has the right to just say no. As a lawmaker, I have a responsibility to work with other members of Congress in both parties and with the administration to protect this great program.
And as a Democrat, I feel a special responsibility to preserve one of my party's most effective initiatives ever.
U.S. Senator from Connecticut
Washington, March 16, 2005
Is Lieberman feeling the heat from the many liberals in America to actually defend himself against Krugman? He's smart enough to know that this is an ideological driven issue for President Bush, yet he tries to defend himself with Bush's opening stance "Social Security is in crisis defense" as Krugman states: My guess is that Mr. Lieberman thought he was being centrist and bipartisan, reaching out to Republicans by showing that he shares their concerns. At a time when the Democrats can say, without exaggeration, that their opponents are making a dishonest case for policies that will increase the risks facing families...
Joe, you know the President will not roll over and work with you if private accounts are not part of his solution. He has too much invested in this issue already. I mean with a nice new website and a 60 day rock tour and all.