Lando 
Posted on 02/09/2005 7:50:03 PM PST by Lando Lincoln
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is a great economist (he was awarded the prestigious John Bates Clark medal), but he'd be a much better polemicist if he knew some important facts about Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
On Tuesday Krugman wrote in his Times column that President Bush's proposal to change Social Security by creating private accounts was an effort to "undermine the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt." He went on to write:
"Moderates and liberals want to preserve the America F.D.R. built. Mr. Bush and the ideological movement he leads, although they may use F.D.R.'s image in ads, want to destroy it."
Last week my colleague Duane Freese pointed out an extraordinary quote he unearthed uttered by the same FDR whose legacy Mr. Krugman claims President Bush and his ideological confreres are trying to destroy. In a memo to Congress in 1935, FDR said:
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." [emphasis added]
That message sounds a lot like what President Bush is proposing today. In his recent State of the Union address, Bush said:
"If you're a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future."
Indeed, one irony of today's Social Security debate is that the conservative Bush is pushing to realize the liberal Roosevelt's vision for "security for our old people" by introducing the idea of "contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations" -- personal accounts.
FDR understood something that has been forgotten by those who oppose structural changes to Social Security. The purpose of smartly conceived government welfare programs should be to empower people to help themselves and to become self-sufficient, not -- as the current Social Security program does -- to make them permanent wards of the state. That's why FDR said "the old-age pension plan… ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." In this sense, FDR was an early architect of what the President now calls "the ownership society."
The structural changes proposed by the Bush administration for Social Security have the goal of self-reliance and self-sufficiency -- just as FDR wanted.
Lando
Shh. Don't tell Krugman.
Ping
Not even MoDo caliber. She's at least funny, albeit not meaning to be.
Well, he caught us. Whenever any two, three, or more of us gather amonst ourselves, all we talk about is undermining the legacy of FDR. ;-)
Krugman claims to be an economist but he is an economic fabulist.
Wouldn't dream of it;o)
A Taxreform bump for you all.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
Ha! I love it. First, he co-opted that tax-cutter JFK, and now FDR's true legacy and vision is being brought to fruition by none other than GWB! Dumb like a FOX!
ever notice that Krugman can't even look a person in the eyes when he is speaking to them.......it is like he is a passive little wimp.....check it out next time
From what I have read, Krugman couldn't pass the ECON 201 class I had in college. (Free markets Dr. Fred Hendon style)
GO BUSH !!!!
Another humor column!!
He probably took econ classes because he knows the vocabulary. Unfortunately he has allowed his natural creativity to seriously affect his economics.
Actually, he is just a liberal who tells us what he thinks we ought to believe to be true rather than reporting and analyzing things as they are.
Great find / post!
I can't stand Krugman and most libs, but I disagree with this. To me, what FDR was talking about in the third item sounds more like a 401(k) than what Dubya is suggesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.