In general, I think blogging has been a boon to Mickey Kaus, because it suits his personality. His mind is so quick and smart that when faced with longer projects, it tends to get jammed by an endless loop of self-criticism. But he is indeed one of contemporary liberalism’s deepest and smartest thinkers, and if you haven’t read his masterpiece, “The End of Equality,” you really should. It was prophetic and brilliant and its construction nearly drove him and everyone else at The New Republic into a loony bin. For a refresher on just how good he is as a policy journalist, check out this piece on social security reform. It even woke the beagle up. The first point I most agreed with is that means-testing social security doesn’t turn it into a welfare program because it’s still related to work: if you don’t work, you don’t get retirement benefits. The second point is his eye-opening reference to the Australian system, where
the top quarter of recipients gets no benefits at all. Zero. The bottom half gets full benefits. The people in between get in between. Now that’s a means test! Not coincidentally, after means-testing was introduced in the 1980s, Australia’s pension system cost a little more than half what ours costs, in terms of GDP.
Mickey urges inaction by the Dems for all sorts of Kaus-like reasons (so clever they give you a head-ache). What I like is the fact that an Aussie-style scheme really does save us real money – at a time when Bush is bankrupting the country. To my mind – regardless of FDR’s own rationale – the point of social security is security. If you really need to be supported in your dotage (I have a feeling I’ll be checking out much sooner), you can feel secure. But if you’ve done well, and don’t need the benefits, why not let others have them? Isn’t that the entire principle of insurance? Think of payroll taxes as premiums. Mickey wants to save up the money for universal healthcare. I’d prefer keeping taxes low. Politically, I think it would be a master-stroke for today’s GOP to out-progressive the Democrats on this, and combine lower, flatter taxes with a strongly progressive pension system. Bush’s endorsement of Pozen is a start. But he should be more radical and more “compassionate:” out-flank the Dems on the left and shrink the state for the right.
The Dish 