June 07th, 2009

In the June 1 edition of Newsweek, Robert J. Samuelson wrote about the need to stop procrastinating and reform Social Security and Medicare.  Indeed, many people wonder why it is that we keep kicking the can down the road.

Conveniently, part of the answer came just one week later in the June 8 edition of Newsweek.  I can't find the graphic online, but if you'll turn to page 6 of the magazine, you can see that 57% of all letters to the editor received in the week prior to publication were regarding Samuelson's article.  An article about Iran generated the second-highest number of letters, at 19%.

Of the seven letters that Newsweek printed, how many of them were about Samuelson's article?  Four of the seven, which equates almost exactly to 57%?  Three of the seven, which would underrepresent the Samuelson letters by almost 15%?  Two of the seven letters?  One?

The answer: zero.  That's right, not a single reader response to the Samuelson article appears in the Newsweek dated June 8.

Not only does this shed some light on the stumbling blocks to a serious conversation about reform, but it may also provide a clue as to why publications such as Newsweek are having trouble connecting with their readers. 

In the June 1 edition of Newsweek, Robert J. Samuelson wrote about the need to stop procrastinating and reform Social Security and Medicare.  Indeed, many people wonder why it is that we keep kicking the can down the road.

Conveniently, part of the answer came just one week later in the June 8 edition of Newsweek.  I can't find the graphic online, but if you'll turn to page 6 of the magazine, you can see that 57% of all letters to the editor received in the week prior to publication were regarding Samuelson's article.  An article about Iran generated the second-highest number of letters, at 19%.

Of the seven letters that Newsweek printed, how many of them were about Samuelson's article?  Four of the seven, which equates almost exactly to 57%?  Three of the seven, which would underrepresent the Samuelson letters by almost 15%?  Two of the seven letters?  One?

The answer: zero.  That's right, not a single reader response to the Samuelson article appears in the Newsweek dated June 8.

Not only does this shed some light on the stumbling blocks to a serious conversation about reform, but it may also provide a clue as to why publications such as Newsweek are having trouble connecting with their readers. 

March 27th, 2009

Chuck Blahous, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, talked on PBS about the coming Social Security deficit:

Last year, the program's trustees estimated Social Security would go cash flow negative in 2017. Blahous thinks that date will now change.

BLAHOUS: It's clear that is going to come nearer. We don't know how much, maybe 2016, 2015, it's hard to say.

Here's the transcript.

February 23rd, 2009

On Wednesday, February 19th S4's National Director Ryan Lynch participated in an intergenerational and bipartisan dialogue about America's fiscal climate and policy options for entitlement reform. 

Click Here for Heritage Event Details

On Wednesday, February 19th S4's National Director Ryan Lynch participated in an intergenerational and bipartisan dialogue about America's fiscal climate and policy options for entitlement reform. 

Click Here for Heritage Event Details

January 20th, 2009

Congratulations to President Obama.  One can only hope that the new administration is up to the many challenges that lie ahead, particularly with respect to the economy.  As Obama said today in his inaugural speech, "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age."

Entitlement reform is no doubt one such hard choice, and we have been encouraged thus far by the president's comments about Social Security.  Obama is putting together a fiscal responsibility summit next month and, according to the LA Times, will address entitlements directly after health care.

Still, it is hard to know how seriously to take Obama's intention to reform Social Security.  First, entitlement reform isn't easy.  So while a fiscal responsibility summit may be a good idea, what will be its objective?  Gray-haired experts on entitlements would be happy to gather in a room and discuss reform for a couple days (especially if there are TV cameras), but what good would that do our generation? 

Second, there is a desire on the part of some to wait and see how much change the new president offers.  Though Obama spoke during his campaign about providing substantive change that would prove cynics wrong, some of us are probably reluctant to believe in a new way of politics just yet for fear we will be disappointed.

A new age?  Let's hope so.

Congratulations to President Obama.  One can only hope that the new administration is up to the many challenges that lie ahead, particularly with respect to the economy.  As Obama said today in his inaugural speech, "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age."

Entitlement reform is no doubt one such hard choice, and we have been encouraged thus far by the president's comments about Social Security.  Obama is putting together a fiscal responsibility summit next month and, according to the LA Times, will address entitlements directly after health care.

Still, it is hard to know how seriously to take Obama's intention to reform Social Security.  First, entitlement reform isn't easy.  So while a fiscal responsibility summit may be a good idea, what will be its objective?  Gray-haired experts on entitlements would be happy to gather in a room and discuss reform for a couple days (especially if there are TV cameras), but what good would that do our generation? 

Second, there is a desire on the part of some to wait and see how much change the new president offers.  Though Obama spoke during his campaign about providing substantive change that would prove cynics wrong, some of us are probably reluctant to believe in a new way of politics just yet for fear we will be disappointed.

A new age?  Let's hope so.