If you read the full article and pursued any of the 4 links Samuelson provided in that article to op-eds written in late 2004 and early 2005, you'll see that he has written on this subject in great depth and passion before. This is the "good" Samuelson -- one of the best writers on economic and political economics out there. And he did give Bush credit for trying to reform Social Security, but he ultimately cast criticism at Bush for the huge entitlement expansion in Medicare which has a worse problem than Social Security. And he was also critical of the President's shielding most Baby Boomers from any potential benefit cut (I'm sure the President viewed that as the only way, politically, that this could be pursued).
I agree: the talking heads and Samuelson should heep most of their disdain on the Dems who never offered to even join the debate. And I don't see enough criticism of Clinton who had the best opportunity to address entitlement reform (this was Clinton's "Bridge to the 21st Century" built by the "cans kicked down the road" for following administrations). I also agree that Bush's private accounts and transition plan is the right way to permanently fix Social Security -- and I wish Samuelson would give Bush some credit for that. But I think he's stuck on the refusal of these political "leaders" to do the responsible thing which is to make the case for benefit cuts for all coming into Social Security benefit season.
I didn't read the whole article because I started to boil after reading what was posted on the thread. Plus, I can't help but be reminded of the dead socialist economist PAUL Samuelson whenever I see this author's name. Anyway, thanks for your kind reply and the additional info.
Regards,
LH