With regard to the article "Reign of error" (Editor's Desk, May 10-23, 2010, page 3), when is any agency, business or individual accurate to within a reasonable amount when attempting to predict 25 years into the future?
I dare say that not even SourceMedia or its offspring, Accounting Today, would be capable of that feat. And were your dollar amounts both in 1965 dollars, or was the $12 billion in 1965 dollars and the eventual $100-plus-billion 1990 dollars?
While not attempting to defend the Congressional Budget Office, an otherwise non-partisan accounting arm of Congress, I find it incredulous to criticize a good faith effort, given the political nature of the issue. Additionally, do you honestly believe that virtually anyone would risk their Social Security benefit on the vagaries of the market, even given its uncertain recent recovery, as George Bush proposed and to which you condescendingly alluded with a reference to the "... other side of the aisle," thus positioning yourself securely.
You also fail to mention the most obvious funding method, which is to simply raise the ceiling on the taxation of benefits. Perhaps this is your oblique reference to "raise taxes." Maybe we should institute a Social Security user fee and then take credit for not raising taxes, as is the wont with most politicians.
Among other articles from the Editor's Desk, I am disappointed. I would expect a more in-depth and nuanced analysis, even in short form, of a very complex issue. I must begin to wonder how much of this type of opinion finds its way into the reporting. Since your article is positioned front and center, I am forced to believe much.
