email from thereisnocrisis.com

1) Making the Bush tax cuts for the elite permanent will cost three to five times more than any shortfall in the Social Security program.



2) If the Republicans are serious about not cutting benefits to seniors, why don't they propose a voting supermajority requirement to cut benefits?



Best,



Matt, Bob, and Josh

www.ThereIsNoCrisis.com



PS.  The first point was inspired by Senator Kennedy on Meet the Press this morning.  Tim Russert has by the way been one of the single worst pundits on this issue.  After parroting the 'There's a crisis' line in December, he's now continuing in the same 'What's YOUR idea for fixing Social Security, wise guy?' line of right-wing framing.  This despite the fact that (a) Bush doesn't have a clear plan for fixing anything (b) All plans Bush has pointed to don't actually have any effect on Social Security solvency but DO require the borrowing of trillions and (c) There is NO crisis with Social Security, and any long-term problems require minor tweaks at the MOST.



PPS. Can someone please ask Tim Russert to actually get the facts on Social Security before going off and saying stupid things like this:



"We have a situation where the number on people in Social Security is going to double. People, rather than spending 15 months, are going to spend 15 years."



This is flat-out wrong.  Infant mortality rates were higher back then, which explains much of the life expectancy gap.



Atrios has it right: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_02_06_atrios_archive.html#110771246275484929



Um, Timmy? No. There's a difference between life expectancy at birth, and life expectancy at 65. According to the folks at the SSA, for the cohort of people who turned 65 in 1945, 53.9% of men and 60.6% of females survived from age 21-65. And, for those made it that long - survived until 65 - on average males lived until they were 77.7 and females lived until they were 79.7.



----------------

There is no crisis





Says it all.