The Fantasy Life of a Hack

Yglesias identifies the most obvious problem with the most recent manifestation of Gregg Easterbrook’s mind-blowing idiocy (I think Bush as a proponent of making the tax code less regressive is even more delusional than Bush as an opponent of global warming. It really is a remarkable form of hackdom; defending Bush by inventing virtues not even his other supporters attribute to him, and indeed represent the antithesis of his policies.) I like this part too:

That’s true. But the flip side of this coin is that individuals who are well-off need no government assistance, owing to their private resources. Whether in a new plan or if traditional Social Security is maintained, benefits for the well-off should simply end. It is scandalous that the working poor are taxed in part to hand unneeded money to those retirees who are financially independent. But won’t the wealthy complain about having to contribute to a federal pension system that will never give them anything back? Let ’em complain. The well-off should view supporting Social Security, whatever its form, as a fee they pay for the right to live in a wonderful society. They should pay it gladly, in order to alleviate suffering. 

I think this pretty much sums up Easterbrook’s attempts at political analysis. You’re got the argument that because well-off people should support Social Security, there’s no reason not to turn in into a welfare program. Because, as we know, in the U.S. welfare programs are enormously popular throughout the political spectrum. But, even better, you have a claim that benefits should be eliminated for the wealthywhile failing to mention that the Bush plan he’s attacking Democrats for opposing would increase benefits for the well-off and decrease them for the poor.

Jesus Christ, someone tell Easterbrook to subjects he knows something about, like cheerleaders and Star Trek.