Of course, while we?re discussing influential figures, Kinsley is no slouch himself. He?s editorial editor at the Los Angeles Times, and a regular columnist. On March 18, he lit into my employer, The Heritage Foundation, over Social Security.
In a recent paper, Heritage cited a new study proving ?stock market returns are actually higher on average in slower growing economies than they are in rapidly growing ones.? An interesting and provocative fact.
Kinsley took issue with that, sniffing that ?Heritage did not actually conduct this study.? We seem ?to have read about it in the Financial Times,? he wrote, as if that mattered. He then wondered off into academic-sounding weeds, citing figures for GDP, stock values, trillions of dollars, etc.
All of which misses the point.
Even if the economy grows quickly for years to come, which would generate more tax revenue, Social Security benefits are tied to wages. So higher salaries simply mean higher promised benefits in years to come. In other words, we can?t grow our way out of the Social Security shortfall.
Unless, that is, we allow workers to invest some of their Social Security taxes in accounts they would control. This money, invested over decades, would grow in personal accounts. Instead of increasing future liabilities, PRAs would make those liabilities smaller, by creating wealth workers wouldn?t otherwise be able to earn. PRAs would work. Even for those with the lowest salaries.
A columnist?s influence ought to be measured by the quality of his ideas and by the way he expresses them. Maybe we ought to take a month and erase all the names and photos from the op-ed columns in the paper. Let readers judge which columnists are influential and which aren?t. A write-off, of sorts.
Come to think of it, that would be better than quitting the column business. Michael, Maureen -- are you game?