Here's one of the many parts of this article that bother me:
Some Republicans in Congress are concerned that too much borrowing would carry large economic and political costs. Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who will be chairman of the Senate Budget Committee next year, said he would support borrowing money for Social Security if it was part of a plan that also included modest benefit cuts and tax increases.Senator Gregg attempts to be a realist, mentioning the possibility of tax increases and benefit cuts. But when he talks about ways for the government to not "technically show an increase in the budget deficit" he becomes a full scale hypocrite.
But he said the additional debt might have to be accounted for on the government's books in a way that would not technically show an increase in the budget deficit in coming years.
"You've got to look at this as a very significant long-term fiscal policy decision where you're going to have a loss in the first 10 to 15 years and a significant move toward solvency in the last 20 to 30 years," Mr. Gregg said. "That mitigates against doing it in the context of a typical budget resolution."
If you plan on pretending there's no immediate deficit via social security borrowing because in essense it's an investment for the future, then how in the world did Senator Gregg support Bush's tax cuts, which were based on a social security surplus that was needed for the future? You follow me?
In other words you can't pretend there's no deficit buildup since the money is really invested in the future, and at the same time you cannot claim there's a surplus of cash if that money is attached to a future payout.
It works both ways, and apparently in his attempt to be a moderate, Senator Gregg wants it both ways. Have some balls, buddy.