That's What I Said!

One of the frustrations of blogging in relative obscurity is that sometimes, after I have blogged about a point of view, or an idea, or a way of looking at a set of facts, the mainstream media comes along and runs an article that takes that very point of view. There's no legal wrong (unless, improbably, someone is actively stealing from my blog), just a sense of "Hey, I wrote about that idea eight months ago! I should be writing for [insert name of publication]?"

In these situations, about the best I can do is hope that my readers (all three of you) will appreciate that we here at Laboville are way ahead of the curve. You may now commence basking in smug self-righteousness that you are on the "bleeding edge", as they say.

The latest example of this comes courtesy of Slate Magazine, which has an article about how to accurately compare the war in Iraq with the war in Vietnam. [link] The gist of the article is that advances in medical technology, war-making technology, and the strategy by which we wage war have all improved since Vietnam, so that a straight comparison of casualties and killed-in-action is misleading. To accurately assess the burden on soldiers in Iraq relative to Vietnam, some adjustment is necessary in order to account for those changes. And, not surprisingly, the adjusted statistics are grim and possibly getting worse.

Here's what Slate had to say:

Economists like to quote statistics in "constant dollars," where they factor in historical inflation rates to produce statistics that allow for side-by-side comparison. Warfare is more complex than macroeconomics, but it is possible to produce a similar "apples to apples" comparison for casualties across conflicts. In a recent article for the New England Journal of Medicine, Atul Gawande (a former Slate contributor) concluded that improvements to military medicine since Vietnam have dramatically reduced the rate at which U.S. troops die of wounds sustained in combat.

. . .

Simply, a soldier was nearly 1.5 times more likely to die from his wounds in Vietnam than in Iraq today.

And here's what we had to say in Laboville on March 11, 2004, in a piece entitled "Statistics for People Who Do Like to Think":

These changes in both warfare and medicine got to me to thinking -- what is the relevant comparison when comparing casualties of war? In economics, when prices are compared across a long period of time, the comparisons are often made in "constant dollars" or by using a benchmark currency value (e.g., "in 1980 dollars"). Wouldn't it also be relevant to account for changes over time when talking about the effects of war?

. . .

For example, based on the statistics cited by CBS, we could assume that if we had fought the Vietnam War using todays tactics and technology, the ratio of injured to killed would have been 6:1 instead of 4:1. In other words, we could calculate that 1 out of 3 soldiers who died in Vietnam then might have survived today. Thus, instead of 55,000 dead, the number might have been closer to 36,000 dead.

Conversely, one would need to multiply the number of killed in action in Iraq by 1.5 (6 divided by 4), which would bring us to approximately 840 combat deaths, in constant numbers.

This is not a subject in which I want to gloat about being right. More appropriately, I am glad to know that my initial hunch has been borne out by research, since that suggests that the mainstream media back in March (when CBS ran the numbers that my post was based on) was actually doing some constructive reporting. Nevertheless, I'm saddened that the research was necessary in the first place.

Update -- here is the link to the New England Journal of Medicine article on casualty statistics in Iraq. [link]

Securing Social Security

On the subject of social security, the Democrats, if history is any guide, will take an issue in which they represent the views of the majority of Americans and lose. Paul Krugman, Joshua Micah Marshall and others are trying to stiffen their resolve, but I think that the subject needs to be made even simpler for some Democrats to get it. Therefore, I offer these talking points:

1. Social Security is not about to run out of money

Today's retirees receive their benefits from today's workers. When today's workers retire, their benefits will be paid for by the next generation of workers. Unless tomorrow's workers stop working, Social Security will continue to have funds to pay benefits indefinitely.

2. Social Security is collecting more than it spends

In the 1980s, Social Security reforms were enacted that ensure that the program is taking in more than it spends. It is true that as the Baby Boomers retire, the number of workers for each retiree will drop from three to one to two to one. But don't worry, that's why we're collecting more money now, while the boomers are still working.

3. Social Security is not an investment program, it's insurance

Before Social Security, people who hadn't saved money for their retirement became poor. Very quickly. And since most people couldn't afford to save much for their retirement while they were working, elderly poor were a common sight. Social Security ensures that everyone who works will receive something each month. Sure, it's not much, but it's more than nothing, and that's the point.

4. The point of Social Security is security

I enjoy gambling, and occasionally even make some money at it (not much, but some), but I would never take the mortgage money to the casino. Social Security is the mortgage money -- no matter how smart you are, or how lucky you are, at the end of the day, you can count on Social Security when you retire. Under their system, remember, markets will still go down, and if they're down when you retire, you lose.

5. Democrats believe that markets are a good thing

Markets are good places to make money. Democrats like making money as much as the next person, and more importantly, we have as much of a stake in the markets (stock and bond) as everybody else. Democrats, just like Republicans, invest in mutual funds and 401ks and individual stocks and bonds. Union pension funds (the ones that are supposedly biased against Republicans) invest in the markets. Big public projects (the kind that Democrats are supposed to be madly in love with) are often financed by bonds, which are sold in the bond markets. The bottom line is that Democrats can oppose changing Social Security and still believe in the markets.

6. Democrats like Wall Street

If Social Security becomes an investment program, Wall Street will make a lot of money. That's not why we object to changing it -- we object because changing Social Security is a bad idea. If Social Security change becomes a reality, we'll have bigger problems than Wall Street making some money in the process.

7. Deficits are the single biggest threat to the future of Social Security

This requires a little logic, so stick with me. If you'll recall, Social Security is collecting more money than it needs right now. That's the so-called "surplus". To cover its non-Social Security debts, however, the government has been taking the cash out of the surplus and replacing it with huge IOUs. When those IOUs come due, the government will have two choices: it can borrow the money necessary to put cash back into Social Security, or it can severely cut lots of non-Social Security programs to free up cash. The latter is obviously bad. But the former is bad, too, since when the government borrows massive amounts of money, the law of supply and demand says that interest rates (the cost of borrowing all that money) go way up. What's more, much of the borrowed money comes from outside the country. If countries like China, Japan, and the European nations don't think we're a good credit risk (say, because we continue to run huge deficits), they will demand even higher interest rates.

8. Hope is not a strategy

Republicans say that we won't need to borrow money or cut non-Social Security spending because the economy will be vastly improved by the time that the Social Security IOUs come due. That is, of course, that there are no recessions in the future, and no wars, and no other national emergencies that may require funding. What's more, the projections that they rely on today to make their statement are chock-full of assumptions, hedges, and estimates that can be proven wrong today. Let one example stand in for the rest: When the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that deficits will be eliminated by 2012, that CBO is required by law to assume that the President's 2001 tax cuts will expire in 2010. But as we all know, the President is pushing to make those tax cuts permanent. 'Nuff said.

9. The President's plan just doesn't work

You don't need to understand Social Security all that deeply to see this one: The President wants to allow each of us to divert some portion of our FICA taxes to private investment funds. But remember, our FICA taxes are supporting current retirees. If we divert some of our FICA funds to private investment funds, the benefits for current retirees would have to be cut, or we would have to borrow massive amounts of money right now to keep their benefits the same.

10. It's not "privatization". It's ending Social Security

Don't mince words on this one. What the Republicans want is not to "privatize" Social Security -- what they want is to end it, but politically, you can't just come out and say that, so they call it "privatization". But there's nothing to "privatize" -- if you change Social Security from retirement insurance to a bet on the markets, one of the most successful social welfare programs this country has ever seen is dead. Here's another thing they don't say publically: The Republicans who are driving this (which is not all Republicans, mind you) hate Social Security because they're greedy and are offended by the assumption inherent in Social Security that each of us is our brother's keeper. Their motives are, frankly, selfish and deeply un-Christian. But if the Republicans want to play on the field of "Christian values," then, as the President is fond of saying, "Bring it on!"

Those are the talking points. But I also have two tips for Democrats to avoid another political disaster. Here goes:

1. The P.R. war is the only battle we can win

Forget the legislative arena -- the Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate, so some proposal will get passed if that's what they want. We need to change the tenor of the debate. It's not "Social Security reform", it's "Killing Social Security". It's not "privatization", it's "the Republicans want to take Grandma's food". It's about slogans, and catch-phrases and ten word answers like the ones that I've laid out here. Yes, there's a lot of substance that is being glossed over, but you have to hook the fish before you can reel it in. And if the Republicans accuse Democrats of fearmongering, look squarely into the camera, smile reassuringly, and say that the Republicans are acting like Chicken Little. The point to get across, every time you open your mouth, is that the sky isn't falling.

2. We must all hang together or we will surely hang separately

This isn't so much about Social Security as it is about politics. The Democrats have got to stand together on this, with no exceptions. What the Republicans need is a handful of turncoat Democrats who wil make this a "bipartisan bill". Don't give in to the temptation. Without any Democrats to provide cover, the political price of "reforming" Social Security to the Republican Party goes way up, and that price could embolden moderate Republicans to oppose the President. Remember, the Republicans have solid majorities in both the House and the Senate, so they're going to pass the President proposal if they want to. Why make it easy for them?