Are Wall Street liars like Peter Orszag born or made?

[brentspeak]

From this global elite suck-up's piece in the New York Times:

The left, though, seems adamantly opposed to restoring actuarial balance to Social Security now. I have trouble understanding this reluctance for several reasons: the key issue progressives had been concerned about — individual accounts within Social Security — has been definitively won in their favor (for now); they have a president from their party in office, which will not always be the case; acting now would allow changes to take effect more gradually, cushioning the blow; and establishing some credibility on out-year fiscal problems by enacting Social Security reform could open up (admittedly limited) running room to pass necessary additional stimulus legislation in the short run.

Given the left’s strident opposition to any serious discussion of Social Security reform, the issue will provide a key early indicator of the administration’s response to the election results.

Are people like Orszag groomed by their parents at the dinner table to become liars on behalf of the Very Important People? "Remember that your prospects will be determined by how well you can lie and be disingenuous on behalf of the Mr. Goldman Sachs' executive families that we meet down at the country club. Always remember that."

Orszag's B.S. perfectly answered by one of the reader comments:

The fight is not between those who want to do something to increase Social Security solvency and those who don't. It is between those who want to increase solvency through cutting benefits by increasing the retirement age and those who want to increase solvency through increasing revenues by raising the cap on income that is taxed for Social Security--now set at the first $106,000.

Removing the income cap entirely (as is the case with Medicare) and to taxing the non wage property income that provides most of the income for the rich as well, would increase Social Security revenues by over 25 percent--enough not only to insure solvency but also increase benefits. This last advantage of increasing Social Security benefite is all the more necessary given the miserable performance of 401(k) plans.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Why is Obama attacking Social Security?

It's mind blowing - and the blitzkrieg starts in one month.

That response to Orszag's bullcrap was right on. Thanks for sharing!

[Pirate Smile]

2. Orszag is working for the NYT now. He is no longer in the administration.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. But Obama's still attacking Social Security

Orszag would be unhelpful in any capacity.

[Pirate Smile]

4. He is not attacking Social Security.

Stop saying Obama is doing sh#% he isn't doing.

Orzsag is a columnist now. That's it.

[laughingliberal]

5. I believe his opinion on this was the same when Obama hired him as his Director of OMB. nt

[Pirate Smile]

6. So what. And Rahm begged Obama not to go for HCR and, guess what, he did it anyway.

Don't attribute what Orszag says to Obama. Peter is off doing his own thing now.

[laughingliberal]

7. Well, I guess we'll see what the President does when the deficit commission he created presents...

Austerity, American Edition next month.

I'll just bookmark this and we'll take a look, then.

[frazzled]

8. Totally clueless

I'm no huge fan of Peter Orzag, but you are completely clueless in this post.

Peter Orzag has never worked on Wall Street. Ever. He's an economist who got his BA at Princeton and his Ph.D. at the London School of Economics. He was Director of Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution (a nonprofit policy think tank). Under Clinton, he was Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy (1997–1998), and Senior Economist and Senior Adviser on the Council of Economic Advisers (1995–1996). He served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Obama.

Obama's stated position is that we should raise the cap on income taxed for SS. I've heard him say it a dozen times, during the election and only weeks ago. That is his preferred position.

Is there something you don't like about removing the cap on income that is taxed for SS? Right now, millionaires get taxed nothing for SS on anything they make over $110,000. So: "In 2010, the Social Security Wage Base is $106,800 and the Social Security tax rate is 6.20% paid by the employee and 6.20% paid by the employer.<1> A person with $10,000 of gross income will have $620.00 withheld as Social Security tax from his check, with the employer sending an additional $620.00. A person with $110,000 of gross income in 2010 incurs Social Security tax of $6,621.60 (resulting in an effective rate of approximately 6% - the rate is lower because the income is more than the 2010 "wage base", see below), with $6,621.60 paid by the employer. A person earning a million dollars in wages will pay the same $6,621.60 in Social Security tax (resulting in an effective rate of approximately 0.66%), with similar employer matching."

In English: the poorest pay the highest rate, while millionaires pay a lower rate on only a small portion of their income. We could extend the solvency of SS in a nanosecond by raising that cap and taxing the rich more. Done, and done.

Now go stand in the corner.