That other stuff wasn't the only nonsense spouted by our economic salesman Brian Wesbury.

And then one last point about that and it is that these systems are in trouble; the Social Security system is under funded by $10 trillion. Taxes have to go up to pay for it or benefits have to be cut to make it work. Something has to be done. And what the president is trying to do is say look, let's not raise taxes. Let's not cut benefits, let's find a third way, a way through this hole that allows people to build ownership, build a stake in the economy, to build a cushion for their future, and so that we don't have to change the system as it exists for those people that are in retirement or very close to it but gives the youth of America a way to build assets, a way to become owners and a way to become more personally responsible in the future.

Can we kill this "personally responsible" incantation? What the hell has it to do with the discussion? Mr. Wesbury is as full of it as those who want to claim the output of pharmaceutical companies' opportunity cost calculations are to be added in when accounting for the cost of developing a new drug…and for the same reason. Right now, Social Security is not in debt. At all.

THE GREENSPAN BAIT-AND-SWITCH:
In 1983, as chairman of the bipartisan Social Security commission, Greenspan said that the way to ensure that Social Security remains on sound financial footing in the future is to make baby boomers pay their benefits in advance. That is why, to this day, people pay more in Social Security taxes than is paid to beneficiaries – 50 percent more in 2004. But, in large part to make up the shortfall caused by the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, this money (more than $1.8 trillion) has been used to finance other aspects of government. In other words, Social Security has been transformed from a retirement program to a regressive income redistribution program. Lower- and middle-class workers are not paying for their retirement benefits in advance, they are paying for tax cuts for those making more than $300,000. For more, read this American Progress column by Harry J. Holzer.

There seems to be a limit to Wesbury's mendacity though. He says you must raise taxes or cut benefits, but BUSH says math doesn't matter. Nowhere does he say he believes Bush's third way exists. And when Mr. Spriggs applies a corrective dose of reality:

WILLIAM SPRIGGS: Well, it is not going to achieve the goal. We've already seen his economic stimulus in place for these four years. We still have fewer people employed today than when he took office and when he gets sworn in in January, we will have fewer people than when he got sworn in, in January four years ago. So the direction in which he has put the tax cuts have not been the stimulus the economy needed, not from the perspective of the American worker. But in the case of Social Security, again, what you see is now the president has created this own problem himself. His tax cuts have made permanent are far bigger than the problem that we face in Social Security. If we just said we are not going to make the tax cut to the top 1 percent of the country permanent, that solves the whole Social Security program as it is currently conceived. You could say you are going to keep the benefits. You are going to keep everything the way it is, just say we are not going to make permanent that top 1 percent, so he has created his own problem. He exacerbates it because if you want to privatize, you are going to take money out of the system, which exacerbates the need to have money put into the system. And many people who talk about privatization of course really don't put together how are you going to not cut benefits if you are not going to raise taxes? It doesn't solve itself simply through privatization. And you can't really privatize the risk of a disability and the insurance program which are integral to the program. And it is a family-based program. It is not an individual program at the moment.

Wesbury's response is basically, "You lost so shut up."

BRIAN WESBURY: Right. Right. Well, I personally think that's a real good idea. Let me go back one step here and just remind Mr. Spriggs that the election is over, the president won. The debate on the tax cut is done. People do not want higher taxes. That's not going to happen. In fact, we are going to be debating making these tax cuts permanent and tax reform in the future.... GWEN IFILL: Excuse me. Were you advocating higher taxes, Mr. Spriggs? WILLIAM SPRIGGS: I was saying that we shouldn't make a tax cut permanent which is not necessarily higher taxes. GWEN IFILL: We don't want to really re-debate that issue. We should get back to legal reform -- BRIAN WESBURY: That's my whole point. It's over.

Notice this statement:

The debate on the tax cut is done.

and this one

In fact, we are going to be debating making these tax cuts permanent and tax reform in the future....

were made without so much as a breath taken in between.