My Home About Me

My post earlier this week on Social Security reform has generated some sharp response from both sides of the reform community. Not unexpectedly, allies of Peter Ferrara, whom I disparaged as acting unconstructively, have responded angrily and, well, unconstructively. In this blog posting, Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation, which sponsors Ferrara's work, uses sleaze tactics to discredit me. He quotes me out of context as having say "Ferrara's claims are basically lies" without so much as an ellipsis, when in fact, I said, "Based on my conversations with White House sources, Ferrara's claims are basically lies." There's all the difference in the world between my full sentence and the fragment Giovanetti isolated -- and Giovanetti says not a word to actually support the truthfulness of Ferrara's statements in question against my representations to the contrary based on sources. And he tries to portray me as a hypocrite by citing highly favorable things I wrote three years ago about an earlier version of Ferrara's plan. Fair enough: at one point I agreed with Ferrara. But now I don't. And in my recent post I gave my reasons, which Giovanetti doesn't dispute one bit. I feel it supports my basic point about Ferrara's unconstructive approach that Giovanetti would respond in such an unconstructive way -- an attack, rather than a response.

James Hamilton of For Our Grandchildren gets it right when he admonishes Ferrara:

Luskin rightly notes that Ferrara's "lies" only help provide a wedge that opponents can use against us...

Come on, Peter. Play nice.

The oppoonents of reform must be getting a good laugh at our expense.

Amateur Investors   assets   bailout   bottom   capitulation   climactic   credit crunch   Currency ETFs   day trading   Deron Wagner   DJIA chart   Dow 1929 Crash   economic data   Emini's Nas 100   emini's S&P 500   emini's S&P 500e   ETFs (exchange trade funds)   ETFs (exchange traded funds)   inflation   International ETFs