<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>washingtonpost.com - Robert J. Samuelson</title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><description>Robert J. Samuelson</description><language>en-us</language><ttl>15</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Thinking Small on The Budget]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7921-2005Apr21.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7921-2005Apr21.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The Brookings Institution, one of Washington's prestigious think tanks, issued a study the other day on solving the nation's budget problems  --  a study that paradoxically helps explain why we don't fix them. The authors, all prominent policy wonks, would surely protest that they are among the loudest advocates of addressing the budget stalemate. True. But the way they go about it makes the stalemate more, not less, likely to continue.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[The New Economic Warriors]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48139-2005Apr12.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48139-2005Apr12.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  They've gone from heroes to bums. Hardly a day passes when the press or prosecutors don't thrash some corporate CEO for alleged managerial blunders or accounting illegalities. The insurance mogul Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, lately of American International Group Inc., is only the most recent target. Then there are those familiar symbols of scandal: the former bigwigs of Enron and WorldCom. A few years ago American chief executives were celebrated as architects of the New Economy. Now they inspire scorn or rage. What we have is a corporate Watergate, says management consultant John Challenger. It's that  --  and more.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Economic Death Spiral]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28419-2005Apr5.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28419-2005Apr5.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  The great danger of an aging society is that the rising costs of government retirement programs  --  mainly Social Security and Medicare  --  increase taxes or budget deficits so much that they reduce economic growth. This could trigger an economic and political death spiral. Our commitments to pay retirement benefits grow while our capacity to meet them shrinks. Workers and retirees battle over a relatively fixed economic pie. The debate we're not having is how to avoid this dismal future. President Bush's vague Social Security proposal, including "personal accounts," sidesteps the critical issues. His noisiest critics are equally silent.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[A New Era for Oil?]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11311-2005Mar29.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11311-2005Mar29.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ The interesting question about the advent of $50-a-barrel oil is whether it signals a new era in the economics and politics of energy. To sharpen the question: Have we entered a period when, owing to consistently strong demand and chronically scarce supplies, prices have moved permanently higher? We don't know, but the answer could be "yes" for at least one reason: China.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Welfare Junkies]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61696-2005Mar23.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61696-2005Mar23.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  We are a nation of closet welfare junkies, which helps explain why we can't have an honest  debate about Social Security. Social Security and Medicare are our biggest welfare programs, but because Americans regard "welfare" as shameful, we've found other labels for them. We call them "social insurance" or "entitlements." Anything but <em>welfare</em>. Democrats and Republicans alike embrace the deception. No one wants to upset older voters. Well, if you can't call something by its real name, you can't discuss it honestly.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Is the Global Economy Unstable?]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38568-2005Mar15.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38568-2005Mar15.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   One of the big questions of our time is whether the global economy is stable. The gains from "globalization"  --  more cross-border trade, investment and technology transfers  --  are indisputable. Countless millions have escaped poverty in Asia and Europe. A recent study by the Institute for International Economics concluded that American living standards are roughly 10 percent higher as a result of globalization's benefits (cheap imports, greater competition, new technologies). Globalization's winners vastly outnumber its losers.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Welfare vs. Wall St.]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25616-2005Mar10.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25616-2005Mar10.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   Let's suppose Congress approves President Bush's "personal accounts" for Social Security. The Social Security system would then become the largest single investor in U.S. stocks. By 2050 Social Security could hold 25 percent of all stocks, estimate economists at Goldman Sachs. This estimate reflects a modest plan for personal accounts; other proposals would permit bigger stock purchases. Hardly anyone has thought about the economic consequences of concentrating so much stock in the Social Security system. My hunch is that it would turn out to be a huge mistake  --  or worse.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[The Mystery of Low Interest Rates]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64396-2005Mar1.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64396-2005Mar1.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  Something strange happened on the way to higher interest rates: They <em>declined.</em> We're talking about rates on long-term mortgages and bonds. These rates truly affect the economy, because they influence housing and business investment. Most economists expected them to rise. But no. Last June rates on 30-year fixed mortgages averaged 6.29 percent; now they're about 5.7 percent. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently called the declines a "conundrum.'' Equally puzzling is whether the declines guarantee a healthy economy -- or suggest a speculative "credit bubble.'']]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Journalistic Malpractice]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45578-2005Feb22.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45578-2005Feb22.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   It's always necessary to do the math. By this I mean that journalists need to measure politicians' promises against underlying realities, as represented by numbers. But many reporters detest math. This math phobia partly explains why the media did such an abysmal job covering the debate over the Medicare drug benefit -- ignoring the program's long-term costs -- and why they're committing a similar blunder with President Bush's Social Security plan. They're missing the obvious: The plan doesn't address baby boomers' retirement costs.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Lots of Gain And No Pain]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27629-2005Feb15.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27629-2005Feb15.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   You've probably never heard of <em>Flemming v. Nestor</em>, but it's a 1960 Supreme Court decision that demolishes the Bush administration's case for borrowing vast amounts to pay for its proposed "personal" Social Security accounts. The White House has crafted a clever bit of intellectual camouflage to do what's politically convenient: create a new government benefit at no obvious cost. True, borrowing is a cost, but it's largely hidden from the public. It's not as conspicuous as a tax. What we have here is an exercise in mass deception that, in a weird way, is encouraged by a public that prefers to be deceived rather than face the difficult choices posed by Social Security or the government's budget.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Cut My Benefits]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9446-2005Feb8.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9446-2005Feb8.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   I am 59 -- and Congress should cut my future Social Security and Medicare benefits. The same goes for people 58, 48 and even 68. Plenty of present retirees could afford to have their benefits cut. The chances of this happening soon are, of course, about nil. If President Bush and his critics agree on anything in the Social Security debate, it is that existing retirees and "near retirees" shouldn't be touched. This is all about politics. The moral and economic case for shielding these people -- people like me -- is nonexistent.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Competition's Anxious Victory]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55669-2005Feb1.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55669-2005Feb1.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   What do AT&#38;T, the Civil Aeronautics Board, steelworkers and Kmart have in common? Answer: All are victims of competition. Over the past four decades, the U.S. economy has become vastly more competitive. Paradoxically, that has elevated both our prosperity and our anxiety. The result is a broad  transformation of everyday life. In this season of grand pronouncements -- the inaugural address, the State of the Union message -- we need to remind ourselves that many profound economic and social upheavals arrive unannounced.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Sanctioned Silences]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36715-2005Jan25.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36715-2005Jan25.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   Larry Summers -- the economist who was President Bill Clinton's last Treasury secretary and is now Harvard's president -- has a knack for getting into trouble. He did it again the other day by seeming to suggest that inherent differences between men and women might explain why so few women go into science and engineering. Well, the proverbial dung hit the proverbial fan. "Harvard Chief's Comments on Women Assailed," said The Post's headline. That was typical. Actually, the furor Summers provoked is more revealing than anything he said.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Promises by the Numbers]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19408-2005Jan18.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19408-2005Jan18.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   Everyone is going to play numbers games to judge George W. Bush's next economic policies. At the top of the list will be Bush's pledge to cut the budget deficit in half by 2009. Although this promise seems simple, it isn't.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[It's More Than Social Security]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8100-2005Jan13.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8100-2005Jan13.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ <em> "We have a problem, and the problem is America is getting older and that there are fewer people to pay into the system to support a baby boomer generation which is about to retire. Therefore, the question is, does this country have the will to address the problem?"</em>]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[The Trouble With  Fannie Mae]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48621-2005Jan4.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48621-2005Jan4.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   In America we rarely declare "victory" over a problem. Once an issue becomes a target of collective concern, it stays on the political landscape, even if substantial progress occurs. Congressional committees, interest groups, government agencies and journalists all acquire a stake in "attacking" the problem. Everyone embraces the rhetoric of social improvement. A case in point is homeownership -- a widely supported goal that now symbolizes the American Dream.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[The Next Economy]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32610-2004Dec28.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32610-2004Dec28.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   We are  undergoing a profound economic transformation that is barely recognized. This quiet upheaval does not originate in some breathtaking technology but rather in the fading power of forces that have shaped American prosperity for decades and, in some cases, since World War II. As their influence diminishes, the economy will depend increasingly on new patterns of spending and investment that are still only dimly apparent. It is unclear whether these will deliver superior increases in living standards and personal security. What is clear is that the old economic order is passing.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Cautious Capitalists]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18010-2004Dec21.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18010-2004Dec21.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   President Bush called an "economic summit" last week, but of course the economy will do its own thing without necessarily heeding what Bush wants. To those wondering how it will actually behave in 2005, here are a few instructive facts: Since their recent low in late 2001, after-tax corporate profits have surged by more than 70 percent; but business investment -- in new computers, software, machinery and buildings -- has revived only modestly, increasing about 18 percent.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Who Will Say No?]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A134-2004Dec14.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A134-2004Dec14.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  Tommy Thompson announced his resignation the other day as secretary of health and human services and, in the process, gave us a quick tutorial on why we can't  control exploding federal spending for retirement benefits -- the nation's  No. 1 budget problem. We have a generation of politicians, of both parties and of whom Thompson is symbolic, who want to say "yes" to voters: Yes, you can have what you want, and you can have it now. The solution to this problem requires leaders to say "no" to voters: No, you cannot have all the retirement benefits you've been promised or desire, because we can't afford them. Americans reject that message, and our leaders don't dare deliver it.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[The Airbus Showdown]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45509-2004Dec7.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45509-2004Dec7.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert</guid><pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   The United States and Europe are edging toward their biggest trade dispute ever -- and the United States shouldn't blink. The dispute involves competition between Boeing and Airbus, which has toppled Boeing as the world's largest producer of commercial jets. This year Airbus will deliver about 315 jets, compared with Boeing's 285. Some industry analysts expect Airbus to maintain its lead over Boeing until at least 2008. Despite this success, the European Union still supports government subsidies for Airbus. The subsidies must stop, and if the Europeans can't be convinced, Congress should protect Boeing from predatory competition.]]></description><author> Robert J. Samuelson</author></item></channel></rss>
