Shrum's
a Bum
What's the deal with the
post-election editions of "Varnish Remover"? "Varnish" has quickly become one of the least
interesting columns in Slate. I've always admired Bob Shrum in his multiple
incarnations as political handler, pundit, writer, etc. I loved his
deconstruction of the political ads; and he's good--as far as these things can
go--in taking apart "commercial" commercials. But maybe you're not putting the
guy's talents to the best use.
We may
live in a consumer society, and our politics may be thoroughly commodified--but
I just don't care about taking apart these ads. They're pretty transparent to
start with! I hope you keep Shrum on as a contributor to Slate. But maybe
"Varnish Remover" should be removed altogether--at least until the fall of
1998.
--Joshua Micah
Marshall
A Plague
on All Your Houses
The recent dialogue in Slate
between Jon Cohen and Dr. Jerome Groopman, "Is the AIDS Epidemic
Over?" begged the more important question of whether government scientists
are concealing the true nature of the AIDS epidemic--particularly as the Gulf
War Syndrome debacle unravels. The conclusion to be drawn from my nine years of
reporting on the AIDS epidemic for the New York Native is a somber one:
Patients, activists, and uncritical journalists have been led down a tragic
primrose path.
In the last few years,
compelling research has been published about a new, AIDS-related virus named
Human Herpes Virus 6 that suggests this virus may be more important in causing
immune collapse in AIDS than HIV is. Wouldn't it be ironic if Cohen were
"obsessed" with finding a vaccine to protect against the wrong virus, and if
Sullivan is turning himself into a protease-inhibitor toxic waste dump site
with the help of well-meaning clinicians such as Groopman because Cohen failed
to get the AIDS story right?
I suspect
that not only will Human Herpes Virus 6 soon emerge as an extremely important
pathogen, but there will be other surprises related to the AIDS epidemic yet to
come for Sullivan, Cohen, and Groopman.
--Neenyah
Ostrommanaging editor New York Native
From
Shell Game to Pie
I am generally a fan of
Michael Kinsley's, but I must take issue with his recent article, "Social
Security: From Ponzi Scheme to Shell Game." Kinsley fails to address the main
point of the privatization argument: Social Security changes people's behavior.
Most importantly, it reduces the incentive to save for retirement. If Social
Security were changed to a funded scheme, where the payments would be used for
real investment instead of being transferred for current consumption, the
national savings rate would rise. (That is, Social Security taxes would be real
savings instead of merely transfers. It would be equivalent to everyone saving
for themselves.) The higher savings rate would raise the growth rate. The
resulting larger pie could be split up so that everyone, both during and after
the transition, is better off. (For a good exposition of this argument, see
Martin Feldstein's address to the American Economic Association in the May 1996
issue of the American Economic Review .)
Social Security is an
unfunded "pay-as-you-go" system--most of the payments into the system are
transferred to current retirees for current consumption, not "saved" as
government bonds. So, the argument that we would simply have to find new buyers
for government bonds is beside the point in the short run--and irrelevant in
the long run, when Social Security will stop running surpluses.
You can
attack the privatization argument on two main fronts. Maybe the existence of
Social Security doesn't really lower people's retirement savings. Or, maybe
higher savings wouldn't really increase growth. But you cannot attack the
argument for being a shell game. The point is that you are not merely slicing
up the same pie--you are increasing the size of the pie.
--Ed Johnson
None of
Ya Biz-Wax
With regard to Michael
Johnson's "E-Mail to
the Editors," I would like to suggest an addition to the "Slate 60" list: a new
sublist, which could be titled "Top 10 Persons Donating Money Not Their Own,"
and which would, for now, be led by Mr. Johnson himself, who would like to
spend $2 billion of Bill Gates' money.
I am not, however, in a
position to decide whether the odd $5 bill given by Mr. Johnson out of his own
pocket should be lumped with that money belonging to other people that he would
spend--or whether it would entitle him to compete against Bill Gates' $27
million in the Slate 60 rankings.
Mr. Johnson did get one thing
right, though: How other people spend their wealth is none of his business.
My
heartfelt thanks for Slate.
--Felix Kasza
