Paul "Line 47" Krugman continues his defense of the Social Security system with another column in today's New York Times. First, I'd like to say that I'm offended that Krugman would quote Monty Python. There are some people who should just be barred from quoting the great (mainly) British comedy troupe, and Krugman is one of them. Actually, Krugman's knowledge of Python may be his only redeeming attribute.

Second, after months of atrophy, my comment feature finally got some use, thanks to my last piece on Krugman. I would like to thank each person who commented, even those who took me to task, because they cared enough to make an effort to have their voice heard -- even if they were wrong.

I'm not going to do this every time I get critical feedback, but I thought it would be good for practice.

"Vital Information" (Vital) characterized my post as "crap." Well, it's not the first time I've been told I'm full of crap. Won't be the last. Vital is obviously a fan of Krugman's, to each their own, but when he (I'm assuming it's a he...could be a she...maybe ought to put a courtesy title in front of Vital) criticized me he didn't read my piece very carefully, nor did he apparently read Krugman's closely.

You compare what Brock wrote about to the Pickering nomination fight and campaign finance reform. Well, do you believe that nomination fights are an exclusively "liberal" issue. Do you have any sense of why there are so many court vacancies now? And campaign finance, another commentor already showed what a non-issue that is.

Actually, I don't know that Brock wrote anything about the Pickering nomination. My first reference to Pickering had to do with Krugman's statement that: "Modern political economy teaches us that small, well-organized groups often prevail over the broader public interest." The NAACP and People for the American Way are two such groups on the left, who were heavily involved in fighting the Pickering nomination.

To answer the other questions, no I don't believe that nomination fights are exclusively "liberal" issues. Vital and a few others missed the forest for the trees when it came to my column. I'll try to make it clear here. My main point is/was, that there are scandal machines on both sides. People on both sides practice the politics of personal destruction. Republicans aren't pure as driven snow. Neither are Democrats. Krugman's contention throughout his column, at the prompting of David Brock's book, was that only Republicans do it. That's false on its face to all except the fanatics on both sides.

Do I know why there are so many court vacancies now? Yep. Because Republicans did the same thing that Democrats are now. You still don't get it...let me say it again: Both sides are guilty. One thing to note however, it is common for judicial nominations to be held up in the final year of a two-term president's term. The reason why is obvious, the hope that the presidency will change hands. Bush, in the spirit of bipartisanship, renominated several Clinton nominees that hadn't gotten a hearing. That is very uncommon.

You want to equate Ted Turner with Richard Mellon Scafe. Where is the evidence that Turner financed the same scandal mongering and blatent lies? Just show me?

You're right. The comparison isn't the greatest. I picked on Ted Turner because of some of the anti-Christian statements he's made and his sponsoring of left-leaning programs on CNN, most notably the environmental ones. Turner wasn't my first choice for the comparison. My first choice so sickened me, and it was such a low blow, that I was dissuaded from using it. I'm not dissuaded any more. I would compare Scaife to....Larry Flynt. Remember? The Hustler magazine publisher offered $1 million to anyone who would come forward with information on the sexual peccadillos of Republicans.

You bring up Gingrich, Livingston, Hyde, Iran-Contra. What were the lies here. It has nothing to do with "both sides", it has to do with lying. Why, for instance, did Livingston resign?

So, Democrats always tell the truth and Republicans always lie? Vital can't honestly believe that. Each of those names is evidence that Republicans are victims of a scandal machine on the left. Gingrich and Livingston both resigned because they'd had extramarital affairs. Hyde too had a "youthful indiscretion" at the age of 40-something. As far as the Iran-Contra lies and dirty politics, does Vital recall the timing of the reindictment of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger? Could it have been Oct. 30, 1992, just days before the election? At the same time, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh leaked an utter falsehood that George H. W. Bush lied when he said he was "out of the loop" on Iran-Contra. There's the lie. And there's dirty politics at its worst. Note that the various Whitewater independent counsels specifically avoided releasing any information or making indictments close to any elections.

You say that Krugman did not disclose his Enron payments? Are you not familiar with the record. Would you like the exact dates of his disclosures?

Exactly. Yes, I'm familiar with the record. At Krugman's unofficial "fan site," he has a letter on his Enron connection, and a lamely-formatted copy of his Forbes magazine article. In that article he reveals he "recently when I joined the advisory board at Enron--a company formed in the '80s by the merger of two pipeline operators."

First, there's no mention of a payment in that short statement, and there's certainly no mention of $50,000. Part of it may be my unfamiliarity with the way these big corporations work, but I wouldn't take from his statement that he'd been paid such a large sum of money. I mean, it's an advisory board. That sounds like you show up at a couple of meetings, tell them what you think and they pay for your airfare, buy you lunch and maybe give you a small stipend. To everyone except the lucky few, $50,000 is not chump change.

Also on his fan site, he states that "I wrote about the company (rather favorably) for Fortune, back in May 1999, and again the first time I wrote about the company (in a highly critical article) for the New York Times, which I did in January 2001."

On January 24, 2001, in piece called "Power and Profits" Krugman did reveal that: "Full disclosure: Before this newspaper's conflict-of-interest rules required me to resign, I served on an Enron advisory board that turns out to have been a hatchery for future Bush administration officials."

Well, sorry, but that's not full disclosure. I don't think it's full disclosure unless there's a dollar sign there. We don't let public officials just list who gave them money and not the amount, that's part of being able to hold people accountable. The same requirement should extend to columnists like Krugman too. If someone can point me to some column or article that Krugman wrote where he gives the dollar amount, I'd really appreciate it. But I looked pretty hard and I couldn't find it.

Finally, Vital says: "The right HAS to go after Krugman, because he is the best there is!" Well, if Krugman's the best there is, I'd be really depressed. I mean, there's got to be better liberal thinkers out there, somewhere.

Ted Barlow makes some some better points in his comment. Barlow recites some of Krugman's curriculum vitae and then challenges me: "So you want to accuse him of having a miniscule mind based on... disagreeing with you? Reading a book you don't like?" No, I'm accusing him of having a miniscule mind based on him taking as fact anything said by an admitted liar. I wouldn't believe David Brock if he told me the sun rose in the East. I'm also of accusing him of having a miniscule mind based on the fact that he is apparently so enraptured by his own ideology that he is blind to its faults. That is a small-minded person, no matter how intellectually brilliant they are.

My point on Whitewater was the timing and the most outlandish claims about that scandal. The major media, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post trailed behind the David Brocks and their right-wing scandal magazines on the reporting of Whitewater. Why? Because, for the most part, the major media try to be responsible when it comes to that sort of thing. The majority of people weren't getting their Whitewater news from "The American Spectator" or "The Weekly Standard." When inaccurate and untrue information about Whitewater appeared in those conservative outlets, the major media would correct and debunk them.

I was trying to point out that the vast majority of Americans are not subscribers to, or even aware of, those conservative magazines. As far as Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan go, yes, they should have disclosed their Enron relationships, including the dollar amount. Unfortunately, I don't think their writing is as inane as Krugman's, so I generally spend less time on them.

Finally, Brian Molde asks me to a question: "But could you please explain how campaign-finance reform is the result of a Democratic small-interest group? McCain (a Republican) has been the ringleader for reform for seven years." Well, the special-interest group that was mostly behind campaign finance reform was Common Cause. It's also not unheard of for politicians to cross over ideological lines when they think that there is some benefit to it. For example, how many Republicans are there that speak about the power of free markets and then go and vote for a pork-laden farm bill with subsidies in it? How about Democrats who vow to fight for the American worker and unions, but then turn around and oppose the unions when they want drilling in ANWR.

As Molde continues, however, he starts to get his facts wrong.

Further, you entirely miss the point Krugman makes regarding the "scandal machine." The scandals you mention were not dug out of the trash of those people - Livingston, Gingrich, and especially Iran-Contra were conducted by government entities concerned with the actual violation of ethical rules or, in the case of Iran-Contra, the violation of Federal Law. These examples are not nearly the equivalent of a privately-financed investigation into the distant past of the politician in question.

Actually, the Livingston and Gingrich scandals were dug out of the trash. They were extramarital affairs, not ethics or government investigations, and they both resigned. As far as the politicization of Iran-Contra, refer above to the timing of the Caspar Weinberger reindictment.

Finally Molde resorts to ad hominem attacks: " If YOU want to maintain any of your self-appointed journalistic integrity, you'll pay more attention to the facts when you try to excoriate someone. but then, its what I've come to expect from the vast right-wing conspirators like yourself. "

I answered your questions, and supported my arguments. Your statements about Livingston and Gingrich were demonstrably false. Mr. Molde, good luck to you, but you should check your facts first.

Getting back to Krugman's article today, Krugman claims that there's no crisis and that Social Security is fine.

The introductory summary � which, unlike the report itself, is mainly a political document � does its best to make the worst of a good situation. But the bottom line is that the long-run sustainability of Social Security looks better than ever. The staff of the Social Security Administration, using conservative assumptions, now says that the system could operate without any changes at all � no cuts in benefits, no additional revenue � until 2041, three years longer than it projected last year.

Well, 2041 may be good enough for Krugman, he probably won't live that long. Unfortunately, there's a good chance I will. I explained earlier why Social Security is broken. Basically it's a demographics problem, unless people start having more kids, we won't have enough workers to pay the benefits, and I think the crunch will actually come before 2041, as Krugman suggested earlier.

In a column just last December, Krugman gave a different year for when we start to get in trouble.

The Bush administration's commission on Social Security reform issued its latest report last week, just as Enron entered its death throes. Most of the criticism of that commission's work, my own included, has focused on its, yes, Enron-like accounting: items seem to migrate onto or off the balance sheet to suit the commission's convenience. Thus when the Social Security system takes in more money than it pays out, as it does at present, this has no significance � the federal budget is unified, you see, so it doesn't mean anything when one particular piece of it is in surplus. But in 2016, when the Social Security system starts to pay out more than it takes in, there will be a crisis � Social Security, you see, must stand on its own.

The 2041 date includes all of the money that Social Security now holds in IOUs from the government, in the form of government bonds. As I mention in my earlier post, those IOUs are going to have to be repaid in the form of lowered benefits or higher taxes or cuts in other programs, starting in 2016, not 2041.