March 04, 2004, 9:28 a.m.
The English Patient
The incurable Paul Krugman has a language all his own.

After all this time I've finally figured out exactly what's so difficult about reading Paul Krugman. It's not just that the New York Times columns by America's most dangerous liberal pundit are a parade of lies, errors, distortions, misquotations, exaggerations, and bias. No, the problem is that Paul Krugman doesn't write in English like the rest of us. He writes in Evasion English.

So if you want to figure out what Krugman's really saying, you're wasting your time with Webster's. You need The Evasion English Dictionary by Maggie Balistreri. A simple example? In Evasion English, "but" means "because," as in:

"I'm not doing very well at work but I don't care."

Another example. In Evasion English, "think" means "know," as in:

"We give each student a prize and praise their individual successes. We don't want young people to think they're in competition with each other."

So now that we understand the language, let's read Krugman's Tuesday column and see what he's really talking about. In this column, Krugman berates Alan Greenspan for suggesting that Social Security benefits should be reduced, and that President Bush's tax cuts should be made permanent. Krugman says of Greenspan: "He should have understood that the peculiarity of his position ... carries with it an obligation to stand above the fray. By using his office to promote a partisan agenda, he has betrayed ... the nation."

In Evasion English, "stand above the fray" means "agree with me." In Evasion English, "partisan" means "Republican." And "the nation" means "Democrats."

Krugman blames Greenspan for enabling today's federal deficits, saying, "Three years ago Mr. Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes" and now "he opposes any effort to restore recent revenue losses."

In Evasion English, "urged" means "took a position I disagreed with." And "any effort" means "raising taxes" — because it is not to even be considered that keeping taxes low might be a valid supply-side revenue-raising strategy.

Krugman is irked at Greenspan's suggestion to cut Social Security benefits, arguing that the Social Security crisis is "nonexistent." He argues that "the program is fully financed at least through 2042."

In Evasion English, "nonexistent" means "existent," and "fully financed" means "$4.9 trillion in the hole." That's the difference between the present values of projected income and expenses, according to the 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government, just released by the Treasury Department.

Krugman goes on to suggest that whatever problems Social Security may have, they are swamped by Bush's tax cuts: "The cost of securing the program's future for many decades after that would be modest — a small fraction of the revenue that will be lost if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent."

In Evasion English, "modest" means "soak the rich — they can afford it." And "a small fraction" means "more than 100 percent." At least that's what Krugman believed last March, when it served his purposes at the moment to take a position on Social Security precisely opposite to the one he's taking now. Then he wrote that "because of the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare," even "[w]ithout the Bush tax cuts, it would have been difficult to cope with the fiscal implications of an aging population."

Krugman connects Social Security to Bush's tax cuts (even though only "a small fraction" of them would be required to finance the "fully financed" system), because he doesn't like the way Social Security is financed today: "The payroll tax is regressive: it falls much more heavily on middle- and lower-income families than it does on the rich."

In Evasion English, "regressive" means "fair." And "much more heavily" means "proportionately." Payroll taxes are scaled to wages and capped — just as are Social Security benefits.

My own objection to Greenspan's statements on Social Security is that he seems to be overlooking chances for genuine reform that could keep benefits intact without raising taxes. But Krugman has anticipated this objection, with a flurry of Evasion English:

We might add that ideologues on the right have never given up on their hope of doing away with Social Security altogether. If Mr. Bush wins in November, we can be sure that they will move forward on privatization — the creation of personal retirement accounts. These will be sold as a way to "save" Social Security ... but will, in fact, undermine its finances. And that, of course, is the point.

In Evasion English, "ideologues" means "people who have different views from mine." In Evasion English, "doing away with" means "ending government's monopoly over." In Evasion English, "in fact" means "not." And "of course" means "I realize this is a desperately paranoid conspiracy theory."

Oh, and best of all: In Evasion English, "if" means "when."

— Donald Luskin is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC, an independent economics and investment-research firm. He welcomes your comments at don@trendmacro.com.