Yes, of course they edited it but in the end I gave my approval or nothing would have been in. Here is the original:
Dear Sir,
How curious it is that the New York Times continues to run serial rants replete with inaccuracies and invective by Paul Krugman against Social Security reform and those who advocate individual accounts while only rarely allowing reformers a say on the op-ed page. What is the New York Times afraid of – a debate?
The Cato Institute certainly isn’t. That is why Michael Tanner, the director of the institute’s Project on Social Security Choice, accepted with alacrity the offer to debate Mr. Krugman on March 15 at an event hosted by the New York Society for Ethical Culture.There Mr. Tanner will explain why Mr. Krugman is talking through his hat when he claims that Cato is unprepared to explain transition costs or how the reformed system would work. Mr. Krugman has need of the lesson because apparently he has neglected to read more than 20 years of detailed scholarship on the subject undertaken by Cato scholars.
I suppose Mr. Krugman’s neglect is hardly surprising since he seems oblivious of what is reported in the news pages of his own newspaper
The merits of individual accounts are indisputable and the intellectual argument for reform is compelling. That is unless, of course, you agree with Mr. Krugman that it is sensible to push payroll taxes ever higher, deprive Americans of better returns on their retirement savings and refuse to accept the principle that people have the right of ownership over what they pay into Social Security.
In his rant published on February 25 he sought to link Cato to a bigoted commercial put out by the USA Next group that in his words, accuses AARP, the anti-reform seniors organization, of being an “anti-solider, pro-gay marriage leftist front.” The day before Mr. Krugman’s column ran Mr. Tanner was quoted in the New York Times condemning the ad.
Social Security reform with individual accounts has great appeal for minorities and gays and women – indeed for all Americans. The debate over Social Security choice presents a great opportunity for political bridge-building and for gays and ethnic minorities to feel included in the national discussion. Those who seek to engage in the destructive politics of division, including Mr. Krugman, are doing a great disservice to the nation.
Jamie Dettmer
Director of Communications
Cato Institute
Washington DC.