Please follow this sublime bit of reasoning from NYT columnist and economist(!) Paul Krugman:

The administration and its apologists emphasize the fact that under the Bush plan, workers earning higher wages would face cuts, and they talk as if that makes it a plan that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. But the rich wouldn't feel any pain, because people with high incomes don't depend on Social Security benefits.

So let me see if I get this straight...

It's a bad idea to cut benefits for people who don't need them, because it won't hurt them?

This is what passes for intelligent commentary in the New York Times?