My two-year blogiversary passed last week, but I have been too busy with presentations and travels to acknowledge it sooner. Looking back over that period, I'm most pleased with the blogging I've done about Social Security. These posts lay out what I think is a reasonable way forward on the coming demographic challenges.
I was pleased to read in yesterday's speech that Ben Bernanke recognizes the challenges in the same way, as the need for more savings today, even if he doesn't propose any particular solution. But I've also noticed some other things that are a bit more disturbing about my blogging.
As much as I might like to think otherwise, I am not successful in overcoming my biases. The problem is not so much in what I write about some topics, but which topics I choose to write about. For example, I am only moved to post about something Paul Krugman has written when I disagree with it. It's not that I haven't written accurately about his columns (in my opinion), but that I don't post when I agree with him. For example, in his August 28 column, "Broken Promises," he writes (with respect to the lack of progress one year after Hurricane Katrina):
Apologists for the administration will doubtless claim that blame for the lack of progress rests not with Mr. Bush, but with the inherent inefficiency of government bureaucracies. That's the great thing about being an antigovernment conservative: even when you fail at the task of governing, you can claim vindication for your ideology.
The part I've italicized is the single best description of what's wrong with the current leadership in Washington--the White House and the Congress--that I've read. And it's taken me six weeks to note it formally. That's a problem. To the extent that I continue to blog, I'm going to need to fix it.