The state of debate on Social Security reform

The predictable Left is getting their nuts in a bunch over this story "Republicans and Democrats endorse major changes to Social Security":

Several of the most powerful members of the House -- Republicans and Democrats -- have recently voiced real support for the idea of raising the retirement age for people middle-aged and younger as part of a larger plan to reduce long-term deficits, inching closer to what not too long ago was the third rail of American politics.

As somebody who has always been on board for raising the retirement age, obviously I think this is a good first step towards reform. Life expectancies are so much longer here in the 21st century and jobs are much less stressful; working to 70 is not the same burden it posed when blacksmiths were still throwing horseshoes. The federal government needs to address the burden of entitlement spending before the baby boomers overwhelm the treasury.

So what kind of response can we expect from reasonable people? WashPost columnist Ruth Marcus demonstrates in her interview with AFL-CIO head-honcho Rich Trumka:

Take, for example, what Trumka calls "the current deficit hysteria" and its cousin, entitlement spending. "We don't have an entitlement problem," Trumka says. "We have a revenue problem." In the world according to Trumka, no benefits need be cut, no retirement ages adjusted. Simply requiring the rich to pay a fairer share would bridge the gap.
I'm all for a more progressive tax code. But consider: The Tax Policy Center examined what it would take to avoid raising taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year while reducing the deficit to 3 percent of the economy by decade's end. The top two rates would have to rise to 72.4 and 76.8 percent, more than double the current level. You don't have to be anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist to think this would be insane.
Or ask Trumka about whether the eligibility age for Social Security, now 62 for partial benefits, should be raised. This former coal miner -- and son and grandson of coal miners -- erupts. His father worked 44 years in the mines, suffering from black lung, "and if you had said to my dad, 'You have to work until you're 63,' that would have been a death sentence." Fair enough. Some people may need special protection.
But, an editor asks, gesturing around the gleaming conference table at the middle-aged assembly, what about those who do not work in such punishing occupations and for whom the current system would provide two, maybe three, decades of benefits? "What's wrong with that?" Trumka asks indignantly. "The rest of the world does that!" Yes, and how are things going in Greece?

Just step away from the crazy man, Ruth. In his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush looked like Nostradamus:

We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements. This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad's favorite people -- me and President Clinton. (Laughter.) This milestone is more than a personal crisis -- (laughter) -- it is a national challenge. The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will present future Congresses with impossible choices -- staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending.
Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security -- (applause) -- yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. (Applause.) And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.

Here are the Democrats applauding how they blocked reform when they could score some political points:



So, as I've written before, just as only Nixon can go to China, only a Democrat can propose Social Security reform. I, for one, would rather that the federal government is honest and tells me truthfully that I'll only receive a portion of my promised benefits if I retire at 65 (76% of benefits after 2037) so I can plan accordingly. We can't keep holding on to this fiscal impossibility and insist on decades of government checks for retirees, paid for by a legion of pressed-upon young Americans.