Weiners

OK, I admit, I just am not clever enough today to think up a remotely appropriate title for this post. So it's called weiners. Deal with it.

Will Saletan proposes raising the retirement age. To which even this ultra-liberal blogger responds, WELL DUH...

I mean, let's face it. When I die, my tombstone might read, "Husband, father, tax, and spend." I think that if you want government to do more stuff (and Americans clearly do) and you can't run deficits like we've been forever (for fearing of destroying the national economy) then in general it means people are going to have to pay more. And I respect politicians who tell it like it is.

Regardless, the idea that people are living healthier lives for longer, and are capable of working more years of their life, ought to be kept in mind. The system is meant to assure that the basic needs aging and incapacitated Americans should not have to worry about eating cat food for dinner. You don't have to cut benefits, institute private accounts, juggle numbers, recalculate based on inflation, borrow from Chinese banks, or even raise taxes. All you have to do is preserve the original intent in which FDR instituted the New Deal -- help the people who need it the most.

Some perspective: My grandpa would go on in-town car trips and wind up on the other side of the state a full day later. His wife was medicated almost to a point where she couldn't function. My other grandmother had a boyfriend and it was practically scandalous. And this was only 15-20 years ago.

My parents are fast approaching 65 and there's little resemblence to their parents at the same stage. (Except for their garage. Don't ask.) My dad spends half his day driving around around the state for work. My mother teaches and complains more about increasing bureaucracy than aches and pains. They're both heavy and have smoked most of their lives. I'd love for them to be able to retire at 65 -- but I bet they could both make it to 70 if they had to.

I don't smoke, drink, or do drugs. I eat OK, sleep enough, and exercise. I might gripe along the way, but I'll probably work productively until 75.

What's really amazing about all this is that if you follow Bush's thinking you get to some striking fiscally anti-conservative conclusions. If I walked into a room full of conservatives two years ago and suggested either raising taxes or borrowing heavily so that government could design investment plans, I'd be beaten with only my Big Brother to protect me. But if I warned them that I could opt out but then much of the money would go straight to paying social security benefits of other people, and the system would be sutatined by heavy borrowing from Chinese banks, I'd be skinned alive.

My only saving grace would be if I swore off the whole idea and suggested reducing benefits to freeloaders who don't need it.

If conservatives are so bent on adding a government-run investment component to retirement, why not create something that wouldn't hint at tax hikes down the line? The cynical answer is that the entire plan is a scheme to weaken social security. To Bush, investing -- even where the government picks the investments -- is better than a system of government-guaranteed benefits. If liberals are smart about this, we could push a few provisions to make Bush's system tenable:
-socially-conscious investing: the investing would only be done in firms that promote American values like respect for labor and the environment
-separate the investing and Social Security: set up a progressive benefits system where those who make enough on their state-sponsored investments are not eligible for social security payouts, but all retirees of a certain age are guaranteed a minimum they can exist on.

Who's got more ideas?