BUMPED & UPDATED: Lindsey, Social Security and Sacred Cows



FYI:  Lindsey has just returned from yet another Reserve activation in Afghanistan.  The next time you criticize him, you might want to thank him for his service to our country.

“...GRAHAM: I would give anything if the United States Congress for one month could act in accordance with the way our men and women are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We know what to do on Social Security. I’ve put on the table adjusting the age from 67 to 69. There’s an ad running in South Carolina right now from some group on the left with a 59-year-old librarian saying I’m ruining her life. Well let me tell you, under the proposal, changes don’t affect you if you’re over 55. So I’m a reasonable guy. But how the heck can we save this country from bankruptcy if we don’t reform entitlements? …You will never convince me that that is hard sell if we wanted to sell it. So what the president said last night — “I’m willing to work with you but you can’t affect anybody’s benefits” — that’s telling me he’s planning a 2012 campaign not a 2011 governing session.

So I’m going to offer to the president and to Rand Paul, which is a wide spectrum of people, an opportunity to make a small down payment on entitlement reform by introducing legislation soon that would adjust the age the way Reagan and O’Neill did — 67 to 69 — over decades and a reasonable means test on benefits as a down payment to getting our entitlement house in order. And they can run all the commercials they want. It does not matter…I know what I need to do to help my country. And these young men and women know what they need to do in Iraq to make us safe….”

Before you decide to take out Lindsey, Tom Coburn is dabbling with a similar idea.

“…“Well, I think the easy solution is slowly raise the age of retirement as our life expectancy has gone up,” Coburn said. “That’s what we have done in the past, help those that are the poorest that Social Security really doesn’t supplement now. One of the things the debt commission did was when you’re 85 or 87 and starting to run out of your funds, give a little bump there, change the bend curves in it to where the wealthiest receive a little bit less than what they would have. We can do all those things without raising taxes on anybody and make Social Security solvent for 125 years.”…”


Lindsey has dared to touch the sacred cow – social security – and had dared to suggest the age be raised. The Pink Flamingo doesn’t think he went far enough. I think people shouldn’t be allowed to get it until they are 75, but that’s just my nasty position on things.

We have a tendency not to go back and study the stats when it was put into place. The average life expectancy was something like 62 years old (58 years for men and 62 for women). If that is the case, and we keep with the spirit of the original law, then the current life expectancy is something like 78 years. If that is the case, then social security should not be given out until people are 81 years old. All Lindsey wants to do is raise the retirement age a couple of years, and people are ready to crucify, hang, draw & quarter, etc. (you get the picture).

“…If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.

As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women).

Also, it should be noted that there were already 7.8 million Americans age 65 or older in 1935 (cf. Table 2), so there was a large and growing population of people who could receive Social Security. Indeed, the actuarial estimates used by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) in designing the Social Security program projected that there would be 8.3 million Americans age 65 or older by 1940 (when monthly benefits started). So Social Security was not designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits….”

You want to know what the real problem is?

You want to know what the real problem is?

The average American is so durn ignorant when it comes to our history, civics, and government that they are the ones who are dooming us.

Lindsey DOES NOT WANT to take anyone who is currently receiving social security and bump their age up to something like 68 or so. He wants to do it for those of us who were born after a certain date.

What part of this is too difficult for people to understand?

Why should able bodied people at the age of 65 even want social security?

How hard is this?

From Palmetto Morning:

Lindsey can’t win. He says something honest and honorable about changing social security. Now the liberals are after him.


7 thoughts on “BUMPED & UPDATED: Lindsey, Social Security and Sacred Cows

  1. That ad targeting Lindsey about the librarian was ridiculous. Changing social security retirement age would not affect people like her who expect to retire in two years. As far as I know a new law concerning social security would not prohibit people in the private sector from retiring at 55 if they want to. People can’t depend on Social Security retirement today because it is broke.

  2. I love the picture of Lindsey! I wish I could let him know how much I respect and admire him. From the bottom of my heart I am thankful and very grateful for his service to our country.

  3. “We have a tendency not to go back and study the stats when it was put into place. The average life expectancy was something like 62 years old (58 years for men and 62 for women). If that is the case, and we keep with the spirit of the original law, then the current life expectancy is something like 78 years.”

    In other words, what you are saying is that Social Security was supposed to be some kind of accident insurance scam, that took people’s money in the hopes that they would die naturally before they have to pay it off.

    The HUGE problem with this “entitlement” program is that none of us had/has a choice in paying the “premiums”. As soon as we draw a pay check, this forced tax is levied–all with the promise of financial independence during our golden years.

    I don’t think the answer lies in rethinking “the spirit of the law”…I think the answer is in politicians rethinking the belief that taxes are THEIR private funds and that the tax payer that has paid for a generation has no right to the bill WHEN it becomes due.

    Wanting to raise the age is like an insurance company wanting to change the terms of a policy after the person has already bought and is paying premiums on it.

    I know SS is broke…and I don’t know what we can do about it. But this is more than just paying dividends after years of “investing” in our retirement. It’s another tax that the government conned the American people into paying.

    And the American people are in no mood to allow, like an insurance company, for the government to take their marbles and go home.


    (Again, I see things thru the marketing angle. I am putting forth this view point. One has to understand how it is going to play; after all the name of the game is to win. You cannot push your agenda if you don’t win…and you can’t win if you don’t even make the team.)

  4. That’s why I am wondering if they may be able to pull off raising the retirement age, a little, year by year. Tom Coburn did a study on that one. Simply raising it to 68 would help, tremendously.

  5. Frankly no, I don’t think raising the retirement age, even one year at a time is going to fly. It’s like the “promise” to tax personal income for 10 years to pay off WW2 and then creating an ammendment that allows them to tax us forever.

    ANY change in the “policy” now will be seen as breaking the promise–and Americans are tired of being left with a bill that Congress always wants to get out of paying.

    On Medved’s show today, he talked about the surplus that Congress used to pay off our debts…perhaps it’s time for the government to pay off the IOUs to SS. THEN they can come and talk about making changes.

    Remember, we’re not talking about those who paid into the system for 10, 20 years…the baby boomers have literally paid their entire lives (a generation). Their time is coming and pity the party, no matter how logical, that tries to stiff them.

    It IS a debt, THIS nation owes an entire generation that supported the previous generation. It may not be fair for the upcoming generation to carry this generation BUT again, THIS generation HAS already done it’s fair share of carrying.

    The Ponzi scheme has already started, the only way to stop it is for America to pay all those born after 1981 once they reach 65. Those under 30 will no longer have to pay SS tax but be required to put it in a 401k or face heavy taxes. We should remove ALL entitlement programs from our budget to meet this commitment. Those receiving SS would be exempt from paying taxes on their SS in lieu of cost of living allowances.

    There are other ways of tweaking this so that the GOP doesn’t look like the party that wants to stiff Grandma. I don’t have all the answers and maybe my suggestions won’t work. I just know that the age thing won’t fly–not without some very SERIOUS cutting on the part of Congress in other areas.

  6. Right now a person can still take early social security retirement benefits at 62 at a reduced rate. Many people are doing this. If they raise the retirement age to 69 and pay more to make it worthwhile people may want to consider it.

  7. Again…I don’t think the GOP should be the one doing the “suggesting”…not without some SERIOUS cuts elsewhere. I think they (the GOP) should use (yes, I said, “use”) SS as the main reason to make cuts in other entitlement programs…

    “We have a commitment to our seniors…and there is simply not enough funds. Until we MEET this commitment…I am sorry but other entitlement programs have to take a back seat!”

    Now THAT is something that will fly. Against public schools…government unions…yes, even non Federal programs (but one which they keep bringing up) like cops and firemen.

    The GOP can be the party fighting to keep America’s commitment to it’s seniors…to an entire generation that has carried the generation before–and who does NOT want to burden future generations.

Comments are closed.