A. Barry Rand, the C.E.O. of AARP, had a bit of a bone to pick with President Obama's remarks on Social Security in the State of the Union:
"We're pleased to hear the president acknowledge the vital importance of Social Security and the need to protect this lifeline for future generations, but we are disappointed that he, like his fiscal commission did last late last year, seeks to address this bedrock of financial security in the context of reducing a deficit it didn't cause.
"Moreover, any attempt to control spending in Medicare and Medicaid without addressing the causes of skyrocketing costs throughout the health care system will not reduce these costs, but rather shift them on to the backs of people of all ages and generations.
"While efforts to reduce the deficit are important, we will continue to speak out against any plan offered by the administration or Congress that would target these critical safety nets for changes based on budgetary targets instead of their impact on the lives of everyday Americans."
Obama's remarks on Social Security were good to hear, but being offered within the context of the deficit and debt reduction, were misplaced. But what was slightly disquieting, and the part that means that everyone who cares about saving Social Security (which is a huge majority of the American electorate) will have to remain active in fighting changes, was this: "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations."
Where does bipartisanship on Social Security put us? On the road to raising the retirement age, if the latest, bizarre comments from Lindsey Graham are any indication.
Speaking at the Atlantic’s post-State of the Union event today about his recent trip to Afghanistan, Graham said that if lawmakers would "act in accordance with the way" the troops serve in war, then Congress would raise the retirement age from 67 to 69:
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.
Seriously. The troops would have us raise the retirement age. That's the bipartisanship on offer from the GOP. The Wall Street Journal reported a few days ago that the "White House and a bipartisan group of senators are focusing on restructuring the tax code and entitlement programs such as Social Security which could have more dramatic impacts on the deficit in the long run but would do little in the short term." Lord help us if Lindsey Graham is in that bipartisan group of Senators. But Lord help us more if the White House doesn't understand that Social Security doesn't have anything to do with the deficit.
Come to think of it, lumping Social Security in with the deficit makes about as much sense as using what the troops would do to justify raising the retirement age.