In Sunday's New York Times Jacob Lew, the administration's Office of Management and Budget Director wrote about what to expect from President Obama's upcoming budget proposal. He included this:
Discretionary spending not related to security represents just a little more than one-tenth of the entire federal budget, so cutting solely in this area will never be enough to address our long-term fiscal challenges. That is why President Obama made clear in the State of the Union that he wants to work with Congress to reform and simplify our tax code. He also called for serious bipartisan cooperation to strengthen and protect Social Security as we face the retirement of the baby boom generation.
Never mind that the Greenspan commission raised the retirement age back in the 1980s and accelerated an increase in the payroll tax at the time, precisely to build up a surplus in order to deal with the baby boom generation's retirement. That's been dealt with already.
But, to the meat of this, here's your bipartisanship on the issue:
A week after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared that cutting Social Security is off the table, a leading Republican senator proposed increasing the Social Security retirement age "every several years."
....
Shelby said he considers deficit reduction to be the top issue on the congressional agenda.
"We're on the road to financial destruction," he warned. "Can we get our hand around this problem without bringing everything to the table? No."
And Shelby indicated that entitlements are very much on his budget-cutting agenda. He mocked the recommendation of President Barack Obama's deficit commission, which he said would raise the Social Security retirement age in 2025 (actually, not until 2027).
"America will be burned by then -- and a lot of us will be dead," he said.
His preferred solution is to "up the age every several years," he said -- the net effect of which would be tantamount to one benefit cut after another.
Eventually, the only people eligible to receive Social Security would be already dead. That's one way to get rid of the program, I guess. Which is and always has been the ultimate aim of Republicans. The problem is, Social Security has been put on the table by the administration, and remains there if Lew's op-ed is any indication. This is not a scenario which ends well for America's future retirees. Digby has a must read on these potential negotiations and Social Security "reform" as this Democratic president's "welfare reform," concluding:
It's always going to be easier for the GOP to sign on to spending cuts. If the Democrats lead the way, I suspect they'll be able to set aside their differences. Where they fall out is on tax hikes, but from what I can tell that's not on the table. So it looks like Welfare Reform for the old and sick is on.
It is unless Harry Reid and enough Democrats in Congress who realize the meaning of the term "political suicide" can stop it. Richard Shelby and his retirement age proposal are just the beginning.