Well, first off, be aware that the White House is perfectly fine with kicking that particular can down the road:
White House spokesman Jay Carney said today that Social Security is one entitlement program that should be addressed on a “separate track.”
“We should address the drivers of the deficit and Social Security currently is not a driver of the deficit,” Carney told reporters today. The senior retirement program is solvent for another 21 years, at which time recipients could see a reduction in benefits.
Hmmmm....21 years? Could see a reduction in benefits? More like 15 years and will see that reduction, but that's liberal accounting for you.
Katrina Trinko, over at The Corner, has a complaint:
While Social Security isn’t as much of a problem as Medicare, it’s frustrating that the White House won’t even consider any changes. Why not raise the retirement age to reflect the longer lifespans Americans are enjoying?
The real question is, of course...how much longer will Americans actually be enjoying "longer lifespans"?
Will Obamacare kill two birds with one stone - the "crisis" of the uninsured, and the Social Security funding crisis - by lowering the life expectancy of Americans with its virtual guarantee of long waits for treatment, substandard medical practitioners, and the end of medical innovation?
Will that endless curve of retirees demanding benefits start to flatten out - or even reverse - as we reach 2027, as an over-stressed health care system saves their resources by refusing to treat those who are no longer of use to the nation (the elderly), or to The Party?
Various liberal groups - environmentalists, for example - have been arguing for this type of population decline for years. With unlimited access to unfettered abortions, and the imposition of a socialized medical regime that has a 100% global failure record, does Obamacare actually serve a, ahem..."dual purpose" here?