"Leave Social Security Alone" is too inflexible a position. Helen Thomas' column published in Sunday's Laredo Morning Times does not say how the Obama Administration is prepared to sacrifice this sacrosanct program.
Seventy-odd years ago, Social Security was designed to protect the elderly from poverty. At that time, the elderly were citizens older than 65. That retirement age is far too young given today's life spans. The retirement age must be extended to at least 70 or even 75 for able-bodied taxpayers.
A side note: Social Security was originally not part of the General Fund. Lyndon Johnson brought it into the General Fund, thus allowing administrations ever since to pillage the fund.
Raise the retirement age? I don't think so! I'm looking forward to retiring at 65. By that time I will have contributed to Social Security for more than 40 years. I have to start collecting at some time. I'll be lucky if I live to the age of 75. I'll be blessed if I make it to 85.
And even if I'm "able-bodied" in my older adult years, I don't want to have to be punching in and answering to some young punk. I'll have hobbies I'll want to pursue. I'll be hanging out at the Reynera Bakery in the mornings and then running errands for younger relatives. Hopefully I'll still be blogging at that time or maybe even running my own little business. Perhaps I'll travel the world or just stay home and tend to my garden.
Whatever my fate, I hope to start my post-work-week life ASAP. Besides, I don't think a lot of employers are out there recruiting old folks. I might hold off on Social Security several years anyway in order to get a more sizeable return on my investment. But that's a choice I'd rather leave up to me and not to some bureacrat who'll probably be better off than me.