Robert Samuelson, one of my favorite columnists, dishes out the simple truth on Social Security in Retirement at 70. Too bad none of our elected legislators have the intestinal fortitude to say the same thing:

People who reach 62 or 65 or 70 have no automatic claim on their juniors. Why should a couple in their thirties with two children, car payments and a mortgage subsidize the retirement of a couple in their mid-sixties with no mortgage, whose children are long gone, who could still work and who have had a lifetime to save for retirement? The only answer is that older couples expect to be subsidized (in part because they've spent their lives subsidizing their elders) and will be furious if they aren't. But that is a political explanation and not a moral or social justification.

My parents saved their pennies, bought long term health insurance, and still work part time in their mid-sixties. They would probably prefer to spend all their time traveling between their grandkids. They don't.

Are we seriously going to raise payroll taxes by 30% in 25 years to keep the retirement age where it is, so people my age today that choose to NOT save for their retirement and NOT buy long term health insurance can retire at 62? I don't think so.

We can deal with this issue now by making some of the changes Samuelson suggests, or we can wait until full scale intergenerational warfare breaks out, and the economy gets sucked into the black hole of a terminal welfare state.

I suppose we'll choose the latter.  ¶ 11:11 PM