At last, talk turns serious on raising age to retire

Search the Internet for a definition of "third rail'' and high on the list you'll see this, from Answers.com:

A subject that tends to be avoided because of its offensive or controversial nature: "Social Security, the 'third rail' of American politics" (Charles Stein).

Now think how lethal this topic could be in our own 5th Congressional District, home to about 198,000 recipients of Social Security retirement benefits — more by far than any other district and more, even, than several states.

Then add the political threat of the tea party. There's some truth to the charge that its members want to cut all government spending except for the checks that arrive in their mailboxes, said Jason Sager of Brooksville, one of the movement's local leaders and a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.

"(Tea party members) in the older generation don't want their services cut and are asking that cuts be made elsewhere to protect their services.''

So, it's surprising to hear Sager and the other candidates for the 5th District seat — Republican Richard Nugent and Democrat Jim Piccillo — openly discuss the idea of raising the retirement age for Social Security.

True, they all say this should apply only to people several years from retirement, and Nugent won't come right out and say he's in favor of eventually raising the age, just that it's something we need to talk about.

The local candidates' positions are less surprising when you learn that in Washington, according to a story last week by McClatchy Newspapers, "There's a gentle, growing and unusually bipartisan push to raise the retirement age for full Social Security benefits for people born in the 1960s and after.''

And they are even less surprising when you realize the strength of the political push to reduce the deficit.

Still, imagine the potential attack ads — "He wants to take away your Social Security!'' — and you have to be relieved that the candidates' talking points have risen above that level, that such an obvious, common-sense idea is finally in play.

The impending retirement of millions of baby boomers is no secret. Nor is the fact that they are expected to live — and collect benefits — far longer than their parents and grandparents. The number of workers supporting each retiree, currently 3.2, will drop under the current system to 2.1 by 2040, according to the Urban Institute research group in Washington.

Just raising the age to 70 won't make the system solvent, said Richard Johnson, the director of the institute's Retirement Policy Program. But it would help cut Social Security's long-term deficit and, in the near future, make it cheaper for the federal government to borrow money.

"It sends a signal to the credit markets,'' Johnson said.

I'd like to see it go into effect — maybe in some means-tested way — before the baby boom bulge rather than after it. This would test the seriousness of folks in late middle age who say they are worried about the debt they are passing to their grandkids.

On the other hand, I can't deny it makes political sense to wait a few years to cut the benefits. The last big change to Social Security came in 1983, when the retirement age was raised from 65 to 67 for people just about my age and younger. I didn't notice for another 20 years.