Chuck Hagel wants to cut our Social Security benefits.

[Eric J in MN]

Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican-Nebraska) talks about Social Security.

If Chuck Hangel just said, "I want to cut Social Security benefits," people would say no.

So, instead, he's try to con us.

He's emphasizing a small proposal to raise the retirment age for full Social Security benefits from 67 to 68, to distract from the big cuts in promised benefits he wants to make.

The Daily Howler reports on Hagel's interview with CBS's Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican-Nebraska) started out by claiming that Social Security faces a shortfall of $3.7 trillion over the next 75 years, and then...("Hagel Confuses While Bob Schieffer Snoozes," Mar. 7, 2005):

Hagel’s first two points were perfectly clear; he’d raise the retirement age one year, and he’d slightly reduce SS benefits for people who retire at age 62. But yes, you’re right—it doesn’t seem that those minor changes could really wipe out that revenue shortfall. So now, Hagel reached the key part of his plan—and surrendered himself to High Obfuscation. Try to figure out what he said when he described how he would save big money:

HAGEL (continuing directly): And the third thing I do to make the system solvent is put into the wage-based indexing something that has never been done before, and that's life expectancy. You live longer, then you're going to draw more Social Security. So that's how we do it.

...What was Hagel really describing with that bit of double-speak? Here at THE HOWLER, we don’t really know; his statement was wholly incoherent, and Schieffer didn’t make any attempt to force him to explain what he meant. But in yesterday morning’s Washington Post, Charles Babington described Hagel’s three-step plan. When it came to Part 3 of that program, Babington wasn’t real clear either. But note the troubling phrase that appeared when he described that part of the plan:

BABINGTON (3/6/05): To strengthen Social Security's long-term financing, starting in 2023 Hagel would: raise the retirement age, now 67, to 68; allow those who retire at 62 to draw 63 percent of full benefits rather than 70 percent; and slow the growth of benefits by accounting for longer life expectancies.

[Eric J in MN]

1. kick

kick

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Surprise Level=

Zero.

[Straight Shooter]

3. What happened to the theory that retirement made room for younger workers?

Hey, Chuck, how can the younger people move up the ladder when there's someone above them who can't retire yet because of people like you?

Bad enough when they raised the rate from 65 to 67. Now Hagel talks about moving it up to 68. Why? So I can work an extra year so the fat cats won't have to sacrifice their tax cuts?

This is total BS, for many reasons, not the least of which is that many people are simply incapable of pushing themselves to the retirement limit as it is.