The crux of the problem is the size of the looming program deficits. We've allowed them to get so large that is no longer possible for us to develop a realistic plan to pay them off and fund the rest of government services under the way we currently go about funding government. The size of the deficits are now larger than the entire annual federal budget. The federal government is already spending more money than it collects in revenues, so where would these funds come from?

Can't come from benefit cuts because the size of the benefit cuts needed to stabilize the finances of Social Security, ANY Congress that votes for these size cuts will be replaced by politicians who campaign on the promise of restoring the cuts. In a democracy, everyone acts in their own self-interests first. Benefit cuts are politically impossible.

That means you have to try and get the money by increasing taxes. Whether you take them from us as individuals or you take them from businesses, it all comes out of the same pot - our economy. Historically, anytime taxation has exceeded 19% of GDP, the economy has tipped into a recession and stayed there until tax rates were lowered below the 19% of GDP threshold. Currently, income taxes are about 18.25% of GDP. Every one point increase in the tax rates only raises about $120 billion. To make the finances balance, we will have to be able to raise taxes to above 22% of GDP and sustain these rates for DECADES on end even though we have never been able to withstand tax rates above 19% for more than two years. It's mathematically impossible for tax increases to work.

What do we know, then?

We know it's politically impossible to make benefit cuts work.

We know it's mathematically impossible to make tax increases work.

That means we have to face the fact the way we are doing things no longer works and we have to find a new way of doing things.

There are only two (2) ways a government operated as a democracy overlaid on top of a free-market economy can "earn" revenue: taxation or investment-income.

It's time to face the reality that we have to create a new dynamic that allows government to fund ongoing operations and pay off the deficits based upon an investment-income model.

Period, the end.

It's about the math, stupid.

Which makes me wonder whether anyone's taken the feds to court over the Incredible Creeping Retirement Age? I'm sure the courts would find some reason why it's not actually a "contract" at all, but it would be interesting to see the actual reasoning, in a cynical kind of way.

But I think that ship sailed back in 1803.

I was about to say, "Hear, hear," but then it struck me: If this is true, then we are no longer a self-governing people.

If the government can raiase the retirement age, what is to keep it from cutting the level of benefits?

This seems like a very good idea. People are living much longer, and if they increase this number it will make it harder for companies to force people to retire at 65.

What's worse is those with defined-benefit pensions may think they are insulated from this, but the pensions are underfunded as well.

Also I am not a huge fan of raising the retirement age. Sure it helps keep social security sovent for a teeny bit longer, but there are some jobs that I don't know that I want a 69 year old man/woman doing without any options to retire.