The principled, constitutional and economically wise thing to do is to eliminate the program, but for some straaaaaange reason, no politicians are talking about that, or even about changing the structure of the boondoggle.

Could it be that the aging baby boomers strike fear into the hearts of the candidates? Could it be that we don't actually live in the "land of the free and home of the brave", but in a semi-socialized, semi-fascistic system of governance that would set the Founders alight with anger?

Check out these stats from Robert Samuelson, writing for "Newsweek":

"Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—programs that serve older people—already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office. The result: a political impasse.

"The 2030 projections are daunting. To keep federal spending stable as a share of the economy would mean eliminating all defense spending and most other domestic programs (for research, homeland security, the environment, etc.). To balance the budget with existing programs at their present economic shares would require, depending on assumptions, tax increases of 30 percent to 50 percent—or budget deficits could quadruple. A final possibility: cut retirement benefits by increasing eligibility ages, being less generous to wealthier retirees or trimming all payments."

Samuelson does not go the extra mile, or even a kilometer, to suggest that the program is immoral, unethical, and patently unconstitutional -- that it ought to be abolished immediately. But he does bring up some salient observations, things to remember when you encounter an old hippie who demands his "social insurance" benefits at you and your neighbors' expense.

Here is the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010728/site/newsweek/?from=rss