John Boehner As Stopped Clock

House Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner has not had the best week. The oddly hewed Representative from Ohio has managed to step in a series of cow patties as his mind and his mouth have spent the last several days in revolt against whatever political common sense a below average politician (like Boehner) might wish to have.

To wit:

--When asked about whether the deep sea drilling moratorium is a bad thing in light of the BP created disaster in the gulf, Boehner replied that it was. And in the exact same breath said that we might need to "pause" until we "find out exactly what happened" in the gulf. Say what? That's right, he dissed the moratorium while favorably defining it. What does he think moratorium means? Is the moratorium not indeed a "pause" while the leak is being investigated? This guy isn't just talking in circles, his mouth is acting as his own private circular firing squad.

--On a separate occasion, when asked about the financial reform bill floating through both houses of congress, Boehner described the bill as "Killing an ant with a nuclear weapon." The idea behind the bill is to address the issues that led up to the financial crisis that is still strangling our economy. Now, it's fair to argue whether you think the bill will be effective or not, but do you really want to imply that the financial crisis is an ant? What a tone deaf metaphor! Maybe the analogy would have been effective in 1954 the week after Them!, a sci-fi movie about giant ants that attacked the populous was released. But I don't think that was the type of ant that Boehner was referring to.

--Lastly, Boehner also went ahead and touched one of the true "third rails" in politics when he suggested that the retirement age should be lifted to 70 as a solution to the impending solvency doom on the horizon of Social Security. Democrats were quick to pounce on this remark. Anytime a politician suggests in changing Social Security in any way you can damn sure bet the other side of the aisle will make hay with it. Even the Tea Party clan doesn't want the government messing with their government supplied (oh, the irony) retirement benefits.

But here's where I break with the Democrats and defend (if only mildly) Boehner's hoof-n-mouth remark on Social Security. Because, well, he has a point.

When Social Security was signed into law in 1935 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of the New Deal, the average life expectancy in the U.S. was only 61.7 years. In 2010, that number grew to a whopping 78. If you simply do the math, you find that you have a program that was designed to assist people 65 or older that was created at a time when on average, people didn't make it to 65. Now, most folks sail past that age and collect benefits for 13 more years. The financial strain of enhanced life expectancy and the "baby boomers" reaching retirement age threatens to bankrupt the system within the next 25-30 years if something isn't done to address the shortfall.

Of course, raising the retirement age isn't necessarily the only answer. Unfortunately, the other possible solutions bandied about are about as popular as Mel Gibson at a bar mitzvah--raising taxes or reducing benefits. Sounds great, right? Well, just try selling that to the American people.
These are hard, painful choices. But they must be made, and right soon.

Some would argue that the best solution is a combination of raising the retirement age, increased taxes, and reduced benefits. Of course, the folks positing these options are seldom politicians, but instead are economists and professors. Those guys aren't running for election and scrapping for votes. But isn't that why we send people to congress and the White House? To meet the challenges of the day? To do the difficult even in the face of waning popular opinion? I'd like to think so.

Sure, it's not going to be any fun for politicians to tell people under 50 that you will have to wait an extra 5 years to collect on Social Security. Or to inform people that make more than $106,000 that your Social Security withholding taxes will no longer be capped at that amount. And just wait until you share with folks that when you do reach retirement age, you're probably going to have to accept less money.

But this is where we are. The question is no longer "if," but "when." Because the real choice before us is to either adapt the law to modern times or go without. And I for one would rather have 90% of something as opposed to 100% of nothing.

Having said all of this, I don't mean to imply that Boehner was being courageous or even all that smart. As far as being right about anything goes, he still has work to do to catch up to your average stopped clock. But on this subject, at this moment in our history, he's on to something. Something called the truth. Even if he only caught up to it by accident, it should be recognized as such. Because if we, as a nation, can't admit when those that we typically disagree with are making a salient point, then we can just plan on going in circles...down the drain.

Sumo-Pop
July 2, 2010