Slate's Chatterbox Whopper of the Week: Howard Dean

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Whopper of the Week: Howard Dean
"Oh, that statement about raising the retirement age …"
By Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, August 8, 2003, at 10:16 AM PT


"Dennis Kucinich: My good friend, Mr. Dean, has said that he'd move the retirement age to 68. One time he talked about moving it to 70.

<…>

"Howard Dean: When we first looked to the rules for this debate, we were told if anybody mentioned our name, that automatically gave us a minute.

"I'm not going to go back and ask you to change the rules, but I think I'll take 20 seconds just to tell everybody that I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015—raise it by that time to about age 70.

<…>

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the—I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."

—CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995

"The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."

more

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Wednesday that he misspoke when he told the AFL-CIO he never favored raising the retirement age for Social Security benefits to age 70.

Dean acknowledged that he had called for such an increase when the country was faced with a deficit in 1995, but said he no longer thinks it is necessary. He said former President Clinton set an example of balancing the budget without raising the retirement age.
...
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in June, Dean said an increase to age 70 is no longer necessary, but he would entertain an increase to 68.

He said the way to balance the budget now is to repeal President Bush's tax cuts and restrict spending. He said to balance Social Security, he would consider raising the retirement age to 68 and letting more salary above $87,000 fall under the payroll tax.

On Wednesday, Dean said since his appearance on "Meet the Press," he has consulted with experts and concluded that no increase in the retirement age would be necessary. A better solution, he said, would
be to raise the salary limit.

"I'm willing to take it off entirely if we need to," he said.
...
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-dean-social-security,0,2509226.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

When Dean notices he made a mistake, he has been correcting himself immediately. I am respecting that, alot.

I'm *very* impressed with this and his solution to balancing the budget, above.

I'm also impressed with the short list of Dean's misstatements that the AP is building at the bottom of all Dean apologies.

And I'm wondering where Bush's list is.

Anyone who wishes to cultivate the reputation as a straight-talker should never, ever use "misspoke."
"I was bullshitting"..."I wasn't paying attention"..."I was trying to slip one past you"...even "I lied" is more honorable.

Don't even try to tie that to this situation where Dean immediately corrects himself the next day after making a mistake.

next day.

SS does require a series of age increases beginning with 2018 and moving Reagan's 67 to 68, ending with 2043 and age 70. And that was known in 1995.

But that is if nothing else is done. Packwood said needed age change- and Dean agreed with Packwood.

Dennis implied that was Dean's current position - and it is not. And indeed in this campaign Dean has not said to increase the retirement age.

And there is no quote post 1995 that has him saying increase the retirement age.

I - ME - PAPAU - favor increasing the retirement age because I do not see how a removal of the payroll tax wage cap can be passed by Congress. However Dean wants to try that approach - which was favored by Clinton - before moving to any retirement age higher than Reagan's 67 for full benefits (benefits could still start at 62 at a reduced amount).

they do to find work between their 50's and their 70's? And what do they do to obtain health insurance until Medicare kicks in? With few companies offering pensions lots of folks now are dependent on their 401-k's. With the money that's gone out of them, and the job layoffs it is hard enough to wait until 67 (the age for many of these folks) before they can get any money to live on afgter their savings are gone.

This is going to be a big problem in the coming years. Older workers are not hired....and it's not like most of them are fit enough to do roofing and heavy construction. What about all the Middle Managers? All the Tech folks......Downsizings and mergers have wiped out their jobs.

What does one live on when saving have been wiped out, you can only earn 1% on what you have now....and the market is down?

I don't think anyone is thinking about that. I didn't either in my 20's and 30's until my dad in this late fifities (an Engineer for the Government) got laid off and had to retire. He was eligible for Social Security back then at age 62 and he had a pension so he didn't suffer. But, today it's very different for folks in their late 40's and 50's.

People who talk about increasing the retirement age for SS don't really understand the nature of the problem. Many people won't be able to work until age 68 or 70, due to disabilities. Others won't be able to work because of age discrimination. Many of those who do work won't be able to find housing on minimum wages. Their retirement investments have been destroyed. What are they/we supposed to do, disappear?

The problems for people 50 and over today are huge.

Let's face it: SS was created when living well into your 60s was fairly uncommon. Today, nearly everyone can expect to live long enough to not only collect SS but drain well more than they ever put into the system in the first place.

I am for a *gradual* increase in the age at which one collects SS. (Note I did not say RETIREMENT age.) Your own savings should be enough to bridge the gap, otherwise in cases of poverty or other circumstances assistance can be extended.

and are much more active after 65 then they once were. How many "retirees" have gone back to working after they have officially retired because they get bored? When the average elderly American expexts to live into their 80's, they need more to life then just T.V. and a rest home.