The Retirement Age flap

By Aziz P. -
a NY Post article takes Dean to task over his words during the AFL-CIO forum:

Dean's Democratic foes have privately grumped about this for months, but it came into high relief when he got challenged at yesterday's AFL-CIO debate on whether he'd ever backed raising the retirement age to 68 or 70 - a big no-no for a union crowd. "I have never favored Social Security at age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68," Dean insisted.

The problem is, just six weeks ago, Dean told NBC, "I would also entertain taking the retirement age up to 68." So Dean wasn't telling the truth to the unionists, unless you split hairs about the meaning of the word "favor." And in 1995, Dean told CNN that "I absolutely agree" that America must "increase the retirement age."

Dean aides now admit he "misspoke" at the AFL debate. Dean liked the higher retirement age back in 1995, but won't propose it now, said policy spokesman Jeremy Ben-Ami. But that statement doesn't explain why Dean said he'd "entertain" it just six weeks ago.


This is the danger of the spotlight - an increased attentiveness to the letter, if not the spirit, of words. Dean was actually accused of preferring a retirement age of 70 by Dennis Kucinich and Dean shut him down (for great coverage of the AFL-CIO forum, see Not Geniuses).

I think that there is indeed a chasm of difference between Dean admitting that the retirement age might need to be "on the table" and actually "favoring" such an action (and Dean never advocated raising it to 70). Of course I am biased, but watch for this to become a talking point especially as Gephardt tries to jockey for position in Iowa. What Dean needs to do is get a policy statement out quickly that explains why there might be a need for a retirement age of 68, but what other solutions he would prefer. The spin cycle cannot be left unwatched.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Conservatism's shari'a, liberalism's ijtihad

By Aziz P. -
An interesting meta-debate by intellectual conservatives over conservatism's future is playing out. It started with David Frum's Waterloo essay, which led to his political excommunication. Julian Sanchez observed that this represented an epistemic closing of the conservative mind , a thesis that was validated by the retribution visited upon Jim Manzi for daring to suggest that conservatives will achieve more persuasion by using honest, strong arguments instead of weak, emotional ones. All of this has led John Quiggin at Crooked Timber to argue most wisely that as conservatism implodes, liberalism needs to find its own rationale that is more than just "not conservatism". Quiggin has a list of priorities for the liberal movement to address, and closes with the general plea, ...the left has to stand for something more than keeping the existing order afloat with incremental improvements. We need to offer the hope of a better world as an alternative to the angry tribali...
Read more

A fair solution to Jerusalem

By Aziz P. -
I remember reading one of the books by Tom Clancy in which Jack Ryan was credited with coming up with a solution for Middle East peace which was pointedly never actually detailed in the novel. It was just a way to give his character some foreign policy cred, but ended up like that mysterious suitcase in Pulp Fiction. I couldn't help but be reminded of that, though, when I read former New York mayor Ed Koch's innovative solution to resolving the status of Jerusalem . Instead of putting the hot-button issue of Jerusalem last on the agenda, the issue should be addressed first. If the Jerusalem question is solved, everything else should fall into place more easily. I believe there is a way to keep Jerusalem unified. I am talking not only of the old walled city, which is a very small part of the city of Jerusalem, but the whole city, east, west, north and south. [...] My suggestion is to situate the new Palestinian capital in that part of East Jerusalem that is occupied overwhelming...
Read more