You've likely already read or at least heard about the National Review story about the asterisk on Social Security statements.
The author of the story notices the astersik and it leads her to a notation stating that, because of the financial condition of Social Security, her benefits could be cut.
She thinks about President Obama's famous "if you like your doctor" statement. She likes her benefits.
It's an interesting article, and it is getting a lot of traction. But I am surprised that the author of the article is surprised about what she learned.
Has it escaped her notice that Social Security is in trouble? Did she think the program would just chug along indefinitely even though its finances are precarious?
Has she been following developments in Greece?
Vodkapundit Stephen Green's, who linked to the asterisk story, comments on the state of Social Security:
The time to act would have been in the 1990s — when the first Baby Boomer president had plenty of time, political popularity, and tax income to have pushed for real reforms before things got too painful.
Our second Baby Boomer president, George W. Bush, made a heroic attempt to reform Social Security in 2015, but it got nowhere.
Whatever you think of the specifics of Bush's program, you should give him credit for recognizing that trouble was looming and that it was time do do something.
The Democrats screamed bloody murder and practically accused President Bush of wanting to starve Granny, who nowadays makes an appeance whenever reform is threatened.
Some people would like like to save Security through adjustments(raising the retirement age and changing the method of indexing would buy the system a lot of time), while others advocate more thoroughgoing change.
Whichever you prefer, it's getting late.