The way I understand it, proposed Republican changes to Social Security and Medicare do not affect individuals above age 55. That is, anyone above that age can expect the same benefits they are expecting now, and (if between 55 and retirement age) will not be faced with bigger withholding taxes for these programs.

That's certainly good news for my wife and I. And it's certainly good news for the Baby Boomers in general who are now approaching retirement. But doesn't that mean that the bulk of the demographic bulge beneficiaries of these programs will escape the negative consequences of reform? After all, they are the major cause of the anticipated funding shortfall in these programs, aren't they? "The Boomers are taking all the money." Don't tell me you haven't heard that. And who is going to finance this? The under 55s, the people still 10 years or more from retirement, will be paying more in taxes and getting less in benefits when their turn comes, and they will probably get their retirements delayed and hit with means-testing to boot. Ouch.

If this is indeed true, politics more than economics is calling the shots here. The seniors are highly motivated and organized and they vote in huge numbers, numbers that increase every day. Due to the Boom, more people are entering retirement age than are leaving it by dying. They will fight like demons to prevent their benefits from going down, and can you blame them? There isn't much in the way of alternatives for them in our economic future. There is no way they will allow any political party to threaten that, not even their own.

The under-55 group are far enough away from their retirement that they are much less likely to rebel at the polls. Instead, they've been fed a pretty steady diet of "there won't be any SS left for us when we get there" and they are starting to believe it is inevitable, not avoidable. I've seen the propaganda and I've talked to them face to face. They will be more than eager to vote for alternatives to Social Security, such as privatized plans, but this will in turn mean even less funding for those currently collecting benefits. The system will collapse even faster, consumed now at both ends by a hemorrhage of funds. It also pits the retired and those approaching retirement in competition for a diminishing resource, a divide-and-conquer situation if I ever saw one, and a recipe for class warfare.

Of course, the Social Security system, at least, can be preserved by a variety of reforms, such as raising rates, lowering benefits, raising or eliminating cut-off incomes, retirement age hikes, withholding rate adjustments, COLA modifications, means testing, the list goes on. In fact, if everybody gives up a little, no one has to give up a lot. Both those working today and those already retired need to give up something. But I don't really think this is what they have in mind. Those who don't need the system certainly don't want to pay into it. The plan is to eliminate entitlements altogether, but they are going to do it without letting those most affected, those collecting benefits past retirement age and who contributed all their lives into the system, vote on it.

Have I got it wrong? And if I do, what am I missing?