What is also fairly clear, to me anyway, is that laws such as the Florida law prohibiting drinking alcohol by adults between 18 and 21 are simply wrong. This amendment would abolish such a law. The State would either have to outlaw drinking altogether, or restrict it for minors only.
Other implications of this amendment include fundamental changes in retirement programs. It should be clarified that the amendment will not prohibit the use of actuarial data in establishing retirement benefits. It will, however, abolish once and for all the legal basis behind retirement at a particular age. If you wanna retire at 65, go right ahead, but retiring at 55 or 75 will be essentially the same decision. The longer you wait to retire, the higher your monthly benefits are likely to be due to the increased income and the actuarial data, but there will be no sudden changes in benefits at 65 or any other particular age.
Social Security will obviously require some revisions. Since benefits can no longer be based on age, they will have to be based on actuarial data -- as they should be. Once again, the older one is before applying, the higher the monthly benefits are likely to be.
Another interesting implication will be the effect on the draft. If the US government insists on maintaining the draft and registering those eligible, this will mean everyone over 18. Granted, the 70-year-olds may have a high incidence of medical deferments, but they cannot be deferred simply due to their age.
This is as it should be, even though it seems strange. There are incredibly unfit people in their early 20's, and there are marathon runners in their 80's. Also, the armed forces have about a half dozen people in non-combat duties for every one in a combat position. The fact is, the current military has many similar positions to those in business today, and could easily use people of any age for the vast majority of their operations. The only reason they select only the very young is because the young have no political clout.
With this amendment in place, the military will also have to change its retirement programs, although perhaps only slightly. Since their retirements are mostly based on years served rather than age, that part will not require change.
In light of all the discussion over the proposed "Equal
Rights Amendment",
I need to point out that this proposal is nowhere near as aggressive.
For
one thing, this proposal only addresses one criteria -- age -- while
the
Equal Rights Amendment sought to end all discrimination in one
step.
But more importantly, this proposal does not aim to outlaw
discrimination
by private individuals or organizations; it seeks only to ban
discrimination
by the government. I tend to believe that, in a land that supposedly
cherishes
freedom, the freedom to be a bigot should be protected; however, our
governmental
institutions, supported by our tax dollars, must not be so
prejudiced,
but must treat all citizens equally.
Return to Kirby Palm's opinions page.
Return to Kirby Palm's home page.
Of course, if you have questions or comments, you are welcome to send e-mail to me at "palmk at nettally dot com".