Tom Kamber

Sunday's New York Times editorial offers a stunning example of the degree to which age discrimination is accepted in America today. Here's what the editors wrote:

"Senator John McCain is 71 years old, a survivor of an aggressive form of skin cancer. If elected, he would be the oldest man to become president. These factors are not disqualifying, but they impose on Mr. McCain a larger duty than usual to provide detailed, timely disclosure about his health." Read the full editorial here.

Certainly, Senator McCain's health--like that of any candidate for the presidency--is a legitimate topic for campaign discussion and voluntary disclosure, and the fact that he recently survived a bout with cancer is a fair question for public concern.

But the fact that the Times chose to conflate a discussion of the candidate's physical capabilities to do the job with an emphasis on his advanced age is offensive and discriminatory.

If Mr. McCain were an applicant for a job at the newspaper, they could legitimately ask if he knew of any physical limitations that might affect his ability to perform the required duties. But to ask him how old he is would be to invite a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for illegal age-related discrimination. In essence, Mr. McCain is applying to the voters for a job, and the Times is encouraging us to use an illegal discriminatory standard to judge his fitness for the position.

Last year the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission received over 19,000 complaints of age-related job discrimination and collected $66 million in fines from offenders. Age discrimination in employment is epidemic in America. It's sad to see The New York Times setting such a bad example for its readers.

Older workers may be riding to the rescue of the American economy, but as yesterday's Wall Street Journal points out, we're not quite ready to accept their help. People who want to work past the traditional age of retirement face "financial time-bombs," according to the Journal: punitive Social Security taxes, reduced pension benefits, and loss of Medicare eligibility.

Seniors between the ages of 62 and 65 who receive Social Security are nailed with a 50 percent tax on their benefits if they remain in the workforce. And if their employers offer medical coverage, seniors who are otherwise eligible for Medicare can't take advantage of the public program--creating a major disincentive for businesses to hire older workers. Pension rules can be even worse, permanently docking older workers who shift to part-time positions in order to keep contributing on the job.

Make no mistake, we need these people participating in our economy. Donald Kohn from the Federal Reserve Board testified before Congress last year regarding the projected economic consequences of the growing portion of older individuals in our population. Federal Reserve models indicate an important link between workforce participation by older people and overall national economic productivity.

With the IRS poised to mail 130 million economic stimulus checks to American taxpayers next week, it's surprising that the critical role of seniors in our economy gets so little attention. And for seniors who spend more time in cubicles than on cruise ships, it's too bad we can't find ways to offer them support instead of "financial time-bombs."