By David Ross
This week President Clinton decided to do something to solve the Social Security problem. He appointed Jack Kavorkian Director of the Social Security Administration. Dr. Death (a.k.a Jack the Dripper) immediately held a press conference about his appointment and what his plans are to solve the looming Social Security debacle, wherein it is estimated that by the year 2010 that 110% of all of the money in the United States will be used to pay out Social Security payments and Medicare.
THE PRESS: Dr. Kavorkian, how do you propose to solve this problem?
JACK: With a two pronged attack, or maybe just a one pronged attack, with an I.V. attached to the other end.
THE PRESS: Could you please be a little more specific?
JACK: Well, briefly, because I do have a couple of people to kill . . . er, rather I have some humanitarian duties to perform- we hope to achieve a positive cash flow by, first, raising the retirement age to 75, and, at the same time, retiring anyone permanently who happens to reach that age.
PRESS: But sir, aren't you talking about taking a human life? Isn't this murder?
JACK: Let's define our terms, ladies and gentlemen. We are not talking about murder. We're not even talking about homicide. We're talking about an assisted suicide, non-voluntary euthanasia if you will.
PRESS: What sort of precedent can you cite for taking a human life against its will?
JACK: Well, the Supreme Court has, in its wisdom, already provided some precedent by the simple expedient of ruling that a human life is not a human life at some early stage in the fetus's development. At some point, which we'll call "A" the human baby is not a person. At some point, which we'll call "B" it becomes one. It is only logical to take that reasoning forward and to posit that after a certain age that extra-mature humans begin to transition back into the non-human stage. Just as, at say three months into the term, a baby is a fetus, and therefore not a person, a person who is three months into his seventy fifth year becomes what I call a "senilus" and therefore no longer a viable human. And since the Supreme Court has ruled that the act of ending the fetus's life is covered by the right to privacy, it makes perfect since that the next of kin of an elderly "senilus" has the right to privacy when it comes to involuntary euthanasia.
PRESS: Have you run the numbers for this proposal? What savings will be realized?
JACK: By adopting this program, we hope to actually increase the numbers of senior citizens while cutting the amount of Social Security needed to support them.
PRESS: How does that work?
JACK: The administration has very kindly provided me with the mathematical formula it used last year to figure that the seven percent raises in Social Security and Medicare proposed by the Republicans were actually cuts. We have applied this formula to our own Social Security figures and determined that while all senior citizens over the age of 75 will cease to vote and collect benefits in a very prejudicial fashion, that there will actually be more of them.
THE PRESS: So, in the words of Martha Stewart, this is actually a "good thing."
JACK: Well yes, of course. Our country will have more healthy, happy people than ever before, although some of them will be dead. We will be able to provide food and medical care for all of them. And, if any of them do have the bad timing to get sick, old, or decrepit, it will be a far, far better thing they do than they have ever done.
PRESS: Thank you, Dr. Kavorkian.
This column originally appeared in the February 13, 1997 issue of the Valley Roadrunner