One of the more cynical definitions of "consistency" is that it is the hobgoblin of little minds and that the truly brilliant can hold innumerable, contradicting beliefs.

Well, that sort of attitude may give solace to the elite, but it's unsatisfying and downright dangerous when you're trying to create public policy -- or save Social Security.

The New York Times editorial page -- the leading light of the liberal left -- offers a solution to the Social Security non-problem:

Of course, no one is suggesting that no reforms be made. But modest, straightforward tax increases and benefit cuts, phased in over generations, are all it would take to bolster the current system.

Surprise! The solution is to raise taxes and give you less for your money! "Phased in," of course -- which means that the younger you are, the more you get the shaft.

The rest of the editorial is a recipe for a government-enforced 401k plan -- something that is a curious solution coming from the Times. After all, putting money in the stock market has always been characterized as a "risky scheme" and now the Times is offering it as part of a solution to saving for retirement.

If the stock market is the key to a comfortable retirement, then why such strong opposition to partial privatization of Social Security?