Let's Hope Joe Biden is Wrong about Social Security

I've been posting this week about the political debate over Medicare reform, a major issue in our search for ways to resolve our fiscal crisis. Fixing Social Security is also a crucial factor. An off-the-cuff remark by Joe Biden last week illustrated the tendency of Democratic pols to demagogue on this issue.

I love Joe Biden. He's a "Happy Warrior" who loves people and the rough-and-tumble of politics (unlike his boss). But he often wanders off the reservation boundaries established by Obama's re-election campaign strategists, who prefer ambiguous campaign remarks to clear position statements.

Joe did it again recently at a campaign stop in southern Virginia, where he encountered a coffee shop patron who said, "I'm glad you all are not talking about doing anything with Social Security." Biden responded, "I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security. I flat guarantee you."

Not good. Social Security is going broke. The trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund -- who include the President's cabinet secretaries at treasury, labor, and health and human services -- said in their annual report (delivered to Biden in April in his capacity as Senate President) that the disability portion of the trust fund "becomes exhausted in 2016, so legislative action is needed as soon as possible." The overall fund, combining retirement and disability, will "become exhausted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2033."

This leaves Congress with four choices, the trustees explained:

• raise the payroll tax, 
• reduce benefits, 
• direct other revenues to Social Security, or
• create some combination of the above. 

The report concluded: "With informed discussion, creative thinking, and timely legislative action, Social Security can continue to protect future generations."

Virtually all experts agree that fixing Social Security is easy compared to reining in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care features. Social Security could be shored up with a few simple tweaks: change the inflation calculator to the one that slows down the rate of cost-of-living increases, and moderately raise the ceiling on incomes subject to the payroll tax.

This year, the ceiling on earnings subject to the Social Security tax is $110,100. The payroll tax is 4.2 percent for employees and 6.2 percent for employers. (There is no income limit on the Medicare tax rate, which is 1.45 percent for both employees and employers.)

A History Lesson
Often cited as one of the great achievements of the Reagan Administration is the bipartisan compromise on Social Security than was hammered out by a commission headed by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, and signed by President Reagan. It saved Social Security for the Greatest Generation just as they were entering retirement.

The deal gradually raised the payroll tax rate, indexed the ceiling on income subject to the taxation, and lifted the retirement age to 67, but not until the middle part of the Baby Boomers reach retirement age. Those born in 1960 or later are subject to the normal retirement age of 67.

The payroll tax ceiling agreed to in that deal was designed to hit about 90 percent of wages and salary income subject to the tax. The architects of the compromise calculated the revenue would be sufficient to maintain the system for the next 75 years -- to 2058.

But, as noted above, the Social Security Trustees in their April annual report said Social Security would go broke in 2033, not 2058 as predicted by the Greenspan commission. What happened? No surprise. The culprit is the extraordinary rise in income inequality over the last 30 years.

The total share of wages subject to taxation has fallen from 90 percent to about 83 percent, not because a greater number of people are making more than the salary cap; that number has actually gone down. In 1983,  6.3 percent of employees made more than the cap. Today, that number has fallen below 6.0 percent.

People above the cap are making a hell of a lot more money. The 1983 Greenspan commission had no way of predicting the huge salaries being paid to CEOs and Wall Street gamblers these days. Changing the payroll tax so that it gets back to covering 90 percent of earnings would go a long way to adding years to the fiscal soundness of Social Security.

Where the Politicians Are on the Social Security Changes
In spite of Biden's off-the-cuff comment about not changing Social Security, I bet he wouldn't object to raising the salary cap on payroll taxes. In a speech earlier this year, President Obama suggested doing just that. And during the failed negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner last summer, the president put cost-of-living calculation adjustments on the table.

(Bob Woodward's recent book about these negotiations shows how Obama's reluctance to engage in the usual political schmoozing got in the way of working out a deal. Larry Summers, President Clinton's treasury secretary and an economic adviser to Obama, is quoted as saying Obama "really doesn't like these guys," referring to the congressional negotiators from both parties.)

Congressman Ryan has opposed any increases in Social Security taxes. As usual, it's difficult to figure out Mitt Romney's current position.

In yesterday's post about the difficult, complicated matter of Medicare reform, I said both sides actually seemed closer together in their proposals than the debate noise might suggest. With Social Security, a fix would be much easier to structure, along the lines of the compromise reached by the 1983 Greenspan Commission.

But in 1983, we had a functioning democracy. Today, we don't.

The Medicare Debate: An Expert's View

These days, it's tough to find links from unbiased experts when you're searching for political topics on Google. I thought I'd hit paydirt on one particular piece about Medicare reform, until I saw that two colorful -- and controversial -- celebrities had given the author their endorsements: C. Everett Koop, Reagan's Surgeon General, and John McLaughlin, the bombastic host of his own TV talk show, The McLaughlin Group. Hmmmm.

Nevertheless, the author of the promising link-- Robert Laszewski -- is regarded as a leading authority on health care reform. His analysis of the two parties' Medicare proposals is thought-provoking and balanced. See what you think.

But first, bear with me a moment.

A Personal Note and Plea: I've been getting some good comments and e-mails after saying I'm so fed up with politics today that I may not vote this year, and that I'm not donating any money. Believe it or not, I recognize that I've spent a lifetime careening back and forth on issues from one side of the road to the other, and it can take me a long time (or never) to find that ever-elusive middle of the road. One reason I'm writing this blog is that I need others to offer occasional course corrections. So, please keep the critical comments coming!

If you're tiring of my political commentary, ALERT: I've got a couple more I want to put up (and see if they get shot down). I promise we'll return to the real world next week.

The Medicare Expert
Bob Laszewski's blog --Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review -- struck me as clear and balanced. Speaking.com shows him among the top five speakers on health care reform. Here's their blurb:

Robert Laszewski is president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates and national advisor on health policy issues for Ernst & Young. He is widely regarded as one of the most influential independent consultants on health care reform. As an executive of Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, Laszewski participated as a member of the non-partisan Alliance for Health Reform chaired by Senator Jay Rockefeller. USA Today called him "one of the boldest advocates for reform." In his current role, he is an advisor to an impressive list of organizations concerned about the changing marketplace environment for health care.

I checked several of his speeches and op-ed pieces, and he seemed to present a balanced, expert perspective. And, heck, as a lifelong liberal, I'm trying to keep this blog balanced. In my earlier political post featuring columnist Stephen Pearlstein, I didn't worry about his having worked for Senator Durkin (D-IL). So here we go.

Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan vs. Obama Medicare Plans 
Laszeweski's blog post is worth reading in full, but here's a summary. He first asks the question: Who's telling the truth on Medicare?  His answer: "They both are and they both aren't." Then he addresses these questions:

Will current seniors suffer under the Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan?
Aware of senior voting power, both parties see similar futures for seniors. "If you are over age 70, there is virtually no chance there will be any significant changes in Medicare benefits in your lifetime," Laszewski says. "Even if you are over 6o, the chances that there will be any major structural changes to Medicare benefits as long as you are around are quite small."

Can Medicare as we know it be preserved for the next generation?
"Absolutely not," is Laszewski's quick answer. But here Laszewski gives Romney/Ryan better marks than he does Obama.

On Romney/Ryan he says:

I will tell you that Romney and Ryan have taken the more courageous political stand -- they say Medicare can't be preserved and big fixes have to happen. Now, that doesn't mean necessarily they have the right policy answer, only that they are willing to face the problem.

As for Obama:

Obama and the Democrats are being disingenuous by trying to use the Romney-Ryan plan to scare voters without facing this tough issue in a direct way themselves.

The Republicans have been harping since the 2010 elections on the $700 billion cuts in Medicare that Obama and the Democrats used to help pay for the Affordable Care Act, but doesn't Ryan have the same Medicare cuts in his budget plan?
Short answer: Yes. Laszewski provides a detailed review of the claims being made by both sides on this $700 billion and concludes:

Both sides are making the same cuts and have really been playing games with this one.

Republicans are using the success of the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan as evidence that the market can control health care costs. Is this evidence on their side?
Short answer: "Not in any kind of clear cut way."

It's clear that Medicare drug costs are coming in way below what the Congressional Budget Office predicted when the new drug benefit was added to Medicare in 2003. However, all drug costs are coming in lower than predicted. In 2003, drug costs were exploding. Since then, the greatly increased use of generic drugs and fewer new expensive drugs in the pipeline have helped reduce drug spending. Also Medicare Part D (the drug benefit) enrollment has cost less than originally projected.

Romney and Ryan say their plan will include the traditional Medicare plan as one of the options. But critics say there is a good chance Medicare will end up with the sickest seniors, while rich people are able to buy the private plans, thereby destroying the Medicare program everyone has enjoyed. Is this true?
Short answer: Probably not.

Ryan has sponsored several different Medicare plans. Under the more detailed Wyden-Ryan Medicare Plan (which Ryan co-sponsored with Democratic Senator Wyden of Oregon), if one of the health insurance options attracts a disproportionate number of sick people, it gets more money to offset the resulting higher costs. This provision would protect Medicare or any other plan, Laszewski says, adding, "So, it is not clear to me how, if the traditional Medicare plan got sicker people, it would make it more expensive for consumers after these inter-plan adjustments."

The Romney/Ryan plan relies on the marketplace to control costs but there is no evidence that the market does a better job than government-run plans?
"That is right," Laszewski says, "but Romney and Ryan are calling for a different kind of health market." While there's no proof based on past practices that the market has controlled costs, we have never tried a market like the one Romney and Ryan propose.

They are proposing a very different system where health plans have to bid their price in each market. They argue that competitive bidding will result in real competition in the market and, with seniors being given limited  support in the government's vouchers, they will have a greater incentive to shop for plans that cost less. All of which, they argue, will result in controlling costs.

Most health policy experts believe that we must fundamentally change the health care delivery system from the current fee-for-service system that largely pays for quantity, to one that pays for quality and cost control. The Democratic health care reform law has lots of pilot programs to test these new ideas. It is also likely, Laszewski says, that the new Medicare cost board enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act will end up requiring providers to get their payments through these new payment programs in order to control costs.

The Republicans also embrace these same ideas for new programs that pay providers a fixed amount for health care. These new payment systems, he says, also would take better advantage of electronic payment management systems and administrative simplification.

All of these ideas, generally accepted by Democrats and Republicans, have yet to be proven, he cautions.

What do Obama and the Democrats propose as an alternative to Romney and Ryan?
Laszewski faults the Democrats for taking "the safer political path" by letting the other guys make controversial proposals and saying little about how they see Medicare operating differently in ten years.

But he says he is optimistic that the Medicare cost control board called for under the Obama Affordable Care Act "could do a lot of good toward pushing the Medicare program to more sustainable payment models." That board begins its work in 2015 under the ACA, but not until 2020 for the largest category of costs -- the hospitals. And, he adds, if the ACA board is successful in remaking Medicare, it will not be the "Medicare as we have known it" that the Democrats claim they can preserve.

Republicans criticize the Medicare cost board for being a "non-elected bunch of bureaucrats." But Laszewski says that our elected members of Congress -- Republicans and Democratics -- have not shown the political courage to make the tough decisions to reform Medicare.

He says he also is optimistic that the system of competitive bidding and consumer choice envisioned in the Romney/Ryan Medicare plan "could push the Medicare system toward more sustainability."

Both parties' reform plans "are untried solutions and controversial among the experts," he cautions.

Obama says that Paul Ryan's Medicare plan will increase a senior's health costs by $6,400 a year. Is this accurate?
No. That estimate is based upon a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of an earlier version of Ryan's plan, Laszewski says.

In his latest plan, Ryan increased the rate at which the federal premium support (the "vouchers") would grow as medical costs increase. He opened up the plan by allowing Medicare to be offered as one of the coverage choices. All seniors would be assured that they could afford at least the two least costly plans on the same basis as Medicare subsidizes them today. There is no way to tell which two plans they would be or whether traditional Medicare would be one of them. But these plans would have to offer at least the traditional Medicare benefits.

The CBO has not yet provided estimates on the revised Ryan plan. But Obama and the Democrats should be doing comparisons using this plan, which is a big change from the 2011 Ryan plan.

Bottom Line Question: Whose Medicare Plan Will Work?
"My sense is that either could work," Laszewski says. "It all depends how they are implemented."

Put a conservative and a liberal in the same room and give them all the facts about Medicare and health care spending, what has and hasn't worked in government and in the market, and then ask them to come to a conclusion. The liberal would like the Democratic approach that relies on the government, and the conservative would come out on the side of consumer choice and markets.

My Take on This 
So after all that, we end up where we started.  But I was struck by one thing in reading Laszewski's analysis.
Both sides are proposing $700 billion cuts in Medicare.  Both have the same idea that Medicare needs to be shifted away from fee-for-service to a system that puts more emphasis on quality of service rather than quantity and on cost control.  Obama's ACA uses insurance exchange programs for those not covered by Medicare and Romney/Ryan proposes them for Medicare reform

If we had a normal functioning democracy, you'd think a compromise resolution of the issue should be easy. But we don't have a normal function democracy.

How Ryan's Medicare Plan Would Affect My Almost-54-Year-Old Son and Everyone Younger

The debate about the Ryan Medicare plan has focused on the proposal to introduce a voucher program, with traditional Medicare as one of many options. That plan wouldn't take effect for 10 years. Everyone now 55 or older (not just those 65-plus) would be assured of continued coverage.

So far, there's not been much debate about that aspect of the plan. Let's take my son, who will turn 54 in December, as an example. In the unlikely event that Ryan's plan is enacted next year, my son -- and everyone his age and younger -- would have to continue paying taxes for the next ten years to subsidize Medicare. Then, when he's ready to retire, he'll be told, "Sorry, you are no longer automatically entitled to Medicare. It might be one of your choices. Then again, it might not."

Thus, under the Ryan plan, most Baby Boomers would be assured of Medicare coverage... EXCEPT those born in 1959 and later.

The 2010 Census shows about 77 million people 55 and older, about 25% of the 308 million total. Those same 77 million would be supported by only 158 WORKING-AGE fellow-Americans. In a nutshell, every 55-and-older's benefits would be supported by only TWO working people.

Strangely, recent polls show younger people more supportive of the Romney/Ryan plan than seniors. I guess younger generations assume that nothing like their father's Medicare will be available to them (they're right), and they like the fact that Romney/Ryan at lease promises them something. 

Do Obama and the Democrats Have Something Better to Offer My Son?

The short answer is no. Medicare needs to be restructured. It's one of the most important issues we face, and it must be addressed now, not in ten years. Obama's Affordable Care Act made a welcome start, but more needs to be done.

But both political parties avoid proposing necessary changes to Medicare for today's beneficiaries. The reason is simple: seniors vote in larger numbers than younger Americans, and the leading edge of the Baby Boom Generation (the pig in our political python) is retiring now. AARP threatens politicians with extinction if they even think about making major changes to "Medicare as we know it." That organization, as its numbers grow, will only become more powerful, rivaling the National Rife Association in its ability to prevent major reforms.

I've just come across an excellent analysis -- "Who's telling the truth about Medicare?" -- by one of the nation's leading health care experts. I'll take up that issue tomorrow.

Promised Post on Ryan's Medicare Plan -- Check this space tomorrow

In yesterday's post, I said  I'd be doing a post for today on Ryan's Medicare plan. I forgot that today was my senior bridge day and that my kids and I were going out tonight to celebrate my daughter's birthday. So I've declared a day's holiday from posting.

Pearlstein: Both Romney and Obama Lack Leadership IQ

I've been hesitant about polluting this blog with politics. A life-long political junkie, I'm fed up today. Extremists on both sides have taken over the stage, egged on by the media, which loves conflict and controversy. The rest of us have become a silent majority, watching the train wreck of our collapsing political system.

The conventions' deceptions and distortions from leaders of both parties on issues I care about made me change my mind about keeping this blog politics-free.

I had planned to publish a post today in response to a recent comment from my son. He said he'd been watching my blog to see if I'd have anything to say about Ryan's plan for Medicare. I do have something to say and my son, who will turn 54 in December, is a perfect example of what troubles me about Ryan's plan. I'll get to that tomorrow. Then the next day, I'll take up my concern about what Biden has said.

For now, I want to discuss Steven Pearlstein's column in today's Washington Post. I urge you to read it: Leadership IQ and the race for the White House.

Just before reading this piece, I had an e-mail exchange with a friend. I had complained that Obama, when given a choice between good politics and good policy, has too often chosen the former. My friend responded: "I'm not sure that's true. It probably would have been better politics to give up on the Affordable Care Act and not do the auto bailout.

I thought, "He's got a point there." Then I read Pearlstein's column, which explained -- I thought -- why my friend and I were both right. The 2010 election results changed Obama from leader to politician.

Where I'm Coming From
Since I plan to write several posts on political issues, you should know where I'm coming from. I'm a lifelong "liberal Democrat," a designaton most Democratic politicians are afraid to use these days. But I'm not a politician.

Nor do I march in lockstep with the Democratic leadership. For example, I didn't vote in the 1996 presidential election, the first one I ever missed. I was angry with President Clinton. When Newt Gingrich proposed changes in Social Security in his 1994 "Contract with America," Clinton and the congressional Democrats should have taken up the challenge to see if negotiation on this crucial issue was possible. Instead, they did what the Democrats do all too often: resort to demagoguery aimed at frightening seniors anytime Republicans propose touching social security.

I can safely play this silly game of not voting because I live in the District, where the Democrats are sure to win with or without my vote. Still, I'm considering withholding my vote again this year. And I haven't given Obama and the Democrats a dime this year, contrasted with thousands of dollars four years ago.

About a year ago, I thought Romney might be a better choice for president. The Republicans would continue to control the House and would probably take the Senate, too, because more Democrats were up for re-election. I thought a second-term Obama would therefore be doomed to continued stalemate, while a moderate Republican might be able to enact some needed changes. I entertained those notions before Romney made it clear that he would go wherever the political winds were blowing... and those winds are gusting in the direction of the Tea Party.

Where Pearlstein Is Coming From
Pearlstein writes a column for the business section of the Washington Post twice a week. In 2008, he received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his "insightful columns that explore the nation's complex economic ills with masterful clarity."

He, too, has a liberal Democrat background. He worked on the staff of Senator Durkin (D-IL) for several years. But he's spent most of his working life in journalism.

The Essential Leadership Traits
Pearlstein says at the outset that he's trying to keep his ideology and policy preference out of the analysis of Romney's and Obama's "leadership IQ." From contributors like Warren Bennis and Tom Peters to The Post's "On Leadership" website, Pearlstein says:

... we know that the essential elements of successful leadership are authenticity and truthfulness, an unwavering set of core values, strong personal ethics, a passion for a larger purpose outside of yourself, the ability to communicate an inspiring vision, empathy and emotional intelligence, persistence, self-discipline and a boldness that sometimes borders on narcissism. 

How Do Romney and Obama Rate? 
Here's Pearlstein's summary:

So, let me put it right out there: Although Barack Obama is yet to fully deliver on his considerable leadership promise, Mitt Romney -- for all his history of running things and running for things -- remains clueless about what genuine leadership is all about.

Pearlstein presents a searing indictment of Romney, whose biggest problem is "his stunning lack of authenticity." That assessment is based on Romney's "reinvention from centrist and pragmatic Massachusetts Republican into a dogmatic social and economic conservative, totally disavowing explicit positions on abortion, gay rights, immigration, the bank bailout, environmental regulation and, of course, the health reform in Massachusetts that was once his signature  political achievement."

"Phony is the word that keeps coming to mind," Pearlstein says. He presents more evidence to back up his failing grade for Romney and concludes:

Despite his obvious intelligence, self-discipline and managerial ability, by any honest measure Mitt Romney fails the leadership test.

American voters apparently have misgivings about Romney on this score. Given the lackluster state of the economy, he should be far ahead in the polls, not tied with Obama.

The Obama analysis was even more interesting. Pearlstein thinks the president showed great leadership potential in his best-selling books, in his election campaign, and his early years in office:

Whether you subscribe to them or not, he has a vision, a set of core values, a passion for a cause beyond himself.... As president, he has sometimes shown courage and persistence in pursuing unpopular initiatives, along with that boldness that sometimes borders on narcissism.  His empathy seems genuine. His public persona seems authentic and well-integrated with who he really is.

Where he has fallen short of his leadership promise, however, is by failing to tell the hard truths (Romney is not better) and making good on his promise to change the way business is done in Washington.

I wholeheartedly agree that Obama has failed to tell the public the hard truth. But I think he wasted too much time trying to make good on his promise to change the way things are done in Washington. It was clear early on that the Republicans had no interest in working with Obama and were only interested in destroying his presidency.

I also agree with Pearlstein's conclusion that after the 2010 election, Obama changed from being a potentially good leader to a traditional politician:

With the electoral drubbing that his party took in November 2010 and the sharp decline in his own poll numbers, Obama stopped being a leader with a passion for a larger purpose outside of himself. He became just another politician focused on his own re-election, pandering to the public and key constituencies, refusing to come clean about the sacrifices that would be required while demonizing Republicans with the same relentless advertising based on exaggeration and half-truths that Republicans had used so successfully against him.

The Obama strategists no doubt would argue that this is the only way to win re-election. Pearlstein thinks -- correctly I believe -- that sticking to a leadership strategy based on authenticity, core values, and courageous truth-telling would have been more effective, and a sure way to expose Romney's phoniness. (And to get big bucks from me.)

Obama's defenders also assure us that after winning re-election, he'll show that he can live up to his leadership potential. Pearlstein concludes:

I'd be skeptical that anyone who wins office by playing the old Washington political game will have the power -- let alone the instinct -- to change it.

What I Would Add
Being an effective president in our political system requires more than the leadership traits Pearlstein describes. It requires innate political skills to work one-on-one with other politicians... skills Obama has not shown.

Seeing him speak at the convention after Joe Biden and Bill Clinton reminded me how Obama lacks the "schmoozing" talent those other two veterans possess. It's a talent that comes naturally to fun-loving, people-loving guys like Biden and Clinton. Michelle seems to connect better than Barak. The president may have compassion for people generally, but he doesn't really seem to care much for those outside his family and friends, and he particularly doesn't like dealing with politicians. He's essentially a loner. Tellingly, as a young man he lived in New York City for a few years without developing any meaningful friendships.

If you don't like dealing with people, they aren't likely to want to deal with you..

Remember Barbra Streisand's song about "people... people who need people"? They're certainly missing in action from the top of both presidential tickets this year.

Thank God I've got Griffin and the Redskins to cheer me up this fall! Rather than "Hail to the Chief," it will be "Hail to the Redskins" -- I hope.

Reminder: For all of you who are ready to fire off a comment or email reminding me that the President nominates the Supreme Court Justices, remember I said I can indulge myself in not voting ONLY because I live in DC,  I certainly would NOT recommend this for anyone living in a jurisdiction where your vote could make a difference!

Watch the first 90 seconds of this and then ask "What the hell happened?"

A NYC Weekend at Age 83: Will I Manage as Well as I Did Last Year? Part 2

This update completes my recap, begun Wednesday (http://bit.ly/TXagmT) on my Labor Day weekend in New York City with my housemates Nimesh and Bhawana. It was Bhawana's first visit to NYC and my first trip since my car crash last August and the resulting lower back pain that flares up when I walk. 

I ended Wednesday's post by saying I'd finish it on Thursday. It was ready to go about midnight on Wednesday, when I hit a mysterious key and everytthing disappeared. [expletive deleted]

So... we thoroughly enjoyed the the Saturday matinee of the hit musical The Book of Mormon. Nimesh got a signed playbill and photo with one of the stars, and bought a t-shirt souvenir which he immediately donned as we headed to the subway for our next adventure. 

The title of the musical's most popular song (the one that made us laugh every time we heard it in the car last summer) is emblazoned on the t-shirt: "Hasa Diga Eebowai." Ugandan natives sing it to explain their philosophy of life to the newly-arrived young Mormon missionaries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IjBi1eEaAA.

We headed to the High Street subway station at the Brooklyn end of the Brooklyn Bridge. I wanted to show Nimesh and Bhawana one of my favorite things to do in NYC: walk back to Manhattan on the bridge, enjoying the spectacular skyline views and making the short walk to Chinatown. An enterprising plan for a guy with a bad back!

Here I am, exiting the station, wondering about the latest example of my tendency to overdo it:

Fortunately, a cab driver had told us we should go to Grimaldi's Pizzeria (http://www.grimaldis.com/) for the "best pizza in the city." We decided to check it out before crossing the bridge. When we got there just after 5pm, there was already block-long line waiting to get in. Since standing in line is one of my least favorite things to do, we moved on to a riverfront restaurant down the street, where we enjoyed an early supper and a magnificent vista of the city. 

Here I am, looking back at the bridge thinking "I'd rather enjoy the view sitting here than see the same thing walking up there."

And the view was terrific:

As a bonus, we found a ferry stop under the bridge that terminated at 34th Street in Manhattan: a much more scenic, fun way back into town than by subway! 

Hmmm. I wonder if we could peddle that photo to Frommer's. Here, Nimesh is holding Frommer's New York City day by day -- 25 Smart Ways to See the City.

The ferry gets ready to cross the river to its final stop, just to the left of the UN Building:

Nimesh and Bhawana had heard from some of their DC friends who were also spending the weekend in NYC. They had all agreed to meet up on the High Line, the abandoned West Side rail line smartly renovated as an urban park and walk. I'd never been there, and it was one of the items on my friend Bonnie's list of things to do. Although the gauge on my energy tank was slipping toward empty, I tagged along. Fortunately, there were lots of benches along the walk. Here I am, at the end of the Nepali lineup: 

Nearly out of steam, I headed back to the hotel. Along the way, still on the High Line, I decided to pause and meditate for a few minutes, hoping to replenish my energy tank. I positioned myself on a bench, adjusted  my hands into my "secret handshake," and closed my eyes. When I opened them again, I found the lighted Empire State Building to the left, and the Chrysler Building on the right. Between them, and framed by two smaller buildings, was the just-risen full moon. Wow! Where was my camera when I really needed it?

Of course, the young'uns kept on going; after all, it was Saturday night in the Big City. Here they are, settling in for dinner around midnight at a Nepali restaurant in the Bronx:

I was back at the hotel, sound asleep.

Sunday

Understandably, Nimesh and Bhawana were late risers on Sunday, so I had a nice couple of hours with my coffee and the Sunday New York Times. I searched Google for brunch recommendations in Chelsea or Greenwich Village. I found the Green Table in the Chelsea Market, which Bonnie had also recommended.  So when my fellow travelers awoke, we headed there. A great choice: the Market was vibrantly alive, and the Green Table food was excellent.

Since it was morning and my energy was high, I decided we should walk from the Chelsea Market to one of my favorite spots: Washington Square. That stroll would give us a chance to check off another of Bonnie's suggestions: a walk along famous Bleecker Street in the Village. 

One of my regrets is not having spent a year or two working in NYC and living in the Village or Chelsea. City life is great for the young and care-free, or for the old and wealthy... or reasonably well-to-do. For those in between, that trite adage is probably true: "New York is a great place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there."

When we got to Washington Square, we listened to a good jazz combo. Later, we watched a musician readying his grand piano on the sidevalk in another part of the park. Of course, we took the usual photos, with the arch and fountain as backdrops:

Then we headed for Battery Park and the ferry to the Statute of Liberty and Ellis Island. I had never toured either, for the same reason that kept me from making the tour this time: I don't stand in long lines. (I was trying to think of the last time I stood in a long line. It was probably the hour-long line to get into the National Cathedral in Washington to hear the Dali Lama speak. I was with a group of Nepali friends; we phoned in a pizza order and had it delivered to us in the line that stretched down Massachusetts Avenue.)

We hadn't read Frommer's tip that you could eliminate the wait for the Statute of Liberty ferry by buying and printing online tickets. So, Nimesh stood in the long line while I sat on a bench and ate an ice cream bar. But then, there was the long, long security-check line before boarding the ferry:

After standing for about five minutes, I said, "I'm sorry but I'm going to head back to the hotel." Nimesh and Bhawana soldiered on, and got to the Statute of Liberty:

They decided to scratch the Ellis Island tour. When they got back to Battery Park, they walked up to the financial district so Nimesh could deliver a well-placed kick to the Wall Street Bull:

In the evening, they went to Brooklyn to meet with several of Nimesh's relatives. I enjoyed a quiet, recuperative evening back at the hotel. 

Labor Day Monday

Before checking out of the hotel and heading for Penn Station, Nimesh and Bhawana made a pilgrimage to the younger generation's Mecca:

The old man was happy to be headed home after this "test drive" to NYC:

And Bhawana survived her introduction to Manhattan's madness:

As I said, I was eager to see how I'd handle this trip, the first since my car crash last August. That accident added lower back pain -- a particular new worry -- to my list of afflictions. I've got a few observations, and some ideas that might make future travels easier for me, but I'll hold them for another day.