The idea is if you change the retirement age to some one approaching retirement age - they are not prepared financially in that they may have been expecting to retire say at 63 but now it moves up to 70 so they can't get ss until 70 (I don't know the specific rules but you get the idea).
The reason you want to change the retirement age is for payment of SS. We are running out of money and soon will go bankrupt as there was no plan that so many people would live so long and thus there isn't enough to support our elders with SS.
The idea of upping the age will save lots in money and seeing most people are living longer and are healthier at an older age it makes sense. Most people can work easily still over 65 so why not move it up to 70 to protect SS.
Markey and most financial liberals do not want to touch ss but it doesn't make logical sense to not do something financially. Most financial liberals prefer to increase taxes or increase SS deductions from younger workers. I don't think they understand not being in a financial situation that the average american is the average amercian has cut so much financially with the bad economy that any increase in deductins from their pay is a huge financial burden.
If you up the retirement age to 70, but say those over 55 or what seems reasonable stay with the same retirement age then it won't hurt those close to retirement, but will help for future generations.
At least that is the logic.
I won't say I agree with all his policies (the only ethical type policy that leans to republican is his assault weapons - pretty much all else leans toward democrat - don't believe markey), but his fiscal ones make more sense. Markey is in support of increasing spending and taxes when personally I can't cut any more - I've already had a decrease in net salary (with healthcare going up/ss going up and no pay increases as the economy is so poor - I'm making less money net significantly than last year and everything is costing more).