evidence: Speaking Thursday to Bloomberg News, Haley criticized most of her competitors for refusing to talk about cutting social services like Social Security in the name of fiscal responsibility. As an example of the kind of reform she favored, she suggested raising the retirement age for receiving Social Security benefits "to reflect life expectancy." Then came the big swing and a miss: Asked to specify a new retirement age, Haley declined to get specific but said "65 is way too low." It was a strange position to take. The age to receive full retirement benefits through Social Security today is 67 for people born in 1960 or later; it was raised from 65 to 67 during the Reagan era. When Republicans talk about raising the age, they’re typically talking about raising it to 69 or older. But it seems that Haley’s claim that the current retirement age is "way too low" is an argument for it to be a lot higher than the status quo. Fortunately for those of us who don’t thrill at the idea of working until we die, Haley’s suggestion is so politically unpopular that it has little chance to become policy. Maybe that’s why most of her competitors haven’t joined her in arguing for a higher retirement age. They know arguing for it doesn’t make sense.