“The problem won’t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.” They are elderly sick people in Japan. And the speaker is Taro Aso, the country’s Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Aso, himself 72 years old, has a reputation for verbal gaffes. Well deserved, in this case.  He had to take back what he said.

It looks, however, as if he still believes his own words. “I would wake up feeling increasingly bad knowing that treatment was all being paid for by the government,” he also said. This sentiment emerged at a Japanese government meeting about social security reform.

This official does not have to worry about his own care. Aso is one of the richest men in Japan. It is easy enough for him to say: “I don’t need that kind of care. I will die quickly.”

Aso’s words evoke for me the practice of abandonment or direct killing of the elderly.  The custom still exists in some places today, but we associate it with former times. That happened when northern or nomadic people eliminated those whom they could no longer care for.

This practice used to exist among the Inuit, or Eskimos, but only rarely. And, as UCLA scholar Jared Diamond points out: “Traditional nomadic tribes often end up abandoning their elderly during their unrelenting travels.”

Abandonment, in these instances, arises from extreme hardship. Still, the very idea shocks us. We like to think that we would never abandon the truly needy elderly.

But are we growing increasingly impatient with those who need the help of society? Some members of Congress may be; Aso certainly is.

Incidentally, this Japanese official is a Roman Catholic. My reason for mentioning that fact here is because Aso, for me, resembles some Catholic members of our Congress. They are people who seem to value their faith but ignore the church’s basic social teaching about reaching out to the poor and needy.

Yes, Japan has special challenges in providing for its elderly.  Its percentage of old people is the largest of any nation in the world. As many as four hundred thousand of them are said to be hooked up to feeding tubes.

So it’s certainly understandable for the government to manage its finances with special care. Providing for all of Japan’s people requires skill and wisdom, especially at times when the economy may not be thriving.

But taking it out on old people, whether sick or well, is no way to solve financial problems. When you think about distribution of resources, their needs should be given high priority.

When it comes to our own Social Security program, many members of Congress wish to reduce its benefits. They propose taking this action even if doing so would deprive many elders of the only income they have.

To the dismay of many of his supporters, President Obama himself seems ready to sacrifice at least portions of some benefits. He apparently proposes to do this so as to placate the Republicans who favor Social Security as the place to cut federal expenditures.

Some people could well afford to have their Social Security benefits cut. Donald Trump comes to mind, and he is not alone. But let us not extend these cuts to those who depend for their livelihood on the modest funds provided by the system.

Almost one half of unmarried people over age 65 get almost all of their income from Social Security payments. The same is true for one quarter of married people over 65. To preserve a decent life for them would seem to be a basic requirement of fairness.