Old People?

Everyone can agree that the government's budget and debt is a huge issue that needs to be dealt with. Talks of budget cuts and tax increases run rampant, but none seem to address the real problem with our government's financial situation: old people. Almost half of our spending is on Medicare and Social Security - programs specifically for the elderly - and it continues to rise. It certainly doesn't help that the population of those over 65 keeps rising - it's expected to more than double by 2050. This creates a huge problem; we can't afford to spend money on these programs at the rate we do now, or there will literally be no room for anything else. We also can't really cut funding in important areas such as defense or education. The only other options would be dramatic tax raises or even greater debt, neither of which are good.

 Funding for these programs desperately needs to be reduced. However, that is very unlikely, as people over 65 are much more likely to vote than any other age group, and would certainly be opposed to reducing their free Ponzi money. People aged 55 to 64, who will soon be eligible for Social Security benefits, also vote more than younger age groups. It also doesn't help that most lawmakers are also old; the average age of Senators is 60, and the average age of members of the House  55. These people, who have the power to change the law, are unlikely to do so, whether it's due to their nearing retirement or general sympathy for people of their generation. Either way, allowing these programs to continue on the route they're headed on neglects the younger generation, and will prove to be extremely detrimental to everyone.

 Changing demographics also amplify the problem. The life expectancy of a 65-year-old has increased from 14 years in 1940 to almost 20 today, and will continue to rise with modern medical advancement. In 1940, in the early years of Social Security, the number of covered workers for eachbeneficiary was 159. Today it’s only 3, and it continues to drop, expected to reach 2 by 2033. Birthrates are also at an all time low, meaning that as the current population continues to age, there will be fewer and fewer people to join the workforce to replace them. The scary thing is that there really isn't much that can be done. We can't really cut the funding, as it would greatly anger the elderly population, nor can we afford to drastically raise taxes or debt, and mass euthanasia is clearly out of the question. All that we can do is sit and wait for everything to come crumbling down. 

Will Texas be a Swing State?

In this blog post, Paul Burka addresses Obama's assertion that Texas will be a swing state soon. This statement was based on observing Texas' rapidly changing demographics. The GOP's power is dwindling, as its entire base continues to age. Additionally, the Hispanic population, who are much more likely to be Democrats, is growing drastically, accounting for 65% of Texas' population growth from 2000 to 2010. This, interestingly enough, seems to mirror the Republican Party's rise to power some 40 years ago. Prior to that, Texas had nearly always been a Democratic state, until their base began aging, allowing the growing number of younger Republicans and immigrants who also tended to be Republicans to gain control. Now the newer generation of young people and immigrants is gaining power within the state, only for the opposite party. A graph of the political trends in Texas can be seen below.

This graph clearly illustrates the declining power in the Democratic Party and the rise of the GOP. However, it also appears as though the Republican Population is decreasing, and the Democratic population rising. The Republicans had their highest population in 2005, when they made up 42 % of the electorate, 16% more than the Democrats' 26%, and have since declined, while the Democratic population continues to rise. As of 2010, Republicans make up 39% of the population while Democrats make up 38%, now almost equal in numbers. As Obama said, this change in demographics certainly suggests that Texas will soon be a swing state, though soon is very relative. Burka does think this is destined to happen, but doesn't believe it will be so soon. Whatever will happen, only time can tell. Assuming the current trend continues, when Texas does become a swing state elections will certainly be more interesting.

Obama's Immigration Policy

This past June, Obama signed an executive order which halts the deportation of young illegal immigrants who fulfill the requirements laid out in the DREAM act, and allows them to receive work permits. This will help over 800,000 innocent people living in fear of deportation. Jose Aliseda, with Texas Weekly, believes Obama's immigration policy is wrong. In his article, Aliseda uses an extended metaphor likening immigration to thievery. He asserts that if a family stole a substantial amount of money from you, and used it to help raise their children, it would be wrong for law enforcement to not have your money returned to you because it may harm the children benefitting from their parents’ theft. This statement is true, as in this crime, you have been wronged. However, it is distinctly different from immigration, and the same logic cannot follow.

Illegal immigration is a victimless crime; nobody is wronged in when someone crosses the border. It is therefore a completely different scenario than the thieving family metaphor. If a family brings their child to America illegally, the child is not just benefiting from a crime as with the hypothetical thief family. They are being raised in America, to the point where their "homeland" is just as foreign to them as it is to us. Deporting them to an unfamiliar place because their parents brought them here seems rather cruel, and certainly unjust. Aliseda goes on to list more crimes that the parents of immigrants protected under this policy may have committed, including driving without a license or insurance, working without a social security card/number, unlawfully accessing public services, or taking jobs from legal residents. This is all nonsense, of course, as many of these “crimes” aren’t committed out of malice, but because it is impossible to obtain a valid license, insurance, or social security card as a consequence of their mode of immigration. What’s more, undocumented immigrants, comprising an estimated 8% of Texas’ workforce, actually contribute more to the economy than they receive in state services, and in the long run, immigration has been shown to have positive effects on unemployment for both immigrant and native born workers.

States Saying No to PPACA Could See Downside

           In an article by the Austin American Statesman, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar writes about the downsides to Rick Perry's saying "no" to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. By rejecting the Medicaid expansion, Perry will be leaving 1.3 million Texans without health insurance. The current Medicaid program currently provides insurance for low-income children, mothers, and disabled people, and through Obama’s expansion was expected to add 15 million uninsured low-income people. According to “Obamacare,” those who are already eligible for Medicaid will keep their coverage, while those above the poverty line would have subsidized private coverage.

           However, by rejecting the law, millions of people under the poverty line will be left without insurance in a coverage gap now being called the new “doughnut hole,” in reference to the Medicare gap forcing many seniors to pay for drugs out of pocket. What’s worse is that federal tax money from states which reject the law will be going to neighboring states to uphold it, meaning that we’d have still have to pay for it without getting any of the benefits. Many state officials are planning on waiting until the November election to make a decision, while others like Rick Perry are still as adamant as ever. This highly controversial topic will surely continue to capture the media’s attention. Despite this, I still remain rather indifferent about the topic.