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.
1 comment:
The government’s real financial problems are, “old people?”
You have to understand the benefits like Social Security helps not only older Americans, but also workers who become disabled and families in which a spouse or parent dies. (1) You’re basically saying that after however many years of working, people who are trying to receive their benefits by retiring, shouldn’t. During the course of their entire life their hard work, when in comparison to the importance of national defense and education, should be cut because they’re trying to collect their benefits that they have been putting into since they started their career.
Instead of reducing these programs we should try and figure out a permanent benefit that will suffice a growing population. These programs such as social security will eventually run out but until then our taxes are paying for people who are eligible to obtain these benefits. If anything I think these “old people” deserve these benefits more than we do.
Since older people are voting to not reduce these programs, can you really blame their disregard of the younger generation on the elderly? It’s our fault that young adults these days aren’t more involved in politics. If we want reform then we need to be involved, and since we aren’t as concerned as our elders were, we suffer; it’s as easy as that. Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University observed that, “from Medicare to Social Security to Medicaid, the older people just have a greater interest in voting than younger people who don’t see the same benefits.” (2)
Because our generation doesn’t have the need for these government-sponsored programs such as Medicaid and Medicare we don’t understand the genuine importance. Since, in Texas, our parents (if assumingly, they pay for your insurance) are able to insure us up until the age of 25. (3) At this point I feel like the younger generation just takes what they have for granted and doesn’t evaluate how important these federal insurance programs are.
You would think, as the population grows, people would be more inclined to embrace the protection of their future. If we really want to see a change then the younger generation needs to step it up and become more involved in government affairs. We’re watching funded programs crumble because of a lack of involvement to reshape what could be our future programs.
(1) The Official Website of the U.S. Social Security Administration
(2) U.S. News & Work Report
(3) Texas Corporation Aviation Schedulers and Dispatchers
Post a Comment