This morning Robert Samuelson has a scathing column in the Washington Post that I urge you to read. It begins with a succinct summary of the predicament in which we find ourselves:
America’s budget problem boils down to a simple question: How much will we let programs for the elderly displace other government functions – national defense, education, transportation and many others – and raise taxes to levels that would, almost certainly, reduce economic growth? What’s depressing is that this question has been obvious for decades, but our political leaders have consistently evaded it.
That’s the beginning. It goes on from there.
The key problem is that one faction is ignorant or disdainful of the economic consequences and the other faction is ignorant or disdainful of the social and political consequences. The effect of reducing Medicare expenses by reducing services will be to consign the elderly to the ranks of the poor where, far from removing them from the cow with 300 million teats, will merely move them from being concerns of the federal government to being concerns of state and local governments which are, if anything, in worse fiscal shape than the federal government.
The effect of increasing taxes will be to slow economic growth. If we had the prospect of 6 or 8% growth per year, that wouldn’t be particularly troubling. With the prospect of 2% or lower economic growth extending indefinitely into the future reduced growth could reduce any budget cuts to impotence.
Possibly “different” taxes would bring the revenue at same or lower real burden.
Reduce the payroll tax and normalize tariffs to a small uniform level.
(I like “almost free trade” and wish that had been a political option.)
If it boils down to a simple question, then that can be recast as having to convince the elderly of a simple proposition: Their quantum of suffering will have to increase.
Is that what must be done? Or must the elderly be convinced that they must be willing to pay more of their own costs to the extent that they are able?
Old people vote, young people don’t. If young people voted as regularly as old people we could have a somewhat more fruitful discussion. But right now the pols don’t want to confront the old, so they’ll tend to screw the young.
Michael:
Agreed with one addition: we don’t screw the young. Education has a higher tab than Medicare does.
Agreed with one addition: we don’t screw the young. Education has a higher tab than Medicare does.
That’s a comparison that doesn’t tell us anything because it’s based on artificial distinctions. Medicare is a program that pays for services, but doesn’t pay for construction, overhead, equipment, etc. where education spending encompasses all expenses incurred within the sector, including university research (which most definitely is not a benefit that accrues solely to the young.)
Further, when broken down on a per person cost basis, education spending for those between the ages of 5-19 works out to $10,057 while Medicare spending for those age 65 and older works out to $11,365. That’s at today’s spending level. It’s generally agreed that Medicare spending is going to become significantly more costly in coming years. It’s also generally agreed that longevity is increasing so the population pyramid is going to get marginally more top heavy. It’s also generally agreed that medical spending for Medicare qualified seniors increases as they age.
sam –
That’s pretty artificial. Setting aside demographic issues for the moment, the system simply has been structurally flawed for many decades. Increased rates of benefits relative to wage earners; increasing life expectancy relative to contributions. You call it “quantum of suffering” to elicit emotional support. But the reality is that compared to retirees of, say the 40’s and 50’s, current retirees are getting ill-gotten gains. And the politicians and lefty pundits have succeded in obfuscating this to the electorate.
“And the politicians and lefty pundits have succeded in obfuscating this to the electorate.”
Do you want me to list some quotes by righty pundits about how must not touch Medicare, or how the budget is being balanced on the backs of the elderly? Need I, again, point out that Medicare Part D was the largest, IIRC, unfunded spending bill ever? This transcends left and right.
Steve
steve –
Words matter. Did you note that I said politicians, without attribution to left or right? Yes, blood on both hands.
But when it comes to pundits, the weighting is decidedly left. Fine, do a search. Knock yourself out. I’m sure you can find those on the right making such claims. But you will find an overwhelmingly bias to the left.
I’ve been doing alot of listening to “Talk Left” (820 AM here in Chicago) since the election. This is the Ed Schultz etc crowd. It is fascinating. Absolutely any concept of fiscal sanity is scoffed at, complete with descriptions of policy changes met with accusations of throwing Grandma out in the snow, the elderly forced to eat cat food, the electorate being stupid beyond all belief, children being channeled to a life of poverty, people forced to die in the streets for lack of care etc etc. They interview, naturally, Democratic pols, who echo the sentiment.
The notion that the left doesn’t have a monopoly on these absurd scare tactics is, well, absurd on its face. Go do your search.