Benefits for seniors eating up kids' share (USA Today)

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-14-kidsbudget_N.htm

Benefits for seniors eating up kids' share

By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The spiraling cost of benefits for seniors is limiting the federal government's ability to invest in kids.

Despite Democrats' plans to boost spending on education and children's health insurance, the projected $2.9 trillion federal budget's tilt toward older Americans will only increase, a study out today from the Urban Institute says.

The report, which examined more than 100 federal programs for children, shows that their share of domestic spending and tax breaks has dropped from 20% in 1960 to 15.4% today. Barring a change in policy, it would decline to 13% in 2017.

As a share of the nation's economy, spending on kids would go from 2.6% to 2.1%. By contrast, spending for adults only in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — the major programs that benefit seniors — would rise from 7.6% to 9.5% of the economy.

"Despite frequent rhetoric from policymakers on the priority given to children, the federal budget makes fairly clear that children are less of a priority and more of an afterthought," the report says.


A man walks to the registration desk before voting in Maryland's largest precinct of Leisure City, Nov. 7, 2006 in Silver Spring, Maryland.

The report is the most detailed examination yet of the disparity between federal spending on children and adults. It examined programs from 1960, when the tax exemption for dependents represented two-thirds of federal spending on kids, to today's mix of tax credits, health and housing subsidies, food stamps and programs for the poor and disabled.

In the past four years, seniors have won key victories in Congress. In 2003, they got prescription-drug coverage under Medicare, projected to cost $38 billion this year and $119 billion a decade from now. In 2005, they helped block President Bush's plan to create private investment accounts in Social Security, which were favored in polls by young voters.

FULL story at link.

[thethinker]

1. Divide and conqueror

Who is this Richard Wolf fool who wrote this article? And whose payroll is he on other than USA Todays? People drawing social security paid into it their entire lives. The prescription-drug coverage is a joke that is costing seniors, not saving them money. It is a money-making gimmick for the pharmaceutical companies.

The country is not spending enought money supporting kids or seniors because all the resources are going to fight foreign wars, or being stolen by no bid contracts. The other problem is the rich aren't paying any taxes.

I don't think anyone is falling for this type of dribble any more.

[Solo_in_MD]

3. You need to look at the national budget figures and take a longer view

even if all of unpaid taxes were collected, recent tax breaks repealed, and no foreign wars, there would still not be enough to cover what you espouse. Americans are clearling unwilling to impose the taxes needed and are borrowing the money instead.

SS is a shell game. The so called trust fund has been raided for generations, going back to LBJ. No pension fund would be allowed to act the way it has, its an acuarial disaster. SS originally intended as 1 of a 3 legged stool has become a much larger provider without an increase in investments. Its been that way for 50+ years and any and pols have resisted substantive change, since it is the 3rd rail of American politics.

The real problem is the 20 somethings and younger are starting to think it is them or the seniors. This is helped along by some of the selfishness I have seen in senior citizens. Those of us in the middle generation are understandably conflicted. Senior voting power can only go so far when they are not contributing to the society.

I hope the conflict is slow in rising and handled before it gets too bad. A great many SciFi stories have been written about the possibility and I can't recall any that were positive.

[shimmergal]

14. Excuse me, but I find some of these statements insulting.

If, in fact, social security is a shell game it's not the fault of the senior citizens who paid into it all their working lives.

And as for "not contributing to the society." Wow! You don't know, in the case of any particular child, whether they'll ever "contribute to the society" either. Or in fact, you can know in certain cases, those where the child is severely physically or mentally handicapped and almost certainly never will. Does this mean they deserve no support or help either?

Now that I'm officially "retired" I'm contributing as an unpaid nanny (close to full-time) for my grandchildren, as well as through grossly underpaid freelance work. If I reach the point where I'm incapable of doing either, I'll feel "out of it" but this shouldn't totally devalue me as a person.

[Solo_in_MD]

16. Good...because it means your are contributing.

But there are many who are not, especially the wealthier retires who clearly have a "we are entitled" attitude. Working people tend not to have that, whether they are retired or not.

Tax breaks, food distribution, and transportation for the elderly that are not means tested, the inability in CA to pass local school bonds in districts with retirement communities. Hard age restrictions in certain communities that still get full services. Its a clear pattern that my generation tolerates, but the next generation is not seeing as justified.

SS is indeed a shell game. It is also chronically underfunded. Deductions were based on one level of benefit, when in fact the level of benefits is much higher. Its a recipe for disaster that none of the pols of either party are will to take on. Sliding eligibility is not going to solve the financial issues. In the end the newly retired who need it most will be those who suffer most from it.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. Many here natter about class warfare and ignore the much more real challenge of generational issues

I'm a late baby boomer, so this is up close and personal to me...

The current crop of retirees expect senior centers, low cost meals, free transportation, world class medical care, and other services as an entitlement. Many of them retired at 65 more than 10 years ago, and expect to live into their 90s. The younger generation who can not afford a decent home or the standard of living their parents had are starting to grumble about how they can not afford things. The middle generation (mine) is caught in the middle. we are facing retirement having lived better than any generation before us, and want to keep that high standard of living. We also want both our parents and children to be comfortable. Unfortunately, it does not look possible in the current environment.

I expect the revolt of the young to come in 10+ years. Social Security and other entitlements will most likely be restricted or at least means tested. All public pensions will be forced to defined contribution (good public fiscal policy IMO), and some form of mandatory contributory pension set up, perhaps along the lines of Sweden.

My answer to this has been to invest wisely, work my ass off, and hope it doesn't come too soon since I am afeared it is most certainly coming.

[thethinker]

5. What?

Americans aren't living into their 90s. Here are some statistics for Americans from the World Fact Book:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

The average life expectancy of an American is 77.85. We are 46th in the list of nations for life expectancy.

Here is some more statistics breaking down which Americans can expect to live to be 77.85:

http://www.femhealth.com/LongevityStatistics.html

• Asian-Americans have a life expectancy of 84.9 years.
• Northland have a life expectancy of 79 years.
• Middle America have a life expectancy of 77.9 years.
• Low income whites in Appalachia, Mississippi Valley have a life expectancy of 75 years.
• Western American Indians have a life expectancy of 72.7 years.
• Black Middle America have a life expectancy of 72.9 years.
• Southern low-income rural blacks have a life expectancy of 71.2 years.
• High-risk urban blacks have a life expectancy of 71.1 years.

Life expectancy in the US is very tied to income.


The younger generation who can not afford decent housing or the standard of living their parents had can blame outsourcing of jobs, globalization, lack of unions, open immigration, no increase in minimum wage, and all the other wonderful changes the republicans have brought us. The middle class is shrinking fast. But that is not the fault of people that paid in to social security their entire lives. The two things have nothing to do with each other. The young and the old alike are getting screwed by the current administration's policies. Everyone is getting screwed except the super rich.

[fuzzyball]

6. I am an American of Asian heritage, and

my mom lived to be 103, both my grand parents lived
into their 90's. I started collecting social security
at 62 and expect to make it to 90 since I have zero
health problems, require no prescriptions, and walk 18
holes 300 days in a year, do not smoke and limit alcohol
to maximum 1 drink/day.

So what is the remedy for social security? Cut benefits
based on race? Life expectancy? That won't fly.
We nee dto cut benefits ACROSS THE BOARD. Only fair way!

[thethinker]

8. That is great

I glad you expect to live to be in your 90s. But statistics shows that most Americans will not live that long. So it averages out. That is why we have social security. Some people collect it for a short while and others a long while.

[slampoet]

15. Please that statistic includes suicides and war dead in life expectancy.

The real average life span for people is a little higher that the stats show. Also if the average is 77 years then there are possibly as many as 30% that are living 10 years longer.

[Solo_in_MD]

9. Its a case of expectations on both sides

Many seniors who are doing the senior lifestyle you see on TV and cruise ships are indeed wealthier than average. They are also the ones who are the most politically active, most conservative, and do expect to live into their 90s even though the stats don't back them up. They expect a comfortable golden years free from contribution or substantive payment. In their minds they paid their dues and they are now entitled. I see it every day.

I disagree with your views on what causing issues for the 20s. I don't think its possible to maintain the high end lifestyle across the population with the current GNP. Some group is going to suffer. There is not enough to go around and expectations have to be lowered by everyone. That will be ugly. The courts will back the senior entitlements as will the pols. It will be an angry time.

Other that what I perceive as the selfishness of some, I don't blame the seniors as much as the pols who have catered to them over the years and in the process made social security insolvent and raised expectations to where they are not supportable. Unfortunately, its not just the repukes who have done this.

Some economic tough love is coming...and its going to be bitter. Unfordable housing may be the first thing to go which will domino into other investments. . Gasoline and other petroleum products will follow. We as a nation will have to change our lifestyle. Its not going to pleasant, accepting diminished expectations never is.

[Kurovski]

4. What utterly hateful bullshit.

Fuck USA Today for running this crap.

How much is being eaten up by an illegal unnecessary war?

Completely disgusting.

[LeFleur1]

7. Hmmm

The leaders of our country have been stealing from Social Security for years. USA Today must be working for the "no social programs crowd" or they might have mentioned that fact.

We could just start shooting those old useless people at around the age of 65. Maybe an injection of death would be more humane.

Seems like a POS article. (Piece of sh**).

[Omaha Steve]

10. I'm so glad this article got this much attention

I have so many posts that deserve an intelligent conversation that go nowhere.

[gratuitous]

11. Ah, the meme of the "greedy geezers" is back

Ignore the half trillion dollars pounded into the sand of Iraq. Let's all get upset with those fucking old people who need medicine to survive. Meanwhile, Halliburton gets another no-bid contract and relocates overseas to avoid having to pay back any of the money it's stolen out of the Treasury.

And we for sure can't be raising taxes on Paris Hilton or any of the Forbes billionaires. Why, they've earned their plunder! Why should they contribute financially to the society from which they've benefited so fabulously?

[Solo_in_MD]

17. The stereotype exists for a reason

and there is clearly a segment of the elderly that fall into that category. Its not all incompassing, but it certainly is there.

[Le Taz Hot]

12. Well you know, if we hand't gone into Iraq

there would have been enough money for REAL senior programs (that's a long post in itself), AND children AND universal health care for all Americans and New Orleans would have been rebuilt LONG ago and, oh, what the hell. Bill fucking Haliburton. Oh, wait, they're going to Dubai out of reach of the Justice Department. How convenient.

On edit: Speeling

[Q]

13. And let's not forget the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS

....the Defense Department simply lost somewhere between here and the 'war on terror'.

It's well known the 'government' wastes trillions of dollars a year. Yet where is the outrage about this?

This is nothing more than class warfare by the media.