Robert Samuelson has a column out about a major issue that none of the
presidential candidates are talking about: that is, the aging of
the the baby boomer population. The numbers are staggering:
Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the
65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share
of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- programs that serve older people
-- already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget.
By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget,
projects the Congressional Budget Office.
The 2030 projections are daunting. To keep federal
spending stable as a share of the economy would mean eliminating
all defense spending and most other domestic programs (for
research, homeland security, the environment, etc.). To balance the
budget with existing programs at their present economic shares
would require, depending on assumptions, tax increases of 30
percent to 50 percent -- or budget deficits could quadruple. A
final possibility: Cut retirement benefits by increasing
eligibility ages, being less generous to wealthier retirees or
trimming all payments.
I have long considered the looming entitlement crisis the most
important domestic issue, and have tried to make the case to big
government neoconservatives that if we don't deal with this mess
now, our ability to spend money on defense will suffer. There is
even evidence that this has already
happened.
Samuelson suggests as the beginning of a solution that some
Warren Buffett-like figure sponsor a book in which 6 leading think
tanks (three conservative and three liberal) offer their solutions,
with the goal of prodding the presidential candidates into talking
about it. Unfortunately, those of us who want action to resolve
this crisis are competing against human nature, which is always
focused on the short term. Once you talk about what is going to
happen in 2030, you lose the audience.
topics:
Federal Budget, Medicaid, Environment, Medicare
