“Robbing Peter to pay Paul” will always have the support of Paul

In today’s WashPost, uber-liberal Harold Meyerson praises the triumph of Social Security for pulling the elderly out of poverty:

We have come so far in such a short time that's it's hard for people who aren't seniors to imagine an America in which old age was all but synonymous with desperation. In 2003 just 10.2 percent of Americans aged 65 or older lived in poverty -- a figure two points lower than the national poverty rate of 12.4 percent. Once the age group with the highest rate of poverty, seniors have become the age group with the lowest rate.

Meyerson believes America should congratulate itself for helping seniors, but programs like Social Security don’t exist in a fiscal vacuum. When money is transferred from younger workers to older retirees, there’s a little less for baby food, school supplies and piano lessons. In other words, by shifting assets to seniors (who can vote), America has now made children (who can’t vote) the top group living in poverty:



Here’s a report from the Census bureau: “Almost one-half of the nation’s chronically poor are children, census bureau reports”

Children made up almost half (48 percent) of the chronically poor during 1992 and 1993, the Commerce Department's Census Bureau said today. Over the same period, the elderly accounted for 11 percent of the chronically poor.

And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government spends four times more money on people over 65 than on children under 18 :

Programs carried out by the federal government focus much more heavily on assisting the elderly population than families with children. In 2000, CBO estimates, spending on selected programs for the elderly will reach $615 billion--more than four times the amount spent directly on children and three and one-half times the amount spent on families because of the presence of children.

Whereas the federal government takes the lead in supporting older people, state and local governments have historically provided substantial support for families with children through spending on elementary and secondary education and other programs. In a 1998 study, CBO estimated that state and local governments spent about $4,000 for each child in fiscal year 1995 compared with about $700 for each elderly person. Nevertheless, because federal spending dwarfs state and local figures, total government spending for the average person 65 or older is still much greater than for the average child.

As the baby boomers retire, the portion of the federal government dedicated to benefits and entitlements for seniors will rise dramatically, squeezing out all spending that is currently defined as “discretionary.” Unless something is done to reform the system, in about twenty years the U.S. government will be a reduced to a fund-transferring entity, taking money from younger workers (and by extension their families) and sending it to seniors for Social Security and banks for interest payments on the debt.

Extra: The New England Republican and Red State have some good commentary today on my least-favorite government program.