The Elderly-Political Complex
As Dwight Eisenhower was leaving office, he warned against government overexpansion from the accumulation of political power in the military-industrial complex. As an experienced general, he said that, even for the constitutionally enumerated function of national defense, we must “avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.�
We don’t hear as much about the military-industrial complex now, although, Eisenhower’s warning seems quite apt for current American policy. However, the military is hardly the only area where undue political power bloats government and restricts freedom. In fact, as someone who teaches college students about government policy but has recently “qualified� to be propagandized by AARP and other senior organizations, I have been struck by the extent Americans sacrifice the future in response to the elderly-political complex.
The two biggest fiscal problems in America are Social Security and Medicare. Social Security faces a 13-digit unfunded liability, and Medicare’s is several times larger. Together, they create a gargantuan bequest of IOUs for future generations, far exceeding the national debt. But where are senior organizations on these issues? They insist that Social Security is safe, and attack any serious attempt to reform it if that involves the slightest risk that seniors might bear any of the unavoidable costs of dealing with its over-promises, even though they have been the primary beneficiaries of that largesse. And rather than consider reining in Medicare’s exploding liabilities, they constantly push to expand the program and the burdens it will leave for their children and grandchildren.
The simplest explanation for this is that for all the talk about caring about future generations, senior citizen groups are far more concerned about their short run than their heirs’ long run, reinforced by politicians’ similar bias toward visible benefits in the short run (before the full effects of their policies become apparent but when they have to get reelected) and in favor of make-or-break issues for those who actually vote (Social Security and Medicare, for the elderly).
This is illustrated by the disconnect between the advice seniors routinely give their grandchildren and what they support politically for themselves. Their typical wisdom to children boils down to “don’t discount the future so much,� whether it is to stay in school longer, to spend more time and effort studying and building their skills and less time and money consuming today, to delay getting married or having children until they can afford to pay for those choices themselves, etc.. Yet, in contrast, senior organizations support policies to increase what they get today at the expense of the future, almost totally discounting the predictable effects that will follow later.
You see the same dynamic in many drug policy proposals. Senior groups favor almost every attempt to use government’s coercive power to lower the price they must pay for drugs that are currently available, such as imposing explicit and implicit (regulatory) price ceilings on existing drugs. But they ignore both the violation of others’ property rights and the disastrous effects on their grandchildren, for whom the long term effect of undermining the incentives to develop new drugs is far more important than forcing down current drug prices (high in large part because of government policies ranging from the FDA to the tax code). And those effects would be large, given the disproportionate share of new breakthrough medicines that originate in the U.S.
John Maynard Keynes once denigrated focusing on the ultimate, long run effects of policy by sneering that “in the long run, we are all dead.� But, as Henry Hazlitt observed in Economics of One Lesson, “the tragedy is that, on the contrary, we are already suffering the long-run consequences of the policies of the remote or recent past. Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore.�
Unfortunately, the self-proclaimed advocates for senior citizens have followed Keynes’ view, resulting in concerns that are solely for their benefit in the short run, ignoring the adverse long run consequences that already heavily burden their children, but will even more heavily burden their children’s children. That may reflect what political advocacy groups do—try to get more for themselves, necessarily at others’ expense—but the electoral clout of seniors and the massive transfer of resources involved makes the elderly-political complex one of the greatest threats to those who will still be around to bear the long run consequences they wish us to ignore today.
Comments (16)
Let me get this straight. I have been over paying my social security tax since the early 80's and promised by the idiot Greenspan himself that it was to pay down the national debt so when I retire the pittance I get from social security would not burden the country.
Now I have to listen to moron's like you say I'm the problem? Up yours dip*#!%.
Maybe if you had a job not paid by my tax's your mind would be more clear.
Published: January 10, 2006 4:51 PM
Hey maddAsHell,
You've been screwed by your government. No need to shoot the messenger.
You've been paying for years and years, and they spent every dime of it. There's nothing left with which to pay you back. It's a big ponzi scheme.
The AARP can either deal with reality, or keep their heads in the sand. But something is going to give. TANSTAAFL.
Published: January 10, 2006 6:03 PM
Every message I've received from AARP (and there has been quite a bit, I'm not as young as I type) has been focused on gimmie-gimmie-gimmie. "Senior" discounts, "senior" rates, "senior" specials, how to get the most money out of government programs for "seniors", always leveraging greed in favor of the AARP's particular special interest group, regardless of who is actually paying the bill.
"Social Security" and "Medicare" are perfect
examples of the special interest rip-off. Any "seniors" who cannot handle the truth that they are being used to cause the problems, such as "madd" above, are deliberately acting stupid.
"Government entitlement" is vampirism. Being entitled to the wealth and labor of another is slavery. "madd" may not want to admit his own collusion in the matter, but if he takes even one penny of SS or Medicare, he's just perpetuating slavery just as he was forced to pay for the people who leached off the system before him.
Of course, they'd never admit it face to face. But watch what happens when they talk about, "My SS check!" "My Medicare!" Hey, it ain't yours and it never was, any more than a thief screaming, "Give me my money!"
Published: January 10, 2006 6:52 PM
What is it with you snot nosed econ types that don't know squat about what you talk about. Your dumber than a box of rocks and to simplify it even further your lower than whale shit.
Don't give me your snot nosed theories punk about how I got screwed. Your the mofo that got screwed idiot and you don't even know it moron.
Name one politician that will cut my social security duffus? They don't have the guts.
So they will take money from your salary and give it to me hot shot.
I will buy Cuervo Gold and fine cigars on you punk and it will be a wonderful thing.
You say something has to give?
The thang that will be giving is YOU hot shot HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
Published: January 10, 2006 6:53 PM
So much for posting intelligent and civil comments, as the above pretty much says it all about where America is heading -- i.e., off a cliff of rage, cynicism, and despair over what "our" government has done to us.
As obvious as the generational divide is (government created, of course), the greater divide is between the few who understand what is happening, and are preparing themselves accordingly, versus the vast majority who have no clue and are therefore utterly unprepared.
I think it's clear which category MaddAsHell falls in. He may live out his days on the dregs of a dying empire, of course, but if he has any children or grandchildren to answer to, all he'll be able to say is . . . well, he's already said it, hasn't he.
Published: January 10, 2006 7:46 PM
"Name one politician that will cut my social security duffus? They don't have the guts."
The Esteemed Chairman Alan Greenspan has been actively destroying social security since he entered office, through a two part process: first, by redefining how inflation is measured, thus eliminating the social security adjustments for inflation. Second, by creating a truckload of inflation.
The good news is that you may still be getting a social security check 10, 20 years from now. The bad news is that it will not get you more than Russian pensioner can get.
Published: January 10, 2006 8:00 PM
You doom and gloomier types are a dime a dozen. If we all don't wet our beds in unison when your type post something. Well it's all our fault etc same old manure etc.
Econ profs' were the biggest dorks on campus. I guess some things never change.
What always' got me was how the econ stooges talk the talk but as far as bottom lines they are the poorest financially on campus. They have no mojo. They don't understand mojo. And when that one sum bitch threw me out of his class cause I wouldn't kiss Nixon's ass like he did it was the greatest day of my life.
Just think if that loser had taught me his losing ways like he taught you.
How many econ dorks to change a light bulb? 6 billion theories later they still don't know but if you give to their foundation they swear next year they will know.
All that matters econ dork is the mojo and America has a infinite supply. God you made me have to get out of my condo and go to the liquor store again! Goodbye and good luck!
Published: January 10, 2006 8:47 PM
Sadly, the harsh reaction to this article did not supprise me because I've seen it in so many other forums too. One would think that after 60+ years people would understand what a ponzi scheme really is? Would have gained the wisdom to understand that the government can't and shouldn't be trusted with such important things like retirement. And most importantly, why would anybody want to live the golden years of their life wich such a tainted legacy of moral trash that is neither "social"able nor "security"? It used to be that people like that would anger me with their arrogance and ignorance, now it just makes me sad. I feel sorry for them now, because when things crash (especially with the health of the dollar now days) they will be the least able to understand, adapt, and pick themselves back up. I hope it is not lost on them that there is another way that "social security" could be paid off in full without bankruptcy or being inflated out of existence .... a lot of old people could die early. I myself perfer the libertarian solutions.
Published: January 10, 2006 9:40 PM
I think MadAsHell may be writing tongue in cheek.
If he isn't, I would point out to him that Greenspan did speak truth once about Social Security and other entitlements- he said that government could guarantee any level of dollar benefit, but it could never guarantee a level of buying power. Inflation will be used to lower all debts, explicit and implicit. I hope MadAsHell likes Purina.
Published: January 11, 2006 8:15 AM
When he keeps coming back with more silly posts, he's got to be a troll. But he does illustrate the point: you get the government you deserve. The "fault" lies both with the politicians who make foolish promises AND the voters who vote for them, as well as the special interests who have political clout.
Naturally, economic reality cannot be evaded--Social Security can only be saved by raising taxes and/or lowering benefits, which should give MadAsHell plenty to be mad about in his retirement years.
Published: January 11, 2006 11:18 AM
Mad let slip his economic genius. He's stockpiling a valuable trade commodity - liquor - knowing dollars will be worthless.
Published: January 11, 2006 3:19 PM
Inverrarity,
It doesn't matter- he will just piss it away.
Published: January 11, 2006 3:59 PM
"Maybe if you had a job not paid by my tax's your mind would be more clear."
Note to "MadasHell"
The author of this post isn't being paid by your tax dollars or anybody elses. In fact he's paying SSN tax (as am I a 26 year-old who won't see a dime of it) so you can be paid w/ our tax dollars.
I can't believe the hypocrasy of some people.
Tracy
Published: January 11, 2006 7:53 PM
Young people seldom vote. Old people run the polling places. No elected person who votes against the old people will be re-elected. Only a revolution will change the situation. "Vote for me and you will die/starve" is a poor campaign slogan.
Published: January 12, 2006 12:10 PM
Old people run the polling places.
Or hobble, or roll, or....
But seriously,
"Vote for me and you will die/starve" is a poor campaign slogan.
Which makes Ron Paul all the more astounding, ne?
Published: January 12, 2006 1:26 PM
"Young people seldom vote."
Perhaps the one bright spot in today's democracies.
Published: January 13, 2006 8:20 AM