Posted on 12/30/2010 7:08:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind
FROM the moment they entered the workforce in the 1960s, baby-boomers began to shape America’s economy and politics. They will do the same as they leave. The first of the estimated 78m Americans born between 1946 and 1964 turn 65 in 2011, the normal age for retirement. As their ranks swell in coming years, the burden of financing their retirement will mount. So will their electoral importance.
Retiring boomers will squeeze the economy from two directions. The number of people enrolled in Medicare (federally funded health care, available from the age of 65) will grow from 47m in 2010 to 80m in two decades’ time. Enrolment in Social Security (federally funded pensions, available from the age of 62-67, depending on your birth year) will grow from 44m to 73m. The cost of the two programmes will grow from 8.4% of GDP in 2010 to 11.2% by 2030. Meanwhile, as boomers retire, the workforce will grow more slowly, as will the taxes to finance their benefits. The pensioner-worker imbalance and health-care inflation, which is driving up the bill for Medicare and Medicaid, the federal health benefit for the poor, will send the budget deficit into the stratosphere.
Both Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress claim that reforming such entitlements is a priority. But a demographic snag lies in the way. In the next two decades people aged 65 and over will rise from 17% of the voting-age population to 26% (see chart 1). Since the old vote more readily, their actual share of the electorate will be some three percentage points higher, reckons Robert Binstock, a political scientist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
In the past the political priorities and voting preferences of the elderly were much like everyone else’s. Mr Binstock says this may be because ideological, economic or national-security issues loomed larger than greybeard ones, such as pensions. Or it may be because politicians, terrified of political retribution, avoided anything that would offend the old.
Advocacy groups, especially the almost 40m-member AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons), have exploited this fear. Their support helped George Bush create the Medicare drug benefit in 2003, and their opposition helped kill his proposal for private Social Security accounts a few years later. In December, while most of Washington was transfixed by the tax deal between Mr Obama and the Republicans, AARP took aim at a scheduled cut in Medicare fees to doctors. After 100,000 of its members wrote, e-mailed and phoned, Congress voted almost unanimously to override the cuts, despite the $15 billion price tag.
In recent years the elderly have become a more distinctive voting block. People over 65 increasingly identify themselves as conservative and vote Republican, while young voters do the opposite, according to Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Centre. The pattern was particularly striking in the last mid-term elections (see chart 2), when Republicans’ share of the over-65 vote exceeded the Democrats’ by a whopping 21 percentage points. For those under 25 the shares were reversed.
This may reflect a “cohort effect”, the notion that a person’s lifelong voting habits are established early on. Charlie Cook, a political analyst, says today’s retired were shaped by the perceived failure of Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s and the success of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. In 2008 some may also have identified more with the 72-year-old John McCain than the 47-year-old Mr Obama.
But it was the result of the 2010 mid-term elections that most clearly revealed entitlements as a driving political force. Andrea Campbell of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology believes it was the creation of Social Security in the 1930s and Medicare in the 1960s that transformed the elderly into the most politically engaged age group in America. Ever more comfortable in retirement, they had the time and the means to follow politics and an issue to motivate them. But threats to the programmes seldom seemed significant or imminent. That may have changed in 2010 with Mr Obama’s health-care reform.
The president sought to insulate the elderly from any bad effects. While workers with employer-provided insurance will have their tax benefits curtailed and the affluent will pay Medicare tax on their investment income, the elderly got an immediate expansion of their Medicare drug coverage. In spite of that they remained, as they had begun, staunchly opposed to Mr Obama’s reform. “They already have national health care,” Ms Campbell explains, “and can’t imagine extending coverage to 16% of the population without a hit to their benefits.”
Republicans made hay with this. In August 2009 Sarah Palin falsely claimed that government “death panels” would decide who received health care. Republican senators targeted the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an expert panel created under the new law to recommend changes to Medicare coverage. Last July they accused it of threatening “access to quality care for seniors”—while at the same time, perversely, they attacked the health bill’s failure to rein in “skyrocketing costs”.
Traditionally, Republicans have been less trusted than Democrats on health care and Social Security. Polling by Rasmussen Reports suggests that by late 2010 they had made up this deficit. Whether they can maintain this near-parity is another matter. Their tea-party supporters are passionate about cutting the deficit and government spending, yet doing either without touching benefits for the elderly is virtually impossible. Last year Mr Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission recommended expanding the powers of Medicare’s cost-control panel and scrapping or reforming the CLASS Act, which creates a new entitlement for long-term care of the old and frail. Paul Ryan and Alice Rivlin, Republican and Democratic commission members, have separately proposed replacing traditional Medicare with vouchers for private care. All those proposals are complete anathema to the elderly.
They are not alone. Ms Campbell says that young and middle-aged voters are just as opposed to benefit cuts, perhaps because they have elderly parents or realise that they too will one day need the benefits. Polls find that, among all voters, the single most popular fix is to raise the cap on earnings subject to the payroll tax—no doubt because this would be borne by a minority of affluent working people. Yet to finance the boomers’ retirement with no cut in benefits would require unprecedented increases in taxes, which could be even more unpopular. The boomers’ capacity to upset the political apple cart is as great as it ever was.
The baby-boomers have been sucking off society for the last 60 years - why does anyone believe that “reform” of Soc. Sec. or medicare will be possible when this group becomes elderly?
No wonder Barry wants to kill them off with Obamacare.
Funny how they portray the boomers as a burden on the system? They never claimed them to be a burden while they swelled the US Treasury with their income, payroll, federal sales, excise, import, and parent’s death taxes.
I've paid into SS & Medicare since the 60s.
And paid the max SS tax for at least the last 30 yrs.
Throw in the astounding amounts I've paid in federal and state income and local property taxes (close to a million dollars) and I'll say that the sucking goes the other direction.
I am not sure how all this works out. I am in the late end of the “boomers.”
And here are a few life lessons I recall...
The 1980’s and the development of the 401K...because we were told that Social Security would not be there for us. I recall this so clearly because I had a literal fight with my democrat/union father in trying to explain it to him.
Markets crash and recover and crash etc. Even now the market isn’t bad...it might be bogus...but it is still higher than the 1980’s.
Listen when you hear rumblings of wealth confiscation. Plan for your wealth to be taken away from you. Odd way of saying it, but plan for your wealth to be taken away from you.
Right now I am creating my own business and planning for it to be the work I do ...until the day I die.
If this were still 1980 I might be planning a bit differently, but this is one ‘boomer’ who isn’t expecting a government handout from a regime that is already bankrupt.
Heck, in 10 years there might not even be a United States of America as we knew it.
I think a lot of boomers get it. A lot more than the media wants to give us credit for. It sure wasn’t lots of youngsters at those Tea Party Rallies I went too.
Or was your post in sarc?
Then I've never taken a single dime in unemployment or any kind of government assistance.
“The baby-boomers have been sucking off society for the last 60 years...”
They’ve been working and paying social security. I’d rather the government give me the money I’ve paid into it since I would do a better job with it.
I also wish I didn’t have to rely on Medicare, but I don’t have a choice. I had perfectly good insurance until I turned 65. Once you get social security and turn 65, you are on Medicare whether you want it or not.
There is one other thing the retiring boomers will leave; Their jobs will be left for others to move into.
It is important that we hate the rich, bankers, Wall Street, insurance companies, doctors, Sarah Palin, Tea Partiers, corporations, religion, special interests, and capitalism.
It is equally important that we embrace class warfare, and generational warfare.
Bottom line: we must turn against each other.
Thanks for doing your part.
The president sought to insulate the elderly from any bad effects.
Obama’s WAR ON SENIORS ammo list
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2613747/posts?page=3
Government assistance programs are not really assistance at all. They are carefully constructed vote buying schemes, designed to blind , bind, and buy you. The brain is replaced by a political guided focus group and a cooperative media because you still buy crap when it’s advertized during your daily uploads in front of the television.
Not so much, I'm afraid
The large manufacturing company that I and bunch of compadres retired from end of 2008 basically hasn't replaced anybody.
They're working the remaining troops like rented mules and record amounts of overtime.
Under the Baraqqi regime, employers are very reluctant to hire full time help.
I don't say this to blow my own horn, but to illustrate to you that you shouldn't generalize. I'd think that participating on FR, you would have more sense than that. Whippersnapper.
Ret. Military are forced onto Medicare too, with Tricare for Life being their supplemental. Both are admined out of the same agency. And make no mistakes Medicare is RATIONED health care, they tell you how many days in the hospital are covered should you get p’monia etc. Why do you think we see so many same day surgeries for what use to be at least 2 day stay? And all they want to pay for is generic meds, well all generic meds are NOT the same as the name brand.
....”In August 2009 Sarah Palin falsely claimed that government “death panels” would decide who received health care.”
That sentence ruined the credibility of the author.
....”In August 2009 Sarah Palin falsely claimed that government “death panels” would decide who received health care.”
That sentence ruined the credibility of the author.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.