WaPo: Is Age Warfare The New Class Warfare?
By Shaun Kenney | Monday, May 16th, 2011 | Policy
Robert Samuelson in the pages of the Washington Post makes the argument that the new lines shouldn’t be drawn along those of class — rich and poor — but rather, of Baby Boomers vs. the rest of us:
Indeed, half the nation’s wealth is owned by people 55 and older (a third of the adult population), report Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute. The old feel more secure. The National Opinion Research Center regularly surveys Americans about their financial “satisfaction.” In 2010, 82 percent of those 65 and over said they were “satisfied” or “more or less” satisfied. For those under 65, the comparable figure was 66 percent.
Older Americans also fared better in the recession, a 2009 Pew survey found. Among those 18 to 49, 68 percent reported that they “cut back spending” in the past year; for those 65-plus, that was 36 percent.
Social Security and Medicare explain much of this well-being. For millions of older Americans, they are essential; among the poorest two-fifths, Social Security provides 83 percent of their income. But among the richest fifth, its share is only 18 percent.
Those statistics come from your friendly, helpful federal government.
Samuelson makes the case that, instead of pitting rich vs. poor, it is time for those 55+ to start owning up to their disproportionate share of America’s wealth and quit expecting more:
People do not lose their obligations to the larger society by turning 65. We need to refocus these programs on their original purposes. Social Security was intended to prevent poverty, not finance recipients’ extra cable channels. Medicare provides peace of mind as well as health insurance; wealthier recipients can afford to pay more for their peace of mind. Burden-sharing needs to include the elderly. This is the crux of the budget problem.
Now obviously, there is a bit of class warfare going on here that’s being cloaked in a hostility to seniors that one can instantly sense and reject. After all, those Baby Boomers have accumulated wealth, pensions, retirement funds, investments, and other resources — and they spend it on… well, their grandkids.
On the flip side of the coin, the federal government’s commitments to the massive entitlement system we’ve created out of thin air is the problem, and Samuelson hits the nail on the head with regards to what’s at stake.
So the question is this: which politician is willing to tell 76 millions Americans they can’t have.
…and which politician would survive the wrath of 76 million voting Americans who want what government “promised” them in their old age?
Get the picture?
Frederic Bastiat was right with regards to property and plunder:
The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense…. [M]en will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. (emphasis added)
“Socialism sucks… until it works for you” is a mantra hammered home every time it is mentioned (thank you, Aldo the Apache).
In this instance, how do you tell 76 million Baby Boomers that they are strangling our economic prosperity? And survive?
The answer — I’m afraid — is going to take a lot more courage than simply cutting spending. Once the pendulum starts rocking from left to right, it becomes a battering ram. Take away the Social Security of 76 million Americans, and if it’s done poorly and half-assed, it will rock back and take more than what’s being given today.
Conservatives need to start thinking five or six moves ahead on the chessboard. This concept of “age warfare” isn’t the answer anymore than class warfare was. Conservatives need to live up to the best of their virtues — stability super omnes — and find ways to cage this Leviathan state.
Merely wounding the Leviathan only encourages an angry response, one that could take more than what is being taken. Rocking the pendulum only serves the interests of those who thrive on crisis. It’s time to pull the curtains down on radicals and get back to basic, Jeffersonian principles.
Cage the Leviathan, put it in its box, cut spending, and let the market grow beyond the socialism we have today. Doing anything less — or anything more — sets us up for radical, deep changes that may not work out in favor of the American republic.
(h/t The Conservative Wahoo)
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
Comments
12 Responses to "WaPo: Is Age Warfare The New Class Warfare?"
One additional point, Shaun. This from a couple days ago on the AP Wire:
“Americans 45 and older are new voting-age majority”
‘
According to the article, the fastest growing voting demographic was 55-64.
Couple that with the lingering political truth that those most likely to vote are older, unless those that are older are willing to give up their entitlements willingly, we’re all screwed.
I’m thinking they are not willing to give up their entitlements willingly.
Asking them to may amount to political suicide.
So you can expect Democrats and Republicans to continue whte Alphonse and Gaston rooutine over entitlements, “No, after you, I insist.”
I think a party strategy that tries to blame the baby boomer generation for bankrupting the country is destined to fail, yet that appears to be the strategy adopted by Boehner. Fact is, entitlements can and should be reformed, but this need not cause a revolution so long as reform is fair and just. Let’s remember that the main drivers to increased debt have been war, unfunded entitlements, and the cost of reversing the period of irrational exhuberance. These decisions were made by men and reversed a period of surplus in the national economy. Those times can be returned as well. Senator Warner and his gang of six are attending to it, and I like their chances.
MB: I don’t. Here’s why. Realistically, doing anything about the problem of entitlements is going to take a joint effort, it’s going to require cuts in the benefits and possibly raising the retirement age, which Democrats will hate, and it will require lifting the income cap on Social Security taxation, which Republicans will hate even more. It can’t be done unless, like O’Neil and Reagan did, the two parties give each other political cover and do it together. Washington is less able to reach a bi-partisan concensus on anything right now than it has been in my lifetime. So I don’t see this happening anytime soon.
Well I agree it will be difficult, but the opportunity to actually reduce tax rates, while doing away with tax benefits, and the pressure of default which will cut both ways, I believe a deal has a chance, even if it means that social security and medicare have to wait a year. Frankly, the fixes to both are totally doable and do not involve the end of the world as we know it.
SV –
Bingo. Each side is going to look for political advantage, and that is the #1 reason why I am not optimistic.
All hope lies either with the Gang of Six, or a total collapse of either opposition’s position on this. Not looking forward to the next two months. At all.
Despite the way Social Security was “sold” to the American people, there are “wealthy” Americans receiving Social Security who really don’t need it and they are essentially taking money from poorer and younger people. But they don’t care, because they put their money in and want their investment back.
Well see, you guys have got a problem. You want to penalize the majority of your base while protecting the plunderers.
When are your leaders going to realize that Cash For Crooks is not going to win you votes? It must not be very soon, especially when the state AGs this very minute are busy rewriting 400 years of private property rights law in order to cover banker butts.
And it probably won’t be as long as Boehner crocodile tears the economy by blaming hapless homeowners of not qualifying for government bailout programs that were designed to fail borrowers, but give banks big bonus checks.
It most certainly won’t happen while political handmaidens acquiesce to party power and privilege. As a RPV crony once said, soon enough the adults will be back in charge. As the fed up, reviled, and exploited of this country take care of business.
Shaun, good article. Most seniors would be willing to take a hit – after the government cuts spending and puts the rest of it’s house in order. What WAPO failed to mention is:
~ Boomers have greater wealth (compared to our grandparents) for a number of reasons: 1) Women in the workforce/ two incomes instead of one, 2) %age growth in college & higher education, 3) greater %age of savings, 4) private retirement accounts linked to stock market performance, 5) “at the right place at the right time” (our boom work years far outnumber the fewer recessionary periods over the last 4 decades)
~ Sameulson forgot to mention that boomers are also, by any measure, the most philanthropic generation in US history.
~ Review historical federal revenue charts (by revenue source); boomer FICA taxes ‘balanced’ the Fed’s books since the 60s.
~ SS was never intended to be a retirement OR unemployment OR medical insurance account (nor meant to support all Americans with disabilities). It was intended (and modeled) as a simple insurance policy – and most of us were supposed to be dead before (or shortly after) reaching full SS retirement benefit age. Who knew, right?
~ You can’t fix Social Security without fixing Medicare – which can’t be fixed until you fix health care. Remember, 2.9% tax is paid on all wages earned (by employee & employer) into the Medicare ‘fund’. So boomers ‘pre-paid’ into this account also. And if you expect workers to retire (from jobs with insurance benefits) without a realistic path to affordable health insurance (at 65+, typically with at least one ‘pre-existing’ condition) … not happening.
Here’s your fix:
1) Kill off the entire SS system; plan its demise.
2) Pay off everyone 55 (and younger) 100% of their lifetime contribution (plus their employers’ contribution) – one lump sum; tax-free; future earnings also tax-free.
3) Honor commitments to 56 yr and older, with an optional opt out for this group also.
4) Fix health care (so Medicare isn’t necessary).
5) Take care of the remaining SS beneficiaries [the poor (regardless of age), the unemployed, the disabled, etc.] though other government entitlement programs.
JZ: go get a job.
No matter how you look at it, Gen X/Y’s fate is to spend their most productive years taking care of retired boomers, that’s just how it is. Past all the B.S., when it gets right down to it, people have to eat, and by 2030 25% of humans in America will be over 65 years old.
Think about that in terms of a big room full of people, in 2030 if you have 100 people standing in a room, 25 of them will be over 65 years old, and 25 of them will be too young to work, leaving 50 people to do everything that needs to be done for the other 50. That’s essentially a 1-to-1 ratio of productive people to non-/semi-productive people, not exactly a recipe for prosperity.
Debates about social security, medicare, and all the rest are a side show to all of this. It doesn’t even matter, really, what the exact mechanism is, maybe it will be tax increases, maybe it will be currency devaluation, who knows, maybe boomers will just chain their kids up and force them to do the work //grin//. But in the end there will be a generation or two of people who’s energy is going to be spent taking care of the other half of the population instead of building new bridges and all the other stuff people think is important, and the country is going to have a few decades of non-existent growth.
Everybody might as well just get used to the idea, settle in, and get comfortable, it is going to be a long winter. Gen X/Y has the next 30+ years to take care of people who won’t be taking care of themselves. Soon enough the entire country is going to have the same demographics as Florida and there isn’t a thing anybody can do about it.
Temporary: I don’t think what you’re predicting is inevitable, but I don’t think it’s impossible either. Look at Japan’s “Lost Decade.”
Temporary, hopefully, things aren’t nearly that bleak. I’m 54 and have had conversation w/ many, many of my contemporaries about this. Without exception, the chief concern is for our kids’ & grand-kids’ futures. We boomers know there will be – and must be – changes and cuts to benefits and age level adjustments, despite AARP lobby positions.
There’s a good reason you see so many gray-hairs at Tea Party rallies ~ and it’s not about protecting a SS check.
We need to push the now majority GOP congress to move SS reform forward on the agenda. Sooner, rather than later, benefits all.
BTW – a smart side move, IMO, would be tweaking US immigration policies to favor foreign students (wishing to stay in the US after graduation) and foreign young professionals. It’s a great way to tip population stat scales in your favor.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.