I know
Dan Altman
is an economist, but he didn't make the case for me that "old people
are sucking us dry" (and not in a good way). And I realize he likely
didn't entitle the column, but I would think he'd have some input as to
what goes above the piece. As someone who hopes to reach "entitlement"
age someday and start sucking that sweet teat that gives government
money I was glad to see him point out that:
By contrast, much of mandatory outlays are designed to
prevent drags on growth. Reducing poverty and improving health among retirees and
the elderly frees up time and resources for the working-age population.
Undoubtedly, this is important to the economy as well.
So, he's not putting me in the wood-chipper yet. But, old farts are taking lots of government money that could be better spent?
This situation is not the fault of the elderly. They were
promised certain benefits during their lives, and they are at least entitled to
try to collect them. This is a time of sacrifice, though, and everyone --
including the country's seniors -- must surely give a little. The problem is
that no sitting politician seems willing to ask them.
I
like the part about seniors being entitled to try to collect them. But
anyway, it's really the fault of gutless politicians. Moving on from
greedy seniors he makes the leap where I miss the connection, though.
As a result, the discretionary share of spending dwindles
while mandatory outlays go unchecked. Some of the costs of this choice may
already be apparent. Consider, for example, how the ratio of patents to GDP has
evolved in the United States and other major economies. From almost identical
starting points in 1991, China and Germany have managed to raise their
productivity in terms of patent applications much higher than the United States
has.
Altman notes Germany outspends us on science.
The German government now spends more than
$240 per person on science, which would work out to more than $75 billion a
year in the United States. But the combined budgets of the National Science Foundation
and the National Institutes of
Health come to less than $40 billion.
Since
I'm aware that there were people collecting social security long before
le deluge started in 1991, I'd like to suggest an alternative hypothesis
for our falling behind the Germans and Chinese. I could blame it in
part on Jimmy Carter who got the notion of a Bible blessed president.
And Ronald Reagan who carried it further with the full blessings of
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and every other Christian con man out
there. And the doves are still coming
home to roost.
Forty six percent Americans believed in creationism, 32 percent believed
in theistic evolution and 15 percent believed in evolution without any
divine intervention.
I realize there are questions
about evolution, but there are problems with trying to believe in two
contradictory tales of creation in Genesis has its problems too. It
could just be that Germany and China have a higher percentage of people
who believe in science.
There's hope, though.
The survey found that 50 percent of Americans "are convinced the climate
is changing" and another 34 percent believe it "is probably changing."
Duke said this is the highest level of belief in climate change since
2007.
I don't know whether it is occurring. Since I
don't have the time to become a climatologist, I'm casting my lot with
the people who were
not trying to sell me on Obama not being born in the
US and other such rot. Best I can do.
