The War At Home: The Budget

No, not between Republicans and Democrats, really. Between taking responsibility and fixing a difficult problem or ignoring the problem until it balloons to disastrous proportions.

Several news and blog items have appeared in the last few days that indicate different sides of a serious problem that will likely only get worse. First, as Robert Samuelson points out:

The only way Bush could balance the budget would be by not following Bush's policies. The most telling figures in his budget involve his proposal to eliminate or dramatically reduce 151 programs, for savings of $18 billion. That's six-tenths of 1 percent of federal spending. What's telling, though, is that Congress will probably reject even many of these proposals.

Based on campaign policies, none of the major presidential candidates would do much better. Sen. John McCain, the Republican front-runner, and Democratic rivals Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are alike in not addressing the central budget issue: baby boomers' retirement costs. Already, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are 44 percent of federal spending. In 2007, these programs cost $1.2 trillion, more than double all defense spending.

Yikes. Captain's Quarters then links to a report by USA Today:

The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis.

That's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184.

Double yikes. Here's what Captain Ed had to say:

George Bush tried tackling the easiest and least expensive of the three major entitlement programs in 2005. Congress rebuffed him, ostensibly because he proposed private-sector solutions and reforms, but mostly because they wanted to avoid the political consequences of facing the coming disaster. Instead of going away, however, it now appears to be growing almost exponentially.

It will only get worse. In three years, the first of the 79 million baby-boomers will begin to retire at 65. The senior population will start increasing dramatically from that point forward, both in terms of percentage and in real numbers, and fewer workers will remain in the system to support their benefits.

In short, we're looking at a mild form of the problem Europe faces now, and it will get worse quickly.

And even better, Rasmussen Reports gives the results of a survey about the public's knowledge about the budget:

Given four choices as to the size of the federal budget presented by the President last week, 39% of American voters did not offer any answer, 36% guessed wrong, and just 24% knew the answer--$3.1 trillion dollars.

Nineteen percent (19%) said the budget presented totaled $301 trillion annually while 10% thought the proper answer was $301 billion. Seven percent (7%) thought it was only $3.1 billion.

Thirty-four percent (34%) of men knew the proper answer along with 15% of women. Voters under 30 and over 65 were less likely to know the proper answer than those between 30 and 64.

The good news is that when these hideous social programs blow up our budget and destroy our currency, there will still be a place to go where they already learned their lesson in this area. Europe.