David Brooks
I usually find David Brooks a muelling apologist for the knee jerk Republican right, so today, fidning his NY Times column about something real and important, may I commend it to you.
He basically says there is a revolution waiting to happen that will overturn the agenda of both political parties; that is the revolution against turning over the nation's economy to old people, supported by the sweat of young people. Since I am an old person, I can agree without being accused of serving my own self-interest.
In 1990 29% of federal spending went to seniors; in 2015 50% (Brooks' figures) is projected for seniors.
Any number of ways of redressing this insanity. A means test for receiving Social Security? A means test for receiving subsidies for drugs?
Richard Nixon was the last president to seriously propose a guaranteed annual income, and that was an attempt to overhaul the welfare system. The most merciful, effective and economic way to solve the problem of poverty, among young and old, is to establish a poverty level below which anyone receives a federal subsidy.
The rap on such a program is that it creates disincentive for people to work and succeed. The poverty level would be a basic subsistence level. People would, I think, rather work and live better. Some can't, some won't. But I would bet that such a system would be less expensive and easier to manage than all the programs now in place.
He basically says there is a revolution waiting to happen that will overturn the agenda of both political parties; that is the revolution against turning over the nation's economy to old people, supported by the sweat of young people. Since I am an old person, I can agree without being accused of serving my own self-interest.
In 1990 29% of federal spending went to seniors; in 2015 50% (Brooks' figures) is projected for seniors.
Any number of ways of redressing this insanity. A means test for receiving Social Security? A means test for receiving subsidies for drugs?
Richard Nixon was the last president to seriously propose a guaranteed annual income, and that was an attempt to overhaul the welfare system. The most merciful, effective and economic way to solve the problem of poverty, among young and old, is to establish a poverty level below which anyone receives a federal subsidy.
The rap on such a program is that it creates disincentive for people to work and succeed. The poverty level would be a basic subsistence level. People would, I think, rather work and live better. Some can't, some won't. But I would bet that such a system would be less expensive and easier to manage than all the programs now in place.
posted by Blayney at 9:53 AM
3 Comments:
test,test, this is a test.
bc, call home !!
garrison
"Muelling"? Couldn't find that word in the dictionary. Did you mean "mewling"?
I didn't see the focus of Brooks' column the same way you did. Rather than us old fogies being the problem by taking our social security $ and saddling the future burden on our grandchildren, I believed that he was pointing out the insanity of a train (now and new programs) of various entitlement programs none of which was funded or fundable - both now and into the foreseeable future. Especially with an Administration and Congress that has been so reckless with choices of priorities and obtaining "bang for the buck."
Mewling, indeed. No spell checker on this blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home