{"id":108753,"date":"2021-01-02T08:00:53","date_gmt":"2021-01-02T13:00:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=108753"},"modified":"2021-01-02T08:30:04","modified_gmt":"2021-01-02T13:30:04","slug":"a-response-to-our-resident-boomer-hater-continued","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=108753","title":{"rendered":"A Response to Our Resident “Boomer-Hater” (Part 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Longtime readers know we have a frequent commenter who seems to think that the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation are the source of all of America\u2019s current problems.\u00a0 A recent example of that attitude can be seen \u00a0in this comment to a recent article<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0 Another can be found here<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Well, as I noted in a previous article<\/em><\/a>, hearing that kind of foolish tripe over and over again gets tiresome.\u00a0 So I decided to do a bit of homework \u2013 then post what I\u2019d found here.<\/p>\n

BLUF:\u00a0 yeah, he\u2019s full of it.\u00a0 Yet again.\u00a0 Details follow.<\/p>\n

. . . <\/strong><\/p>\n

The generally-accepted years during which the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation were born are 1946 to 1964.\u00a0 That in turn means at the end of this year all living members of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation will be between 56 and 74 years old.<\/p>\n

During the past 100 years, the USA has instituted numerous programs that our commenter seems to feel have \u201cdisproportionately benefited\u201d the Baby Boom generation.\u00a0 Here\u2019s a partial list of programs that come to mind, or which can arguably be held to \u201cdisproportionately benefit\u201d older Americans.\u00a0 (The facts that (1) members of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation in general only fairly recently became eligible to use these programs, (2) that these programs had previously served members of prior generations, and (3) members of the “Baby Boom” generation began paying taxes starting nearly 60 years ago to support these programs are apparently irrelevant to our resident \u201cboomer hater\u201d.)\u00a0 The first four are rather obvious.<\/p>\n

Social Security<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Medicare<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Medicare Part D<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Supplemental Security Income<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

There are also a number of other Federal programs that I guess might be held to \u201cdisproportionately\u201d benefit the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation because . . . well, I guess because they existed and were used by members of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation – along, of course, with members of preceding and succeeding generations.\u00a0 (The same is of course true of the country\u2019s physical infrastructure.)\u00a0 Those programs are:<\/p>\n

Medicaid<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Federally Guaranteed Student Loans<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Pell Grants<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Food Stamps\/SNAP<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

TANF<\/em><\/a> and <\/em>AFDC<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Housing Assistance<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

EITC<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

OK, so those are the Federal programs I looked at.\u00a0 There may be more Federal programs that could \u201cqualify\u201d; if you want to talk physical infrastructure, the US and Interstate Highway Systems come immediately to mind \u2013 though physical infrastructure benefits everyone pretty much equally IMO.\u00a0 But for the purposes of this article I\u2019ll cut off consideration here.<\/p>\n

. . . <\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, let\u2019s look at the dates each of these Federal programs were (1) initiated, and (2) expanded over the years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Federal Program<\/strong><\/td>\nYear Initiated<\/strong><\/td>\nYear(s) Significantly Modified<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Social Security<\/td>\n1935<\/td>\n1950s (disability added); 1983 (scheduled tax increases accelerated; future benefits reduced and made partially subject to income tax); 1993 (portion of future benefits subject to income tax raised dramatically)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Medicare<\/td>\n1965<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Medicaid<\/td>\n1965<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Medicare Part D<\/td>\n2006<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Food Stamps\/SNAP<\/td>\n1939<\/td>\n1960s (Great Society); 1970s (Carter Administration)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Federal Housing Assistance<\/td>\n1933<\/td>\n1934; 1940s (multiple times); 1965; 1968; 1974 (created Section 8 housing assistance); 1990; 1992; 1998<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
AFDC<\/td>\n1935<\/td>\n1961; 1962; 1968 (replaced by TANF in 1997)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
TANF<\/td>\n1997<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Federal Student Loan Guarantees<\/td>\n1965<\/td>\n1992<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pell Grants<\/td>\n1965<\/td>\n1972; 1978<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

OK, so that\u2019s when these programs were started and modified significantly.\u00a0 But that doesn\u2019t answer the question:\u00a0 who was responsible for creating\/altering them?\u00a0\u00a0 Specifically, what generation(s) was\/were responsible for \u201ccalling the shots\u201d when those programs were created or modified substantially?\u00a0 Because as I observed in a previous article:\u00a0 it is utterly absurd to hold someone responsible for a situation they did not create and had little or no say in creating.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s see.\u00a0 But first, a side trip to look at \u201cBoomer\u201d demographics \u2013 and when members of that generation attained various ages.<\/p>\n

. . . <\/strong><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a table describing the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation in some detail.\u00a0 \u00a0It was extracted from data contained here<\/em><\/a> (the original site now defunct; link is to archived copy at the Internet Archive).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Year<\/strong><\/td>\n# Born<\/strong><\/td>\nYear Eligible to Vote*<\/strong><\/td>\nYear Eligible for House<\/strong><\/td>\nYear Eligible for Senate<\/strong><\/td>\nAge 40<\/strong><\/td>\nAge 50<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1946<\/td>\n3,411,000<\/td>\n1967<\/td>\n1971<\/td>\n1976<\/td>\n1986<\/td>\n1996<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1947<\/td>\n3,817,000<\/td>\n1968<\/td>\n1972<\/td>\n1977<\/td>\n1987<\/td>\n1997<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1948<\/td>\n3,637,000<\/td>\n1969<\/td>\n1973<\/td>\n1978<\/td>\n1988<\/td>\n1998<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1949<\/td>\n3,649,000<\/td>\n1970<\/td>\n1974<\/td>\n1979<\/td>\n1989<\/td>\n1999<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1950<\/td>\n3,632,000<\/td>\n1971<\/td>\n1975<\/td>\n1980<\/td>\n1990<\/td>\n2000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1951<\/td>\n3,823,000<\/td>\n1971<\/td>\n1976<\/td>\n1981<\/td>\n1991<\/td>\n2001<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1952<\/td>\n3,913,000<\/td>\n1971<\/td>\n1977<\/td>\n1982<\/td>\n1992<\/td>\n2002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1953<\/td>\n3,965,000<\/td>\n1971<\/td>\n1978<\/td>\n1983<\/td>\n1993<\/td>\n2003<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1954<\/td>\n4,078,000<\/td>\n1972<\/td>\n1979<\/td>\n1984<\/td>\n1994<\/td>\n2004<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1955<\/td>\n4,097,000<\/td>\n1973<\/td>\n1980<\/td>\n1985<\/td>\n1995<\/td>\n2005<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1956<\/td>\n4,218,000<\/td>\n1974<\/td>\n1981<\/td>\n1986<\/td>\n1996<\/td>\n2006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1957<\/td>\n4,300,000<\/td>\n1975<\/td>\n1982<\/td>\n1987<\/td>\n1997<\/td>\n2007<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1958<\/td>\n4,255,000<\/td>\n1976<\/td>\n1983<\/td>\n1988<\/td>\n1998<\/td>\n2008<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1959<\/td>\n4,245,000<\/td>\n1977<\/td>\n1984<\/td>\n1989<\/td>\n1999<\/td>\n2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1960<\/td>\n4,258,000<\/td>\n1978<\/td>\n1985<\/td>\n1990<\/td>\n2000<\/td>\n2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1961<\/td>\n4,268,000<\/td>\n1979<\/td>\n1986<\/td>\n1991<\/td>\n2001<\/td>\n2011<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1962<\/td>\n4,167,000<\/td>\n1980<\/td>\n1987<\/td>\n1992<\/td>\n2002<\/td>\n2012<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1963<\/td>\n4,098,000<\/td>\n1981<\/td>\n1988<\/td>\n1993<\/td>\n2003<\/td>\n2013<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1964<\/td>\n4,027,000<\/td>\n1982<\/td>\n1989<\/td>\n1994<\/td>\n2004<\/td>\n2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
* – Prior to the 26th<\/sup> Amendment becoming effective in July 1971, only 4 states (Georgia, Kentucky, Alaska, and Hawaii) allowed those less than 21 years of age to vote in all elections.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

According to the US Census Bureau<\/em><\/a>, as of 2020 there were an estimated 73 million US residents in the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation.\u00a0 This is net after accounting for both deaths and immigration.<\/p>\n

As a group, with a negligible number of exceptions \u201cBoomers\u201d became eligible to vote incrementally between 1967 and the end of 1982.\u00a0 They became eligible for election to Congress between 1971 and 1989 (House) and between 1976 and 1994 (Senate).<\/p>\n

The \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation turned 40 between 1986 and 2004, and turned 50 between 1996 and 2014.<\/p>\n

Why discuss age?\u00a0 Because as I\u2019ll discuss below:\u00a0 when it comes to political influence and making Federal law \u2013 which is necessary to create or change Federal programs \u2013 age matters.\u00a0 Greatly.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/strong><\/p>\n

Looking at the above table, a few things become quite obvious.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. None of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation had been born when Social Security, Federal Housing Assistance, SSI, food assistance, and AFDC (or their direct ancestor programs) were first initiated by the Federal government. \u00a0The \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation thus had absolutely no influence on the design, passage, or implementation of those programs; and in general members of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation had at best only modest influence on their pre-1990s modifications.<\/li>\n
  2. Virtually none of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation was eligible to vote when Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, or Federal Student Loan Guarantees began (prior to the 26th<\/sup> Amendment to the US Constitution becoming effective in July 1971, only 4 states \u2013 Georgia, Kentucky, Alaska and Hawaii \u2013 permitted anyone less than 21 to vote). Members of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation thus had essentially no influence on the design, passage, and implementation of these programs, and at best marginal influence on their pre-1990s modifications.<\/li>\n
  3. Less than half (specifically, about 44.7+%) of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation was eligible to vote when the EITC program was created in 1972. Only the first two years of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation (e.g., those born in 1946 or 1947) were eligible to be elected to the US House of Representatives that year; none were eligible to be Senators.\u00a0 Members of the \u201cBoomer\u201d generation thus had very little influence on the design, passage, or implementation of EITC.<\/li>\n
  4. The entire \u201cBoomer\u201d generation was not yet eligible to vote when the Reagan-era \u201ctax cuts\u201d were passed in 1981 \u2013 though most of the generation could vote by then.<\/li>\n
  5. Social Security, Federal housing assistance and Federal student loan guarantees are the only programs listed above that have been substantially modified since all members of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation became eligible to vote. (The 1983 Social Security reforms reduced<\/u> <\/em>the amount of Social Security benefits to be paid to everyone<\/u> born after 1937 vice those paid to those born earlier, as well as made Social Security benefits received partially subject to income taxes. The 1993 changes raised the fraction of Social Security benefits potentially subject to income taxation.)\u00a0 Similarly, TANF and Medicare Part D are the only new programs listed above to be created since that point in time (and TANF replaced a previous Federal program with an arguably better and more fiscally sound one).<\/li>\n
  6. It wasn\u2019t until 1976 that the first \u201cBoomer\u201d was eligible for election to the US Senate. The last \u201cBoomer\u201d wasn\u2019t eligible to be elected to the Senate until 1994.<\/li>\n
  7. The first \u201cBoomer\u201d turned 40 in 1986; the last, in 2004. Members of Congress, particularly Senators, younger than 40 are fairly uncommon.<\/li>\n
  8. The first \u201cBoomer\u201d turned 50 in 1996; the last, in 2014. Members of Congress in leadership positions having significant influence over the passage of legislation younger than 50 are fairly rare.\u00a0 Congressional seniority heavily influences who gets these positions.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Bottom line:\u00a0 except for Medicare Part D and (possibly) TANF, in general members of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation weren\u2019t the ones in charge \u2013 and with rare exceptions, generally were not in positions having significant influence over the passage of legislation \u2013 in DC when the Federal programs above were initiated or substantially modified by Congress.\u00a0 Those programs were primarily designed, passed, and implemented by members of earlier generations \u2013 specifically, by members of the \u201cGreatest Generation\u201d (born between 1901 and 1927) and the \u201cSilent Generation\u201d (born between 1928 and 1945).\u00a0 Or, in the case of programs like Social Security, SSI, and food assistance programs which originated in the 1930s, by members of the \u201cLost Generation\u201d (1883-1900) or earlier.<\/p>\n

    Less obvious is the fact that the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation has never constituted a majority of the US population<\/em>.\u00a0 The maximum occurred in 1964, when the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation constituted nearly 40% of the US population<\/i><\/a> – and that year, only a tiny handful of “boomers” living in 4 states were eligible to vote.\u00a0 However, the inevitable deaths of members of the generation – along with births in three subsequent generations since – has reduced the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation’s share of the US population today to well below 22%<\/i><\/a>.<\/p>\n

    . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n

    I said above that I\u2019d discuss why age matters.\u00a0 OK \u2013 here\u2019s why it matters.<\/p>\n

    In order even to minimally<\/em> influence Federal legislation, someone must at a minimum be eligible to vote; otherwise, they\u2019re essentially ignored.\u00a0 However, in order to materially<\/em> affect Federal legislation \u2013 say, legislation to create or modify an existing Federal program or tax \u2013 one really needs to be (or in some way strongly influence) a Member of Congress.<\/p>\n

    Reality is that in order for a generation to hold substantial political power, members of that generation typically need to be elected to both chambers of Congress in large numbers as well as hold key positions in both chambers of Congress<\/em>.\u00a0 In Congress, that combination typically doesn\u2019t occur until the generation’s average age is 50 or thereabouts.\u00a0 In fact, it wasn\u2019t until 2011 that the first member of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation served as Speaker of the House \u2013 and he was an “early Boomer” in his 60s by then. \u00a0(To date there still<\/em> hasn\u2019t been a \u201cBoomer\u201d Senate President Pro Tempore.) \u00a0The first \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation POTUS was Bill \u201cCigarman\u201d Clintoon (the misspelling is intentional).\u00a0 And Clintoon was an outlier; he was the second-youngest individual ever to be elected, and the third-youngest to ever serve as, POTUS.<\/p>\n

    Other than in four states (Georgia, Kentucky, Alaska, and Hawaii), the oldest members of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation weren\u2019t eligible to vote until 1967<\/u>.\u00a0 So for Federal programs that began prior to 1967, \u201cBoomers\u201d had effectively no influence whatsoever<\/u> on the design, passage, and implementation thereof.<\/p>\n

    It wasn’t until after<\/u> the mid-term election in November 1982 that the entire \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation could even vote.<\/em> So until sometime around 1983, members of the \u201cBoomer\u201d generation had marginal to at best only modest influence on any Federal legislation.\u00a0 (Historically, younger voters generally have lower turnout than older age groups \u2013 and the entire generation would have been 36 or younger on 31 December 1982.\u00a0 Hence my characterization of “modest influence” above.)<\/p>\n

    However, even voting only provides a limited influence on legislation.\u00a0 To have truly significant influence on Federal legislation, one has to be a Member of Congress or have significant influence over one.\u00a0 And politics generally being a \u201cclimb the ladder\/pay your dues first\u201d game, today being elected to Congress usually requires attaining age 40, give or take a few years – and for the Senate, often substantially older.\u00a0 (Yes, there are exceptions.\u00a0 They\u2019re still relatively rare.)<\/p>\n

    The first \u201cBoomer\u201d didn\u2019t turn 40 until 1986; the last didn\u2019t turn 50 until 2014. \u00a0That in turn means the ability of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation to shape Federal legislation didn\u2019t become truly significant until sometime between those two dates.\u00a0 January 1999 was the first time that the majority of the US House was composed of members of the \u201cBoomer\u201d generation<\/em><\/a> \u2013 though the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation doubtless had achieved substantial influence on the content Federal legislation a few years earlier with the election of Bill \u201cCigarman\u201d Clintoon as POTUS. It wasn\u2019t until 2008 that the majority of US Senators<\/em><\/a> were from the \u201cBoomer\u201d generation.<\/p>\n

    This is consistent with past US history.\u00a0 In contrast to war, US politics – including election to and service in the US Congress – has virtually always been an “old man’s game”.\u00a0 The only thing that’s changed over the years is what constitutes “old”.<\/p>\n

    My point?\u00a0 It\u2019s both absurd and asinine to try and \u201cblame\u201d the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation for the existence of any<\/em> of the above programs except perhaps TANF and Medicare Part D or for substantial modifications to those programs occurring prior to the 1990s.\u00a0 And for what it\u2019s worth:\u00a0 IMO TANF (with the additional flexibility it provides to states to tailor the program to local needs) is one of the few good<\/span> things to come out of the Clintoon Administration. (Medicare Part D is still fairly new \u2013 but IMO it\u2019s already showing worrisome signs of being yet another \u201cbottomless money pit\u201d created by the Federal government.\u00a0 The program is barely 14 years old and already accounts for roughly 20% of Medicare spending<\/em><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

    Why is doing that absurd?\u00a0 Because except for TANF and Medicare Pard D, most of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation either weren\u2019t \u201crunning the show\u201d when those programs were initiated or weren\u2019t even around<\/u>.\u00a0 (For all programs originating in the 1930s, the \u201cBoomer\u201d generation obviously had not yet been born \u2013 hell, they weren\u2019t even the proverbial \u201ctwinkle in their daddy\u2019s eye\u201d.)\u00a0 And for most of the substantial modifications, less than half of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation could even vote at the time the programs were modified.\u00a0 Those programs were designed, initiated, implemented, and (generally) substantially modified by Congress run by members of previous<\/em> generations.\u00a0 Blaming someone (or some group) for a Federal program about which they had no say in creating, or which was created before they were born?\u00a0 In my book, doing that qualifies as both asinine and absurd.\u00a0 Blaming them for modifications occurring before they were in positions of significant legislative influence is IMO similarly inane.<\/p>\n

    The same is true regarding blaming an individual or group for using \u2013 legitimately \u2013 any Federal program while following the rules in existence that govern the program.\u00a0 A person or group using a Federal program as defined by Federal law, legitimately and in accordance with that program\u2019s implementing regulations, isn\u2019t to blame for that program\u2019s bad outcomes or effects.\u00a0 Rather, the blame for that bad outcome properly lies with those who created and\/or modified that counterproductive program.<\/p>\n

    Further:\u00a0 the programs noted above were not created in order to benefit any particular generation.\u00a0 Rather, they were created in an ostensibly well-meaning effort to \u201cpromote the general welfare\u201d over multiple generations. \u00a0(Whether these programs are good public policy is another question entirely.)\u00a0 But IMO those programs simply weren\u2019t well-though-out beforehand, particularly regarding long-term sustainability.\u00a0 As a result, by most of them we\u2019ve now been bitten right in the butt \u2013 hard \u2013 by the law of unintended consequences.<\/p>\n

    Oh, and the same applies to changes in tax laws, too.\u00a0 So don’t \u201cblame\u201d the \u201cBoomer\u201d generation for the Reagan-era tax cuts, either – or for California’s Proposition 13, for which our resident “boomer hater” seems to have a major hadron (intentional misspelling).\u00a0 “Boomers” weren’t the ones running Congress in 1981, and the entire generation couldn’t even vote in California in 1978 (and many if not most didn’t own their own homes or business properties).\u00a0 In fact, only somewhere around half of the \u201cBoomer\u201d generation was even eligible to serve in Congress when those changes in tax law were passed.<\/p>\n

    . . . <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Can the \u201cBoomer\u201d generation legitimately be criticized for not changing those programs?\u00a0 After about the year 1996 or 2000, perhaps.\u00a0 By then, enough \u201cBoomers\u201d might<\/em> have been in positions of political authority (e.g., committee chairs and similar positions) to have a reasonable chance of engineering significant legislative changes to those programs \u2013 at least in theory.\u00a0 And a few relatively minor changes were made; TANF replacing the old AFDC program with what is at least on paper a better program is an example.<\/p>\n

    But \u201cRiddle me this, Batman\u201d: \u00a0barring a stark and blatantly obvious pending catastrophe, is any<\/u> Member of Congress or incumbent President with hopes of re-election going to propose something like that? Or vote in favor of same if the outcome is in doubt? \u00a0That is, are they going to propose or vote in favor of doing away with (or significantly reducing eligibility or benefits for) something like Pell Grants?\u00a0 Or Student Loan Guarantees?\u00a0 Or to make significant cutbacks to Social Security or Medicare or SNAP or Federal housing assistance?\u00a0 Does a Federal elected official doing that pass the common-sense test? Or, alternatively, would they propose raising Federal taxes enough to really<\/u> pay for everything the Federal government has signed up to do over the long term?<\/p>\n

    If you think either a majority of Congress or a President desiring reelection would do that absent a true and obvious major emergency \u2013 well, IMO that means you don\u2019t know squat about either human nature or politics.\u00a0 The answer is no; a Federal elected official doing either of those doesn\u2019t<\/em> pass the common-sense test. <\/p>\n

    Why? By doing that, an elected official would be essentially be telling their constituents, \u201cSorry.\u00a0 Your parents and grandparents were \u2018good enough\u2019 to deserve that.\u00a0 But you?\u00a0 You\u2019re not \u2018good enough\u2019.\u00a0 No soup for you!<\/u>\u00a0 Oh, and by the way \u2013 if you want that, you\u2019ll have to take what amounts to a huge pay cut.\u00a0 Because your taxes will go through the roof to pay for it, starting now.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

    A Federal elected official who did that would almost certainly be signing their own political death warrant; they\u2019d out of office after the next election.\u00a0 And they might well need to move far away from their home state \u2013 and remain incognito afterwards \u2013 to avoid retribution if the proposal actually passed.<\/p>\n

    Something like that has happened precisely once in the last 50 years: the 1983 Social Security modifications. Getting that through Congress took the proverbial stars to align: an immediate crisis – e.g., Social Security literally coming within a few months of financial insolvency – plus pain that wasn’t to be felt immediately. The changes (e.g., the resulting tax increases and reduced benefits for those born after 1937) were in general phased in over many years or weren’t shared by all.<\/p>\n

    The same is true regarding expecting someone to pass on a using a Federal assistance program (like Social Security or Medicare or Federally Guaranteed Student Loans or Pell Grants or . . . well, pretty much any program) for which they legitimately qualify.\u00a0 Sure, a handful of people might forgo using them, either on principle or due to pride.\u00a0 But if you suggest doing that, the vast majority of people will look at you like you just sprouted a third foot growing from the end of your nose.\u00a0 And afterwards they\u2019ll probably avoid you like you had a recent \u201cclose encounter of the skunk kind\u201d.<\/p>\n

    Bottom line: the nation’s been living in financial “fantasy land” since at least the 1960s and arguably since the 1930s. We’ve been living well beyond our means, deferring the bills all along. <\/p>\n

    And it wasn’t the “Boomer” generation who set up the vast majority of those Federal programs – or ignored the fact that they weren’t long-term stable, financially, when implementing them.<\/p>\n

    _____<\/p>\n

    Author\u2019s Note<\/span>:\u00a0 As I\u2019ve mentioned previously, I\u2019m a member of the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d generation.\u00a0 I had about as much control over when I was born as I do over whether or not it will rain tomorrow.<\/em><\/p>\n

    But also as I\u2019ve mentioned before, that\u2019s not why I wrote this article.\u00a0 I simply hate seeing blatant misrepresentation of reality going unchallenged. \u00a0And that\u2019s IMO precisely what our resident \u201cboomer-hater\u201d has been doing while waxing ignorant in commentary concerning this subject.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Longtime readers know we have a frequent commenter who seems to think that the \u201cBaby Boom\u201d … A Response to Our Resident “Boomer-Hater” (Part 2)<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":623,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[170],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-who-knows"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108753","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/623"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=108753"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108753\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":108771,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108753\/revisions\/108771"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=108753"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=108753"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=108753"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}