‘ ‘ ‘ Congratulations, you’re currently set to adopt a sexagenarian come 2011! ‘ ‘ ‘ No,… ‘ ‘ ‘ Congratulations, you’re currently set to adopt a sexagenarian come 2011! ‘ ‘ ‘ No, really. Three years from now, you and two of your friends will be footing the bill for the medical services, drug prescriptions and general care of a baby boomer reaching retirement age. If you live in America and don’t plan on tax evasion, you have no choice in the matter. And I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Sally Field will not be sending a picture of your new dependent. ‘ ‘ ‘ Come Jan. 1, 2011, the first baby boomers will start turning 65. The benefits they receive through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will kick in. The Ponzi scheme will crumble. Quite simply, there are too many retirees and not enough workers to keep these programs afloat. ‘ ‘ ‘ The year 1937 saw the national implementation of the payroll tax, which was designed to fund entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. In 1955, less than two decades after payroll taxes started, there were roughly nine workers paying into every older beneficiary. Today there are about three workers for each beneficiary. At some point in the 2020s it should dip down to a two-to-one ratio. ‘ ‘ ‘ What that means, essentially, is that you and a friend or two will be providing ‘mdash; through your taxed labor and services ‘mdash; all the financial means for a retiree to cover his medical expenses. Ten years from now, our generation will be out of school, working, buying houses and starting families. We will be going into all of that having to shoulder an increasing burden from the generations before us. ‘ ‘ ‘ Of 2007’s $2.73 trillion budget, 41.8 percent was spent on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Another 9 percent of the budget came just from paying off the interest we have accrued on our national debt. As what little of these funds are left begins to run out entirely, we’ll have to begin adding to our principal debt and confront the possibility of a runaway deficit. ‘ ‘ ‘ The situation is only going to get worse. While our forecasted economic growth looks good, it can’t even stay close to keeping up with the increase in benefits we’ll be paying for these programs. Over the next 25 years, our GDP projected growth is at 71 percent according to the Government Accountability Office. Over the same time period, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare spending will increase at 127 percent, 224 percent and 235 percent, respectively. ‘ ‘ ‘ In short, our economy simply cannot outgrow the rates of these entitlement programs. ‘ ‘ ‘ Don’t expect to hear much about this in the upcoming election. There are a few reasons why no candidate will touch the issue. Any remedy to this problem will require at least one group of people facing the negative effects ‘mdash; either the baby boomers if we reduce or push back benefits, today’s workers if taxes go up to pay for the programs or future generations if we borrow the money. ‘ ‘ ‘ Raising taxes across the board is obviously not going to be a popular move, but taking benefits away from one of the most active voting demographics ‘mdash; older people who tend to make the difference in an election bid ‘mdash; is equally undesirable from a politician’s view. ‘ ‘ ‘ If we choose to continue ignoring the problem as we have been, we’ll need to borrow more foreign money to keep the programs afloat. That is perhaps the worst option we can choose, seeing as how we are in $9.2 trillion of debt, and 9 percent of our gross annual revenue goes to paying the interest of the debt alone. ‘ ‘ ‘ The few politicians who do address these problems tend to be branded as radical or too far out there. I’ve even heard the term ‘negative Nancy’ thrown around. Whether their proposed solutions are viable, guys like Ron Paul, Ralph Nader and Ross Perot have traded fluffy promises of a candy-covered America for the unpopularity that comes with giving speeches about runaway debt and deficit spending. ‘ ‘ ‘ Recently coming out of his decade-long isolation, Perot is hoping to draw attention to the matter in the same way that Al Gore became Mr. Environment. If you go to PerotCharts.com, you’ll be treated to a personal video message from Perot himself, as well as his trademark graphs and pie charts that document the trouble ahead. ‘ ‘ ‘ Perot is still a fairly respected political figure, and he did capture nearly one of every five votes in the 1992 presidential election. He certainly can’t have less charisma than Gore. Still, I just don’t see him leading us into a new era where it’s trendy to be fiscally responsible. You can ask Brandon to roll anytime ‘mdash; except Shabbos ‘mdash; at [email protected].