There is a striking contrast in how different levels of government
invest in children of various ages, both in
amounts of funding and in the relative roles of
the federal, state, and local governments.
--The Urban Institute
This from Sara Mead's Policy Notebook:
As politicians and policymakers focus increasing attention on both current and long-term federal fiscal deficits, the intergenerational distribution of federal spending is coming in for heightened scrutiny. One stat--the federal government spends more than 6 times as much per elderly person in the U.S. as it does per child--is particularly striking.
Local, state, and federal governments combined spend a little over $26,000, on average, on each elderly person over 65, compared to $11,822 on each child 18 and under. Moreover, the bulk of spending on the elderly comes from federal funds, while more than 2/3 of spending per child comes from state and local sources--which have been much more vulnerable in the recent recession.
But the picture's more complicated than that--there's significant variation in government spending amounts and sources on children of different ages, as a recent Urban Institute report, funded by the Foundation for Child Development, shows. State and local governments provide the lion's share of spending on school-aged children, and the federal government provides the bulk of spending on infants and toddlers. Not surprisingly, the federal government spends the greatest amount on infants and toddlers ages 0-2--about $5,485 per infant/toddler annually in direct expenses and $1,092 in tax expenditures, with medicaid constituting the largest share of the direct expenditures. In contrast, the federal government spends about $4,850 in direct expenditures and $894 in tax expenditures per child ages 6-11, and $4,376 in direct expenditures and $735 in tax expenditures per child ages 12-18. The federal government spends more on younger children for health care and anti-poverty programs (particularly Medicaid and TANF) as well as in tax expenditures. Children ages 6-11 receive the largest amount of federal education funds, particularly Title I. Because many of these funds are targeted to children in poverty, they are not evenly allocated across the population of children--the federal government spends much more on some children and virtually nothing on many others. More detail available here.
1 comment:
I think you are looking at apples and oranges here. In theory, the government shouldn't be spending much of anything on old folks as they are suppose to have contributed to a social security system which the government was suppose to manage wisely so as to ensure that upon retirement they would receive those funds they had contributed for the last 40 or so years. These are adults who are generally self sufficent.
Kids on the other hand are not self sufficent and are cared for by the parent(s) (ideally). Those parents contribute to the child's existance unlike the retired person who is generally independent.
Obviously, the kids have not been able to contribute to the governments expenditures on them but sadly your numbers appear to indicate that neither have many of their parents who are the receipents of poverty support mechanisms of the government.
Just a we are starting to implement adjustments in retirement benefits and older qualifying ages for seniors, we really need to start looking at how we are spending our money on kids in terms of outcomes and sustainability. I am certainly not saying we should let poor kids starve but we have got to find a way of making their parents more accountable to a system which no longer able to function in the 21st century usint 20th century parameters of operation.
Post a Comment