Usually, I am not a fan of the Boston Globe, yet this brief piece does a pretty good job of examining the “aging crisis” that advanced, industrial states are getting ready to face in the next two decades.  Note these sections:

“The scope of the aging process is remarkable. By 2050 at least 20 percent of the citizens in these countries will be over 65; in Japan more than 33 percent will be. China alone will have more than 329 million people over 65. The populations of Germany , Japan , and Russia are expected to shrink significantly. Russia 's population is already decreasing by nearly 700,000 people per year.

The aging problem in the other great powers is so severe that, in coming decades, they will lack the resources to overtake America 's huge power advantages. Graying populations will hinder countries' economic growth as working-age populations (ages 15 to 64) shrink, and will strain governmental resources as public spending for retirees' pensions and healthcare balloons. This is true even for China , America 's most likely future rival. Indeed, China 's economic expansion is already threatened by labor shortages due to population aging. China is also particularly unprepared to pay for the costs of an aging population. China's elderly have very little savings, the government has set aside little money for their welfare, and the family structure (the traditional form of social security) is weakening. Exploding public elderly care costs are likely to force cuts in all other discretionary spending, including for economic development and defense.

Although America 's population is also aging, this country is in much better shape. The United States is the "youngest" of all the Group of Eight nations. Because it has the highest fertility and immigration rates of all the great powers, it will maintain -- even strengthen -- this position in coming decades. America 's working-age population as a result is expected to expand significantly in this period. Compared with other great powers, the United States also has a relatively well-funded pension system; its public welfare commitments to the elderly are modest; its citizens work many more hours per year and significantly later in life; and its tax burden is low.”

We need to be certain we maintain this advantage by not squandering resources with knee jerk political reactions.  Admittedly, our Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid system is not perfect, but the solution is NOT simply more money.   If we want to remain a wealthy nation with the power to back up that wealth, we need to refocus our programs to benefit those who are in real need and be careful about expanding services to those who do not really need government assistance.  “Welfare” is a dirty word for many and while I am inclined to be less reflexively “anti-government” and believe we have a moral obligation to help those who need a hand up as opposed to a hand down, never ending expansion of the welfare state is a disastrous policy choice.  The fact is, we cannot afford to be so generous as to erode the foundation for our prosperity.  I know that typically when in the proverbial “guns vs. butter” debate, butter wins, but we need to be very cognizant of how we get the butter.  If, as I believe, America is (contrary to aspersions cast by many on the political far left) the ultimate guarantor of global prosperity, then it is on our shoulders that the relative peace of the world resides.  Due to human nature, this means we must have the “big stick” and given our position in the world, we must have the “biggest stick” since we have the greatest responsibility.  The irony of those who want us to spend less on the military and more on welfare programs is that the very prosperity that yields the taxes to pay for those programs is predicated on the potential use of global (ie, military) power.  No this doesn’t mean injudicious use of such inherent power, but it does mean that it is always there capable of doing what is necessary when it is necessary.  If we don’t recalibrate ourselves with appropriate prioritization of domestic spending, it will be a devil’s choice for America in the future when the dual track of spending needs forces us to cut one or the other in draconian ways.  That is not the situation we ever want to be in. 

Let’s open up to the real debate in America .  Its not the phony John Edward’s “Two Americas” claptrap, its defining our role in the world beyond heartwarming but ultimately vapid rhetoric.  America can do much and we always have been able to do much.  Let us help those who need it and deserve it, let us not continually fall before the emptiness of identity politics and class warfare.  The idea that is America remains a bright light for all the world to see, we should take care that we don’t dim it through fiscal irresponsibility and high minded ideals that do not reflect underlying realities.