“Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
“Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Analysis of healthcare costs, insurance, delivery, innovation, public programs, aging, and the fiscal and labor-market consequences of longer lives. The archive examines outcomes for patients, providers, workers, and taxpayers.
AI Summary.The average premium in the Affordable Care Act insurance marketplaces is projected to rise 13%, according to an analysis by the health research group KFF. That increase is slightly higher than elsewhere, with consulting firms projecting roughly 10% increases for employer plans covering about 150m people and more than 10% for federal workers.
Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-KatzNew York Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
According to a KFF analysis, the average benchmark health care premium on the Obamacare insurance marketplaces will increase 13% in 2027, compared to 10% for private insurance. This follows a 26% increase last year.
Are marketplace health premiums rising faster than employer plan premiums?
Core argument: Average premiums in the Obamacare marketplaces will rise 13% in 2027, according to an analysis by KFF that combined newly published federal prices for 30 states with state-level figures.
Obamacare premiums will rise an average of 13% in 2027, following a 26% increase in 2026. Much of the increase reflects rising medical costs, with employer-plan premiums also expected to climb about 10%. But the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies has left some Obamacare customers particularly exposed. Remaining income-based subsidies will shield most enrollees from next year’s premium increases by shifting the additional expense to taxpayers. Those ineligible for assistance—including many self-employed workers and early retirees—must absorb the full increase, sometimes after already paying over $1,000 more per month in 2026.Many customers have responded by buying cheaper coverage with higher deductibles, pushing the average deductible to nearly $4,000 this year. Having already traded down, they have less room to offset further increases. KFF estimates suggest enrollment had fallen by nearly five million by June, while a Commonwealth Fund survey indicates that the uninsured rate among working-age adults has risen.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Average premiums in the Obamacare marketplaces will rise 13% in 2027, according to an analysis by KFF that combined newly published federal prices for 30 states with state-level figures.
Reports by several consulting firms project that 2027 premiums for employer plans, which cover around 150 million people, could rise by about 10%, below the 13% marketplace increase.
Premiums for federal workers are increasing by more than 10%.
Related Articles:
Saved by Medicaid: New Evidence on Health Insurance and Mortality from the Universe of Low-Income Adults— Using linked Census and tax records for 37m low-income adults, the authors estimate that state Medicaid expansions raised enrollment by 12 percentage points and cut mortality among low-income adults by 2.5%, implying a 21% reduction in the mortality hazard of new enrollees. They estimate direct budgetary costs of $5.4m per life saved and $179,000 per life-year saved.
Will Medical Care Strangle or Save the Federal Budget?— A National Bureau of Economic Research paper projects U.S. medical spending, 18% of GDP in 2024, reaching 19%–26% of GDP by 2040, with federal medical spending consuming 45%–61% of federal revenue excluding Social Security contributions. The author argues only the low-spending path is consistent with current tax levels and other commitments.
AI Summary.A National Bureau of Economic Research paper projects U.S. medical spending, 18% of GDP in 2024, reaching 19%–26% of GDP by 2040, with federal medical spending consuming 45%–61% of federal revenue excluding Social Security contributions. The author argues only the low-spending path is consistent with current tax levels and other commitments.
David CutlerNational Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
From 1970 to 2010, growth in US medical spending outpaced GDP growth by ~2.4pp annually. From 2010 to 2024, that growth differential fell to just 0.3pp. If it persists, medical spending reaches only 19% of GDP by 2040; if excess spending growth reverts to 2.4pp, it reaches 26%.
How much federal revenue will medical spending consume by 2040?
Core argument: David Cutler projects U.S. medical spending reaching 26%, 22.3%, or 19% of GDP by 2040 under high, benchmark, and low scenarios, versus 18% in 2024 and 6.9% in 1970.
Figure 1 shows that in 1970, medical care was 6.9% of GDP. In 2024, it was 18%. From 1970 through around 2010; mean medical spending growth exceeded GDP growth by 2.4 pp annually. Since 2010, the growth of medical spending has exceeded the growth of GDP by only 0.3 pp annually. There is no comparable time period with anything like the sustained slowdown in spending growth since 2010. Patient cost-sharing has increased enormously [indirectly reducing overall expenditure via incentives] as shown in Figure 5. An additional role [was] played by the diffusion of cost-reducing technologies. Because they are often less invasive, second-round therapies typically have lower unit prices. [mechanism in Fgure 6]. Finally, there [are] fewer expensive new innovations than in the past. [However], recent data show an uptick in spending growth in 2024, which continued in 2025. Some of this is a result of new technologies— prime examples are GLP-1 medications and new drugs for cancer that are taken on an ongoing basis. To consider a scenario with [a reversion to] more rapid spending increases, I assume that the growth of medical spending above GDP growth after 2024 returns to the average rate realized between 1970 and 2010. This scenario is shown as the High-spending scenario in figure 1, in which medical care in 2040 rises to 26% of GDP.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
David Cutler projects U.S. medical spending reaching 26%, 22.3%, or 19% of GDP by 2040 under high, benchmark, and low scenarios, versus 18% in 2024 and 6.9% in 1970.
Federal medical spending consumed 45% of “discretionary revenue”—total federal revenue less Social Security contributions—in 2024, up from 13% in 1987, and Cutler projects 61% by 2040 under the high-spending scenario.
Cutler states that only the low-spending scenario is consistent with current tax levels and non-medical spending commitments, attributing the post-2010 slowdown to high-deductible plans, prior authorization, cost-reducing technology, and reduced administrative friction.
Related Articles:
Has the United States Bent the Health Care Cost Curve?— The authors estimate that a slowdown in US health care spending reflects technology-associated changes in health and site of care (21% of the slowdown, double that in Medicare), more elastic long-run supply (6%), market changes reducing and making demand more elastic (11–27%), improved population health (7%), and slower price growth net of upcoding (24%).
Can AI Avert the Impending Federal Budget Crisis?— U.S. GDP per capita, about $87,000, is projected to reach $102,000 by 2035 with 1.8% annual productivity growth, or $110,000 with 2.7% growth. Because the healthcare sector has been slow to adopt AI, health spending is projected to rise from 18.3% of GDP to 21% under slower growth and 21.7% under faster growth.
AI Summary.In France, social protection and health rose from 53.1% to 58.7% of total government spending, and are projected to reach 59.7%, while education, defense and public order fell from 15.2% to 13.7% and transport from 5.3% to 3.8%. Public pension spending rose from 12.7% of GDP to 14.8%.
Hanno LustigThe Two Cents
Date Posted:
At 59.7% of total government spending, France’s social safety net is crowding out core state functions such as education, defense and public order, whose collective share of spending fell from 15.2% to 13.7% of the total btw 1995 and 2024.
Is social spending squeezing out education, defense, and transport?
Core argument: French social protection and health spending, including all public pensions, rose from 53.1% to 58.7% of total government spending between 1995 and 2024, with a projected further increase to 59.7% in 2026.
Between 1995 and 2024, spending on social protection and health, including all public pensions (social spending from here on) increased from 53.1% to 58.7% as a fraction of total government spending. Social spending is projected to increase even more to 59.7% in 2026. Over the same period, government spending on education, defense and public order decreased from 15.2 % to 13.7% of total government spending. To compute these shares, I removed the State’s imputed pension contributions for teachers, soldiers and other civil servants from each function and from total spending, since the pensions actually paid are already counted in social spending; this gives a better sense of what the government spends on teaching kids and keeping the country safe. Transport fell from 5.3% to 3.8%. Pensions account for the lion’s share of transfers. Total public pension spending in France added up 14.8% of GDP in 2024, and it is projected to increase to 15% of GDP this year, up from 12.7% in 1995.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
French social protection and health spending, including all public pensions, rose from 53.1% to 58.7% of total government spending between 1995 and 2024, with a projected further increase to 59.7% in 2026.
French government spending on education, defense and public order fell from 15.2% to 13.7% of total government spending between 1995 and 2024, while transport fell from 5.3% to 3.8%.
Total French public pension spending reached 14.8% of GDP in 2024, up from 12.7% in 1995, and is projected to reach 15% of GDP this year.
Related Articles:
What’s the Matter With France?— France's official retirement age for full benefits was 62 in 2023, versus 67 in Denmark and the US, and its average actual retirement age was the lowest in Western Europe while life expectancy at 65 reaches about 87, two years longer than in the US.
Le Boomer Spread— The gap between French and German 10-year government bond yields exceeded 140 basis points, up from 40–50 basis points, which the author attributes to political choices favoring pensioners over bondholders, including a suspended pension reform leaving the minimum retirement age near 62. French over-65s hold higher average incomes than working-age people.
France is the Biggest Loser in the Global Rates Reset— French government borrowing costs now exceed the country's nominal income growth by about 2 percentage points, the most unfavorable gap between borrowing costs and growth in the rich world. By contrast, Spanish and Greek bond yields remain about 2 percentage points below their income growth rates.
AI Summary.Women starting GLP-1 weight-loss treatment lose 1.4–2.5 BMI points, rising to 2.7–4.2 points after 1.5 years or more, and those who are single increase their probability of being married or cohabiting by 18.3 percentage points, with no change for women already partnered. Women not employed at the outset raise their employment rate by 13 percentage points.
Rebecca DiamondHarvard University
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Women who began treatment with GLP-1 drugs when not currently married or partnered saw an increased probability of marriage or cohabitation of ~29pp after 6 quarters. Those not initially employed were 27pp more likely to be working after 6 quarters.
Does weight-loss medication improve women's marriage and employment outcomes?
Core argument: Women who were single when starting GLP-1 treatment raised their probability of being married or cohabiting by 18.3 pp overall and 28.6 pp (s.e. 7.1) at six or more quarters, building gradually as they lost weight.
BMI is flat before women start [GLP-1 treatment] and then falls (Figure 2, Panel A). All groups lose between 1.4 and 2.5 BMI points in the post period. These effects grow to between 2.7 and 4.2 BMI points at 1.5+ years after initiation. The largest magnitude change is in the marriage market. Women who are single when they start (Figure 2, Panel B) increase their probability of being married or living with a partner by 18.3 pp overall and 28.6pp (s.e. 7.1) at six or more quarters, building gradually as they lose weight. Partnered women’s relationships, by contrast, are stable. Their partnership probability barely moves (0.1 points, s.e. 1.8), and there is no excess relationship dissolution (0.0, s.e. 1.7). The marriage-market response is the making of new matches, not the breaking or remaking of old ones. In contrast, single women’s weight loss seems to dramatically affect first impressions of potential partners, leading to a large increase in marriage and cohabitation. This is consistent with prior work on the obesity penalty negatively affecting women in the marriage market. Figure 2, panels C and D show that women not employed at baseline move into work: their employment rate rises 13pp overall and 27pp after six or more quarters, and their weekly hours rise by nearly ten hours at the longer horizon.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Women who were single when starting GLP-1 treatment raised their probability of being married or cohabiting by 18.3 pp overall and 28.6 pp (s.e. 7.1) at six or more quarters, building gradually as they lost weight.
Partnered women's relationships remained stable after GLP-1 initiation, with partnership probability moving 0.1 points (s.e. 1.8) and no excess dissolution (0.0, s.e. 1.7).
Women not employed at baseline moved into work after GLP-1 initiation, with employment rates rising 13 pp overall and 27 pp after six or more quarters and weekly hours up nearly ten at the longer horizon.
Related Articles:
Victoria’s Secret Hits Record High as Bra Strategy Resonates— Victoria's Secret shares hit a record high after the lingerie retailer beat earnings estimates and raised its annual net sales guidance to as much as $7.13bn. The company has posted four consecutive quarters of annual revenue growth, with its bras gaining market share among 18- to 44-year-olds and growth in both the under-$50,000 and over-$200,000 income categories.
Today’s Most Important Technology— The share of patients taking semaglutide for weight control rather than type 2 diabetes rose from under 10% in 2019 to 41.7%. Obesity and overweight, affecting 1 in 8 people worldwide, cost the global economy $2tn — nearly 70 cents on the dollar from premature mortality and lost productivity — an impact projected to double by 2035 absent intervention.
AI Summary.Victoria's Secret shares hit a record high after the lingerie retailer beat earnings estimates and raised its annual net sales guidance to as much as $7.13bn. The company has posted four consecutive quarters of annual revenue growth, with its bras gaining market share among 18- to 44-year-olds and growth in both the under-$50,000 and over-$200,000 income categories.
Lily MeierBloomberg
Date Posted:
As the use of GLP-1 drugs for weight loss expands, lingerie sales are rising. Victoria’s Secret has posted four consecutive quarters of annual revenue growth, and its stock is up ~236% since the fall of 2024.
Is a focus on core products lifting a lingerie retailer's sales?
Core argument: Victoria's Secret raised its annual net sales guidance to as much as $7.13 billion and reported quarterly net sales of $1.56 billion for the period ended May 2, exceeding analyst estimates and sending shares to a record high.
Victoria’s Secret shares soared after the company beat earnings estimates and boosted its outlook, adding to signs that Chief Executive Officer Hillary Super’s turnaround plan is on track. The lingerie retailer raised its annual net sales guidance to as much as $7.13 billion and reported net sales of $1.56 billion for the quarter ended May 2, exceeding analysts estimates. The company has posted four consecutive quarters of annual revenue growth, with Victoria’s Secret bras gaining market share with 18- to 44-year-olds, and the retailer seeing growth in the under-$50,000 and over-$200,000 annual income categories.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Victoria's Secret raised its annual net sales guidance to as much as $7.13 billion and reported quarterly net sales of $1.56 billion for the period ended May 2, exceeding analyst estimates and sending shares to a record high.
Victoria's Secret has posted four consecutive quarters of annual revenue growth, with its bras gaining market share among 18- to 44-year-olds.
Victoria's Secret is seeing growth in both the under-$50,000 and over-$200,000 annual income categories, adding to signs that Chief Executive Officer Hillary Super's turnaround plan is on track.
Related Articles:
Today’s Most Important Technology— The share of patients taking semaglutide for weight control rather than type 2 diabetes rose from under 10% in 2019 to 41.7%. Obesity and overweight, affecting 1 in 8 people worldwide, cost the global economy $2tn — nearly 70 cents on the dollar from premature mortality and lost productivity — an impact projected to double by 2035 absent intervention.
Lilly and Novo Whipsaw Wall Street With Split in Obesity Outlook— Eli Lilly launched lower-priced vials of its obesity drug Zepbound to extend supply beyond injector pens, later cutting vial prices by 50%, and resolved its shortage while rival Novo Nordisk's persisted. Ending the shortage required compounding pharmacies to stop selling copies of Lilly's medicine.
AI Summary.U.S. GDP per capita, about $87,000, is projected to reach $102,000 by 2035 with 1.8% annual productivity growth, or $110,000 with 2.7% growth. Because the healthcare sector has been slow to adopt AI, health spending is projected to rise from 18.3% of GDP to 21% under slower growth and 21.7% under faster growth.
Mark WarshawskyAmerican Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Warshawsky argues AI may paradoxically worsen the US fiscal outlook, as the income effect of higher overall growth increases demand for low-productivity-growth healthcare. The rise in healthcare spending may “swamp rising tax revenues.”
Does faster productivity growth reduce health spending as a share of GDP?
Core argument: U.S. GDP per capita, about $87,000, is projected to reach $102,000 by 2035 with 1.8% annual productivity growth, or $110,000 if productivity rises to 2.7%.
Currently, GDP per capita is about $87,000. With annual productivity growth of 1.8%, based on historical averages, this welfare measure for the U.S. population will grow to $102,000 by 2035. With productivity rising to 2.7%, per capita income is projected to reach $110,000, a clearly positive result for welfare. Currently, healthcare spending is 18.3% of GDP. With 1.8% productivity growth in the broad economy but not in the healthcare sector, which has been slow to adopt AI, and an aging population, the health spending-to-income ratio is projected to rise to 21% of GDP by 2035, with relative healthcare inflation running at 1.1% annually. When productivity increases to 2.7%, health prices rise more rapidly at 1.8% annually, pushing spending to 21.7% of GDP.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
U.S. GDP per capita, about $87,000, is projected to reach $102,000 by 2035 with 1.8% annual productivity growth, or $110,000 if productivity rises to 2.7%.
Healthcare spending, at 18.3% of GDP, is projected to reach 21% by 2035 under 1.8% productivity growth, with relative healthcare inflation of 1.1% annually, an aging population, and slow AI adoption in healthcare.
Productivity growth of 2.7% is projected to raise health prices 1.8% annually and health spending to 21.7% of GDP by 2035.
Related Articles:
U.S. Treasury Investors Are Long in AI— The authors find U.S. government debt has a large positive productivity beta, because the tax code makes federal revenue highly sensitive to productivity growth while spending commitments change little, leaving bondholders implicitly long productivity growth. They argue greater market confidence in sustained productivity gains from AI could substantially reprice government debt, lowering nominal yields.
Has the United States Bent the Health Care Cost Curve?— The authors estimate that a slowdown in US health care spending reflects technology-associated changes in health and site of care (21% of the slowdown, double that in Medicare), more elastic long-run supply (6%), market changes reducing and making demand more elastic (11–27%), improved population health (7%), and slower price growth net of upcoding (24%).
The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036— The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal deficit will grow from $1.9tn (5.8% of GDP) to $3.1tn (6.7%) over a decade, above the 3.8% averaged over the past 50 years, with rising net interest costs driving much of the increase. Federal debt held by the public is projected to rise from 101% to 120% of GDP.
AI Summary.The authors use the end of UK sugar rationing as a natural experiment and estimate that a sugar-rich early-childhood diet raised adult chronic inflammation, diabetes, cholesterol and arthritis, and led to less human capital, lower odds of a skilled occupation, and less wealth. They also find early exposure elevated sugar consumption across the lifespan.
Paul Gertler and Tadeja GračnerWorking Paper
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Using a regression discontinuity design exploiting the end of sugar rationing in September 1953, Gertler and Gračner find that birth cohorts post-dating the policy change experience worse lifetime outcomes in many health measures as well as economic success.
Does a sugar-rich early childhood diet worsen adult health and wealth?
Core argument: Using the end of UK sugar and sweets rationing in 1953 as a natural experiment, the authors find that early-childhood exposure to a sugar-rich diet increased adult chronic inflammation, a marker of chronic disease.
We study the long-term effects of exposure to a sugar-rich diet in early childhood on health and economic well-being in later adulthood, and identify diet as a possible pathway. We exploit the end of sugar and sweets rationing in 1953 in the UK as a natural experiment inducing variation in exposure to a sugar-rich diet in early childhood. We find that the end of rationing increased the adult prevalence of chronic inflammation, an important marker of chronic disease. We also find increases in poor metabolic health; particularly diabetes, cholesterol and arthritis. Finally, we find that excessive intake of sugar also results in worse economic outcomes; specifically, in reduced human capital accumulation, a lower likelihood of having a skilled occupation, and a lower accumulation of wealth. While the effects of a sugar-rich diet early in life may have affected these outcomes directly via physiological programming, we find that a sugar-rich diet early in life elevated free sugar consumption across lifespan, consistent with evidence that life-long dietary preferences and habits form early, and that sugar may be addictive.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Using the end of UK sugar and sweets rationing in 1953 as a natural experiment, the authors find that early-childhood exposure to a sugar-rich diet increased adult chronic inflammation, a marker of chronic disease.
The authors find that early-childhood exposure to a sugar-rich diet raised the prevalence of poor metabolic health in later adulthood, particularly diabetes, cholesterol and arthritis.
Early exposure to a sugar-rich diet is associated with worse economic outcomes — reduced human capital accumulation, a lower likelihood of holding a skilled occupation, and lower wealth accumulation — and with elevated free sugar consumption across the lifespan.
Related Articles:
Human Capital Spillovers and Health: Does Living Around College Graduates Lengthen Life?— Living in an area with more college graduates is associated with lower mortality even after accounting for individuals' own education, and more than half of that correlation can be explained by area differences in smoking and obesity rates. The authors find evidence for both regulatory policies such as workplace smoking bans and peer effects about the harms of smoking.
Accounting for the Widening Mortality Gap Between American Adults With and Without a BA— The mortality gap between American adults with and without a four-year college degree widened across three periods—falling mortality for both with larger gains for graduates, then diverging, then rising faster for the less educated during the pandemic—reaching an 8.5-year difference in adult life expectancy. Americans with a degree, treated as a separate country, would rank just below Japan.
AI Summary.An analysis classifying $4.4tn of $7tn in federal spending by age finds retirees aged 65 and older receive $2.7tn, 38.6% of total outlays and 61.9% of age-assignable spending, versus $1.2tn for working-age adults and $449bn for those under 26. Social Security and Medicare account for 80% of age-assignable spending on older adults.
Kent SmettersUniversity of Pennsylvania
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
In 2025, of the 62.5% of Federal spending that is age-assignable on a per-capita basis, US retirees aged 65+ were given $43,700, working-age adults 26–64 got $7,300, and children and young adults got $4,300.
How is federal spending distributed across age groups?
Core argument: Retirees aged 65 and older receive $2.7 trillion of federal spending in fiscal 2025, equal to 38.6% of total outlays and 61.9% of age-assignable spending, versus $1.2 trillion for working-age adults aged 26–64.
We trace spending items within 52 general spending categories, totalling $7T for the 2025 Fiscal Year. We are able to classify a total of $4.4T across three broad age categories and assign the remaining $2.6T to an all-ages residual. Retirees (adults age 65 and older) receive $2.7T, equal to 38.6% of total federal outlays and 61.9% of age-assignable spending. Working-age adults (ages 26-64) receive $1.2T (27.9% of age-assignable), and children and young adults (under age 26) receive $449B (10.3%). The dominance of the retiree category reflects two programs above all others: Social Security and Medicare. Social Security directs $1.3T to retirees, and Medicare sends $835B. Together, they account for 80% of all age-assignable spending on older adults. But the retiree total extends beyond these two entitlements. Federal employee retirement benefits ($169B), housing assistance for older households, Medicaid long-term-care spending, and VA medical care all contribute, making the federal budget more retiree-focused than a Social Security–only lens would suggest.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Retirees aged 65 and older receive $2.7 trillion of federal spending in fiscal 2025, equal to 38.6% of total outlays and 61.9% of age-assignable spending, versus $1.2 trillion for working-age adults aged 26–64.
Children and young adults under age 26 receive $449 billion, or 10.3% of age-assignable federal spending, out of $4.4 trillion classified by age within a $7 trillion budget, with $2.6 trillion assigned to an all-ages residual.
Social Security directs $1.3 trillion and Medicare $835 billion to retirees, together 80% of age-assignable spending on older adults, with federal employee retirement benefits ($169 billion), housing assistance, Medicaid long-term care, and VA medical care contributing further.
Related Articles:
The Great “Transfer”-mation— Government transfers rose from 8.2% of Americans' total personal income in 1970 to 17.6% in 2022, making them the third largest income source after work and investments. The share of U.S. counties drawing a quarter or more of personal income from transfers rose from under 1% in 1970 to 53% in 2022.
France and Britain Are In Thrall To Pensioners— French pensioners receive larger government payments than in any other western country and begin receiving them several years earlier, leaving over-65s with higher average incomes than the working-age population — a situation without precedent internationally or in France's own history. Proposals to raise the retirement age or delay pension increases have triggered nationwide protests and government collapses.
The Budgetary Impact of the Abandonment of Federalism— Federal spending on activities originally regarded as state, local, or private-sector responsibilities is estimated to have risen from 2% of GDP in 1950 to 14% in 2019, exceeding the entire growth in federal spending over that period and reaching two-thirds of all federal outlays. Aid to individuals accounts for 80% of that increase, grants to states the remaining 20%.
