Columnist Ruthe Deskin: Country’s citizens are aging

Ruthe Deskin

Thursday, Nov. 7, 2002 | 8:29 a.m.

There's no doubt about it, our population is aging.

Remarkable advances in medicine and more attention to health and fitness are adding years to our life expectancy.

And there's a new bounce in the old bones as senior discover that life really begins after 50.

Statistics show that a 65-year-old is five times more likely to vote in a mid-term election than a 22-year-old.

Advertisers who once aimed their campaigns almost solely at youth are recognizing the huge potential of older citizens. This will continue as more Baby Boomers join the ranks of those who are generally termed senior citizens.

Large drug companies are turning to television and other media to hawk wares aimed at seniors.

Even the once rather staid but reliable AARP magazine Modern Maturity has taken on a whole new look, featuring glamorous mid-lifers on the cover and inside features on subjects that once were taboo.

Communities dedicated to seniors offer all kinds of amenities: golf courses, bridge lessons, swimming, dancing, tennis, aerobic classes and book clubs.

Today's seniors are bowling, golfing, playing tennis, and are active in other sports. No more pictures of folks sitting in rocking chairs on the front porch watching the world go by.

Living to be a hundred years or more was quite an accomplishment 20 years ago. It still is, but more and more people are reaching the century mark -- and doing so in good health.

All of this means we can count on new problems as our population ages.

Medicare, social security, pensions, health needs and long-term care will all feel the effects of greater demand. As a new Congress convenes, these problems must be addressed.

War with Iraq seems to be an obsession of the present administration, but it might be wise to turn more attention to the home front.

Once again there is talk on Capitol Hill of reforming or even dismantling the Internal Revenue Service.

Of course it's nothing new as our esteemed representatives have been promising to reinvent the IRS for as long as I can remember.

Actually, I wouldn't mind paying more in income tax than I once earned for an entire year's work if I could just tell the government where I wanted it spent.

And why not?

Wouldn't it be great if we could earmark our individual tax payments for the areas we feel are most in need? Suppose there were a box on the return forms, similar to the one asking if you want to contribute to the national elections. The box would allow you to signify how you want your tax money to be spent.

If I had my druthers, the powers in Washington would have to scurry elsewhere for money to aid foreign countries, except in highly justified causes. We squander millions in areas where it is neither appreciated or effective.

I would earmark some of my tax money for social programs, education, defense and development and preservation of our natural resources. There is no doubt that everyone has an agenda.

If we satisfied all our needs, desires and expectations we have to pay. But the system leaves us no choice of how our money is to be spent.

One disgruntled taxpayer suggested, "Get rid of organized crime -- abolish the IRS."