Search

The basis of social support that provides political legitimacy for age-related public policy is being called into question. Critics focus on the rapid growth of entitlement benefits for older people, both in terms of utilization and costs. Some have even suggested that if the current levels of spending are not curbed, we will sacrifice the economic legacy of our children. Programs being specifically targeted for criticism are Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. This article presents an issues overview of these programs in the context of current calls for reform. It suggests that aging public policy can be usefully taught and analyzed from the perspective of two conflicting schools of thought, which hold widely disparate views - the devolutionists and the safety netters. Devolutionists would tightly curtail the sustaining federal role in providing benefits to the elderly, while safety netters maintain that the federal government's role is indispensable. Relative deprivation theory, as advanced by Gurr (1970), is posited as a useful framework for explaining how aging public policy evolves and for illustrating the dynamics that underpin the process. Prescriptive recommendations are drawn out for the future of the aging network in terms of strategic positioning and advocacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]