Re: Udall- earmarking objection

["Ronald F. Vetter" <rfvetter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

robert l dolezal <bobbylu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<<<<<<<snip
Senator Jon Kyl
702 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, D.C.  20510

Attention:  Tom  Alexander, Legislative Aide
snip
Whatever the current number, as the "Baby Boomers" grow older the
Parkinsonian population will skyrocket.  Here is the Census Bureau's
numbers, with emphasis on the 55 and older population:

                                Pop.  55Yrs.      % of the Pop.
%of
Pop.55
Year    U.S. Pop.(mil.)         &Older(mil.)     Increase55&Up
&Older

1995            263.4                   54.9                    -
20.84%
2000            276.2                   59.0                  38.3%
21.36
2005            288.3                   65.9                  57.0
22.86
2010            300.4                   74.6                  71.9
24.83
2025            338.3                    102.6               73.9
30.33

Notice the increasing rate of growth projected in the "55&Up"
population.
Four years from now almost one-half of our population growth will be
"55&Up."   By 2010 almost three-quarters will be in that category.

What is significant about age 55?  Fifty-seven is the average age of
diagnosis for Parkinson's.  As the growth of population in this age
group accelerates, the incidence of Parkinson's disease in America will
also accelerate.>>

I tried to understand this.

1995    263.4   54.9    -       20.84%
2000    276.2   59.0  38.3%     21.36
2005    288.3   65.9    57.0    22.86
2010    300.4   74.6    71.9    24.83
2025    338.3   102.6   73.9    30.33

One problem that I have is with the fourth column data. It does not make
sense to me.

The percentage of those 55 & up (column 5) is fine: divide column 3 by
column 2 to get the values in column 5.

I tried numerous things to get the column 4 values, but did not find a
way.  The probability is that the math done was to divide the difference
in number over 54 for each period of years by the difference in total
population for that period. But this gives:

blank
0.3203125
0.5702479
0.719008
0.73878

which is the values except for the first shown as 38.3%, when it is
32.03%. If these percentages have meaning, they are "percentage of
persons becoming 55 years of age per half-decade", except that the last
value must be divided by 3 because it is for three half-decades. The
table column would then be:

blank
0.3203
0.5703
0.7190
0.2463

The sentence: "Four years from now almost one-half of our population
growth will be "55&Up"." is not accurate imo.

"By 2010 almost three-quarters will be in that category." is not
semantically valid imo.

sincerely, ron

--
ron      1936, dz PD 1984  Ridgecrest, California
Ronald F. Vetter <rfvetter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>