The presidential race is in full swing and different interest groups are going for different candidates. The presidential race probably doesn’t matter nearly as much as people think because the federal budget is mostly set.

If you add up all military spending, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt, it makes up over 80% of the entire budget. All of the many other departments and alphabet agencies get to fight over the remaining 20% or less.

Unless there is a drastic change in public opinion, Medicare and Social Security aren’t going to be touched, at least for now. We may see the official retirement age go higher in coming years, but none of the candidates are talking about that now.

In terms of the military, we really do have a military-industrial complex. The lobbyists and special interests seem almost too powerful to overcome. This would actually be the easy area to cut spending just by ending wars and interventions in the Middle East, not to mention having troops stationed all throughout the world. And with more focused and reduced spending on actual defense, we might actually be safer for it.

The interest on the debt is set for now, although it gradually increases due to the increase in the overall debt level. If interest rates ever spike up, this portion of the budget will spike as well.

So overall, the candidates are going to fight over little things that don’t matter much. The Republicans can’t even stop funding Planned Parenthood. There is no way there will be any significant cuts in the budget unless they are forced by a lack of money.

From the point of view of a retiree or someone closing in on retirement, who is the best candidate to support out of self-interest? Who will be the most likely to help retirees, or basically take the least amount of money from their retirement?

As mentioned, nobody is touching Medicare or Social Security for now. The most that will happen is that the retirement age gets raised by a couple of years to delay the insolvency. If you are already retired, you won’t see your benefits cut in nominal terms.

In inflation-adjusted terms, you may have more to worry about. We have recently seen no cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security payments, while it is hard to believe that there is no price inflation. So in a sense, this is a cut.

The biggest factor that will likely impact current retirees is inflation. The faster that prices rise, the harder it will be to keep up their living standards.

The Candidates

It is interesting that Hillary Clinton does well on the Democratic side in terms of seniors. They are the most likely to vote for Clinton, while Bernie Sanders has the young people on his side. These are all generalities, of course.

Hillary Clinton might just be the worst candidate for retirees though. She is the worst of all worlds. Despite what her reputation may be, she is a pro war candidate with a history of intervention. She supported the Iraq War; she oversaw the invasion of Libya while Secretary of State, and was still there when the U.S. began intervention in Syria. She can say whatever she wants, but she is part of the military-industrial complex.

And while Clinton may not describe herself as a socialist as Bernie Sanders does with himself, she obviously loves big government in almost every aspect. She already tried to nationalize healthcare in 1993 and she is not going to cut any major programs or departments. With Clinton, we will get more spending and more debt.

Bernie Sanders is no doubt terrible in terms of domestic policy, but he probably would not be able to do that much damage with a Republican-led Congress. If anything, Sanders might scale back military intervention overseas, although we can’t be certain about that. If he did, then he would not be using the leftover money to lower taxes or pay down the national debt. Sanders and the Congress would find domestic programs to spend it on.

Overall, Sanders would likely not be any worse than Clinton in terms of damaging the economy.

On the Republican side, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio probably would not be as different as what they make you think. Unfortunately, it would be the status quo. We don’t really know what anyone will do in terms of foreign policy until they are actually in office, but they would not likely scale down the interventionist foreign policy.

Ted Cruz may be a fiscal conservative, but he is not speaking up about eliminating entire departments from the federal government. But even if he advocated getting rid of, say, the Department of Education, we know it isn’t going to happen. And even under the remote chance it did happen, it would still barely put a dent in the federal budget. The government would still be running massive deficits.

Donald Trump is a bit more of a wild card. He has been somewhat critical of the wars, but again, we don’t know what he’ll do in office. He has talked about slapping tariffs on Chinese goods, which would hurt American consumers. This would be particularly bad for seniors on fixed incomes.

The bottom line is that I don’t see any way that any of the major candidates would bring about enough change to reverse the spiraling debt. As long as the debt continues to grow, it is going to hurt our living standards, and especially for retirees.

We talk about the debt hurting future generations, but it will hurt retirees just as much. In order to fund the debt and the increased spending, the politicians are going to rely on the Federal Reserve to create more money out of thin air. As prices rise, it will hurt retirees more than anyone because many of them are on fixed incomes. They don’t get the benefit of rising wages, even if the rise in nominal wages lags behind.

Other Choices

If you really want to see something change, you can consider a protest vote. The Libertarian Party always runs a presidential candidate. There are not many big names running this year, but Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, has thrown his hat in the ring.

I understand that Johnson is a long shot to win, but what is the point of voting for someone in one of the two big parties who is going to do the bidding of the establishment? Maybe Trump won’t listen to the special interests, but he has been short on any specifics in how he would reduce the size of government.

If someone like Gary Johnson were to get in the White House, he might actually stop the wars and bring troops home to safety. That in itself would save a lot of money. If he were to be elected, it would be a signal that the American people really are ready for smaller government.

If retirees do not want to see their nest eggs drained quickly, their best bet is having someone who will cut the federal budget, reduce regulations, and stop the spiraling debt. Otherwise they should expect that inflation will eat up their retirement savings quicker than they could have imagined.

I think Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are representing the protest votes on either side. Perhaps even Cruz supporters feel this way. But I think they will be disappointed that things won’t change as much as they like. If I’m going to have a protest vote, there is no mistaking that a vote for a Libertarian candidate is a vote for smaller government. Of course, you also have the option of not voting or writing in a name of your choice.

And if you are facing a long retirement, you need to make it known to whomever you vote for that you want a smaller federal budget. Otherwise, I am afraid they will be paying for much of the government spending out of your retirement funds. They don’t need to confiscate them directly. They will just devalue the money in your bank account.