Introducing Bogo with this posting…Bogo sees things differently because–after all–he is not human. One of the things he sees is that our political leaders have known about the looming financial crisis for Social Security for decades, but never get it fixed. With the ratio of workers to retired people getting smaller and smaller as the Baby Boomers retire, it is only going to get worse. Should we just leave the problem for the next generation of voters? The Congressional Budget Office just estimated that the cost of our shortfall will be 4.4% on taxable wages–for the next 75 years (report). Bogo wonders how our kids and grandkids will feel about that?
Being a conditional optimist, Bogo thinks a window is opening up to fix this because we are entering a period of divided government with the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives. Most members of Congress, most of the time, are motivated to claim credit and avoid blame. The realistic fixes for Social Security–raising payroll taxes, limiting benefits, raising the age of retirement, shifting to another funding mechanism–all involve being blamed for making some people unhappy. The neat thing about divided government is that you can divide the blame. We have a president who wants to do big things and a Congress that can neutralize the blame by dividing it–if not now, when is the next time we can save Social Security?
We have heard a lot about the top 1% of families in the last ten years, but what about the other end of the income scale? What’s it like to be disconnected from paid work and any type of social safety net? Last night, I heard Kathryn Edin, co-author of the book $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America, give an eye-opening presentation about it. She and her co-author Luke Shaefer studied the 1.5 million families—a little over 1% of all U.S. families—who have almost no cash coming into their households.
Using a combination of personal interviews and statistics, she painted a grim picture of an isolated life in which mothers and children experience frequent evictions, illness, hunger and abuse.
According to Dr. Edin, the roots of this problem are in the welfare reforms of the 1990s that converted the federal Aid to Dependent Families with Children (ADFC) to a law called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The focus of the reform efforts was to move mothers from welfare to work with the promise of job training, financial help with child care, and wage subsidies through an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit. It also gave more flexibility to the states to design their own programs.
During the booming economy of the 1990s TANF seemed very successful as many mothers moved off welfare and into paid employment. However, as states chipped away at the programs to support employment and businesses eliminated many entry level jobs, getting onto the first rung of the income ladder became tougher for many. According to the Census Bureau, the number of families with virtually no income has grown consistently since 2000, year after year.
I will be buying a copy of the book and looking into what critics say about it—can’t say yet if there are any holes in the authors’ conclusions—but let’s assume for a minute that they are 100% correct. Will the next generation of voters wish that we had provided better support to stabilize these families?
According to Dr. Edin, small amounts of money to repair a car, to buy some presentable clothes for a job interview, or to get a sitter for a sick child, can make the difference between being employed or not. Most of the children of this 1% are probably destined to fall behind in school because of frequent moves and stress at home. The rest of our children and grandchildren will have to live with the results. What would they want us to do about it?
Gallup has been polling Americans monthly on what they believe is the most important problem facing the country since the 1930s. Here are the top ten issues in their most recent poll:
29% Dissatisfaction with government/Poor leadership
12% Immigration/illegal aliens
10% Economy/Unemployment/Wages/Other econ.
9% Race relations/Racism
7% Unifying the country
4% Lack of respect for each other
2% Ethics/moral/religious/family decline
2% Judicial system/Courts/Laws
These responses zoom up and down–86% mentioned economic issues at the height of the last recession in 2009. People responding to the polls focus on the present, but what will the top issues be in 2036 when those born this year can first vote?
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future,” Yogi Berra once said. One way we can think about possible futures in 2036 is to look at 18 year trends and project them 18 years into the future. That should spark conversation about how the trend drivers could change, and if government intervention could help turn around a negative trend. With positive trends, the conversation might be more about how to keep governments out of it!
If the new voters of 2036 could travel back in time, what would they say we should have done to give them a fighting chance? What will their top ten issues be if we do nothing? Issues that only a small number of people mention to Gallup today may be at the top of their agenda: the federal budget deficit is only mentioned by 2%, the gap between rich and poor 1%, education 2%, guns/gun control 2%, care for the elderly/Medicare 1%, and so on. Global warming and Social Security do not even show up on Gallup’s current list.
I will be blogging on the top ten issues for 2036 over the next couple months and invite you to contribute ideas and information. Is it worth the effort? The advantage of an 18 year glide path is that a tiny change in a trend trajectory can power up a great difference. Take the federal government deficit: The Congressional Budget Office projects next year’s federal tax receipts at $3.3 trillion against expenditures of $4.1 trillion for an $800 billion deficit—we will hand the next generation a bill for the interest payments. However, just a 1% increase in revenues and a 1% decrease in expenditures per year would turn that the deficit into a $400 billion per year surplus in 2036. Rip up the bill! The surpluses will start paying down the national debt. Like the proverbial hole in the roof that can be easily fixed, but if left alone only gets worse, some trends deserve our attention, thinking and action right now.
The short answer is never. The current generation of senators will make their decision on his nomination and the current generation of voters will decide how they feel about that decision in the next election, but—if he is confirmed—the next generation of voters will have to live with his influence as long as he wants to serve. When citizens born this year have their first chance to vote in 2036, if Brett Kavanaugh is sitting on the Court, he will just be hitting his stride at 71. Of course, he will be sitting next to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, celebrating her 103rd birthday.
Out of the controversy surrounding the politicization of the Supreme Court, a group called Fix the Court has been calling for an 18 year term limit for justices. They propose that when the current justices retire, all new justices be appointed for an 18 year term. Eventually, each president would get to nominate two justices, one in the first year of their term and another in the third. Having an 18 year term would provide a regular rotation, insulate the court from political pressures and eliminate the practice some justices waiting for the “right” president before retiring.
Fix the Court focuses on the term limit proposal as a way of restoring balance to the court, but it dovetails nicely with democracy for the next generation of voters. When the U.S. Constitution was written, the average life expectancy was 36, so the natural passing of justices insured that each generation could have influence on the composition of the Supreme Court. That is no longer the case. By giving lifetime appointments, we are tying the hands of the next generation. It may take a constitutional amendment, but the idea of term limits for Supreme Court justices is an idea whose time has come.
You may or may not agree with the political perspective in this op-ed, but Thomas Friedman is asking many great questions about whether we are being fair with our kids in the policies we are enact. Thanks to my sister Nancy for bringing this to my attention.
Please send along articles that focus on the next generation.
From The New York Times:
‘Anonymous’ Is Hiding in Plain Sight
The G.O.P. crowd who accepted the devil’s bargain is huge.
Thank you for coming along on this journey to define what we owe to the next generation of voters. It has been said that the easiest decision a reader can make is to stop reading. I hope to give you enough valuable and thought-provoking information each week in these blogs so you will want to come back, and to do it in short, easily digestible packages. To gauge whether I am on track, I will pay close attention to your feedback. Please let me know what you think and add any relevant information to the discussion. Let’s see what we can build together.
For my first post, I wanted to respond to the feedback I have gotten so far about the Democracy for Future Voters essay. Before starting the blog, I sent this around to about 20 people I knew to ask for their ideas and criticisms. Most read it and wrote back with both enthusiasm and skepticism. Here are some of the themes:
Several agreed the next generation perspective was needed in government today because of the financial burdens we are putting on them without their consent. One concern was the “intergenerational wealth transfer” caused by running deficits for current consumption. Another was the underfunded liability that is building up for public employee pensions. Borrowing for a war, for long-lasting infrastructure, or to pull ourselves out of a recession might be justified as providing benefits to the next generation as well as costs, but borrowing simply because the current generations of voters are not willing to pay for the government they want seems unfair.
Several readers focused on educational needs for the next generation. Schools and other institutions must prepare students with the knowledge and motivation to be active, responsible citizens. They will have to understand the political process and believe they can be effective. In today’s information environment, we also need to arm them with the tools to sort out fact from fiction and fact from opinion.
One reader suggested that “losing hope” was a great impediment to the next generation being ready to engage politically. He believed that this was caused by a feeling that the system is rigged, political leaders spreading fear, and growing inequality. He also cited changes in laws and regulations that have accelerated the decline of labor unions.
How would we come to a consensus on defining the interests of the next generation? One reader suggested that high school aged children could be involved in councils to discuss their interests and concerns rather than having adults simply guess at them.
One reader agreed that it is important to get more long-term thinking into government, but wondered why I just focused on children who are too young to vote. He pointed out that most current voters will still be alive in eighteen years and that we owe a duty to future generations beyond the next one. This was echoed by another reader who mentioned an idea prominent in Native American circles about thinking in terms of seven generations.
A couple of readers responded that the whole idea is unrealistic. One wrote, “How do you expect current voters to care about the next generation when they won’t even put Social Security on a sound footing for themselves?” Another thought that the influence of money in elections, lobbyists, and the polarization of our political parties will make it impossible to shift American governments in the direction of more long-term thinking.
Finally, one reader raised the issue of how difficult it is in practice to project the impact of current policies eighteen years into future. He asked questions about how we could evaluate an infrastructure bill that covered many different projects, how we could project the results of zeroing out the budget for the Department of Defense—or doubling it, how we would deal with the issue of discounting future costs and benefits. Even if there was full political support for considering the interests of the next generation in deciding policies, the technical issues would give us another mountain to climb.
Responding fully to each of these bullet points could be several years of work. I hope we can accelerate that by thinking together. I will plan to do postings on these over the next few months. Please keep sending ideas, facts and figures, or references to others who have worked in this area.