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?
The next generation of Americans will turn its focus to politics in the 2020s and 2030s, and what will they find? A garbage can overflowing with social and governmental problems our generation could not resolve–
…and the garbage can will keep filling up with problems that none of us can foresee.
Every issue listed above is known today, so the voters of the future will have a right to ask why we didn’t do something about them? Like a hole in the roof, these things do not fix themselves–if unattended, they just get bigger over time. What holds us back?
On the big issues of the day, we live in a time of 51% government. Whichever party has the last 1% of votes in Congress works to create policy that conforms to its vision of good government and tries to get it passed. The Affordable Care Act passed with no Republican votes and the 2017 Republican tax cut passed with no Democratic votes. This style of governing wasn’t always the case—President Reagan’s 1986 tax cut bill passed with support of 70% of Democrats in the House of Representatives and 65% of the Republicans. The leaders of both parties were willing to take risks for a bipartisan deal, in spite of opposition from a good share of their own members.
The art of the 1986 tax bill is that both sides could support the same measure for different reasons. Republicans saw their vision of government realized in significant, across-the-board reductions in tax rates while Democrats were happy with the elimination of deductions (loopholes) they considered unfair. Opposing partisans supported the same package based on different values and goals.
I have personal experience with another federal policy that received strong bipartisan support–employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). The ESOP laws enabled me to sell a family business to our employees and keep it intact. Republicans liked ESOPs because they encourage the “ownership society” (Mitch McConnell is a big fan) and Democrats liked them because they help “spread the wealth.” Different values for the same policy.
To tackle the big problems of today, we don’t need more people of vision—each party has a strong vision of what government should be. Instead, we need creative people who can find common policies that partisans with different visions can support for different reasons. This is not so different from other parts of society. A salesperson on the job to support a family can work with a customer who is shopping to find the right item at a reasonable price. Together they create a successful transaction, even with starkly different goals. They do not need to share each other‘s vision to make things work. We should expect no less from our elected officials.
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.
Groucho Marx’s quip is funny, but not what most of us believe. Those who are parents or grandparents—and many who aren’t—believe we should balance the welfare of the next generation with our own. For a prospective democracy, it is a matter of equity that we should not take advantage of children simply because they are too young to vote.
How should we balance the interests of children, who are politically powerless, with those of us who can vote, lobby and hold office? Many parents make extreme sacrifices for their own children, but it would be unrealistic to think that most people would do the same for all children. Is there a middle path between an “everything for the kids” stance and Groucho Marx?
One possible model for prospective democracy is a legal standard that has developed over hundreds of years for trustees who manage the affairs of minor children: the prudent person rule. When legal disputes arose about the management of trust funds, judges had to find a middle way to determine if a trustee was being reasonable. Sometimes, trust funds had losses on investments—was the trustee being reckless in their investment decisions or doing the best they could with the information they had at the time? Did they take reasonable steps to check on potential investments? Judges realized that trustees did not have god-like foresight, so they would ask if the trustee was making rational, intelligent decisions—were they acting as a prudent person would?
The prudent person rule could be a key guideline for policy-makers in a democracy that cared about the next generation of voters. If they were acting in good faith to protect the interests of those who are politically powerless, prudent policy-makers would ask about the potential eighteen year effects of a proposed policy, evaluate the evidence from history and research, and make sure that multiple voices are heard. We can’t ask that policy-makers always be right in their judgements, but a person of average intelligence should be able to review their work and conclude they made a reasonable effort to avoid harming the next generation—they did what a prudent person would have done.
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.