Policymakers Newsfeed

Will Too Much Debt Fuel A Double-Dip Recession?

Francie Grace — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:33:22 -0500

That was the question raised by President Obama during an interview in China (one of our biggest creditors), as cartoonists seized the opportunity to comment on America's looming national debt. "It is important," said Mr. Obama, "to recognize that if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

More pressure on this issue is coming from the newly unveiled $848 billion Senate health care bill, which includes a number of tax increases, and is estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to have the potential to slash federal deficits by $130 billion over the next decade.

Some lawmakers aren't so sure. The Washington Post quotes Sen. Judd Gregg (R, NH) as saying the bill "may claim to be deficit-neutral, [but] it uses sleight-of-hand budgetary tricks by assuming unrealistic tax increases and Medicare cuts that members of Congress will not be willing to follow through on."

Where do you stand? There's never been a more important time to keep up with the issues and let policymakers know your views on which options they should pursue. To learn more, compare the health care proposals and check out the Citizen's Survival Kit and FacingUp.org, our web site and curriculum dedicated to helping citizens get the facts and participate in solutions to America's federal budget deficit and national debt problem.

College and high school students have yet another opportunity to get involved and have their voices heard, by participating in our Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances contest for essays and video presentations on the deficit and national debt. There are prizes of $500 each for the best entries, which are due by December 11th; click here for details.

Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances is made possible by a grant from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

Listening To Young Americans On The Deficit

Francie Grace — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:12:12 -0500

You wouldn't think the bottom line on the $1.6 trillion federal budget deficit and $11.9 trillion national debt crisis could be summed up in a single sentence, but when the right words whizzed by, the Wall Street Journal's David Wessel was quick to point them out. Words to remember, in a speech by Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office: "The country faces a fundamental disconnect between the services the people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services."

These words underscore the fact that no matter how complicated and increasingly urgent this problem is, it is one which can be understood by most Americans – who can then consider, debate, and decide on options for the best way to reduce the deficit before its sheer weight makes many decisions for us.

Through PublicAgenda.org, FacingUp.org and our Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances interactive curriculum for college students, we've been helping people understand the problem, why it matters, and how to get involved in the process of charting a path to fiscal health. This fall, we extended the reach of the Facing Up curriculum to include high school and middle school students, who have been using our learning materials as part of the University of Virginia's Youth Leadership Initiative program.

Through that partnership, we also got a chance to hear more about how young people feel about the fiscal crisis which is shaping all of our futures. In a mock election held to give students a chance to speak out on a range of issues, 77 percent favored a balanced budget; an increase in the age for Social Security eligibility was supported by 64 percent; and increasing payroll taxes was favored by 53 percent. Reducing Social Security benefits was opposed by 69 percent.

We'll be hearing a lot more about these issues beginning on Monday, when we start accepting entries for the Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances contest for students, with $500 prizes for the best essays and best multimedia presentations on the federal budget deficit and national debt and what ought to be done about it. The contest has two divisions - one for college students, and another for high school students – and all will have a chance to comment on and discuss each other's ideas.

December 11 is the entry deadline; click here to see the full contest rules. Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances, a nonpartisan curriculum available at FacingUp.org, is available to users free of charge thanks to a grant from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

The Energy Debate We Should Be Having

Peiting Chen — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:30:05 -0500

Reprinted from forbes.com

By Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson

The recent Senate hearings on the Boxer-Kerry climate bill were a discouraging, dispiriting example of U.S. policymakers once again avoiding any serious discussion of the nation's energy future. Most of the senators seemed more interested in airing their talking points than in finding a consensus for progress. Politics trumped deliberation. Partisanship defeated the common good. Two other Senate committees are taking up the bill this week, but there's no indication that they'll be more productive.

You might say this is politics as usual. But questions about how the country gets and uses energy now and in the next few decades are hardly trivial. How should we address the global threat of climate change? How can we compete with the Chinese and the Indians for ever scarcer supplies of oil? How are we possibly going to produce enough energy of any kind to meet the expected 50% increase in world demand over the next 20 years?

The questions are tough, but there are actually quite a number of answers. True, none of them comes without some cost or trade-off, but the options on energy are a lot better than the country's options in Afghanistan. And whereas no one knows exactly how to get the country's job machine producing jobs again, there are practical, workable ideas on the table that could vastly improve the country's chances of having reliable, environmentally sound energy at reasonable, non-stratospheric prices.

That is, of course, if we make some decisions relatively soon. If we postpone them for another decade, they may get quite a bit tougher.

How exactly have our elected leaders in Washington responded to an urgent but eminently solvable challenge? The Republicans boycotted last week's environment committee vote, saying they wanted more information before they were willing to talk and condemning the legislation at hand without offering any specific, serious alternative. The Democrats, divided among themselves, voted the bill forward anyway, potentially poisoning the chances for any bipartisan problem-solving.

In any case, no fewer than five other Senate committees have a piece of the legislation, and independent of them there is an attempt underway to build a consensus among moderates. The most serious deal-making appears to be behind-the-scenes horse-trading, where senators work to see what they can bring home for their states.

If you love tactical maneuvering as much as our political leaders do, Politico's Web site has an energy and environment page that's enough to make you weep. Just skimming the headlines tells you how little of the discussion is really about solving America's energy problems and how much is about positioning each party for the next election.

Yes, the business world and individual citizens are moving forward on energy in ways that don't depend on our politicians. Entrepreneurs are plunging ahead by investing in alternative energy, cleaner fossil fuels, building greener buildings and getting new kinds of cars to market. But business can't do it alone. Ask anyone in the utilities business how big a role government plays in their decision-making. As much as the free market has to offer, the government is the biggest player here, and much of what business does will depend on what government puts on the table.

So if they weren't obsessed with tactics, what could our political leaders talk about? There are a handful of fundamental questions that need to be settled. They're not as complicated as they sound:

--What are the best options for producing electricity affordably without doing in the planet? You can count on your fingers the options available right now for producing electricity in quantity--coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar and geothermal--and the last three are only tiny slices of our current power supply. All of them have pros and cons; each of them would require a different strategy to make it viable as a clean energy source for the future. We have to make long-term commitments here, because the power plants we build today will be in service for decades. We need to place our bets.

--What's the best way to reduce the country's over-reliance on oil and coal: the cap-and-trade approach on the table or a straight-out carbon tax? Cap and trade is complex, to be sure (and nearly impossible to explain in 50 words or less), but it has worked remarkably well at reducing acid-rain emissions. On the other hand, business leaders like Caterpillar ( CAT - news - people ) Chief Executive James Owen and FedEx ( FDX - news - people ) CEO Fred Smith have voiced their preference for a tax, which they believe would be clearer, fairer and less bureaucratic. Which approach would work better is an honorable and important debate to have.

--What are the real possibilities for green jobs? If we move away from coal and oil, are we going to be able to replace the jobs lost in refineries and mining with employment installing wind turbines and solar panels?

--How are we going to fuel our vehicles? Do we stick with something we pump into our tanks, like oil, ethanol or natural gas, or do we move to electricity? Both have huge implications for our national infrastructure. Designing the cars is one thing; having enough natural gas pumps or battery recharging stations to give drivers confidence that they can find fuel when they need it is quite another.

People will say it's impossible to have discussions like these without getting mired in ideological battles over the role of government or regressing into the same-old-same-old debates on global warming. But utilities across the country are talking about these issues, as are major businesses, including the oil companies. In fact, fairly soon the term "oil company" will be a quaint relic. All the major oil companies are increasingly diversified.

Political decisions set the stage, but in the end it's the business world that's going to make our energy future work or fail. Right now, business may have another equally important role to play: sending a strong message to leaders that it's way past time to stop the politicking, make some decisions and get a move on. The most dangerous outcome for business, and for the American people altogether, would be another decade of delay and uncertainty. That's the one outcome the nation really cannot afford.

Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson are the authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis. Bittle is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org and Web site director for PBS' Planet Forward. Johnson is co-founder of PublicAgenda.org.

Where are the Swing Voters on the Climate Bill?

Peiting Chen — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:19:46 -0500

Reprinted from 800ceoread

By Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson

As the Senate environment committee starts to hold hearings on the climate change bill, we think there’s one critical question for the senators: Who are you talking to?

That’s not an obvious question, or an (entirely) sardonic one. Legislation is almost always shaped more by leaders and lobbyists rather than the public at large, and given the complexity of the climate bill that’s even more true here.

But you can’t solve the climate change problem if the public isn’t ready to accept some level of change. In the end, this is an argument about how we get the energy to fuel the life Americans want to live. You can’t change the energy picture without getting the public to reconsider where our energy comes from and what practical alternatives there are for developing a more climate-friendly mix. If too many Americans believe there’s an easy, cost-free answer out there, or conversely, if too many believe that we can’t tackle our climate problems without destroying the American way of life, we’re not going to get very far.

Right now, too many Americans are heading into this fight unarmed. Four in ten Americans can’t name a fossil fuel, according to Public Agenda’s Energy Learning Curve survey. Even more can’t name a renewable energy source. It’s a fair assumption that most people aren’t going to understand the ins and outs of the climate bill.

What’s worse is that most don’t understand the fundamental challenge here: that the world needs to change the kind of energy we use, even as we need more and more of it. World energy demand is projected to rise 50 percent over the next 20 years, mostly because hundreds of millions of people in China, India and the developing world will be buying cars and living better lives. Production of fossil fuels, particularly oil, is going to have trouble keeping up with that demand anyway. And even if we could meet that demand with fossil fuels, we’d end up with irreversible climate change.

But there is a coalition to be built here, if you talk to the right people in the right way.

When our organization, Public Agenda, conducted its Energy Learning Curve survey of Americans, we found they fell naturally into four broad categories: the Anxious (40 percent), the Greens (24 percent), the Disengaged (19 percent) and the Climate Change Doubters (17 percent).

The Greens, as you can imagine, are probably at a 350.org rally right now, the Doubters are still chanting “drill baby drill,” and the Disengaged are watching the playoffs instead. The most interesting group—and the most significant—are the Anxious. They don’t know much about energy issues, but they know enough to be worried. Almost all of this group worries “a lot” about the cost of energy (91 percent); They report higher levels of worry than the other groups on scarcity and on increased worldwide demand for oil. Global warming is a lesser concern, but even here 69 percent say it’s real and 54 percent say they worry “a lot” about it.

Most importantly, the Anxious are the largest single group, at 40 percent. They’re the “swing voters” of this issue, and you can’t build a majority without them.

A lot of environmentalists seem convinced that the key to success is making everyone else as concerned about climate change as they are. That’s no help in persuading the Anxious; they’re already worried about it and convinced it’s real. Making sure there’s enough energy to go around, and at a price that people can afford, are even more important to this group.

So what’s the takeaway here? There are two key points:

Back to basics: We’ve been doing a lot of work to educate the public on energy (in fact, we’ve just written a book on the subject). And one thing we’ve learned is you can’t assume people know the fundamentals. And we’re not talking about the science of global warming here. We’re talking about the fact that there’s a relatively short list of options that can provide the energy we need in the volume we need. Right now, 80 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas and only 2 percent from wind and solar combined. Given that, we have some practical choices to make here, and in our experience, people are pretty good at making them, if you lay them out and are honest about the pros and cons. Plus, a little information up front can head off a lot of misinformation later on, as the health care reform advocates found out to their dismay.

Speak to people’s real concerns. People can approach a problem from entirely different perspectives and still end up at the same place. The Anxious are actually strongly supportive of alternative energy, ranging from ethanol to solar, and they strongly favor conservation over exploration. So do the Greens. But the rationales are different—Greens favor alternative energy because it’s clean; the Anxious favor it because they want to stretch the supply.

The groups who will play a major role at the Senate hearings—cabinet officers, environmentalists, businesses—are all critical. But the public matters, too. If we let the concerns of lobbyists and policy experts drive this debate, we’ll never build the coalition needed to move forward.

Then, if the lights go out, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.

Author Bios

Scott Bittle, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org, where he has prepared citizen guides on more than twenty major issues including the federal budget deficit, Social Security, and the economy. He is also the website director for Planet Forward, an innovative PBS program designed to bring citizen voices to the energy debate.

Jean Johnson, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is co-founder of PublicAgenda.org, and has written articles and op-eds for USA Today, Education Week, School Board News, Educational Leadership, and the Huffington Post Website.

For additional energy resources and supplemental material, please visit www.whoturnedoutthelights.org

Even If They're Right, the Superfreakonomics Guys Only Have Half an Answer

Peiting Chen — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:56:02 -0500

Reprinted from The Huffington Post

By Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson

The argument by the Superfreakonomics authors that we should try "geoengineering" our way out of global warming seems to be a Rorschach test for the blogosphere: if you're the "drill, baby, drill" type, you love it ; if you're an environmentalist, you hate it. Or, maybe it depends on a flash reaction, whether ideas like pumping sulfur into the atmosphere to compensate for the carbon dioxide that's causing global warming strikes you as something you'd hear about from Albert Einstein or from MacGruber on Saturday Night Live.

We'll come right out and say it: we don't know if it would work or not. (There are a lot of thoughtful examinations of that question summed up here). But even if geoengineering works magnificently to cool down the Earth (and right now, that's definitely an "if"), it's only half of a solution to our energy problems.

Right now, human beings depend on fossil fuels for energy -- they account for 80 percent of all energy use in the United States alone. And that presents two problems. One is global warming driven by the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pumped out when we use fossil fuels. Number two is that there just isn't enough energy to meet world demand, which is projected to jump 50 percent in the next 20 years. And no, it's not just the energy-guzzling American lifestyle. Most of the increase will come from people around the world rising out of poverty and phenomenal economic growth in countries like India and China.

So even if geoengineering solved the first half of that problem, it wouldn't solve the second.

Some of the people who have embraced geoengineering seem to see it as a way of addressing global warming without having to change how we use energy. No need to get off fossil fuels. No need for cap-and-trade, or an energy tax. No need for conservation or efficiency.

But there are two grim facts about fossil fuels. One is that we'll be using them for a long time -- even the most optimistic projections see the United States and the world still primarily using fossil fuels for the next two decades. They are the world's energy default setting.

The other is that fossil fuels, particularly oil, are a finite resource. Demand for oil, in particular, is likely to outstrip production over the next 20 years, according to respected sources like the International Energy Agency. That's because people in China, India and other parts of the developing world are reaching the point where they can afford to drive, and they want those cars. We have more options when it comes to generating electricity, but demand for that is going up as well. There are 1.6 billion people on this planet who don't have electricity today, and over the next two decades, a lot of them are going to get it. You don't have to be an economist to guess what that means. As more people need the energy fossil fuels supply, demand is going to force prices up -- unless we find alternatives.

Then there's the question of U.S. energy security. As long as we continue to rely on oil for almost all our transportation needs, we're going to be relying on foreign supply. The United States imports 60 percent of our oil, and we have about 2.5 percent of the world's proved reserves. Our oil fields are getting old, too. In 1972, the average U.S. oil well produced 18.6 barrels a day; by 2007 it was only producing 10.1 barrels.

By contrast, the Mideast has about 60 percent of remaining oil reserves. You do the math. We could drill more, but there's no way we're going to find enough domestic oil to make up for 60 percent of our needs. The trends simply aren't moving in our favor.

The harsh reality is that even if global warming could be engineered away, we still need to change how we use energy. We'd need to develop all kinds of alternatives just to keep the lights on and our cars on the road at a price our economy could afford. "Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable -- environmentally, economically, socially," said the IEA.

The Superfreakonomics authors say they've defined the problem as "If we need to cool the Earth in a hurry, what is the best way to do it?" And they argue geoengineering is the fastest, cheapest method -- Steven Levitt called it a "band-aid" on the Daily Show. They argue their environmental critics are posing a different question, a moral question, and that's why their book is so controversial.

Fair enough. We're posing a still different question: how do we both avert global warming and still find the energy humanity needs? That deserves an answer, too.

Choices for the Future

Scott Bittle — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:35:00 -0500

You know you're in for a bout of grim reading when the international agency charged with worrying about how we power the planet starts off its fact sheet with a question like this: "Why is our current energy pathway unsustainable?"

That's the message from the International Energy Agency, which issued its World Energy Outlook report, the organization's annual examination of the big picture. That picture itself hasn't changed all that much. The fundamental challenge is still to meet surging worldwide demand for energy while at the same time coming up with ways to avoid global warming and keep energy relatively affordable.

Basically, the IEA says everything depends on whether or not world leaders get serious about climate change, very soon.

If we do nothing, then worldwide energy demand is projected to soar by 40 percent by 2030. The vast majority of that increase is going to come in the developing world, as people in China, India and throughout Asia see their standard of living rise. Even keeping up with that demand would require investing another $26 trillion. And unless things change, most of that energy is going to come from fossil fuels, which means "dire consequences for climate change" and air pollution, the IEA said.

On the other hand, if world leaders committed to fighting climate change with cap-and-trade policies, increased energy efficiency, and greater use of renewable energy, that would cost another $10.5 trillion (on top of the $26 trillion). But energy demand growth could be cut in half, and greenhouse gases would decline.

Not that the prospects for this look particularly good right now. Most observers say hopes for a real deal out of next month's Copenhagen climate conference are fading, one major reason being that the United States still hasn't figured out what it wants to do. There's a chance the Obama administration will put something in place on its own even if Congress doesn't act, but in any case, it's unlikely a deal with be struck without American leadership.

Chances are you've never heard of the IEA. While the agency has enormous influence among policymakers, and while there are bitter disputes over its estimates, it barely registers with the public. But despite the IEA's wonky tone and elite audience, the report has one great strength when it comes to getting the public involved: it focuses on choices and alternatives.

The world has decisions to make about energy. Everything we've learned about how people get engaged in making policy decisions shows that choices are essential. Nothing's perfect, and there are always tradeoffs to everything. Setting those options out fairly to the public is critical to building public support for change.

The IEA actually lays out the cost of those alternatives for policymakers. We can only hope that policymakers will turn around and do the same for the public.

Invitation To A Health Care Reform Dialogue

Francie Grace — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:43:07 -0500

On too many issues, the political discussion provides more heat than light, and the public doesn't have a chance to deliberate over the choices for solving problems. That certainly applies to health care reform, an area in which opinion is split, often in contradictory ways.

A Gallup poll last month found 54 percent who said it's a government responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, and 41 percent who said the opposite. At the same time, 25 percent said they expected to support the final health care bill, 33 percent expected to oppose it, and 39 percent said it all depends on decisions yet to be made about the legislation.

So here's an invitation for citizens to step up and be part of the debate: the National Issues Forum Institute (NIFI) is holding an online deliberation on health care. Here's the link to use to join the deliberation: http://nifi-healthcare.dialoguecircles.com - - you can also forward this URL to colleagues and others who might want to join in, or post it on your Twitter feed or Facebook site. To get ready, you can check out our Citizen's Survival Kit and NIFI's health care workbook, based on research by the Kettering Foundation.

Still Number One

Scott Bittle — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:30:36 -0500

As if anyone needed proof that immigration will remain a major issue, a new international survey reports that some 700 million people worldwide say they would move to another country if they could. Not surprisingly, the largest single group, one-quarter, say their first choice would be to come to the United States.

We can't speak to the view of those overseas, but we can certainly talk about the immigrants who are already here. In our survey of immigrants, A Place to Call Home, we found a powerful endorsement of life in America. More than seven in 10 say that if they could do it all over again, they'd still come to the United States. Just as many say they intend to make the United States their permanent home.

The reasons are simple enough: immigrants buy into American society. Three-quarters say the United States is "a unique country that stands for something special." Strong majorities also rate the U.S. as better than their birth country on a range of dimensions, including making a good living, having a trustworthy legal system and providing education and health care.

With all the ups and downs of our international reputation, with all the challenges we face, people still want to come to America. And the ones who have already come here, want to stay. That's a powerful endorsement – and in fact, you couldn't ask for a better one.

The "Awkward Age" – America's Human Resources Challenge

Francie Grace — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:41:25 -0500

The term used to be applied to early adolescence, but there's a new tricky phase of life: people from their late 50s to late 60s: healthier and longer-lived than previous generations, and many wanting or needing to stay in the workforce. So says Public Agenda's Andrew Yarrow, in a Baltimore Sun Op Ed with a lot of great links to organizations that are helping both older workers and the economy, with job training programs and opportunities for those who'd like to share their experience with others a few years behind them in their careers. Click here to check out the full article.

The new 'awkward age'

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:42:40 -0500

Reprinted from The Baltimore Sun

By Andrew L. Yarrow

Millions between midlife and old age need jobs, security and a new sense of purpose

"The Awkward Age" was a term long applied to early adolescence. Today, for demographic and economic reasons, a new awkward age has emerged in the United States: people from their late 50s to late 60s. They are not "old," as a 65-year-old would have been considered 50 years ago, but they're just beyond midlife. Conventionally, this age group has been seen as on the cusp of retirement or retired, doting on their grandchildren.

Today, the picture no longer fits many of the tens of millions of Americans at this stage of life, who - in our youth-obsessed culture - generally don't think of themselves as old. Americans live 15 years longer than two generations ago. Many at this stage of life need or want to work longer. The challenge for us is both ensuring economic well-being for this rapidly growing population and helping define a new identity and purpose for people who are neither middle-aged nor truly elderly.

Many older Americans want to work or are forced by economic need to do so. Yet, they face disincentives ranging from access to Social Security, private pensions and Medicare to our society's lingering belief that it is "normal" to retire somewhere between 62 and 66 (if not earlier), to forced early retirement and, usually, subtle age discrimination. Social Security reform proposals include raising the full eligibility age, and the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act barred employers from not hiring someone because of their age.

But demographic and employment projections pose huge challenges for this group - challenges that will only accelerate during coming decades. Of the 60 million citizens 55 and over, 25 million work (70 percent of 55-to-64-year-olds and 29 percent of those over 65, compared with 84 percent of people between 25 and 54). Labor force participation for those 65 and older has doubled during the last 15 years, although the rate is still much lower than at the end of World War II, when people died much earlier (and many simply worked until they died).

America is aging and people are healthy and active ever longer, but labor force growth is slowing: Between 2006 and 2016, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the work force will increase by 83 percent among those over 65 and 36 percent among Americans 55 to 64 but barely 2 percent for those between 25 and 54 - and it will continue to decrease among those in their early 20s.

So, what should individuals do during this awkward age? And what do we do as a nation that needs employment to strengthen economic growth? In addition, how do we help these tens of millions of Americans find new identity and meaning for their lives, while ensuring their economic security?

For individuals, the long-term outlook is bleak if they want to work, even though over-55's have experienced less unemployment than younger Americans during this recession. The New America Foundation recently estimated that America needs to create nearly a million jobs a year just to keep pace with population growth, but the ugly truth is that net job creation has been slowing to a crawl, even before the recession. America created jobs between 1990 and 2005 at half the rate that it did during the preceding 15 years. Although employment projections are hotly debated and can be thrown off by unexpected factors, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects job growth to fall by another 50 percent between 2006 and 2016. Other analysts are gloomier.

Huge increases in the over-55 population and job growth heading south don't paint a pretty picture. Do we allow, or force, more older Americans to retire, increasing the burden on an already-strained Social Security system? Do we leave many over-55's with less income, perhaps diminished self-esteem and happiness, and a lot of time on their hands? Doing nothing also would mean lower tax revenues and higher unemployment insurance costs for government, and higher (re)training costs for government and business, and for our other social assistance and insurance programs. What's more, adult children of this "young old" population may have to provide economic support, have their parents move in, and deal with their elders' depression and boredom.

So, what are alternative scenarios for Americans in this awkward age? For starters, government and business could invest much more in older worker training programs and expand existing ones such as the Labor Department's Senior Community Service Employment Program. Private employers and government could be provided tax breaks or subsidies to hire over 55's (ideally, such incentives could be recouped through higher tax revenues). Beyond working as greeters in Wal-Marts - or the better option of embarking on new careers based on unfulfilled lifelong interests - older Americans could help address many pressing national needs, such as looming teacher shortages, caregiving for the very elderly, mentoring the young and providing support for charitable and nonprofit organizations. Many also could be hired part-time for their experience, to train and impart knowledge to younger workers.

IBM has been a leader, with its Transition to Teaching, Bridgestar initiative and FedExperience Pilot Program to provide money and training to help older employees transition into new careers. Other employers should be much less averse to people 55 and older contributing their experience or retooling themselves and starting new careers. Community colleges also have been leaders for older Americans who want to redefine themselves in their careers. Federal initiatives such as the Senior Corps volunteer program could be significantly expanded.

Beyond employment, the broader culture needs to catch up with 21st century America. We may applaud George H.W. Bush for skydiving at 85 or John Glenn for returning to space at 77. Media and advertising encourage older Americans to look, act and think young. Yet, public distaste for the idea of people over 55 starting new careers also needs to change. We need role models in TV, film and other media portraying successful older workers, as well as more older fashion models (such as the woman selling glamour in a recent Dove soap commercial).

Demographic, economic, public policy and cultural factors will continue to influence what American life will be like in this new awkward age. However, we need to recognize the problems and act to provide more choices and opportunities to benefit this rapidly growing segment of the population - and our nation as a whole.

Andrew L. Yarrow is vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda and an adjunct history professor at American University. He is the author of Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers of Fiscal Irresponsibility and the forthcoming book "Measuring America." His e-mail is ayarrow@publicagenda.org.

The Best Idea Yet on Climate Change

Scott Bittle — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:51:59 -0500

At one of the last preliminary meetings leading up to the international climate change conference, a U.N. official called on the diplomats to craft "simple, clear options for politicians" at Copenhagen.

An excellent idea, but they've left it until pretty late in the day. And when they've created these clear options, they might want to let the public in on them, too.

If Public Agenda's work in public engagement has taught us anything, it's that people need options. That's how most people make decisions, by weighing alternatives and considering tradeoffs. And that's what has been missing from much of the debate so far. Most people have been confused more than engaged, and that doesn't help when it comes to making the choices needed: not just whether we switch away from fossil fuels, but to what alternatives, and how quickly?

Those choices might also be useful in Washington, where a Senate committee is supposed to vote on a major climate change bill. But the Democrats are divided and the Republicans may not even show up, so the fate of the bill remains uncertain. This comes back to tradeoffs, too.

Filling in the knowledge gaps and explaining the options for change may be the most important element in solving our energy problems. Because if world leaders still need to have the options laid out before making a decision, imagine how the public feels.

Supporting Teacher Talent

Peiting Chen — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:40:10 -0500

At the same time, only ten percent say student performance on standardized tests would be an "excellent" measure of teacher success.

The findings, which include an exploration of attitudes toward unions, are part of a national study designed to provide a comprehensive and nuanced look at the question of whether different generations bring different aspirations, concerns and perspectives to teaching.

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View From Generation Y is the second in a series of three reports funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Joyce Foundation.

Click here to see the first report in this series, Teaching For A Living: How Teachers See The Profession Today, released on Oct. 19, 2009.

Chilly Reception for Climate Change Bill?

Scott Bittle — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:47:56 -0500

The Senate environment committee is supposed to vote on a landmark bill to fight climate change this week. But the legislation's fate is in doubt as Democrats remain divided and Republicans may not even show up. The core of the struggle comes over the crucial part of any proposal to deal with energy and global warming: making tradeoffs. We've got resources to help you work through the choices senators are wrestling with, including Who Turned Out the Lights? Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, the new book by Public Agenda's Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson. Click here to learn more.

Supporting Teacher Talent: The View From Generation Y

Francie Grace — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:55:25 -0500

New research by Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates examining the views of Generation Y teachers shows that 71 percent are open to financial incentives for teachers who consistently work harder and put in more time and effort. Just ten percent say student performance on standardized tests would be an "excellent" measure of teacher success. The study, examining whether different generations bring different aspirations, concerns and perspectives to teaching, is the second in a series of three reports funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Joyce Foundation.

Young Teachers Assess Old Views and Traditional Methods

Peiting Chen — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:57:52 -0400

Stimulated, But Worried (With Good Reason)

Francie Grace — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:00:00 -0400

There was both joy and skepticism on Wall Street, as third quarter GDP figures showed growth in the U.S. economy for the first time in over a year, a 3.5 percent annual rate expansion fanned by government stimulus spending seen as suggesting an end to the recession.

One group not seen stocking up on party hats is the economists. "The economy has emerged with gusto from the deepest recession since World War II," Unicredit Markets economist Harm Bandholz told Reuters. "The short-term prospects for the economy remain good."

"Short-term" is, indeed, the watchword, and Reuters underscores it with the words of economist Chris Low: "The economy is entirely dependent on federal deficit spending at the moment… Once the government steps aside, growth is likely to fall back to a one to two percent rate of growth."

So the long-term problem of the federal budget deficit and escalating national debt remains, and will have to be dealt with before the long-term is allowed to play out. That's a message you've heard here before – but here are a few new tidbits to help you wrap your mind around the issue and get involved in making the spending choices that are determining our present and shaping our future:

Lessons from the land of the rising sun: Japan, which has tried government deficit spending as an economic cure for a lot longer and to the point where its gross public debt is now twice the size of its $5 trillion economy (U.S. debt is nearly 98% of GDP), is now being treated to analysts wondering about the yen, with one suggesting its bond-financing strategy could falter within three to five years.

The merging of two titan issues: deficit reduction and health care. Democrats rallying for the latest version of the health care bill said the Congressional Budget Office estimated the coverage-related cost at $894 billion over the next ten years. Christina Romer, the head of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, in a speech Monday, was emphatic that it would be "fiscally irresponsible not to do health care reform" and stressed that "we are also on track to meet the president's promise that health care reform will not add one dime to the deficit."

The Prosperity Index. Finland's #1. Click here to see how we're doing. Then check out our resources on this topic – the Citizen's Survival Kit and the Facing Up web site and curriculum for citizens and students – and get started. Each of us is able to both understand what's at stake and do something about it.

The Smart Approach to a Smart Grid

Scott Bittle — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:08:17 -0400

Don't feel bad if your eyes glazed over this story reporting the Obama administration is going to put $3.4 billion behind an upgraded electrical grid – the so-called "smart grid." But it may match the Senate climate change hearings as the most important energy story of the day – and it's no less important when it comes to getting the public on board.

As a discussion topic, the electrical grid combines the excitement of municipal water and sewer systems with the seductive allure of the tax code. Yet our current grid is aging, increasingly overloaded, and not up to the challenges we're going to face.

Here are a few of the things the country won't be able to do unless we upgrade the grid:

Expand wind and solar power. The best places for wind farms, for example, are on the Great Plains, but not that many of us live on the prairie. We need better long-distance lines to carry the power to where it’s needed. Plus, the grid needs to be able to deal with the peaks and valleys in power generation that occur naturally when the wind dies off or the sun goes down.

Move to electric cars. If people are going to start driving cars like the Chevy Volt or the Nissan Leaf, that means less use of oil but more demand on our electricity grid. That means an increase in demand, and maybe making electric charging stations as common as gas stations are now.

Just keep up with demand. Even if relatively little changes about how we get our energy, the country is going to demand more and more of it over the next 20 years. Right now the power grid is already running close to capacity in certain parts of the country, like Southern California and the New York-Washington corridor. A better grid will help avoid summer blackouts and other potential problems.

The "smart grid" would combine the communications power of the Internet with the brute force capacity of the current network. For example, right now the utility knows how much power you’re using, but not necessarily why you’re using it. A smart grid would allow the utility to know much more precisely what was causing a surge in demand, and shift resources to meet it. And technology at your business or home would know the grid was approaching capacity and be able to make its own adjustments, cutting back on the electricity you could afford to give up (say, adjusting your thermostat) while keeping the essential stuff.

Plus, upgrading the grid is about as bipartisan as energy policy gets, with backing ranging from environmental groups to business leaders. So why should the public care? Can't we leave this to the professionals, the power companies and the engineers?

The problem is that upgrading the grid is going to touch a lot of people very closely. Local groups frequently resist new power lines or power plants in their neighborhood. People aren't used to the idea of the power company playing Big Brother with their energy use.

The smart grid is like just about every other aspect of energy policy: it touches people too closely to take public opinion for granted. Policies that seem like no-brainers to the experts can still run afoul of the public if they're not handled right. That's completely avoidable. But it means someone has to take the time to explain the options to people and help them weigh the choices. We've made a start on doing that.

Because if you want people to plug in the smart grid, you've got to take the time to get them to buy in first.

The Number That Matters Most for the Climate Change Debate

Scott Bittle — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:30:12 -0400

As the Senate holds hearings on a major climate change bill this week, you're going to hear a lot of numbers: 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, 350 parts per million, and $100 per household. But the best number to focus on may be this one: 55.

Students in the Dominican Republic on 350 Day, part of an international campaign calling for action to reduce greenhouse gases.

That's the percentage of Americans who say they've heard "nothing at all" about cap and trade legislation, according to the Pew Research Center. That didn't get as much attention as another finding in the same survey, that fewer Americans say there's "solid evidence" of global warming, but it may be just as significant to the debate.

In another Pew survey, only 23 percent correctly identified cap-and-trade as having to do with energy and the environment. That jives with the low knowledge levels Public Agenda found in our own research.

That means the public is still a long way from being fully engaged in this issue. You don't have to be an expert to play a role in these decisions, but you do need some basic knowledge in order to follow the discussion. Right now, despite the efforts of activists, we've still got a way to go, and there are still lots of ways this debate can stall or get hijacked.

But there are easy ways to get up to speed on hard choices. The public can play a real part in this debate – if we give them what they need.

Inflation On Campus

Francie Grace — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:54:20 -0400

Dig deeper! Tuition and fees are up by about 6.5 percent at public four-year colleges, which are struggling with state budget cuts, and by about 4.4 percent at private colleges, hit by stock market losses in their endowments. The report from the College Board comes as our research shows a majority believes a college degree is both an indispensable ticket to the middle class and increasing numbers of people believe college is financially out of reach for many qualified students. To learn more, see our studies on this issue: Squeeze Play, Campus Commons, The Iron Triangle and Sharing The Dream.

Teaching for a Living

Peiting Chen — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:59:00 -0400

Two out of five of American K-12 teachers appear disheartened and disappointed about their jobs, according to Public Agenda's Teaching for a Living study, conducted with Learning Point Associates and released in association with Education Week.

The research, designed to learn more about how to support and retain the most promising teachers, focuses on questions like why people become teachers, what are their frustrations, and what reforms they think would improve their work.

Our findings include a cluster analysis revealing three distinct groups of teachers: the “Disheartened,” the “Contented,” and the “Idealists.”

This is the first in a series of three reports funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Joyce Foundation.

Click here to see the second report, Supporting Teacher Talent: The View From Generation Y, released Nov. 2, 2009. For more information, please contact Public Agenda communications manager Melissa Feldsher at mfeldsher@publicagenda.org or 212-686-6610, extension 50.

On Energy, It Takes More Than 'Eureka'

Scott Bittle — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:56:56 -0400

The Wall Street Journal has a big energy section today on "five technologies that could change everything." The Journal backs it up by posing this point:

"Admit it: When you think about our need to be less reliant on nonrenewable, greenhouse-gas-emitting sources of energy, part of you wishes, hopes, believes that technology will come to the rescue."

It's certainly a common enough view – the fact that Americans have faith in technology is nothing new. But surprisingly it's not necessarily a majority. In Public Agenda's Energy Learning Curve, we found 41 percent who believed technology will solve the global warming problem "without requiring major sacrifices." But 48 percent said society would have to make major sacrifices to solve the problem.

That also depends on your definition of sacrifice. Actually bringing any energy technology to market, even the ones we have now, even the ones that sound like "magic bullets," requires some tradeoffs, as you can see in these stories about renewable energy and in the controversy over solar plants in the California desert.

Getting the technology to work is only part of the problem. Whatever choices we make have to be economically viable and publically acceptable. And that's always the hard part.

Teaching for a Living: Voices From The Classroom

Scott Bittle — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:28:49 -0400

Two out of five of America’s teachers appear disheartened and disappointed about their jobs, according to new research released by Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates in association with Education Week. The new report probes why people become teachers, their frustrations, and what reforms they favor. We find teachers fall into three groups: the Disheartened, the Contented and the Idealists. Find out more about what this may mean for our schools in Teaching for a Living, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and The Joyce Foundation.

Beyond the Plateau on Math Scores

Scott Bittle — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:52:56 -0400

The latest edition of the "nation's report card" shows that math scores failed to improve for the first time since 1990, and you don't have to have great math skills to know that isn't good enough. But how do we move skills forward?

The National Assessment of Educational Progress reported this week that fourth-grade math skills have been flat since 2007, after more than 17 years of steady if limited progress. That's prompted a lot of debate over whether this means the federal No Child Left Behind law has stalled, what this may mean for the standards movement in general, and how we teach math in the public schools.

Those are all critical points. Based on Public Agenda's research, we'd suggest one more factor to think about: parents.

Overall, we've found that parents see standards as "necessary, but not sufficient" in raising student achievement. But we've also found a troubling complacency among parents about math and science achievement, in particular. Parents say they're generally satisfied with the math education their children get, and their concern about math and science achievement declined since the mid-1990s. To be fair, that was during a period when NAEP math scores were rising. But parents certainly didn't share the urgency of business and academic leaders, who worry that the U.S. has a lot further to do, and is in danger of losing its edge in math and science.

Our work also suggests ways of closing that urgency gap. In Kansas City, where our public engagement team has worked with local groups on math and science education, we found it helps to"speak the language of opportunity," pointing out the connection between math skills and getting ahead in life.

The other question the new scores raise is how well teachers are performing when it comes to math. NAEP did an intriguing analysis this time based on the training of math teachers: whether they had an undergraduate degree in math or in education.

According to NAEP's analysis, fourth-graders whose teachers reported having an undergraduate major in education scored higher than those with teachers who reported having a minor or not having a degree in education. Eighth-graders with teachers who had an undergraduate major or minor in math scored higher than students whose teachers did not have a major or minor in math.

Our 2007 Lessons Learned survey of first-year teachers had an interesting counterpoint to this. We asked elementary school teachers if they felt "confident and well-prepared" to teach different subjects. This isn't a measure of how well teachers are actually trained – just where they feel confident and where they feel shaky.

There wasn't much difference in reading and math, with 64 percent saying they were "very confident" teaching reading and writing and 61 percent very confident in math. In math, there wasn't any statistically significant difference between alternative certification teachers and those who were traditionally trained (although the alternative certification teachers had unique concerns in other areas, like not getting enough support overall).

For more elementary school teachers, the weak area turned out to be not math, but science, where only 38 percent said they were very confident.

Q14. (From Lessons Learned) How confident and well-prepared are you in each of the following subject areas. (First,) How confident and well-prepared are you in ...?

READ FOR FIRST ITEM, THEN AS NECESSARY: Are you very confident and well-prepared, somewhat confident and well-prepared, not too confident and well-prepared, or not at all confident and well-prepared?

		Very	Somewhat	Not too	Not at all	DK/Ref.	(N)
a. Math	Total	61%	31%	4%	1%	2%	(440)
b. Science	Total	38%	48%	10%	1%	3%	(440)
c. Reading and Writing	Total	64%	30%	4%	*	2%	(440)

Afghanistan & The War On Terror

Francie Grace — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:44:27 -0400

Is Afghanistan a war of necessity or a war of choice? That's the frame that Council on Foreign Relations president Dr. Richard Haass suggests be used in thinking about U.S. foreign policy decisions. Speaking at the Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast, Haass argued that a war of necessity must be both a matter of vital national interest and one with no viable alternative. Haas also talked about the war to win hearts and minds of potential terror trainees. "How do we break the recruiting train?" he asked. "How do we persuade young men to make a much different career choice?" Click here to see video of the event.

Afghanistan & The War On Terror

Francie Grace — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:36:36 -0400

Dr. Richard Haass (left), president of the Council of Foreign Relations, discusses U.S. foreign policy priorities with Richard Siegel, of National Public Radio, at the October 2009 Maxwell School/ Public Agenda Policy Breakfast Series in New York.

Is Afghanistan a war of necessity or a war of choice? That's the frame that Dr. Richard Haass, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, suggests be used in thinking about U.S. foreign policy decisions to be made in that region.

Speaking at the Oct. 8, 2009, Maxwell School/Public Agenda Policy Breakfast in New York, Haass took issue with President Obama's characterization of Afghanistan as "a war of necessity." Haass, who was a foreign policy adviser in both Bush presidencies, argues that in order to be a war of necessity, two conditions must be met: is the war of vital national interest, and is there no viable alternative?

"I don't believe either condition is met in Afghanistan today," said Haass, making the case that the country of Afghanistan is not necessarily central to the global war against terrorism, as terrorist groups can and have set up shop in many different countries including Pakistan. And that, he notes, is a country in which the U.S. has "one of the scratchiest relationships," with very limited influence.

Haass - who's out with a book on this view of foreign policy decisions "War of Necessity, War of Choice: a memoir of Two Iraq Wars" – also talked about the war to win hearts and minds of potential terror trainees. "How do we break the recruiting train?" he asked. "How do we persuade young men to make a much different career choice?"

You can check out Haass' comments and the discussion for yourself: video of the event is on the Policy Breakfast web site. Another good resource on this subject: our Confidence in Foreign Policy Index, which last year showed 77 percent of Americans surveyed saying that they believed doing more to help Muslims develop economically would enhance our national security either "somewhat" or "a great deal."

Climate Change, Blackadder, and Percentages of Mystery

Scott Bittle — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:37:56 -0400

The battle over climate change has been joined in the Senate, and judging from the first day, it's not only going to be as heated as health care, it's also going to be just as obscure.

The first news stories, for example, tell us that the Senate version of a global warming bill introduced this week wants to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels, compared with 17 percent in the House bill.

This puts us in mind of a scene from the old British TV comedy Blackadder, a must-see for lovers of truly fine sarcasm. One of the characters confidently tells Blackadder that a princess' eyes are said to be even more blue than the "famous Stone of Galveston." "So what you're telling me, Percy," Blackadder says witheringly, "is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen."

Don't worry; it's not just Congress. The international climate conference in Copenhagen is already shaping up as an argument between those who think we should cut greenhouse emissions 17 percent to 23 percent, versus those who think we need to cut them up to 40 percent (from 1990 levels).

These are perfectly valid, even vital targets for scientists and political leaders to argue about. But this is policymaking for elites, not the public. As far as most people are concerned, these dueling percentages don't mean much; you might as well be asking about the relative blueness of the stone of Galveston.

The problem is, of course, that the average person has no particular stake in the stone of Galveston, but they do have a huge stake in where their energy comes from. People need electricity. They need transportation. And right now they get most of that energy from fossil fuels, which are both in limited supply and linked to global warming.

What people need to grapple with this problem isn't a debate over percentages; they need basic facts, like what our energy needs are likely to be. And we’re talking fundamentals here: Coal contributes to global warming (at least the way we use it now) but nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal don’t. Our surveys show that substantial numbers of Americans don’t have even this minimal level of knowledge under their belts. They also need choices about what to do next. They need to be able to weigh alternatives realistically. What would it actually take to switch away from fossil fuels? How long would it take? How much would it cost?

These are the questions that will help the public, and the answers are critical to how they will respond to any proposal. Energy is a problem with multiple dimensions: how much it costs, whether our sources are secure, and what it does to the environment. Our Energy Learning Curve™ shows that the public's worried about all these issues, and price and security are even bigger concerns than global warming.

You're not going to ease those concerns with percentages. You're going to ease them by laying out what's reasonable and what's not, and what the tradeoffs might be. Unless we start talking about the problem in those terms, we might end up with percentages that don’t mean anything, not merely because they're confusing but because the public won't be willing to do what's needed to make them real.

How Economic Insecurity is Pressuring Social Security

Scott Bittle — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:02:30 -0400

Here's a measure of both how important Social Security is and the problems it faces: the program will actually run a deficit over the next two years because fewer people are paying in and more are applying for benefits.

Of course, over the long term, that's the fundamental problem facing Social Security. As the baby boomers retire, there aren't going to be enough people paying into the program to support those who are getting benefits. But this is a specific short-term issue, as the "Great Recession" pushes more older people out of the workforce and into early retirement. And, of course, higher unemployment means fewer people are paying taxes in general and Social Security taxes in particular.

It makes perfect sense for more older workers to file early; times are tough and Social Security is, well, secure. But this is a taste of what's to come. On paper, when Social Security spends more on benefits than it takes in by taxes, the system digs into its trust fund, built up during the years when far more people were paying in than drawing out. But the trust fund itself exists only "on paper," since the government has been borrowing from Social Security and Medicare to make its annual deficits look smaller.

That means the government will have to pay the trust fund back, and it will. There's no question that the benefits will be paid. The problem is that the government will have to pay it back out of general revenue, which means either the deficit gets worse or other programs get squeezed. We've already started seeing this dynamic with Medicare, and now Social Security is feeling the squeeze sooner than anticipated. That's why our long-term fiscal problems really need to be dealt with soon: the long term is arriving sooner than you'd think.

School Days, School Years

Scott Bittle — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:53:06 -0400

The Obama administration has been making noises about a longer school year, and the Associated Press takes the opportunity to examine whether American students need to spend more time in class. We can't say whether or not that will improve student achievement, but we can say it goes to one of American parents' big concerns about their children.

The president called on school systems to hold longer school days and extend school into the summer as well. It's not a new idea, and students in many countries have longer school years than Americans (although American students have a longer school day than many).

When we examined parents' attitudes about out of school time, however, academics proved to be only part of the picture. The summer months proved to be the most difficult time for parents to find things for their kids to do, and low-income and minority parents were even more worried about this. Low-income and minority parents were also more interested in academics during summer and after-school work than other parents.

Climate Change: Making Anxiety an Asset

Peiting Chen — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:12:22 -0400

Climate Change: Making Anxiety An Asset

Complex problems and anxious people are a bad combination, say Public Agenda's Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, who gave that combustible formula a lot of thought while writing "Who Turned Out The Lights? Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis" (set for release October 27, 2009).

In this Op Ed piece for The Huffington Post, Bittle and Johnson argue that when it comes to climate change, the debate doesn't have to play out as badly as it has on the issue of health care reform – with various groups lining up to demonize each other, and lots of people left out in the cold wondering what the true facts really are.

Properly channeled, Bittle and Johnson say, anxiety can be an asset. They don't mean scaring people into going along with the government's plans, as arguably happened with the "war on terrorism."

Click here to take a look at their ideas on how we might build coalitions for change, in addressing the problems of a nation that is very dependent on fossil fuels.

Intergenerational Dialogues About America's Fiscal Future Refute Kids vs. Canes Conflict

Peiting Chen — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:43:34 -0400

By Andrew L. Yarrow, Vice President, Public Agenda

What do terms such as intergenerational equity and intergenerational interdependence mean when thinking about the future of America’s federal finances and overall economy?

Intergenerational equity and related terms are increasingly bandied about as federal debt and unfunded liabilities top $55 trillion—a sum putatively to be bequeathed to-and drown - future generations. They also come up in increasingly pessimistic views of politicians, pundits, and Americans of all ages that today’s children and youth may well be the first generation in U.S. history to have lower living standards and fewer opportunities than their parents.

While such views may be warranted, they can connote—and often are meant to connote—intergenerational conflict, America’s economy as a zero sum game, young versus old in the scramble for diminishing resources, and a sort of fiscal Malthusianism. However, discussions of intergenerational equity usually ignore the concept of intergenerational interdependence. All generations of Americans are bound together through family ties and other networks. When we deprive a particular generation of needed resources, we end up hurting entire families, communities, and the larger economy.

So, we should reframe the discussion: Instead of just talking about cuts in entitlement spending-which do need to be made-we also should talk about investing in children and young people. If we're so concerned about "our children” and America's future, they-and our nation-can't have a very bright one unless we devote considerably more resources to ensure that young Americans get a good education, have decent health care, strong families, safe communities, a healthy environment, worthwhile job opportunities, an economic jump-start to help them thrive in perilous times, and the assurance that some safety net (aka Social Security and old-age health care) will be there for them far down life's road. Just as we don't want to beggar America's children, we can't beggar our grandparents. Before Social Security, older Americans faced widespread poverty. Social Security (and Medicare and health care in general) require major reforms, but income and health security for many elderly Americans need to be strengthened.

Most young people care about their aging family members and the elderly as much as politicians and pundits claim to care about children. Similarly, most older Americans are not "greedy geezers," and care about their grandchildren and the nation's children in general. The young don't want to put "granny" on the streets any more than older Americans want to deprive our children of the resources to thrive. As one nation, we should invest enough to help people of all ages thrive—particularly those at both ends of life who cannot do so independently.

Intergenerational equity and debates about deficits and federal spending need to be seen as "we're all in this together." In the realm of public finances, intergenerational equity is about sustainability, sharing resources, spending both humanely and with economic prudence, and providing the basics for Americans from birth to death. This isn't about a "cradle to grave" welfare state or creating new kids' entitlements. It's about re-balancing—not only our allocation of resources between the elderly and children, the haves and the have-nots; but also our talk of "intergenerational equity" as more for children, not just less for those 65 and older. And, of course, Americans between 18 and 65 also have needs that we are not meeting.

When pressed, younger and older Americans get it. It's just not the message they generally hear from Washington or some of their peers, whose sub rosa text is "kids versus canes."

In a pilot project of intergenerational dialogues that Public Agenda and Generations United recently conducted in Worcester, Massachusetts, through the Intergenerational Urban Institute of Worcester State College and the Penn State Intergenerational Program in Pennsylvania—and hope to bring to many more communities—20-somethings and over-70-somethings found common ground on underlying values: Our government should live within its means (i.e., fiscal responsibility), but should also provide good opportunities and secure lives for Americans of all ages. As one young Massachusetts woman said: "We were surprised to find that although we were all from different age demographics, for the most part we agreed on the problems and some of the changes that have to take place."

Indeed, the concerns of young and old dovetailed in the comments of a 22-year-old and a retiree at Penn State. Student Ann Mesavage expressed worries about her ability to save for the future, while retiree Ed Klevans said he was concerned about the legacy being created for his five grandchildren. But both agreed that Americans need to come together—now—to create an economically sustainable future. All ages also found common ground about the importance of investing in and taking care of people of all ages in a fiscally responsible manner.

These intergenerational groups grasped the moral issues and principles underlying fiscal responsibility and intergenerational equity. Most important, their dialogue did not simply reflect young Americans’ concerns about the fiscal future as a burden imposed on them by older generations. Rather, younger and older citizens realized they have common interests in reforming the nation’s finances.

Not only are such intergenerational dialogues essential to change the terms of debate about public finances, the economy, and America’s future; but they also highlight the more general importance of bringing together young and old. The notion that young, old, and middle-aged live in different worlds and can’t productively communicate with each other is worse than a fallacy. It is a recipe for misunderstanding, division, conflict, and a world in which yet another element of our common humanity is discarded. Dialogues such as those we conducted are critical to build understanding, respect, and a sense of common purpose among people throughout their entire lives.

As one Worcester dialogue participant said: "We can't have two generations put up against each other; we need to promote generations working together."

Andrew L. Yarrow, vice president and Washington director of Public Agenda, is author of "Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers of Fiscal Irresponsibility" and "100 Years of American Child Policy." He can be contacted at ayarrow@publicagenda.org.