Reprinted from The Baltimore Sun
Debates about our nation's federal debt often are cast in terms of "intergenerational equity" and the horrors of drowning "our grandchildren" in tens of trillions of dollars of debt. Deficit hawks and politicians of all stripes are drawn to this trope, since it's personally powerful, avoids the eye-glazing details of a Social Security trustees' report - and it could be true. But it's not the whole story.
For example, on April 29, when Congress passed President Barack Obama's $3.4 trillion budget, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, called it an "audacious move to a big socialist government" that piles "debt on the backs of our kids and our grandkids." Democrats echo this, and a Google search will reveal one of us using variations on this theme many a time.
Don't get us wrong: Our nation's fiscal house is in about as much order as Tara after Sherman's march through Georgia. And, yes, the burden will fall to future generations if nothing is done (and, likely, even if reforms are enacted) but so will the benefit. Nobody explicitly wants future generations to suffer from current fiscal profligacy. In addition, children's advocates are right that current federal spending for the elderly is much higher than spending for children.
Yet, the focus on intergenerational equity all too often translates into simply cutting entitlement programs for the elderly, disabled and surviving and dependent children. This is only half the picture, and its implication is not pretty - pitting one generation against another. It's fiscal Malthusianism. It makes our society a zero-sum game. Beyond the reasonable, gentle patina, them's fightin' words.
Intergenerational equity debates usually leave out the concept of intergenerational interdependence. Instead of just talking cuts - which some think need to be made - we also should talk about investing in children and young people. If we're so concerned about "our grandkids" 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 from them far down life's road.
Some think that if we could cut entitlements for older Americans, tens - if not hundreds - of billions, in theory, could be reallocated to spending for children. But spending in Washington doesn't usually work that way. We don't take from Peter to pay Paul, when Peter wants to hold on to what he's got, Paul doesn't have powerful lobbyists, and some apostles of deficit reduction just want to cut government.
Our child policy needs to be more forward-looking and generous now; while we should reform entitlements, we shouldn't wait until that magical day when Social Security and Medicare have been transformed.
So, we should reframe the discussion: 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.
Intergenerational equity and debates about deficits and federal spending need to be seen as "we're all in this together." As one nation, we should invest enough to help people of all ages thrive - particularly those at both ends of life who cannot be "independent." When pressed, younger and older Americans get it. It's just not the message they generally hear from Washington, whose sub rosa text is "kids versus canes."
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 needs to be strengthened. Most young people care about their aging family members and the elderly as much as pols and pundits care about the proverbial grandkids. Similarly, most older Americans are not "greedy geezers" but do 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.
In a pilot project of "intergenerational dialogues" that our two organizations recently conducted in two cities, 20-somethings and over-70-somethings found common ground on underlying values: Our government should live within its means (i.e., fiscal responsibility), but it also should 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." And, as another said: "We can't have two generations put up against each other; we need to promote generations working together."
So, every time you hear someone say we shouldn't harm today's children with trillions in tomorrow's debt, remind them that we also shouldn't harm children by being stingy with their needs, that Americans of all ages are interdependent, and we truly are all in this 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." His e-mail is ayarrow@publicagenda.org. Donna Butts is executive director of Generations United. Her e-mail is dbutts@gu.org. Public Agenda and Generations United are conducting intergenerational dialogues about issues relating to federal finances, national debt, entitlement reform, and investments in America's future.
.