Our Kids Aren’t the Only Ones Suffering From Inequality. We’re Failing Our Parents Too!

You wouldn’t know it to read the news these days, but the Baby Boomers are in trouble.

Rarely does a day go by that the Baby Boomers aren’t blamed for something. They’re bankrupting Social Security. They caused the Great Recession. They’re hogging all the money.

Well, I’m here to tell you that you’ve got the wrong culprit. Most Baby Boomers don’t have nearly as much money as you think they do. You’re rounding up the many to prosecute the few. That’s just bad police work.

This is a plea for the parents out there. They raised us and fed us, they taught us and nursed us, they brought us into this world, and for the most part, they tried to make it better for us. And we are failing them.

We are failing our parents.

We have a strange sense of obligation in this country. We talk a lot about what we owe our children but very little about what we owe our parents. The future is sacrosanct; the past quickly forgotten.

And we should talk about our children. Because we’re failing them too.

Pick up a copy of Robert Putnam’s new book Our Kids, and you’ll see all the ways we’re failing them:

  • More and more kids are growing up with one parent instead of two. The single parent is less likely to find a job. They have less time to spend with their kids. As a result, their children perform worse in school, exhibit more behavioral problems, and experience more anxiety and depression.
  • More and more kids aren’t eating dinner with their family. They aren’t having conversations with their parents. They don’t know the alphabet when they start school. And they never catch up!
  • More and more kids are living below or near the poverty line, where they “experience severe or chronic stress,” making it harder to concentrate, “cope with adversity, and organize their lives.” They are more likely to be neglected, discouraged, abused, and traumatized. And they have permanent brain damage!
  • More and more families can’t keep up with the rising cost of childcare. They send their kids to low-quality daycare. They have less time available to spend with their kids. And when they do spend time with them, their financial worries make it harder for them to be patient, focus, and nurture.
  • More and more students are falling behind their peers in school. Their parents don’t have the time or knowledge to help them. Their schools don’t have the fundraising capability to make up the difference. Their teachers are demoralized. Their classmates are disruptive, discouraging, and even violent. Extracurricular activities are either unavailable or too expensive to participate in. College is even more expensive. And if they do make it to college, it’s one with lower graduation rates and a future of higher unemployment and lower earnings.
  • More and more kids don’t trust people. They don’t have mentors to teach them about life. They don’t have youth organizations to keep them safe and healthy. They don’t have programs to show them how to apply for college or budget their money. They don’t have contacts to help them find a job. And they think their vote doesn’t matter, so the problem just keeps getting worse!

For Putnam, this is where the story ends. And who can blame him? Kids are an easy sell. No one can blame them for their lot in life.

But what happens when they become adults? We don’t like to talk about that part. Affordable housing, food stamps, incarceration, labor unions, mandated health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, the minimum wage, paid leave, progressive taxation, public jobs, Social Security, unemployment insurance, welfare — that’s the controversial stuff. Better not to touch those subjects. Kids deserve a helping hand, but adults? We’re not so sure.

The problem is, those adults were kids once upon a time too, and when they were, many of them had it just as bad. And now, after heaping disadvantage upon disadvantage on them for twenty years, they’re expected to compete on the same playing field as everyone else. It’s as if they were running a race, and their peers were given a twenty-year head start — and we criticize them for not catching up!

These adults deserve equalizing policies every bit as much as their kids.

Long-Term Unemployment by AgeThe young and the old aren’t so different after all. It’s the wrong contrast. Even if we wanted to take money from the old and give it to the young, it wouldn’t work because they don’t have it!

The Baby Boomers are trillions of dollars short of the wealth they need to retire without a “drastic lifestyle change.” Over half of them will get most of their income from Social Security, and one in four will have nothing but Social Security. For those who got laid off during the Great Recession, they’re having a much harder time getting rehired than younger generations. And because they were the ones who were holding mortgages when the bubble popped, their homeownership rate has nosedived so badly that Trulia’s chief economist Jed Kolko calls them “the lost generation of homeowners.”

Clearly, inequality affects Americans of every age — and that is why you cannot cure what ails the children without treating the parents, for the ailment is not generational. It is economic, and it perpetuates itself down through the generations.

So, yes, by all means, let’s talk about inequality of opportunity for our kids because that’s where it all starts. But let’s also remember that those kids grow up, and when they do, it doesn’t get easier. The scars of childhood last a lifetime.

We tend to overlook those scars and place blame on those who have fallen behind in the race. But for those of us who have been given a head start and don’t reach back to offer them a hand, the real failure rests with us.

==========

This op-ed was originally published on the Huffington Post.

Do the Math: People Don’t Choose to Be Poor or Unemployed

Long-Term Unemployment HistoryGod, I wish I were poor.

And unemployed. That’s the good life. Poor and unemployed.

I mean, just look at all the cool stuff you get. Medicaid and welfare. Food stamps and unemployment insurance. And don’t forget public housing.

This stuff is so awesome that it’s like a “hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.” That’s what Paul Ryan says, at least, and as the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, he’s supposed to know these things, right?

According to Ryan and his fellow Republicans, if I have unemployment insurance, I’ll never want to work again. Senator Rand Paul says it will cause me “to become part of this perpetual unemployed group.” With an average benefit of $269 per week, I’ll be living on Easy Street.

This is a common belief. There’s an email making the rounds from a 54-year-old consulting engineer who makes $60,000 a year and has to pay $482 a month for health insurance under Obamacare, but that’s not his biggest complaint. He’s really upset that his 61-year-old girlfriend who makes $18,000 a year only has to pay $1 a month for health insurance.

He thinks she has it so easy that she can afford to pay more, but he’s wrong.

On average, Americans earning $18,000 a year pay more than $3,000 in taxes, so she really only has $15,000 leftover to pay her expenses. She lives in Monterey, CA, where the average rent and utilities add up to $15,000 a year. So, after paying taxes, rent, and utilities, she’s completely broke. She doesn’t have money for food, let alone health insurance.

The consulting engineer thinks people will choose her lifestyle over his. “Heck, why study engineering when I can be a schlub for $20K per year?” he asks. (Nice way to talk about your girlfriend, by the way.) To which I’d like to reply: If being a “schlub” is so attractive, why don’t you do it? Why don’t you quit your engineering job and join the “$20K per year” club?

For that matter, why don’t we all quit our jobs right now and start collecting unemployment insurance? How far do you honestly think we can stretch $269 a week?

I’ll tell you how far: It would cover less than half of the basic necessities for the average American family.

That’s why unemployment makes you more likely to have to borrow money from a friend, withdraw money from your retirement savings, and have trouble paying your medical bills, rent, and mortgage. It makes you more likely to have a stroke or heart attack, lose self-respect, have difficulty sleeping, and seek professional help for anxiety and depression. It makes you more likely to kill yourself, kill others, and drink yourself to death.

And if you’ve been unemployed for more than a few months, most employers won’t even look at your résumé. It doesn’t matter how qualified you are. It’s like you don’t exist anymore.

The last time it was this bad, with long-term unemployment close to 3 percent of the workforce, was the peak of the 1980-81 recession. Back then, the federal government kept extended unemployment insurance in place for almost two more years, until the long-term unemployment rate fell close to 1 percent. In fact, that’s been standard operating procedure for every recession in the modern era, including 1990-91 and 2001. But now, with long-term unemployment as high as it’s been since World War II, Republicans have killed the emergency unemployment insurance program, and they’re fighting Democrats’ efforts to restore it.

They don’t seem to care that there are 2.9 applicants for every job opening. They don’t seem to care that people on unemployment insurance actually spend more time searching for work than their fellow unemployed who are ineligible for benefits. They’re sticking to their story.

On the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, many Americans are still operating under the assumption that people choose to be poor and unemployed, that they’d rather be lazy than rich, that they can afford the basic necessities of life. But the numbers tell a different story.

I don’t wish I were poor. Or unemployed. And I sure don’t wish it on anyone else. If you did the math, neither would you.

==========

This op-ed was recently published in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Huffington Post.

Don’t Attack Big Government Until You’ve Done the Math

“We have to get rid of Big Government,” said a friend of mine recently, as if it was obvious. I looked around the table and saw only nodding heads.

So I asked my friend: What exactly do you want to get rid of? Social Security? Oh no, she said.

Medicare? No. Medicaid? No. The Children’s Health Insurance Program? No. The Defense Department? No.

Then you don’t want to get rid of Big Government.

Those five programs make up two-thirds of the federal budget. They are Big Government, and the American people love them — even most of the people who say, “We have to get rid of Big Government.”

Of course, that’s not what she meant. When she said “Big Government,” she wasn’t talking about those programs.

She was talking about Obamacare, which will account for 3 percent of the federal budget in the coming decade. She was talking about food stamps, which comprise another 2 percent of the budget. She was talking about welfare, which takes up a whopping 0.4 percent.

I hope she wasn’t talking about the Department of Education, but even if she was, its budget is roughly the same as the amount allocated to food stamps.

So anyone who thinks they can “get rid of Big Government” by attacking these programs is either uninformed, lying, or very bad at math.

It’s exactly this kind of misunderstanding that allows politicians to foist their radical agendas on an unwilling public.

Witness the “sequester” debate. Why is the government planning to cut its spending by $1 trillion over the next decade, starting with an $85 billion cut to this year’s budget that takes effect on March 1? Because people are somehow under the impression that it has grown too big.

It’s hard to square that belief with this week’s report from the Congressional Budget Office. It shows the size of our federal government relative to the overall economy, and believe it or not, it’s been shrinking for many years!

This year, the federal government will spend 22 percent of our nation’s income, the same as it did in 1981. In fact, throughout most of Ronald Reagan’s two terms in office, federal spending was higher, as a percent of our nation’s income, than it is today.

It wasn’t until Bill Clinton came into office that our government made a consistent effort to shrink the size of government. Remember Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union? “The era of big government is over.” It sure was. By the end of his term, the federal government spent less money, relative to the size of the overall economy, than at any time since the mid-1960s.

George W. Bush reversed that trend, but even Bush’s government paled in comparison to Reagan’s. In 2007, federal spending was 19.7 percent of our nation’s income, a far cry from the peak of 23.5 percent in 1983.

That’s a quarter of a century during which our federal government was smaller than it used to be.

That ended with the Great Recession, of course. When Bush left office, he handed over the reins to 24.4 percent of our nation’s spending.

But most of that increase was temporary. Just as economists predicted, that number has fallen, and it will continue to fall as the economy improves and grows faster than the government.

And that’s why the sequester is a misguided attempt to fix an illusory problem. The federal government has not gotten bigger in the last three decades, and it’s only getting smaller.

There is one part of the budget that’s been growing, however, and that’s health care. As medical costs grow faster than inflation, so do the budgets of Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. If you want to slow the long-term growth of the government, that’s the problem you have to solve.

But don’t take it out on innocent programs that have nothing to do with the budget deficit and even less to do with so-called “Big Government.”

========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel.