Washington Has a Snark Problem — Even When it Comes to Kids

The flood of snarky responses to my suggestion that KidSave could help solve American inequity shows the knee-jerk state of discourse in our country.

Newborn babies are pictured at the university hospital of Leipzig, eastern Germany, on January 2, 2012.
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Norm Ornstein
Feb. 19, 2014, 2:53 p.m.

My last column on Kid­Save gen­er­ated a lot of re­sponses. What I have found most in­ter­est­ing about the re­ac­tion to the column — set­ting aside a num­ber of glee­ful blog entries and tweets seiz­ing on the num­bers, ad­dressed be­low — are the knee-jerk, snarky re­ac­tions to the fun­da­ment­al idea be­hind Kid­Save.

Em­blem­at­ic is the re­sponse of Power­line‘s John Hinderaker, who called it “a lefty idea.” It was oth­er­wise labeled a gov­ern­ment giveaway to un­deserving people, an­oth­er ex­ample of quasi-so­cial­ism, etc., etc., by a long list of con­ser­vat­ives. How an idea that got the en­dorse­ment of Rick San­tor­um — yes, RICK SAN­TOR­UM — and Chuck Grass­ley could be a “lefty idea” is, shall we say, puzz­ling.

But it re­flects, I think, the state of con­tem­pla­tion and dis­course in the coun­try, something very dif­fer­ent than we had even a dec­ade ago. A typ­ic­al com­ment:

What an as­in­ine idea! That money would be spent on di­apers by the par­ents! The kid would nev­er see one dime and the au­thor knows it. It sounds good though doesn’t it? Give every kid a wel­fare pay­ment from day one. But it is pro­gress­ive, Marx­ist non­sense.

Why would Rick San­tor­um en­dorse a form of Kid­Save? We will have to ask him, but I can give some an­swers as to why many con­ser­vat­ive Re­pub­lic­ans looked fa­vor­ably upon the idea back then.

What Kid­Save would do is cre­ate a uni­ver­sal in­vestor class in Amer­ica. Every­one would be­come an in­vestor with a real stake in eco­nom­ic growth, in a ro­bust stock mar­ket, in a coun­try that worked. Every­one would have a piece of the Amer­ic­an Pie, and not feel en­tirely on the out­side look­ing in. The money saved and in­ves­ted would be used to help grow the eco­nomy. And, I am sure, some GOP­ers thought a siz­able por­tion of a new in­vestor class would look more fa­vor­ably on the Re­pub­lic­an brand.

Now I am sure that some fisc­al hawks also saw Kid­Save as a way to jus­ti­fy ma­jor ad­just­ments in So­cial Se­cur­ity; at least one com­ment­at­or on the left called it “a wedge to undo the last tattered rem­nants of the so­cial safety net.” To be sure, giv­ing every­one some ad­di­tion­al cush­ion in a re­tire­ment ac­count would cre­ate more wiggle room to make So­cial Se­cur­ity solvent over the long haul. But here is what I would sug­gest: Pay for Kid­Save from rev­en­ues cre­ated by ratchet­ing up the in­come levels sub­ject to the FICA tax, us­ing an idea floated by Al Franken — a dough­nut hole, where payroll in­come from say $100,000 to $200,000 would not be sub­ject to the tax, but every dol­lar over that amount would be. At the same time, beef up the min­im­um So­cial Se­cur­ity pay­ment for re­tir­ees sig­ni­fic­antly, so that no one, in­clud­ing those with no or few oth­er sources of re­tire­ment in­come, would have to struggle to get by in their sun­set years, and change the cost-of-liv­ing for­mula on a means-tested basis — keep­ing the status quo for those with lim­ited in­come oth­er than So­cial Se­cur­ity, and ap­ply­ing chained CPI for those with more than, say, $50,000 a year in in­come over and above their So­cial Se­cur­ity.

Many of the re­sponses to the column glee­fully slammed an er­ror — a big one. I want to ac­know­ledge the mis­take. I had data from the ori­gin­al ana­lys­is of the Ker­rey/Lieber­man plan on what the ini­tial in­vest­ments would ac­crue to after 60 years — but based on an 8.5 per­cent rate of re­turn, the middle al­tern­at­ive from the Thrift Sav­ings Plan, a not un­reas­on­able ROR if one in­ves­ted in an in­dexed stock fund like the S&P 500 which over long stretches has yiel­ded con­sid­er­ably more. I am not sure why I wrote 5 per­cent and did not cor­rect it in the edit­ing; I will have to do a deep dive in­to aging brain syn­apses to get the an­swer. But the res­ult was I used a dra­mat­ic­ally over­stated nest-egg pro­jec­tion. My apo­lo­gies. A 5 per­cent re­turn would ac­tu­ally yield $70,000 or so — more than the cur­rent av­er­age net worth of Amer­ic­ans, but no huge hon­ey­pot. Mean­while, 8.5 per­cent would yield some­where between $600,000 and $720,000 de­pend­ing on as­sump­tions of ac­cru­al rates.

Kid­Save is no pan­acea. It would not cre­ate a Lake Wobe­gon so­ci­ety, where every­body’s wealth is above av­er­age. It would not do much for the prob­lem of in­come in­equal­ity, but over the long haul would help sig­ni­fic­antly ease the prob­lem of wealth in­equal­ity. Some people would do ex­traordin­ar­ily well; oth­ers would not. Some would earn much less by be­ing su­per-con­ser­vat­ive with in­vest­ments; oth­ers might not be­gin to ad­just their mix of in­vest­ments in stocks and fixed-in­come as­sets as they grew older, leav­ing them vul­ner­able to the tim­ing of mar­ket drops or col­lapse. If we al­lowed in­di­vidu­als to with­draw some of their money be­fore 65, some would mis­use it or frit­ter it away. But there is no deep-seated ideo­lo­gic­al or philo­soph­ic­al reas­on why this ba­sic idea should at­tract such deep, at times patho­lo­gic­al aver­sion on the right, or sus­pi­cion on the left. It is the ten­or of the times, and the knee-jerk, snarky syn­apses in some com­ment­at­ors’ brains.

That knee-jerk and tri­bal re­ac­tion, I should note, plays out on many is­sues, and it has been es­pe­cially in­ter­est­ing to see the com­ments by some Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers about the stim­u­lus plan — and con­trast them with the re­ac­tions of the widest range of eco­nom­ists. By over­whelm­ing mar­gins, eco­nom­ists be­lieve that the stim­u­lus plan kept the eco­nomy from much ad­di­tion­al, deep dam­age, and kept job levels from drop­ping even fur­ther. The stim­u­lus was de­signed mostly for triage, and by any stand­ard, it worked — not as well as it could have, to be sure, but enough to stave off a de­pres­sion and cre­ate mil­lions of jobs or job equi­val­ents. It also, as journ­al­ist Mi­chael Grun­wald poin­ted out in his su­perb book, The New New Deal, and in a re­cent column, did a lot more in policy areas ran­ging from health IT to green en­ergy to broad­band ex­pan­sion. It was de­signed to be a shot of ad­ren­al­in in­to a fad­ing pa­tient, not a mir­acle drug to cure all the pa­tient’s long-term health prob­lems.

Eco­nom­ists of all stripes un­der­stand the im­port­ance of a stim­u­lus for a col­lapsing eco­nomy. But our tri­bal politi­cians, even in dire cir­cum­stances, re­acted dif­fer­ently. We know that Jerry Lewis, the rank­ing Re­pub­lic­an on the House Ap­pro­pri­ations Com­mit­tee, fol­lowed or­ders from on high not to co­oper­ate with Dave Obey, the Ap­pro­pri­ations chair­man, to come up with a bi­par­tis­an ap­proach. We know that des­pite the near-uni­ver­sal GOP op­pos­i­tion, the stim­u­lus had big tax cuts — mak­ing up 36 per­cent of the total, giv­ing ma­jor tax breaks to 160 mil­lion fam­il­ies. We know that the largest tax cut, the ex­ten­sion of the fix to the Al­tern­at­ive Min­im­um Tax — one that provided little stim­u­lus — was in­cluded at the in­sist­ence of Grass­ley, who then voted against the plan.

And we know what John Boehner and Marco Ru­bio said on the fifth an­niversary of pas­sage of the plan. Boehner: “More Amer­ic­ans be­lieve Elvis is alive than be­lieve the stim­u­lus cre­ated jobs.” Ru­bio: “If you re­call five years ago, the no­tion was that if the gov­ern­ment spent all this money — that, by the way, was bor­rowed — that some­how the eco­nomy would be­gin to grow and cre­ate jobs. Well, of course, it clearly failed.” Ru­bio ad­ded that the stim­u­lus is “proof that massive gov­ern­ment spend­ing, par­tic­u­larly debt spend­ing, is not the solu­tion to our eco­nom­ic-growth prob­lems.” Wheth­er he really be­lieves that the stim­u­lus was cre­ated or por­trayed as “the solu­tion to our eco­nom­ic-growth prob­lems” and not as triage, or is cyn­ic­ally chan­ging the terms in or­der to de­nounce, does not much mat­ter.

A real bi­par­tis­an stim­u­lus plan would have in­cluded more en­dur­ing spend­ing on in­fra­struc­ture, bet­ter tar­geted tax cuts, and con­tained few­er boon­doggles. Too bad that a per­man­ent cam­paign men­tal­ity, along with knee-jerk, snarky tri­bal­ism, kept a very pos­it­ive plan from be­ing a much bet­ter one.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.