Millennials, including yours truly, earn an important distinction at some point this year: We overtake baby boomers to become the most populous generation in the United States.
In theory, then, millennials will carry the most power at the polls come November 2020 (assuming we improve our voting rates). Congratulations to us! But how to choose among 23 presidential candidates — 20 Democrats and three Republicans — and a buffet of headline-grabbing policy ideas?
Actually, it’s quite simple. There is exactly one issue that will have the biggest impact on millennials for decades to come: reducing the national debt. That should make finding the right candidate easy; nevertheless, I’ll distill it for you in case you’re pressed for time: Nobody qualifies.
Trust me, I sifted through all two dozen campaign websites. In one egregious example, Democrat Pete Buttigieg’s website enumerates 28 issues he wants to tackle — no mention of a $22.5 trillion national debt. And Democrat Andrew Yang’s site found enough space for empowering MMA fighters but curiously withheld mention of an annual interest payment the size of our Medicaid expenses.
On the Republican side, then-candidate Donald Trump said he could eliminate the national debt within eight years. But his current budgets project the debt to increase to $29 trillion in the same time frame. Former congressman Joe Walsh has yet to craft a coherent policy plan, and while former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld championed fiscal responsibility in the ‘90s, his campaign has been mostly mute on the issue.
The one exception to the dearth of debt debate could be former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford if he decides to launch a Republican bid for president. He told the Federalist this week, “At the end of the day, I don’t think (Trump’s) personality can bring down our republic. I think our debt will.”
The trouble with the federal debt is it’s, well, a federal problem, and our federal lawmakers refuse to address it.
He may be right, and that’s why my peers ought to be worried. We will be the beneficiaries of a not-so-noble inheritance years from now if nothing changes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, an increasing debt could have these serious consequences:
- Total wages would be lower.
- Washington would have little ability to respond to unexpected attacks, natural disasters or global threats.
- The likelihood of a financial crisis (remember 2008?) would increase.
That’s a bleak outlook for a generation already hindered by entering college and the workforce during the thick of the Great Recession.
And then there’s that matter of baby boomers entering retirement and putting pressure on Social Security and Medicare, which pressure finds a likely release valve in higher millennial taxes or an extended working age. Oh, and a pending population bust would only expedite the process.
How do we fix it? I’m typically someone who believes most of our problems are solved from ordinary people doing extraordinary things outside of Washington. But the trouble with the federal debt is it’s, well, a federal problem, and our federal lawmakers refuse to address it.
They limp through the budgeting process only by passing stop-gap spending measures. Reforming entitlements is as pleasant to them as eating a bowl of haggis. And the last time Washington balanced its budget was 18 years ago.
Sure, there were military engagements and a recession in the mix, both of which leveraged a lot of dollars, but we’ve also been riding the best economy in recent history for the past few years, and there’s not so much as a sniffle at consistently spending more than we make.
To any financial adviser, that’s ludicrous behavior. And to me, it’s infuriating. Why should I be expected to play by the rules while watching lawmakers undermine my future?
So I’m looking for a true leader, someone who can cast aside political fallout and quell what has been described as our largest national security threat. The most pragmatic solutions won’t be fun — we’ll need to both increase taxes and cut spending over time, and it means postponing our wish list of expenses until we have the means to fund them.
But if a narcotic-laden band from the ‘60s had enough sense to sing, “you can’t always get what you want,” surely today’s politicians can understand the wisdom of thrift. And if they can’t, well, they won’t get what they need — my vote.