An entire generation of Americans has grown up during an era when grand social ambitions -- health care, education, housing -- were cramped by tight federal budgets. Now, suddenly, the nation faces the opposite problem. Washington is expecting huge budget surpluses. But national candidates -- even those seeking the White House -- are generating only the most modest visions of social progress. Voters deserve better this election year.
To anyone who has followed two decades of fiscal frustration in Washington, the new economic forecast issued last week by the Congressional Budget Office is astonishing. Just since April, the official forecast of long-term budget surpluses has more than doubled, to $2.17 trillion (and that excludes Social Security surpluses). The U.S. Treasury is taking in cash and paying off IOUs so rapidly that the federal debt, measured as a share of national income, could fall to the lowest level in more than 50 years.
Granted, these are forecasts, and forecasts can evaporate. And much of the money already is spoken for in one congressional scheme or another. Still, they call for a kind of strategic thinking about national goals that has been absent from Washington for some time.
Sadly, Washington still seems stuck in incremental thinking. Congress is obsessed this summer with a series of small-bore tax cuts designed to placate affluent constituents rather than to fortify the economy or broaden economic opportunity. To their credit, Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush have at least engaged some of the biggest long-term problems, including Social Security and Medicare. But Gore seems content to campaign mostly on the accomplishments of the last eight years, while Bush sticks to harmless banalities on the campaign trail.
How might the nation invest its projected surpluses? Here are some suggestions:
Entitlement reform. Spending on the elderly -- chiefly Social Security and Medicare -- now consumes some 40 percent of the federal budget and is squeezing out everything else. Bush has endorsed a tough-minded proposal for cost control in Medicare, but he hasn't said how he would protect the elderly from the financial risks it entails. Gore has embraced a promising White House plan to expand retirement saving by today's workers, but he hasn't taken the companion step of controlling the growth in Social Security outlays. In both cases, apportioning a share of projected surpluses could ease the transition and make both plans politically palatable.
Foreign economic development. International trade has expanded at a blistering pace in the last 20 years, enriching U.S. corporations and consumers. But it has done little to alleviate poverty in Latin America and Africa, home to one-fourth of the world's people. A new Marshall Plan for nations such as Mexico and Nigeria could ease the plight of millions while spreading the benefits of globalization.
Early childhood education. Much of the "crisis" facing public schools is in fact a crisis in the preparation that disadvantaged children receive before they ever enter kindergarten. Washington could double its spending on Head Start and other good preschool programs, which now reach only a fraction of eligible families, and brighten the prospects of millions of children.
College tuition assistance. A college education is more important than ever, and less affordable than ever. Yet federal tuition aid has declined sharply over the last 15 years. A big increase in the underfunded Pell Grant program would improve economic equity in this country while creating a more competitive work force.
This list is incomplete, of course. Most attentive readers will be able to refine it and make good additions of their own. There's nothing wrong with that -- as long as they encourage the country's political candidates to do the same between now and November.
© Copyright 2000 Star Tribune
###
