Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Old v Young: The future has no union.

In class I mentioned that, in my opinion, the budget cutting process would indicate which interests are powerful and which are not. Of course recent history reminds us that the interests of the old are better served than those of the young, and David Brooks sees this playing out in budget battles across the nation. He's worried that this outs future prosperity at risk:

A second austerity principle is this: Trim from the old to invest in the young. We should adjust pension promises and reduce the amount of money spent on health care during the last months of life so we can preserve programs for those who are growing and learning the most.

So far, this principle is being trampled. Seniors vote. Taxpayers revolt. Public employees occupy capitol buildings to protect their bargaining power for future benefits negotiations. As a result, seniors are being protected while children are getting pummeled. If you look across the country, you see education financing getting sliced — often in the most thoughtless and destructive ways. The future has no union.
Clive Crook adds to the sentiment and points out that part of the current dispute with labor unons is that in the past they traded low wages for high future benefits. This shifted the costs to future taxpayers.

Paul Krugman wonders if Texas is neglecting our next generation of children.