Here's a 2020 Election Agenda to Consider

(623 words, three-minute read)

The good news is that we will survive the COVID crisis and find a new normal. The bad news is that when we do, all the same challenges facing our country will be here. But, we will have $3 trillion less to spend on them. Is there a coherent way to think about the coming presidential debate? Here is a suggestion.

Don’t start with taxes

In the current policy discussion, it is generally assumed that all of our major problems require more spending. Given the current and growing debt levels, however, federal government resources are limited. As a result, Biden proposes to raise taxes as did each of the other candidates for the Democratic nomination. Perhaps there is another way to think about the problem.

Do start with healthcare—it’s a “twofer”

As we describe in the Healthcare Research, if we can summon the will to adopt the best practices of other industrialized countries, we can cut healthcare costs by 60% and expand access to all Americans. Not only will expanding healthcare result in a healthier, happier, and more productive citizenry, it is the key to our federal financial health. Why?

Healthcare, via Medicare and Medicaid, is rapidly becoming the largest part of the federal budget. As shown by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, left unchecked, it is projected to continue to grow, squeezing out other discretionary spending as follows:

If we can bring federal healthcare spending under control as other countries have done, we will be able to get control of our fiscal deficit, without raising taxes.

Then address defense spending

Defense spending is the largest discretionary budget item. As with healthcare spending, if we don’t reduce it we will be challenged to improve our fiscal health. As noted in our Defense Research and a recent Analysis, we should challenge the notion that it is necessary to spend as much as the next eight countries combined (six of which are allies by treaty) in order to ensure our security. This is more than 10 times what Russia spends and three times more than China. We have 800 bases around the world; the next largest is the UK with 16. Russia has nine and China has one. Why can’t we defend ourselves for less, as others do? Or, as a corollary, why should we continue to shoulder the burden of protecting other countries while they invest in their own infrastructure, provide universal healthcare, etc.?

Finally, challenge all entrenched spending

All federal spending should be re-examined against overall national priorities. Private companies routinely task managers with overall spending reduction targets without jeopardizing the enterprise. If the private market benefits from such exercises, imagine what the federal government could generate in savings? 

The combination of these three initiatives will create the resources necessary to begin to address other priorities. I think that there are two that should come first.

Address climate change and infrastructure simultaneously

Both will take considerable resources as we retool, relocate, retrain our workforce, and fortify our cities and shores. Fighting climate change and improving our infrastructure are linked because our current infrastructure cannot support the variability of renewable energy. I suggest this be our highest priority for three simple reasons. If we don’t address it, our way of life will be endangered, our economic growth will be limited, and global poverty and climate-driven migration will make the world an unstable place. While the wealthy will be able to adjust and relocate, others will not, exacerbating the growing wealth gap.

Don’t forget poor education drives poverty

Poverty in America is objectionable simply as a moral issue. It is also arguable that the growing wealth gap in America is not conducive to a healthy citizenry and democracy. Rather than focus on blaming the wealthy, capitalism, or trade agreements (see prior Analysis), the best strategy is to address the education gap, which is a root cause of low income. This can be done with better cradle-to-grave education, vocational training, and transition support for those who need to retrain or relocate to remain competitive. By narrowing the education and skills gap, we can narrow the income and wealth gap.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive agenda, simply a place to start. What do you think?