Quality Time
A few years back the Environmental Protection Agency announced a policy change that called for re-pricing the lives of our citizens over seventy at 63% of the value assigned to those under that age when assessing the costs and benefits of environmental regulations. The change was the result of new guidelines from the little-known Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency set up under the Reagan Administration to do statistical cost-benefit analyses of all draft rules and regulations for the federal government, giving the executive branch approval (and effective veto power) over how new laws are interpreted and implemented by federal agencies.
As soon as the details of the EPA’s decision came to light it caused a heated controversy, forcing the agency to beat a hasty retreat. The reversal was as predictable as it was unfortunate, because the abandoned OIRA guidelines held the essence of a revolutionary insight: that our government has for too many years placed an unbalanced and fiscally irresponsible priority on assuring the longevity of average Americans.
Much of our debt and deficit problem can be traced to this interference by the federal government in the personal lives and choices of We the People. If our federal, state, and local agencies were mandated to pursue only life expectancy neutral regulatory regimens, not only would individual and corporate liberty soar to new heights, but over time popular programs like Social Security and Medicare could very well offer improved rather than reduced benefits. All we need do is look at a country like Afghanistan, where the average life expectancy is 46. As many seemingly impossible challenges as that nation is facing, paying for entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare is not one of them.
I’m not suggesting we need to aim that high (or low, in this instance). But even with some minor and relatively benign deregulation, such as raising the national speed limit; eliminating seatbelt, airbag, and motorcycle helmet laws; and cutting back on the intrusive federal inspection of meat, we could trim 12-18 months off the national average in no time. Since approximately 80% of Medicare expenditures come during the last two years of a recipient’s life, the savings would be more than enough to pay for a real (if somewhat counter-productive) prescription drug benefit.
Best of all, the changes would usher in a new era of freedom of choice for financially strapped consumers, who could opt for cheaper cars – and meats. They would also offer relief for that other class of oppressed individuals who have just recently gotten their due from the Supreme Court; our corporate citizens, by reducing production costs for two major industries; a clear win-win.
While there are bound to be the usual objections from the usual suspects, I predict that before too long the surviving public would be won over by its newfound personal freedoms, its access to cheaper products, and the peace of mind of knowing that if you make it to 65, your benefits will be waiting for you. At that point these same principles could be more broadly applied to create whole new sets of incentives for government, business, and the individual alike. To mention but a few:
1. Instead of ever more punitive “sin taxes” on alcohol and cigarettes (which are particularly burdensome for older Americans on fixed incomes) add both substances to the aforementioned prescription drug benefit. “Here’s your carton of Kools and your quart of Wild Turkey. You go, Granny!”
2. End the endless debate on juveniles and the death penalty by mandating it for all juvenile crime. Such a “One Strike And You’re Toast” policy will not only bend the life expectancy curve early in its arc, but will eventually result in a precipitous drop in adult crime, saving untold taxpayer billions on what has for several decades been the fastest growing budget buster for our state governments: the prison-industrial complex. Collateral benefits will include fewer courts and police, and smaller class sizes for our struggling secondary schools. We’ll even save money on last requests. How much is a Happy Meal?
3. Rather than unconstitutionally restricting the freedoms of our corporate citizens by oppressive regulations that force them to spend billions cleaning up toxic waste sites, give them tax credits if they donate the land for day care centers and nursing homes. West Virginia already has at least one enormous coal slurry pit (Marshy Fork) perched above a Head Start school, which could serve as a pilot program.
I realize that this sounds a little draconian, if not unjust. But if we accept that government exists solely for the purpose of leveling our enemies, and has no legitimate role to play in the leveling the fields (or slurry pits) of domestic opportunity, then the road forward is clear. Yes, Adams famously declared that “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy”, and Jefferson recommended that “we crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations”. But that was before Jimmy Carter even more eloquently reminded his fellow Americans that “life is not fair.”
I don’t relish offering the approach outlined above. But considering the size of the bill, I think I’d prefer a shorter lifespan of quality time over living long enough to see who gets stuck with it, let alone how and where it winds up getting stuck.
Besides, as our humble servants at the OIRA were trying to tell us, the numbers don’t lie. With debts like these, there is ultimately no avoiding the human toll. The only questions are: who pays now, who pays later, and who decides. As anyone who has ever fallen behind on a mortgage, credit card, or IRS payment can tell you, freedom is never free, especially not freedom from creditors.