When New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie teamed up with President Obama to manage the crisis wrought by Superstorm Sandy on New Jersey's shoreline, it was heralded as a prime example of bipartisanship. Indeed, it seems "bipartisanship" has become the buzzword of the day, associated with a pragmatic and commendable approach to political issues.
It is unfortunate, then, that one glaring example of bipartisanship policies stands as a stain on the record of political parties both nationally and locally: the marginalization of education. According to the New York Times' analysis of Obama's plans for fiscal year 2013, education represents a paltry 1.5 percent of his total budget. It was therefore ironic that the Brown Democrats in their recent article ("Why we're voting Democratic this election day," Oct. 31) identified education first and foremost in their argument for supporting Obama. This is, of course, not a partisan issue - the Republicans' track record is no better on education.
While the importance of education is not lost on Brown students, the relative lack of focus on education at a national level represents a far more disturbing oversight inherent in our political structure. Both political parties have an intrinsic generational bias that has marginalized the youngest - and most vulnerable - of our society. Contrast education spending with entitlement programs to the elderly. Social Security alone consumes nearly a quarter of the federal budget. Medicare accounts for another 15 percent.
This case study, however, represents a larger trend in the public distribution of funds. A 2011 study by the Urban Institute found that public spending per child - both state and federal - was $11,300 per year, while spending per senior was more than double that at $24,800. This includes much more than just education - it is a universal truth across domestic and social policy that spending on the elderly far outstrips spending on children.
This imbalance is even more disturbing given the financial position of these two generations. As census data shows, poverty among children is growing at a dramatic pace. While 9 percent of the elderly fall below the poverty line, 22 percent of children - 15.75 million - are currently living in poverty.
The political determinants of this generational bias are obvious. The elderly are one of the most solid voting blocks at the core of both parties' election prospects, whereas the youth are effectively disenfranchised - albeit for obvious reasons. It is for this reason that Social Security has become the effective "third rail" of politics, practically untouchable for both parties despite being fiscally unsustainable. As money set aside for Social Security proves increasingly insufficient to cover the expectations of the elderly, debts and payroll taxes will rise exponentially. In effect, Social Security is an intergenerational transfer of money from tomorrow's youth to today's elderly.
But this is about much more than just a numbers game and is not simply the youth versus the elderly. These startling facts are part of a larger ideological focus that spans across political boundaries. Unfortunately, neither party has paid much attention to the increasingly alarming poverty rate among children, nor has political or social capital been devoted towards their plight.
In a democratic society that values individual opportunity, the marginalization of the interest of the youth is extremely disheartening in a fundamental way. The youth are the most defenseless generation of our society, born into a social and economic class structure that is entirely beyond their individual control. There are also pragmatic economic reasons to support a greater investment in our children, since the opportunities for growth and development increase as these children mature with better resources and human capital.
The term "investment" conjures up images of dollar bills, but the necessity of focusing on the youth extends much further. We need to invest in our youth not only financially but also psychologically. We need to invest our time and energy in the youth by encouraging them to make choices that will help them build wealth and find future success. Being born into poverty-stricken environments makes children far more likely to make decisions that compromise future financial success - dropping out of high school, sidestepping contraception or de-emphasizing education.
There has been a great deal of talk recently about the decline in social mobility and the lack of opportunities for tomorrow's America. To fix this problem, we need to espouse the importance of education, teach America's youth the importance of hard work and back up these lessons with the financial and social opportunities they need to best utilize their potential.
Alex Drechsler '15 hopes contemporary politics can have a real discussion about the poverty facing America's youth. He can be reached at
alex_drechsler@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
