Senator J. D. Vance has come under scrutiny recently for his remarks about the “childless cat ladies” of the Democratic Party—a reference to policy makers who, Vance claims, do not have children, lack a “physical commitment to the future of this country,” and therefore embrace “anti-child” policies. What the Republican vice-presidential nominee appears to be suggesting is that future generations matter—and parents, more than anyone, have a vested interest in the nation their children and grandchildren will inherit.

Looking beyond the claims about parenthood and cat ladies, Vance is unquestionably right about one thing: Policy makers and voters should consider the well-being of future generations. Unfortunately, lawmakers from both parties—including Vance—have failed miserably on that front by refusing to address the large and growing federal debt.

Currently standing at almost 100 percent of GDP (a level not seen since World War II), the publicly held debt is projected to reach an unprecedented 166 percent of GDP in 50 years. The ballooning debt is mostly driven by funding shortfalls in Social Security and federal health programs like Medicare.

Failing to address the federal fiscal imbalance is “anti-child.” When the government borrows money, it allows today’s adults to enjoy generous government benefits and low taxes—but it imposes large burdens on the today’s children and those yet-to-be-born by reducing the funds available for business investment in capital. This “crowding out” of investment leaves future generations with lower productivity and living standards, burdened by the sacrifices they must eventually make to rein in the debt.

Today’s adults, however, might be tempted to vote for policies that run up debt and pass on the bill to future generations. Vance’s views on families and children reflect an awareness of this “structural democratic disadvantage”—and he’s gone so far as to advocate for voting rights for children (to be exercised by their parents on their behalf). If today’s children were indeed able to vote in line with their interests, they would no doubt opt for a more sustainable approach to fiscal policy.

It is fair to ask, then, why Republicans—led by former President Donald Trump and Vance—have been proposing policies that make the federal fiscal imbalance worse. The 2024 Republican platform opposes any cuts to Medicare or Social Security benefits. In addition, Trump has called for large income tax cuts, no tax on tips, and the exemption of Social Security benefits from income tax. Politics aside, these policies are a commitment to continued fiscal irresponsibility. Although Republicans have proposed increasing tariffs on imports, any additional revenue raised by this measure would be woefully inadequate to deal with the fiscal challenges ahead.

While Republicans’ recent budget proposals have been particularly reckless, Democrats have done only marginally better. To their credit, many Democrats have signed onto the Social Security 2100 Act, which increases Social Security benefits and taxes in a way that improves the program’s finances. However, tax increases are restricted to those with incomes above $400,000—and overall, the package falls short of fully restoring Social Security to solvency. Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris—the Democratic presidential nominee—has also echoed Trump’s call to exempt tips from taxes and proposed large increases in spending. She has also renewed President Joe Biden’s existing commitment not to raise taxes on anyone other than those with the highest incomes. But the federal fiscal imbalance is too large to be addressed only by taxing the rich. If Democrats wish to maintain (or increase) spending on Social Security and other federal programs, they will need to collect more taxes from middle-income individuals too.

The well-being of future generations matters greatly. Yet for decades, policy makers on both sides of the aisle—parents and non-parents alike—have ignored one of the greatest risks to this disenfranchised group. Any policy maker who claims to have a commitment to the country’s future should make addressing the federal fiscal imbalance a priority.

The post Failing to Address the Federal Debt Is “Anti-child” appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.