This is Kirkus Reviews’ description of The Seinfeld Election: Economic Challenges the Candidates Ignored that Must be Faced Now, available on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=paepke . This slim volume outlines four economic challenges facing the nation: high and rising debt, an aging population, entitlements that are squeezing out federal programs of the left and right, and meager economic growth held down by waning contributions from new technology. Bipartisan neglect of this “maelstrom of daunting issues” does nothing to diminish them, nor does bluff and bluster. Kirkus praises The Seinfeld Election as “a helpful introduction to economic hurdles that the United States government may find hard to clear in the years ahead” and “a brief but astute primer on the nation’s economic vulnerabilities.” The full review is available at https://www.kirkusreviews.com/search/?q=Paepke&t=all

The second of The Seinfeld Election series, Climate Change and Energy Challenges, is forthcoming in January on Amazon.

A Chilling but Sober Analysis was originally published in The Seinfeld Election on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Every one of those conditions has changed radically. Fifteen percent of Americans are age 65 and over, and most will live for another decade or more. They have the highest median wealth of any age group (more than double the assets of 1980s retirees) and median household incomes over $35,000. They are generally well off, and they know it. The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago reports that the 65+ age group is by far the most satisfied with its financial situation. The US economy is starving for workers as the Baby Boomers age, while Social Security enables early retirement. Labor force participation drops sharply between 61 and 62 (first Social Security eligibility) and again between 65 and 66 (full eligibility). Many of these younger retirees are physically and mentally fit; they just choose to receive money for not working — and who can blame them, given the option? Retirement with money can be fun!

The well-known insolvency of Social Security is the proverbial tip of this iceberg; what lies under the water line threatens to sink the Titanic federal budget, and even the economy itself, as millions of retired workers stop contributing to GDP and paying income taxes.

Consider the following pie charts:

Source: CBO long term projections, based on current laws, with federal deficit fixed at 4.5% of GDP

The yellow Pac Man combines entitlements (primarily Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA), government pensions, and interest on the national debt. The narrowing black wedge is everything else, liberal and conservative darlings alike, including national defense and homeland security, the costs of Congress and the White House, environmental protection, agriculture, commerce, transportation, foreign affairs, intelligence gathering, law enforcement and the courts, basic research, space programs, education subsidies, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, public land administration, the CDC — everything. In another two decades, every dollar that Congress appropriates will amount to less than one-seventh of the budget, and still shrinking. Discretionary spending is being devoured.

Returning to Social Security, with about 20 million potential workers aged 62 to 70, back of the envelope calculations arrive at around $1 trillion of annual salary and $200 billion of income taxes potentially at stake. The US economy and the federal budget are much better off (not to mention Social Security itself) if more of this group works longer, but the government’s largest single program strongly encourages them to quit while many are still productive.

Social Security is 180 degrees out of sync with the nation’s economic needs. Anyone suggesting enactment of this Social Security for 21st Century America would rightly be dismissed as mad, as wanting to bankrupt the country, yet repeal is unthinkable, and even fundamental reforms would have political blood running on Pennsylvania Avenue. Both Presidential candidates dutifully promised business as usual, with Mr. Trump committing not to touch benefits and Secretary Clinton urging an expansion.

How much can elections matter while the vital issues are off limits? 

Would Anyone Enact Social Security Today? was originally published in The Seinfeld Election on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

In 2016, the national debt (held by the public) is over $14 trillion, or 77% of GDP. Neither candidate made it an issue or spent any time or energy talking about it.

Most of this debt has accumulated in this young century, under just two Presidents. During these 16 years, deficits have mounted and debt has risen under a Republican President with either a Republican or Democrat Congress and under a Democrat President with either a Democrat or Republican Congress. It has been a thoroughly bipartisan spending spree. (Taxes have risen as a percentage of GDP, so that is not the culprit.) Neither party is in any position to point fingers.

This debt has not yet assumed Greek dimensions, but the light is yellow and about to turn red. The deficit spiked by a third in 2016 alone. The prospects are for more of the same. The Baby Boomers are retiring, reducing tax revenues and raising entitlement spending. The economy has been plagued by bubbles and in a slow growth mode for 16 years. With this huge debt, interest expense will spike as interest rates normalize. Military spending has already been cut sharply and is near post-World War II lows. Climate change may trigger new and expensive government subsidies and programs. Based on considerations like these, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the debt will rise to 100% of GDP by around 2034.

That wouldn’t be good. Debts at around that level begin to depress the larger economy, and they become very hard and very slow to reverse. (We’ve seen four years with trillion dollar deficits in this century. There’s no such thing as a trillion dollar surplus.) The result is that younger Americans, who didn’t cause and had no say in the accumulation of the debt, end up footing most of the bill for it. Unwinding a debt crisis is grim work — ask Greece, Spain, Iceland, or Ireland. In the meantime, the high debt limits a nation’s options and, in America’s case, its claim to global leadership.

So why was this not worth any campaign time for either candidate? Where were the ads about cutting the deficit and curtailing the debt? Worse yet, how were they able to campaign on platforms that would raise deficits and accelerate debt accumulation without being called out on it by the opposing camp or the media?

The solutions are simple, they just aren’t easy. There are liberal answers and conservative ones. We can raise taxes, lower spending, or increase growth. Each has its own challenges and downsides. But the difficulty of the task doesn’t excuse a conspiracy of silence. Who will call the parties out on this? Where is Ross when you need him?

Is $15 Trillion Worth Talking About? was originally published in The Seinfeld Election on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.