Copyright

Copyright©2017byBruceCannonGibney/DoNotBendLLC

CoverdesignbyAmandaKainCovercopyright©2018byHachetteBookGroup,Inc.

HachetteBookGroupsupportstherighttofreeexpressionandthevalueofcopyright.Thepurposeofcopyrightistoencouragewritersandartiststoproducethecreativeworksthatenrichourculture.

Thescanning,uploading,anddistributionofthisbookwithoutpermissionisatheftoftheauthor’sintellectualproperty.Ifyouwouldlikepermissiontousematerialfromthebook(otherthanforreviewpurposes),pleasecontactpermissions@hbgusa.com.Thankyouforyoursupportoftheauthor’srights.

HachetteBooksHachetteBookGroup1290AvenueoftheAmericasNewYork,NY10104hachettebooks.comtwitter.com/hachettebooks

Firstedition:March2017

HachetteBooksisadivisionofHachetteBookGroup,Inc.TheHachetteBooksnameandlogoaretrademarksofHachetteBookGroup,Inc.

Thepublisherisnotresponsibleforwebsites(ortheircontent)thatarenotownedbythepublisher.

TheHachetteSpeakersBureauprovidesawiderangeofauthorsforspeaking

events.Tofindoutmore,gotowww.hachettespeakersbureau.comorcall(866)376-6591.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDatahasbeenappliedfor.

ISBNs:978-0-316-39578-6(hardcover),978-0-316-39580-9(ebook)

E3-20171227-JV-PC

CONTENTS

Cover

TitlePage

Copyright

Dedication

Epigraph

Foreword

Introduction

1.TheViewfrom1946

2.BringingUpBoomer

3.VietnamandtheEmergingBoomerIdentity

4.EmpireofSelf

5.ScienceandSentimentality

6.DiscoandtheRootsofNeoliberalism

7.TheBoomerAscendancy

8.Taxes

9.DebtandDeficits

10.IndefinitelyDeferredMaintenance

11.BoomerFinance:TheViciousCycleofRiskandDeceit

12.TheBriefTriumphofLongRetirement

13.PreparingfortheFuture

14.Detention,After-SchoolandOtherwise

15.TheWagesofSin

16.TheMythofBoomerGoodness

17.PriceTagsandPrescriptions

Afterword

Acknowledgments

ANoteontheNumbersandConventions

PraiseforAGenerationofSociopaths

Appendices

Notes

Newsletters

Tomyparents,JebandLing-yeeGibney

SocietyisnocomfortToonenotsociable.

—WilliamShakespeare,Cymbeline,Act4,Scene2

GreatKronoskeptswallowingthemaseacharrivedathismother’skneesfromhersacredwomb,

intendingthatnootheroneoftheillustriouschildrenofOuranosholdthekinglyprovinceamongthe

immortals.—Hesiod,Theogony

FOREWORD

Whathappensifsocietyisrunbypeoplewhoare,toalargedegree,antisocial?Idon’tmeanpeoplewhoare“antisocial”inthegeneralsense,thesortwhoavoidparties and hide from the neighbors. I mean people who are antisocial in theclinicalsense:sociopaths.Couldasociopathicsocietyfunction?Unfortunately,this is not a thought experiment or an investigation into some ramshackledictatorship in a distant land; it is America’s lived experience. For the pastseveraldecades,thenationhasbeenrunbypeoplewhopresent,personallyandpolitically, the full sociopathic pathology: deceit, selfishness, imprudence,remorselessness,hostility, theworks.ThosepeoplearetheBabyBoomers,thatvastandstrangegenerationbornbetween1940and1964,and thesociety theycreateddoesnotworkverywell.

Someofthesociopathicsociety’smalfunctionsappearinthedailyheadlines:collapsingbridges,freshdeficits,poisonedwater,collapsingicesheets,financialcatastrophes,andaneconomy lurching fromonedisaster toanother,withonlythe most anemic recoveries in between. Other disturbances lurk out of thespotlight, in the backpages of the business section, dense academic literature,and complicated government spreadsheets: pension systems now trillions ofdollars underfunded, a Social Security system destined (by the government’sown admission) to falter, a corrections system that presides over nearly sevenmillionpeople,andapoliticalculturesowarpedthattheSupremeCourtrecentlyfound itself unable to distinguish between gross corruption and business asusual. Individually, these items are tragic vignettes. Stitched together, theyproduce a cohesive andunsettling narrative of a generation that—in themanydecades it has dominated political and corporate America—squandered its

enormous inheritance, abused its power, and subsidized its binges with loanscollateralizedbyitschildren.

The premise of a stagnating and dysfunctional America is not particularlycontroversial. Blaming the Boomers might be more provocative, but afterdecades of dysfunction under Boomer leaders and the grotesque spectacle ofrecentelections,whichforceustoenduremoreofthesame,provocationmaybenecessary.ForthosereaderswhoareBoomers,orhaveparentsorgrandparentswhoareBoomers,itmaybeofsmallcomfortthatthisbookdoesnotarguethatallBabyBoomersaresociopaths.Rather,theargumentisthatanunusuallylargenumber of Boomers have behaved antisocially, skewing outcomes in waysdeeplyunfavorabletothenation,especiallyitsyoungercitizens.Thechallengeis to prove it, notmerelybypointingout the (bynow fairly clear) correlationbetween American underperformance and Boomer tenure, but by establishingcausallinksbetweenBoomermisbehaviorandnationalstagnation.Thereis,asithappens,adiverseandlargebodyofevidencetosupportthecase.

It didn’t have to be thisway, and for a long time, nothing likeAmerica’spresent dilemma seemed remotely probable. In 1946, the United States wasunquestionably therichest,mostdynamiccountry theworldhadseen,anationthat overcame the tragedies of the Great Depression and twoWorldWars toachieve remarkablegains inprosperity and freedom.Successbuilt on success,and while there had been occasional setbacks like the Korean War, theassassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the Vietnamdebacle,andthestagflationofthe1970s,Americajustkeptleapingaheaduntil,oneday,itdidn’t.Thisisodd,becausebyhistoricalstandards,everychallengeafter1946wasminorcomparedtowhathadcomebefore;allshouldhavebeeneasily surmounted, and, for a time, most were. But the fact is that Americandynamism did peter out, no later than the 1990s. The question that originallyperplexedmewasn’tthesemi-academicparadoxoftheantisocialsociety;itwassomething more direct: why isn’t twenty-first-century America doing vastlybetter?Readers under fortymight pose the question a little differently, not as“Havewe been screwed?”—they already sense the answer to that—but “Howbadly?”and“Bywhom?”

Thevariousanddispiritingcandidatesofrecentyearshaveofferedtheirownexplanations for the mystery of American underperformance, though beingmainly Boomers themselves and dependent on Boomer votes, they haverelocated blame to other suspects: unfair trade, rapacious immigrants, vicioussuperPACs, greedy corporations, hyperpartisanship, foreign terrorism, a

predatory1 percent or a lazy99percent, toomuch federal government or toolittle,notenoughTrumpismandaltogethertoomuch.Yet,themostcompellinganswers are not found in candidates’ position papers, but in the facts of theelectionsthemselves.Notonlyhaveweheardtheseexplanationsbefore,inmanycaseswehaveheardthemfromtheseverysamecandidates,foreverpeddlingthesamemagicbeansoffantasyandexcuse.Eventhepresidentialelectionof2016,despite itssuperficialweirdness—acontestbetweentwodesperatelyunpopularnomineeswinnowedoutofaninventoryofevenlessappealingalso-rans—wasreallynotableonlyforthesheerstalenessoftheleftovers.

This political recycling, right down to the surnames, should have been asufficient reminder that the candidates had themselves been the authors andpractitionersof thenation’sdespoliation.Manycandidateswere incumbentsorhad served in other offices, and essentially all of themwere members of thepoliticalandbusinessestablishmentthatcreatedthemessinthefirstplace.Theonly real developmentwas that the excuseswere gettingmore baroque as thefacts gotworse; the practitioners and their dogma remained the same, as theyhave for decades.More middle-class tax cuts, more perorations on the sacralnatureofSocialSecurity,morepromisesof changewithout any real plans forachievingit,moreblamelocatedeverywhereexcepttheobviousplaces.BoomerpoliticsarelikePtolemy’sastronomy,wherenewandinconvenientevidenceisexplained by increasingly complicated epicycles and exceptions; the systemitself is never fundamentally questioned. At some point, implausible systemshavetobejettisonedinthefaceofoverwhelmingevidence,infavorofsimplerandbetterexplanations.

Thisbook’sexplanationisstraightforward:Americasuffersfromitspresentpredicamentbecausealargegroupofsmall-mindedpeoplechosetheleadersandactionsthatledtoourpresentdegradedstate.Combingoverthedata,apictureemerges, one of bad behaviors and unchecked self-interest, occurring at theindividual level and recapitulated, via the voting booth, by the state. NoPtolemaic epicycles, Rube Goldberg political machinery, or Koch/Voldemortsneedbeinvoked.Theonlyrequirementwastheexerciseof thevotebyahugegroup,unitedbyshort-sightednessandself-interest:theBoomers.

Canthecasebemade:Cananentiregenerationbedescribedassociopathic?LongafterIstartedthisbook,peopletooktodiagnosingpresidentialcandidates(one in particular) and a debate ensued about psychological labeling—not somuchaboutwhetherthelabelswereaccurateasmuchaswhethertheycouldbeproperly justified. It may seem even trickier to describe a generation than an

individual—butifanything,it’seasier.Thereisahugeamountofproxydata—atrulydepressing andvaried amount—collectedover longperiods, all ofwhichserve as evidence. The Boomers’ disinclination to save maps to a keysociopathiccharacteristic,improvidence.Dataonsexualbehavior,druguse,anddivorce correspond to sociopathic characteristics like risk seeking and aninability to form lasting relationships. We can populate the entire clinicalchecklistthisway,avasttastingmenuofdysfunction,nosubstitutionsallowed.Ourresultscorrespondtooneofthefewmajorstudiesofmentalhealthissuesinthe United States, the ECAS, which found significantly higher levels ofsociopathy in Boomer-age populations in the 1980s relative to other groups.1ThereissomethingwrongwiththeBoomersandtherehasbeenforalongtime.

If the Boomers’ status as sociopaths is of great, if abstract, interest, theeffectsof theirsociopathyaremattersofundeniableandtangibleconsequence.Themore power Boomers accumulated, themore self-serving and destructivetheir policies became. For purely selfish reasons, the Boomers unraveled thesocial fabric woven by previous generations. We can match the sociopathicchecklist toBoomerbehaviors,Boomerbehaviors tosocialpolicies,andsocialpolicies to thenation’spresentdifficulties, tracingcausation.Because this is abook and not an address to Congress, it enjoys privileges denied even topresidents:itcanarguethatthestateoftheunionisnotgood,thatCongressisatfault,andthatapluralityof thepeoplewhovotedforCongressanditswarpedpoliciesaretoblame.

For some time, no president has dared to defy the Boomers, a generationwhose enormous size always meant they would be powerful and who startedmakingthatpowerfeltfromthe1970son.Eventually,Boomersdisplacedothergenerations almost entirely, andBoomerism reached its peak (or nadir) undergenerationalrepresentativeslikeBillClinton,NewtGingrich,GeorgeW.Bush,DonaldTrump,andDennisHastert—astewofphilanderers,draftdodgers, taxavoiders, incompetents, hypocrites, holders of high office censured for ethicalviolations,asociopathicsundaewhosesqualidcherrywasprovidedin2016byHastert’sadmissionofchildmolestation,itselfagrotesquemetaphorforBoomerpolicies. Someone had to elect these tornadoes of vice and it was, of course,Boomerswhowere content, often enthusiastic, to vote for peoplewho lookedlike them and showered themwith improvident goodies, whose failures wereoftenoverlookedandforgivenbecausetheyseemedsofamiliar.

In SiliconValley,where I spentmost ofmy career, it’s standard to askwhatconstitutesagivenproject’s“valueproposition,”B-schooljargonthatreducesinthiscaseto:Whatareyougettingforthecoverprice?Aboveall,thisbook’sgoalis to collect in one place and under one narrative the diverse and distressingstoriesglancinglytreatedinthemediachurn,andtotracetheirorigin.Youngerreaders wishing to induce apoplexy at the next family reunion will findadditional utility in these pages—Uncle Jim may think kids these days areterrible(Snapchat!Tattoos!Jeansintheoffice!),butwhenconfrontedwiththeevidence of what actually happened in the Sixties, he might fall refreshinglysilent, especially when you explain exactly how many of your tax dollarssubsidize his health care. The nonsociopathic wing of the Boomer generationmayalsofindvalueinseeingtheactsoftheircontemporariesinadifferentlightandbepersuaded tostandagainstasociopathicagenda thatserves themat theexpenseoftheirchildren.

Thesubjectmaybegrave,butthisbookhasitsoptimisticmoments.Americaisnotonadeathmarchfromwhichtheonlyescapeisarazorandawarmbath,or the often-promised-never-practiced emigration to Canada. Although theBoomerswill not relinquish their grip on power for some time—2016 provedthat—demographicchangeswilleventuallyendBoomerdominance.Whileitistoo soon to knowhow subsequent generationswill performwhen they finallytakecontrol,wehaveearlyindicationsthattheywillbebetterstewardsthantheBoomers, who appear to be a sociopathic anomaly. And America, whateverDonaldTrumporanyofhisavatarssay,isstillgreat,stillrichandpowerful;it’sjust operatingwell belowpotential.Even a plagueof generational locusts likethe Boomers can do only so much damage in a lifetime, however undulyprolongedthatlifetimemaybecourtesyofbenefitsfundedbytheyoung.Thesefactsarewhatpermitoptimismandalsoalittlegallowshumor;thenoosemaybeon,butit’snotinescapablytight.IthelpsthattheBoomersareoftenridiculous,andthisbooksuppliesridiculeaccordingly,notforspite(oratleast,notforspitealone).Alltin-potexpropriatorshavefragileegos,andifsarcasmhelpseasetheBoomersoutofoffice,lettherebesarcasm.

For now, theBoomers are in power; as 2017 began, they again controlledevery branch of government. And this is despite the Boomers disgorging themost revolting example of electoral politics since theGildedAge, a spectaclewhose angry, populist results were (perversely) guaranteed by the social andeconomic dilemmas bequeathed by earlier Boomer policies. That Boomerswouldsweepgovernmentinthe2016electionswasneverindoubt,evenif the

identityofthenewpresidentsurprisedmany.Thechoices,asoftennoted,wereless than ideal. Hillary Clinton, the longtime fixture of the Boomerestablishment,viewedhernominationinthesamewaythatseniorsviewSocialSecurity,asanentitlementtoberealizedwhatevertherisk.DonaldTrump,theSection8 scion, abullywhosequantumof thought isnogreater thana tweet,decided to prove that the lowest commondenominator could be found furtherdown than anyone in the commentariat thought possible. That Clinton andTrumpwere the twomost unpopular presidential candidates in decades, if notsince theCivilWar,deterred theBoomermachinenotawhit,because theyallagreedonwhatmattered.

Thus, while there were very real differences between Clinton and Trump,many pundits did not fully appreciate what the candidates had in common,startingwithanunshakeablecommitmenttoseniorbenefits—whichshouldhavebeensufficientnoticeofwhichgroupwoulddecidetheelectionandwhatothergenerationswouldpaytheinevitablebill.Itwouldberidiculoustoarguethatthecandidates(ormanyoftheirMini-Mesdownballot)wereequivalent,butneitherwere they different enough. The choices in November 2016 were only abouthowbadthefollowingyearswouldbe.Wouldthealreadysizeabledebtballoonbyanother$3–5trillionorby$5–15trillion,theproceedsexpendedonprojectseither somewhat dubious or mostly self-defeating; would the disabling legalscandal emerge as civil litigation over prior frauds or as a ginned-upimpeachmentbyaBoomerCongress;wouldthecronyismbeonlysignificantorcompletelyoutrageous;would theearth simmerorwould it roast; and inwhatways would the rule of law be undermined by presidential arrogance? In theweekthisbookwenttopress,theelectoratedecidedandBoomersprovidedthecritical votes.But essentially nothing alreadywritten here had to change—thesheerinertiaofBoomerismguaranteedsomesortoffiascowouldunfoldateverylevel,whetheritwasMadamorMisterPresidentonJanuary20th.It’struethatvotingparticipationbyyouthcouldhavebeenmorevigorous,butweshouldnotblamethevictimstoomuch.InanelectionbetweenBoomers,mostlymoderatedbyBoomers,andheavilycoveredbyBoomers,aprocessinwhichtheissuesofgreatest moment to the young—climate change, education policy, the debt—took a backseat or were simply not mentioned at all during debates, it’sunderstandablethatmanyyoungpeopledeclinedtoparticipateintheHobson’sChoice offered to them; they had no good option. However infeasible hispolicieswere,BernieSanderswas the only candidate to give the needs of theyoung real priority, and hewas dispatched by aDemocraticBoomermachine

busily giving Mrs. Clinton her “due.” If young people were cynical anddisengaged,theywerenotwithoutpartialjustification.

Thefinalexitpollswereslicedanddicedintotherich,thepoor,theeducated,thenot,theruralandtheurban,whiteandnon-white,butinimportantways,itwas always going to be Boomer versus not-Boomer. (I generally define theBoomersastheerodingmiddle-classwhitecohortborn1940to1964forreasonswewill shortly take up, and in the stateswhere such people predominate, thepivotsoftheelectioncouldbefound.)Intheend,thecountrybrokeBoomerishandBoomers broke the country, yet again. Itwould be amistake to view theeventsof2016,howeverstartling,asatotaloutlierortoascribeovermuchtothepersonal infirmities of the candidates; the candidatesdidnot, after all, emergefromnowhere.Theyand theirmanycompanions inbusinessandpoliticsweremerelyvesselsfortheBoomerid.

Still, the country remixes the legislature every two years and resets thepresidencyeveryfour.Theopportunitiesofthecomingyearsshouldbeseized;forissueslikeclimateanddebt,theelectionsofthecomingyearsmaybethelaststops before irreversible catastrophe. Unless younger generations remove theBoomersfrompowersoon,thenextquartercenturywillbeevenworsethanthelast one—aparadeofmissedopportunities andbad choices.Thepoor choicestheBoomershavealreadymadeandtheresultstheyengenderedarereflectedinthis book’s charts, snapshots of the decades of Boomer power. In the charts,lines that should have been going steadily up (like median income) haveflattened and sometimes plunged,while lines that should be going down (likedebt and obesity rates) have been going up, trends that will continue absentdramatic change. There aren’t many excuses for these failures, onlyexplanations,andtheyallpointthesameway,astheyhaveforyears.

Whatqualifiesmetowritethisbook?Ihopetheevidenceultimatelyspeaksforitself,renderingbiographicaldetailsofonlypassinginterest.Sincewe’reatthebeginning,here’smybackstory:Ispentmostofmycareerinfinance,firstatahedgefundand thenataventurecapital firm.*Both jobs requiredme to thinkabout where the markets would go, what companies might succeed, and bynecessity, about theAmerican future and the forces shaping it.Abouthalfmycareerwasspentduringsomekindofrecession,crisis,orpseudorecovery,whichisoddenoughwhenyou thinkabout it, a reason in itself toexploreAmericanstagnation.IfhalfofallAmericanhistoryhadbeenasmediocreasthepastfew

decades,therewouldbealotfewerstarsontheflag,andnoAmericanflagsonthemoon.

Still,yearsofeconomicmediocritynotwithstanding,therealwaysseemedtobeafewgoodthingstoinvestin,ifyouwereintherightplaceattherighttime.Forme, in 1998, that thingwas PayPal (my college roommate cofounded thecompany,andIboughtsomeearlyshares); in2004, itwasFacebook(mythenbossmadethefirstoutsideinvestmentinthesocialnetwork,andIworkedasajunior associate on part of that deal). Later, I made personal investments inSpaceX, Lyft, Palantir, and DeepMind, which are not all household names,thoughtheyhavesucceededwellenough.Butthesecompanieswereexceptions,veryrareones.Imentionthemlesstoestablishmycredibilityasaprognosticatorthan to show the value of socially funded innovation (every company Imentioned was built on technologies pioneered by government grants orresearch)and,mostimportant,toshowtheoverwhelmingimportanceofluckinastagnatingeconomy.SharingadormwiththenextMarkZuckerbergisaboonnot to be denied, but in the luck department, it really should be enough to bebornAmerican.Andsoitwas,beforetheBoomerstookover.MostAmericanswithmoderatetalentandambitioncouldfindagoodjob,buyahome,andinvesttheirsavingsintheStandard&Poor’s500,andindoingso,accumulateenoughforacomfortableretirement.Butproperjobsareincreasinglyhardtofind,andbuyingandholdingtheS&P500today(whichistosay,makingalong-termbeton America) doesn’t seem like a sure path to Happily Ever After. Thanks toperpetualfinancialcrisis,youcan’tevenexpectareal,positivereturnoncashinthebank.Again,why?

My first attempt to answer these sorts of questions came in a 2011 essay,“What Happened to the Future?” which worried about deceleration intechnologicalprogress. (Thatessay’s tagline—“Wewanted flyingcars, insteadwegot140characters”—isrecycledbythemediawheneveritwantstopassinglyindict technological failure.)While I think that essaywas correct on its own,narrow terms, the dynamics of national stagnation transcend Silicon Valleyspecifically and technology generally. This book is my attempt to present acomprehensiveexplanation,andresearchledtotheBoomers.Whathappenedtothefuture?TheBoomersdid;theysolditoffpiecebypiece.

Andsoletusbeginwithonemorequestion.IfthenationhadbeenunblightedbyBoomersociopathy,howwellcouldwehavebeendoing?Shockinglywell,asitturnsout.

INTRODUCTION

ThedifferencebetweenanAmericanandanyotherkindofpersonisthatanAmericanlivesinanticipationofthe

futurebecauseheknowsitwillbeagreatplace.—RonaldReagan(1979)1

TheGipperbelievedmanysillythings—invoodooeconomicsand,inthecaseof hisWhiteHouse astrologer, just plain voodoo—but one thingReagan trulyknew was that theAmericans hewould leadwere optimistic people, and thattheir optimismmade anotherwise disparate anddivided land a functional andthrivingnation.In1979,Reaganwasright;hewasstillrightwhenheleftofficein1989.By2002,Reaganwouldhavebeenwrong:AmajorityofAmericansnolongerbelievedtheirchildrenwouldlivebetterlivesthantheirparents—andthatwasbefore thecrashof2008andeightyearsof lacklusterrecovery.2By2016,American optimism had shrunk into the form of a tacky hat (“MakeAmericaGreatAgain!”)peddledbyaserialcorporatebankruptwhocouldnotmanagetomake his shambolic empire great even once, let alone “again.”3 Thatwas nothowitwassupposedtobe.

ThegoalofAmericanpoliticshasbeen,untiltheadventoftheBoomers,thecreationofa“moreperfectUnion”andthepromotionofthe“generalWelfare”to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”4 TheConstitutionpromisesasmuch,andovertimeAmericagenerallymadegoodonthat promise, first to a few, then to many. By the twentieth century,constitutional abstractions had taken concrete form, and “Blessings” in themodernvernacularwereunderstoodtomeanthecreationofanever largerand

more affluent middle class. If the middle was not doing well, neither wasAmerica.JamesCarville,theoperativewhobroughtBillClintontopowerasthefirstBoomerpresident,understoodthatmodernpoliticsboileddownto“It’stheeconomy,stupid.”AndtheCouncilofEconomicAdvisers(CEA)hasmadeclearhow to evaluate that economy: the “well-being of themiddle class and thoseworking to get into the middle class… is the ultimate test of an economy’sperformance.”5 Measured against the Constitution’s noble imperatives or themoreprosaicwordsofCarvilleand theCEA,Americagenerallymadeagreatsuccess of things for two centuries. Since the Boomers’ ascension to power,Americahasaccomplished far too little, and inmany importantways,has slidbackward.

A“moreperfectUnion” ishard tomeasure,but theeconomyandthewell-beingofthemiddleclassarenot.Theselatteritemscanbereducedtonumbers,and what the numbers show is not reassuring. A family with a statisticallymiddling income can no longer afford the trappings of an actualmiddle-classlife:thenicehouse,collegetuition,decentcars,theannualvacation,appropriatehealth care, some prudent savings, and perhaps a little left over to pass as alegacy. That life would require something like $100,000–150,000 in annualfamilyincome,dependingongeographyandtaste,butactualfamilyincomewasjust$70,697in2015.6Asforthe“Posterity”thatobsessedtheFounders,itmaydoconsiderablyworse.

ThedifferencebetweenwhatisandwhatcouldhavebeenissubstantiallytheproductofBoomermismanagementandselfishness.HadAmericapursuedmorereasonablepolicies,itmighthavecontinuedthepatternofgrowthofthegoldenyears after World War II and before the arrival of Boomer power. Familyincomein2015couldhavebeenaround$106,000to$122,000(or$113,425tobemisleadingly precise). In otherwords, the actualmiddle class could affordgenuinely middle-class lives. Editorialists would never have had to switchadjectivesfrom“comfortable”to“struggling”whendiscussingthemidriffoftheincomedistribution.

FamilyIncome—WhatIsandWhatCouldHaveBeen

What’sgoingonhere?Thisisa“counterfactual”—thepathAmericanfamilyincomeswouldhavetakeniftheyhadkeptgrowingatpre-Boomerrates.Underallprojections incomeswouldhavebeensubstantiallyhigherthantheyaretoday.The“mid”estimateprojectsincomesasiftheyhadgrowninexactlythesameway,yearbyyear,withalltheupsanddowns,astheyhadinthepre-Boomerperiodthroughthe1981–1982recession.The“low”and“high”estimatesconstructsmoothaverages,respectivelyincludingandexcludingthe early Eighties recession. In every scenario, there have been substantial lost opportunities,with gapsreallywideningasBoomerpowerandpoliciestookhold.NoneofthisistosaythatAmericahasn’tgrown,

itjusthasn’tgrownasfastorequallyasitcouldhaveoroncedid.7

Thenumericalgapiscompellinginanabstractway,butthelosscanbefeltmost viscerally in, of all places, Flushing Meadows, Queens. People passingfrom JFK toManhattan, or watching aerial shots of the US Open, may havenoticed saucer-topped towers and a strange steel globe, artifacts left by alienswith a Mad Men aesthetic, right in the Meadows. These oddities are theneglectedremnantsofthe1964World’sFair,whichpromisedaworldofflyingcars,underseacolonies,cleanenergy,massprosperity,citieson themoon,andmore.Thatwaswhattheearlytwenty-firstcenturywassupposedtobelike.TheFair’s promotional video promised, in fullmid-century sincerity, a timewhenthe“scienceofplenty”delivereda“cityoftomorrow,”withhumanitycharting

“a course… that frees the mind and spirit and improves the well-being ofmankind.”8TheFairhasvanishedandso,eventually,didthedream.TheFair’sneighbor,SheaStadium,openedalongwiththeFair;Shea,too,isgone,replacedbyCitiField,whichwascompletedaroundthetimeitsgiantcorporatenamesakenearlywentunder.Today,againsttherust,cobwebs,andastadiumnamedaftertheparadoxof anearlybankruptbank, thewhole rah-rahoptimismof the ’64Fairseemsfaintlyridiculous.

Noonein1964,however,wouldhaveseentheFair’sTechnicolorfantasiasasnaïve.Twenty-fiveyearsbefore,theFairof1939,alsoinFlushingMeadows,had made equally ambitious claims. The ’39 Fair foresaw an America ofconvenientsuburbs,linkedbyinterstatehighways,endingatplushhomesfromwhichwanthadbeenbanished,predictionsofferedatthedistinctlyunpromisingjuncturebetweentheGreatDepressionandWorldWarII.Yet,by1964,ithadallcometrue.Withthepromisesofthe’39Fair(centerpiece:Futurama)alreadyfulfilled,Americansof1964sawnoreasonwhytheywouldnotsoonenjoythedreamsoftheirownFair(featuring:FuturamaII).Bythe2010s,Americansweresupposed to be living richly, attended by a robotic staff, with the occasionalvacation to theLunarHilton.Obviously,noneof that came tobe:There isnoPanAmflighttothemoon;thereisn’tevenaPanAmanymore.Whatactuallyhappenedwasthatin1969NeilArmstrongsteppedontothemoonandin1972GeneCernansteppedoff,andthatwasit.Thefutureslippedawayandthetimingwasnotcoincidental.Bythelate1960s, theearnestandindustriousoldregimewasfading.Thefuturewouldsoonbereposedinthehandsofagroupaltogetherlesscompetentandwell-meaning.

Likeallchroniclesofabigcountryoveralongperiod,thisbookfacesthesamedilemma as Jorge Luis Borges’s imperial mapmakers: to be entirely precisewouldrequirecreatingamapasbigas thesubject itself.Oneof thevirtuesofdata is that it resolves at least someof themapmakers’ problem, reducing the324-oddmillionstoriesoftheAmericanpeopleintocomprehensiblesummariesand simple charts.9 What these data show is what those millions of citizenssense: The country is off course.Median income growth has been slow, thenstagnant,andattimesintherecentpast,outrightnegative.America’sothervitalsignsareproducingsimilarlyominousbleeps.

Americaisnot,however,poor.Infact,Americaissubstantiallyricherinthe

twenty-firstcenturythanitwasinthetwentieth,andtheriseinaverage, ratherthanmedian, incomes reflects that.Thedivergencebetweenmeanandmedianreflects gains by the top end of the distribution. TheConstitution’s pursuit of“generalwelfare”hasturnedintoaveryspecifickindofwelfare.Itisn’tquiteassimple as the 99 percent versus the 1 percent. Rather, it is the mass,democratically sanctioned transferofwealth away from theyoungand towardthe Boomers, the latter having adjusted tax and fiscal policies to favor theaccumulationofwealthduringtheirlives,attheexpenseofthefuture—afuturewhose course is of little concern, because whatever failures it holds will becushioned by the tens of trillions of entitlement dollarsBoomerswill receive.Whateveryouthinkaboutthe1percent(andmanyofthemareBoomers),theiraccumulations pale in comparison to the generational plunder of theBoomersoverall.

Acasual stroll throughaverageneighborhoodswouldnot reveal anymajorsignsofdecline;therewouldbefewhintsofeventhegrossdivergencebetweentherealityofmiddle-classincomesandmiddle-classexpenses.Livingstandardsstillseemrelativelygood,andthereisasimpleexplanation:Peopletreadwaterby borrowing. As a fraction of gross domestic product (GDP), debt owed byAmericanfamilieshasroughlydoubledsince1980,andinnominaltermsisover$14trillion.Governmenthasdonethesame—indeed,thisisaprimaryBoomertactic toensure theirbenefits flowwhileexpensespass toothers.Thenationaldebt has almost tripled as a fraction ofGDP since themid-1970s, so that thenation’s debt is now slightly larger than the nation’s total annual product,approaching$19 trillionby the endof 2015, and that figure is set to grow~3percent annually,more or less indefinitely. The proceeds from that expandingpileofdebt havebeenused to consume,not to invest, and sogrowth, alreadyslow,willgetslowerstill.Eventually,itwillbecomeimpossibletosustainlivingstandardsbyborrowing.Andat someroughlycoterminouspoint, theBoomerswillbedeadandtheproblemwillbelongtosomeoneelse.

Thatsomeoneelse,ofcourse,isstatisticallylikelytobe:you.

The central theme of this book is that America’s present dilemma resultedsubstantially and directly from choices made by the Baby Boomers. Theircollective, pathological self-interest derailed a long train of progress, whileexacerbatingandignoringexistentialthreatslikeclimatechange.TheBoomers’sociopathic need for instant gratification pushed them to equally sociopathic

policies, causing them to fritter away an enormous inheritance, andwhen thatwas exhausted, to mortgage the future. When the consequences becametroubling, Boomer leadership engaged in concealment and deception in adesperate effort to hold the system together just long enough for theirgenerationalconstituenciestopassfromthescene.ThestoryoftheBoomersis,inotherwords,thestoryofagenerationofsociopathsrunningamok.*

Sociopathy is characterized by self-interested actions unburdened byconscienceandunresponsive toconsequence,mostlyarising fromnon-genetic,contextual causes. The current professional standard, the fifth edition of TheDiagnosticandStatisticalManualofMentalDisorders(theDSM-V),focusesonthe following criteria, which our Boomer subjects must display relativelyconstantlyacrosstimeandcontext,including“moderateorgreaterimpairmentsinpersonalityfunction”dueto:

1.ego-centrism;self-esteemderivedfrompersonalgain,powerorpleasure;goal-settingbasedonpersonalgratification;absenceofprosocialinternalstandards and associated failure to conform to lawful or culturallynormativeethicalbehavior;

2.lackofconcernforthefeelings,needsorsufferingofothers…incapacityformutuallyintimaterelationships,asexploitationisaprimarymeansofrelatingtoothers;and,

3. disinhibition [irresponsibility, impulsivity, risk taking] and antagonism[manipulativeness,deceitfulness,callousness,hostility].10

In other words, sociopaths are selfish, imprudent, remorseless, and relentless.“Mefirstanddamntheconsequences”—that’sthesociopathicmotto.

As individuals, Boomers are a mixed bag of good and bad. But as ageneration, theBoomerspresentasdistinctlysociopathic,displayingantisocialtendencies to a greater extent than their parents and their children.As policy,thesebehaviorsmanifestinsubtleways.TheAARPhasunleashednohordesofscooter-poweredgeriatricstolashMillennialstothetraintracks.Instead,villainyexpresses itself through themundane depredations of tax policy and technicalrevisionstothebankruptcycode.Theseandotheradjustmentsareinsidious,allthemoreeffectiveforbeinghardertosee.

The first two chapters of this book begin by identifying the “nongenetic,contextual” causes of Boomer sociopathy and the first expression of itssymptoms, which began as personal and would end as political. While theBoomers’childhoodsarelongpast,theyremainrelevant,thatwemightseewhattheBoomershad,whattheywasted,andwhatmethodsofchildrearingnevertorepeat.Forreadersbornafterthe1960s,thesechaptersarerevealingexcursionsinto a totally unfamiliar society, one that despite its many imperfections wasdecidedly nonsociopathic and not coincidentally politically functional, fastgrowing, and richwith advances in everything frommedicine to civil justice.Because we cannot run a controlled experiment—we can tap no alternateuniverseofanAmericawithouttheBoomers—theperiodbetweenthe1940sandtheBoomerascendancy isascloseaswecancome toseeing thebenefitsofaprosocialagenda.Andthebenefitswereconsiderable;Americaisinmanywaysstilllivingoffthatlegacy.

Chapter3witnessestheriseofBoomersociopathy,whenVietnamemergedasthedefiningexperienceofearlyBoomeradulthood.Anage-baseddraftforcedmainstreamBoomerstocohere,ratheruniquely,ongenerationallines.Vietnamprovided an early stage for sociopathic behaviors, as young people weresimultaneously the most hawkish about the war and also busily evading thedraft,bymeanswhoselegalityvaried,butwhoseneteffectwastoshiftburdensto America’s most disadvantaged communities. Boomers may now rememberVietnamotherwise,justasin1945everyFrenchmanclaimedthathehadbeenaresistancefighterallalong.Butweneednotrelyonconvenientmemories.Wehavethedata,andtheypaintalessflatteringpicture.

Chapter4 follows theBoomers’downwardslide,showing thedevelopmentof other sociopathic behaviors—deceit, empathy deficits, relationship failures,self-indulgence, and financial mismanagement. Boomers divorced, borrowed,ate, and spent improvidently, relative to their parents and their children atcomparable ages. Disabled by sociopathy, Boomers also began abandoningreasonitself.Thesociopathswouldbegovernedbyfeelings(thoughneveronesof empathy), which liberated Boomers from considering tiresome evidencesuggestingtheirpracticesmightbedestructive.

Eventually, private behaviors congealed into a debased neoliberalism, thesociopathic operating system that has dominated Boomer politics, Right andLeft, for more than three decades. The Boomers’ ersatz neoliberalismemphasizes consumption over production, dogmatic deregulation instead ofthoughtful oversight, permanent deficits instead of fiscal prudence, and

capitalismliberatedfromtheboundsofthestate,thoughalwaysfreetoreplenishitselfatthefederaltroughintheevent“sub-primemortgages,”“junkbonds,”or“collateralizeddebtobligations”somehowliveduptotheirnames.

The heart of the book then details the implementation of the Boomers’sociopathic agenda and its consequences. It startswith thewholly democraticmeans by which the revolution was achieved, courtesy of the Boomers’ vastnumbers,whichmadethegenerationanoutrightmajorityoftheelectoratebytheearly 1980s. Long influential as voters, Boomers had by the early 1990sachieved full institutional power, starting with control of theWhite House in1993,halfoftheHousethefollowingterm,andby1995holdingthenation’stopthree offices,with colonization of courts and governors’mansions proceedingapace.*Theirholdonall threebranchesofgovernment reached itspeak in themid-2000s, when Boomers made up 79 percent of the House, and they stillretainedasupermajorityadecadelater,whenIwasfinishingthisbook.Eventheoccasionaldepositionbyayoungerofficer—likeSpeakerJohnBoehnerbyPaulRyan—could be offset in other areas, aswith the succession ofBoomer JohnRoberts to William Rehnquist’s seat at the top of the federal judiciary, ordirectly,aswithTrump’semasculationofRyan.

With government at their disposal, the Boomers could fully realize theirsociopathic goals. The popular story of recent years is that government isdysfunctional.Viewedthroughthered-and-bluelensesofpundits,thatmayseemto be the case, and in many places there is some truth to this account. Butthrough generational lenses, one sees a smoothly functioning system,consistently delivering benefits to its most powerful constituents. And it isbenefits—economicbenefits—thatserveastheabidinginterestoftheBoomersandrepresent theirantisocialendgame.Thepartsofgovernment that serve theBoomersmustwork,anddo.

Nowhere did sociopathic avarice, deceit, imprudence, and political powercombine more powerfully than in tax policy, which allowed the Boomers toreshuffle in their favor thebenefits andobligationsof anentire economy.Theimpact on the total tax take, while problematic, was surprisingly modest; thegenerationalburdenshiftingandunrestrained,underfundedspending,however,were breathtaking. Whatever the economic climate, whichever the party, taxpolicyevolvedinwaysthatfavoredBoomersandtheir(perceived)interests.

These chapters also examine (again, in varied and wide contexts) theBoomers’ sociopathic “improvidence”—awordBoomerbehavior forcesme tousefrequently—atraitmanifestingnotablyinBoomerdisdaintowardinvesting

for the Posterity cherished by an increasingly obsolete Constitution. Thesociopaths’ goal is to wring every last dollar from the system, and anyinvestment that could not be fully realizedwithinBoomer lifetimeswas to beavoided. Therefore, the nation’s infrastructure, built by the Boomers’ parentsandoncetheworld’sfinest,wasallowedtodecay.Henceforth,state-sponsoredresearch would be radically curtailed. Higher education was neglected; theBoomershadtheircost-freediplomasinhand,someaningfulreformandcostlysubsidies were no longer relevant. Public tuition, formerly zero, could risedramatically. Even better, the loans taken out to meet those new educationalbills, including those produced by the Boomer-created plague of for-profitcolleges,couldbeconvertedintotoday’s$1.3trillionofstudentloans,profitsonwhichtheBoomersharvestandshallsoforever,thankstoamodificationofthebankruptcycodein2005thatmakesstudentdebtnearlyimpossibletodischarge.TheFlowerChildofBerkeleywouldbecometheMerchantofMidtown.

JustassociopathylimitsthehorizonsofplanningtotheBoomers’lifetimesinmattersofinvestment,soitdoesforexistentialcriseswhosearrivalsBoomersexpect to be postmortem. Future generations being Not-Self are of minimalconcern to the sociopath. Unlike acid rain, which had immediate impacts onBoomers’qualityoflifeandwasthereforeswiftlyaddressed,climatechangeisaproblemwhoseconsequenceswillfallmostheavilyonothergenerations,sofartoolittlehasbeendone.Otherexistentialcriseshavebeenequallyignored,likethe risks posed by artificial intelligence. But sentient machines being at leasttwenty-five years away, so long as Amazon’s neural networks continue toimproveon the timelydeliveryofDepends,AImaybe treatedwithmalignantneglect.

Given the unpalatable scale of the Boomers’ expropriations, political powersometimes required garnishment with pleasing untruths. Fortunately,“manipulativeness,” “deceit,” and “hostility” are something of a sociopathicforte. Concealment and pacification were deployed as necessary to keep themachine operating at maximum antisocial efficiency; examples appearthroughoutthebook.Themechanismsoffinancehaveprovedespeciallyuseful.Economicdeclinehasbeenpaperedoverbydebt and chicanery, especiallyonmattersofpensionsandentitlements.

Whenproblemscouldnolongerbehidden,therewasalwaystheexpedientofthe bald-faced lie. Sometimes the lies work and even when they don’t, they

providehelpfuldistractionsfromtherealissues.Considerthatthemostpowerfulpeopleintheworldspentmonthsin1998–1999parsingwhethertheinsertionofa cigar into a vagina or the receipt of fellatio counted as sex, instead of, say,addressingtheknownandloomingcrisisofSocialSecurity.ConsideralsoBillClinton’s treatment of language in his subsequent perjury scandal, which isworthquotingforitsentertainingandgenerationallyrepresentativedishonesty:

Itdependsonwhatthemeaningoftheword“is”is.Ifthe—ifhe—if“is”means is andnever has been, that is not—that is one thing. If itmeansthere is none, thatwas a completely true statement…Now, if someonehad askedme on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relationswithMs.Lewinsky, that is, askedme a question in the present tense, Iwouldhavesaidno.Anditwouldhavebeencompletelytrue.11

The quintessential Boomer, his generation’s most brilliant and influentialpolitician, could not evenmanage an honest conjugation of “to be,” themostfundamental verb in the language. If real issues can no longer be seriouslydiscussed, it is because there is (or “is-is”) literally no way to have thediscussion—“literally,”inthesensethatthereisnoreliablelanguageinwhichtoconductdebate.And,fromJanuary20,2017,thelexicallandscapewilldegradefurtherstill.

What problems could not be swept into financial footnotes or lied aboutcouldalwaysbelockedaway,andundertheBoomers,Americanimprisonmentrates have spiked to by far the highest rate in any major nation, a terrifyinginstanceofsociopathichostility.JustastheBoomerfinancialmachinefailedtoplanforfinancialcontingency,sotoohaveBoomerpoliticiansfailedtoprovidea mechanism for the reintegration of this giant population. Prisoners havebecomethehumanequivalentofWallStreet’sdeferredliabilities,tobereleasedat someone else’s expense once Boomers safely recede into their gatedretirementcommunities.

Thattheeconomyhasfailedtoliveuptoitspromiseisbadenough.ThattheBoomers have not made investments in future prosperity is worse. That theyhavedonesotopaytheirgreenfeesisreprehensible.Thattheyhaveliedaboutwhat is going on and persistently ignored threats that have a real chance ofkillingsomeoftheirchildrenissociopathyofthehighestorder.

This is a book, not a trial. It seeks to inform, persuade, and occasionallyentertain; no legal codebinds thediscussion.Nevertheless, the lawprovides aconvenientframeofreference,embodyingsociallyacceptablestandardsofproofandfairness.(Myverybrieffirstjobwasasalitigator,butoncealawyer,alwaysa lawyer.) As to proof, much of the evidence is necessarily circumstantial.Whatever defense attorneys on legal dramas say to the contrary, nothingprohibitsaverdictbasedoncircumstantialevidence.Obviously,thepresentcaseturnsonnothingsoconvenientastheminutesofsomesecretBoomerconferencevotingtoabscondwiththenationalpatrimony,thoughtheCongressionalRecordprovidesconsiderableservice in thisrespect.BeyondthehardfactsofBoomerlegislation,anenormousbodyofincriminatingevidenceexists.Ifthesheersizeof theBoomer generation iswhat allows them to despoil the nation, size alsopermitsustotracepatternsinthedata.

Willthatdataprovethecasebeyondareasonabledoubt?That’sthehope,butnotthehurdle.Thisbookdoesn’tproposetosentenceBoomerstosomesortofmaximum-securityretirementhome.Itseekstopromotebehaviorsandpoliciesthat help lay the grounds for future prosperity, and to liberate the necessaryfunds fromBoomerwallets fattened by the profits of sociopathy.As to thosereparations,thestandardformoneydamagesinacivilcaseis“preponderanceoftheevidence.”IfbytheendofthebookyouthinkitismorelikelythannotthattheBoomerscommittedgenerationalexpropriations,thestandardwillhavebeensatisfied.

Whether or not a givenBoomer participated directly in the plunder, all ofthemreapedatleastsomeofitsbenefitsandagreatmanyofthembehavedverybadly—indeed,theelectoralmathmeansthatapluralityofthemoftendid.Asamatter of fairness, the bookwill strive to present the evidence in context andconsiderwhattheBoomersmightsayintheirdefense;ifthisbookisprimarilyan indictment, it does consider context, mitigating factors, and justifications(even if I’m supplying them, which is more than a Boomer-defunded publicdefensesystembotherstodo).Intheend,theBoomers’defenseisnotplausible,while thecaseagainst theBoomers isstrongandtheevidence,compellingandvaried.Theonlyappropriatesentenceisremovalfromofficeandrestitution.

OnceBoomershavebeenunseated,undoingtheirdecadesofmismanagementwill require a significant social reorganization, especially of retirement andhealth-care benefits, and a program of reinvestment. None of the proposalsoffered in thebook’s finalchaptersareviolently ideologicalorunprecedented.Thoughtheprice ismeasured in the trillions, itdoesn’tneed tooverwhelm,so

longastheburdenissharedfairlyandreformsareundertakensoon.Noonewillbe reduced topenuryandno taxeswill rise toconfiscatory levels.TheUnitedStateshasfacedworsethantheBoomersandemergedintact.

Reform and its consequences may be intolerable for many Boomers, whoresentputtingothers’needsaheadof theirown,andpreferexpedience tohardwork. As sociopaths cannot be trusted to do the right thing, they must becompelled.Americawillshortlyhavethedemocraticmeanstodosoandshould.Anantisocialsociety,afterall,isnosocietyatall.

CHAPTERONE

THEVIEWFROM1946

Happinessislikethepox.Catchittoosoon,anditwrecksyourconstitution.

—GustaveFlaubert1

Exactly when Flaubert caught the pox was unclear—he definitely had it bytwenty-eight,afterasojurntothefleshpotsofBeirut—butwhathisbiographersmake abundantly clear is that his first three decades were miserable.2 WhileFlaubert’s youth was frustrated, it did lead to triumphs likeMadameBovary.Unlike Flaubert, the Boomerswere happy from the start and this conditionedthemtobelieveeffortless,affluentcontentmentwastheirdue,andtheybehavedaccordingly.OnemightwishthattheBoomershadbeenalittlelesshappythen,sotherestofAmericacouldbesubstantiallymorehappytoday.

ButhappyBoomerswouldbe;theycouldnotbeotherwise.Theywere,afterall,thehumaninstantiationsofAmericanoptimism.ConventiondatestheBoomto1946,thoughitstartedasearlyas1940,whentheDepressionfullyliftedandAmericans were enthusiastic about the future. The Boom continued until themid-1960s,deliveringthelargestAmericangenerationeverseen.Evenunderthenarrowest definition, the Boom produced about seventy-five million newAmericansandmorethanninetymillionmeasuredoverthefullstretchbetween

1940and1964,increasingthepopulationbyroughlyhalf.*,4

TheBoom3

Boomersareproductsofmorethanmerechronology,however.Theycanbeidentifiedbytheirsharedexperiences,theirgenerationallyuniquebehaviorsandbeliefs,andbywhat theygavetoAmerica,what theytook,andwhat theystillhopetoget.

The United States of the 1950s was wealthy, powerful, and expandingquickly,andiftheyoungBoomersdidn’tacquaintthemselveswiththenationalincometables,theycouldcertainlyseegrowthallaroundthem.Theyonlyhadtolookattheflagstheysalutedintheirnewclassrooms,dulyupdatedtoreflectthestatehoodsofAlaskaandHawaiiin1959.Thepresentmiddleageofdiminishingexpectationslaydecadesahead—thelongstagnationofthenewmillennium,thechronicdebtsanderosionofthemiddleclass,thevanishingspeciesandmeltingice caps, the reach of terrorism into the homeland and the shambolicMiddleEastern empire it provoked—these were unimagined, indeed, unimaginable.Those disasters required a certain generation to summon them, and thatgenerationwasjustrollingofftheproductionline.

Thanks to the competent stewardship of prior generations—a mix of theGreatestGeneration, the earlierSilents, anda fewnineteenth-century fossils—the optimism that led to theBoom in the first place found seemingly endlessconfirmationinAmericansuccess.InthethreedecadesfollowingWorldWarII,

it would have been ridiculous to pose the question, as Ronald Reaganwouldwhenseekingthepresidencyin1980,“Areyoubetteroff[now]thanyouwerefour years ago?”5 The answer was “yes,” always and emphatically. TheBoomers’ first decades saw rapid and near-continuous gains in prosperity,education, health, technology, and civil justice, the products of revolutionarychoicesbyearliergenerations,underwrittenbytheirsavingandsacrifice.

Eventhe1970s,thesupposedlydismalerainwhichmanyBoomersreachedadulthood, weren’t that bad; in economic terms, they were better for manyworkersthanthepastdecadehasbeen.Factually,ifnotrhetorically,theanswertoReagan’squestionin1979–1980wasnoworsethan“mostlybetter.”Aswe’llsee, a swaddled youth fostered sociopathic entitlement, and the temporarysetbacksofthe1970sprovokedagenerationaltantrumfromwhichwehaveyettorecover.Butthat’sgettingaheadofthestory.

HappierDaysThe Boomers suffered virtually nothing of the Depression that shaped theirparentsand,unliketheirEuropeanpeers,didnothavetoconfrontthesufferingandguilt thatmarkedEurope fordecadesafter thewar.With theexceptionofPearl Harbor, where 2,471 Americans died, the homeland escaped the warbasically unscathed. Japanese subs blew up an oil derrick and destroyed abaseballfieldinOregon,andtheEmpiredispossessedAmericaofafewAlaskanislands for a time, and that was about it. A childish mind might have beeninclinedtoviewoneofthegreatestofwarsassomethingofagame.

JustastheUnitedStatessurvivedthewarintact,sodidmostofitsfamilies.American casualties were relatively low, some 405,399 killed and 670,846woundedoutofapopulationin1945ofabout140million,acasualtyrateofwellunder1percent,withfewciviliandeaths.6WardeathsforGermany,Japan,theSovietUnion, and theUnitedKingdomstoodvastlyhigher—at least six timeshigherinthecaseofJapanandfiftytimeshigherintheSovietUnion,whichhadtobattlefamine,internalstrife,andtheWehrmacht.7ByV-EDay,DresdenandHamburghadbeenreducedtorubble;byV-JDay,NagasakiandHiroshimahadbeenwipedoffthemap.In1945,ashblewofftheruinedhulksonBerlin’sUnterden Linden and settled on corpses. OnManhattan’s FifthAvenue, ticker tapedrifted down from balconies and landed on the shoulders of soldiers kissingstrangers.

If the Boomers took a different path than their American parents or theirEuropean andAsian contemporaries, a path that eschewed social solidarity infavorofpersonalindulgence,itwasinsubstantialpartbecauseBoomersstartedfromaradicallydifferentplace.BoomershavealwaysthoughtofthemselvesasSpecial, and nothing about their childhoods provided any evidence to thecontrary.Any illusionspre-Boomershadabout easy liveshadbeendispatchedby the Depression and the actual fighting of the World Wars; the Boomerssufferednoneofthese.TheoldestBoomersmighthavebeenlightlytouchedbywant,butAmericanrationingwascomparativelymoderateandshort-lived.Ifthegreatest of wars couldn’t restrain American consumption, Boomers mightreason,whatcould?(Thesociopathmightadd,whatshould?)

By contrast, the United Kingdom’s restrictions on sugar and meat finally

lapsed in 1953–54 and could have been only a modest consolation for thehumiliating evaporation of empire then underway. The Soviet Union wasafflictedbyhunger,death,andtyrannyforyears.AndtheBritishandtheSovietswerevictors;thosewholostfacedevengreaterruin.ThedestructionofJapanesecities iswell known, but devastation even reached the countryside,whichhadbeendenudedof treesbecause thearmyhaddugupall thepineroots tomakegasoline substitute. TheGermans,meanwhile, had been firebombed andwerestarving,reducedtoeatingthefewzooanimalsairraidshadn’tkilled.Evenafterthebodieswereburiedandthecitiesmostlyrebuilt,thelegacydraggedon:Non-American belligerents were still paying off some war debt and debating oldclaimswellintothetwenty-firstcentury.

For theyoungBoomers,TragedywasforOverThere,privationforOthers.Europe and Asia would have to work hard to overcome tragedies of epicproportions, and they built functional and caring societies—imperfect, to besure, but radically better than what had come before. The Boomers, living adifferentlife,tookadifferentcourse.

DurableGoodsHavingwon thewar in 1945,America had to figure outwhat to dowith thepeace, and it embarkedon a course thatwould eventuallyprovide tremendousdirectandindirectbenefitstotheBoomers.Themostpressingpostwarquestionwas that of a labormarket swollenwith newly unemployed soldiers. Itwas aproblem after every major war, one America had not always resolvedsuccessfully.AftertheCivilWar,benefitspaperworkwaswrappedinactualredtape, which probably says it all about the speed and liberality of veterans’programsinthenineteenthcentury.

AfterWorldWarII,theUnitedStatesdecidedonacourseofgenerosityandforesight,onethatmighthaveservedasaninspirationforlaterchallenges,hadtheBoomersbeenaptpupils.TheServicemen’sReadjustmentActof1944(theGIBill)providedveteranswitharangeofbenefits includingtuitionandlivingexpenses for education, unemployment insurance, and low-cost loans forhousing and to start businesses. Congress supplemented the GI Bill after theKoreanWar, providing further funding to the samegeneral ends.Because thebills were not tested against class or origin, they tremendously improvedeconomic equality, although in the early years the boons skewedoverwhelmingly towardwhitemenbecauseofbiased implementation, the lackofintegratededucationalinstitutions,andprohibitionsonwomen’sserviceinthearmed forces. Even that would change. In the meantime, millions of (mostlywhite,male) peoplewho otherwise never could have attended college did so,enjoyingthebenefitsofeducationatminorpersonalexpense.Thecreationofalarge,well-educated, prosperousmiddle class,where position could be earnedratherthaninherited,wasinlargepartaresultofprogramsliketheGIBillandcivilian educational grants. These helped the Boomers’ parents earn and passdownwealth,andwouldhelptheBoomersthemselvesavoidthesortofcripplingdebttheyforcedtheirownchildrentoincur.

After a brief war in Korea, peace prevailed, and in the 1950s PresidentDwight Eisenhower set about buildingmuch of the national infrastructure onwhich the United States still depends, systems the Boomers have cheerfullyneglected. Eisenhower had seen the problems bad infrastructure created andwhatgoodinfrastructurecoulddo.In1919,heledacross-countryconvoythatmanagedameager6mphacrossroadsandbridgesrangingfrompartiallybuilt

to nonexistent. In the 1940s, Eisenhower appreciated the virtues of moderninfrastructure on tour in Germany, a nation crisscrossed with theReichsautobahn,whereVolkswagens designed by Ferdinand Porsche (founderof the eponymous company) could trundle along with considerably greaterefficiency—Adolf Hitler had mandated 100 kph, ten times faster thanEisenhower’s1919convoyhadmanaged.

EisenhowerdemandedAmericanautobahnenandgotthem.ConstructionoftheInterstateHighwaySystem(IHS)beganin1956andconcludedin1991,fiftythousandmiles inall, carryingabouta thirdof thenation’s traffic.Since then,the IHS and other midcentury infrastructure projects have been decaying,victims of Boomer neglect. But during its heyday, America had the bestinfrastructureintheworld,especiallytheroadsthatopenedupthecountryandmadepossibletheBoomers’comfortablesuburbanchildhoods.

Thosechildhoods,takingplaceinhomesattheendofEisenhower’sasphaltarteries,wereexceedinglycomfortable.Indeed,homesweresogoodthatwhenRichardNixonunveiledatypicalexampleattheAmericanNationalExhibitioninMoscowin1959, theSoviets refused tobelievesuchprosperitycouldexist.ForthemitwasranchhouseàlaPotemkin,afraudinclapboardandshag.TheSovietpropagandaarmTASSopinedthattherewas“nomoretruthinshowingthis as the typical homeof anAmericanworker, than, say in showing theTajMahalasthetypicalhomeofaBombaytextileworker.”8

TASSwaswrong.TheExhibition’sshowhomewasnotonlyrealistic,itwasmore or less real, being a copy of 398 Townline Road of Commack, LongIsland,athree-bedroomhousefurnishedbyMacy’s.Theoriginal398Townlinecost$13,000, somewhatbelow theaveragepriceofhomesat the time, readilyaffordable at about 2.5 times the era’s $5,400 family income.9 (Today,Zillowvalues 398TownlineRoad,which still stands, at about $420,000 or about sixtimes2015familyincome.10)ItwouldhavebeenpointlesstoinformtheSovietsthatthisbeigeboxwasonlythesmallesttasteofwonderstocome.

TwoyearsbeforetheExhibition,theSovietshadundertakenademonstrationoftheirownsystem’smerits,launchingatwenty-three-inchmetalballintoorbit.Generally called Sputnik, the satellite’s proper name was ПростейшийСпутник,or“ElementarySatellite,”anditwaselementary indeed,carryingnoscientificinstruments,onlyaradio.Instrumentsweresuperfluoustotheprimarymission,whichwastobeatAmericansintoorbit,whichSputnikdid.

Americarespondedbyinvestingheavily,creatingNASAandtheAdvancedResearchProjectsAgency(nowDARPA)topreparenewtechnologicalwonders

tohumbletheSoviets.ThegovernmentalsoquadrupledfundingfortheNationalScienceFoundation, beginning a long period of sustained and lavish grants toscience and technology. The National Defense Education Act of 1958supplementedtheGIBill,pouringmoneyintocolleges,withparticularemphasison producing more scientists and engineers. The combined effect of theseeducationalpoliciesincreasedcollegeenrollmentfromabout1.5millionin1940to over 3.6million in 1960 and 8million in 1970 (or in percentage terms forcollege-age populations, from 9.1 percent to 22.3 percent and then 32.6percent).11 The United States may have started slightly behind in the SpaceRace, but by 1958 it had satellites in orbit doing real science and handlingcommunications traffic.America’s second satellite collected geodetic data andorbitsstill;SputnikanditsSovietcreatorshavevanished.Alloftheseprogramswould confer enormous benefits on the Boomers, at a cost disproportionatelyborne by their parents—a pattern the Boomers inverted and then inflicted ontheirownchildren.

Theseinvestmentsbecametheself-reinforcingengineofprosperity,andthenationalaccountbooksmadeclearthedegreetowhichtheysucceeded.Afterabrief postwar dip, the economy grew robustly. Despite the transition to apeacetimeeconomy,unemploymentwasoftenunder4percentandnotpersistent(as unemployment is today), despite large numbers of Boomers entering theworkforce.12

Americans under fifty might wish for the litany of midcenturyaccomplishments to runout,since the inescapablecomparisonswith theeraofBoomerpoliciesaresoutterlydisheartening,butthelistcontinues—andit’sjustaswell,becauseAmericansstill relyon theworkdone longago, like theGPSdevelopedforthemilitaryfromthe1960s,theInternetdevelopedbyARPA,andthe integrated circuit from Jack Kilby’s work for the Army and TexasInstruments.Eventhepowerforthesetechnologiesdependsonagriddevelopedfrom the 1930s through the 1960s, itself supplied by dams (now rotting) builtduring the Great Depression and reactors (now ancient) pioneered in the late1950s, as part of Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program.Washington’s goalwas “electricity too cheap tometer,” provided by fission and then (hopefully)fusion, built by American ingenuity and, in the case of the versatile nuclearcontractor American Machine & Foundry, the nation’s leading supplier ofbowlingequipment(itwastheFifties).13Allthatrelentlessinvestmentinhumancapital, energy, science, and infrastructure spurred growth whose gainstranslated into rapidly rising incomes. The Fifties are no more distant or

irrelevant than your iPhone, which is charged by power distributed over amidcentury grid and depends on government-sponsored research on GPS, theInternet,andtheintegratedcircuit.

Decaywouldbe theBoomers’project;midcenturyAmericahad roomonlyforprogress,formoreandfaster.Andjustastheeconomywasmodernizing,sowas society. While the 1950s exist in the popular imagination as a time ofstiflingconformity,asstaticas theshellackedhairdosof its suburbanmatrons,they were actually a time of great social change. Legacy preferences, racialrestrictions,Jewishquotas,andothersystemsthathadperpetuatedtheoldorderbegangivingwaytomoremerit-basedcriteria,whilegeneroussubsidiesensuredthatadmissionsoffersweremorethannotionalpromises.Collegesmaynothavebeenasdiverseastheyarenowinabsoluteterms,butthemidcenturyrevolutioninadmissionsmakestoday’saffirmativeaction(partlyerodedbyBoomercourtsandlegislatures)seemtimid.

Havingsuppliedadultswithcollegedegrees, jobs, roads,andhomes,allofgreat but sometimes indirect benefit to theBoomers, the nation began to careexpresslyforitsnewestcitizens—adebttheBoomersneverseriouslyconsideredrepaying.Theshamboliceducationalsystemthatexistedbefore theDepressionwasreformedandgenerouslyfunded.Thefederalgovernmentbankrolledjuniorcolleges and expanded vocational training from the 1940s through the 1960s,and both the states andWashington committed themselves to buildingworld-classuniversities.

In1965, the federalgovernmentdecided toextendaidall thewaydown toprimaryeducation,supplementedbyincomeassistancetopoorerfamiliestofeedandclothechildrenthattheymightmakethemostofopportunitieseducationalandotherwise.TheElementaryandSecondaryEducationActprovided federalfunds to schools serving lower-income populations, helping equalizeachievement gaps.14 It was a generous and open-hearted plan, sufficientlygroundbreakingthatconservativesquestioneditsveryconstitutionality.

JusticeforSomeBecomesJusticeforManyBeforethe1940s,segregationhadbeenanironcladfact.Afterthewar,HarryS.Truman integrated the army and arguments for its civilian equivalent becamehard to ignore. In 1954, the SupremeCourt took a chance to reverse an 1896ruling, and found that separatewasnotequal.15 The great revolution in rightsthenbeggars theBoomers’ achievements in this department, a subjectwewillresume in Chapter 16. The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 alsoadvanced equality, helping black votes, previously diminished by racialregulation, count for the same aswhite. The pattern of federal intervention toavoidracistabuseswasthereforeestablishedearlyintheBoomers’childhoods.Government protection became the default; the recent rollback under BoomerSupremeCourtJusticesisperhapsless“conservative”thanispresented.

So that was the cradle, circa 1965—free and integrating public education,gooduniversitiesandsubstantialfinancialaid,decentandplentifuljobs,qualityinfrastructure and good homes—what about the grave? That question wasaddressed in the New Deal by Social Security and in the Great Society byMedicare.

Atthetimeitwasconceivedinthe1930s,SocialSecuritywasaprogramforthe relatively small number of very old retirees. The official name of thelegislationwasthe“Old-Age,SurvivorsandDisabilityAct,”whichhintedattherather limited category of people that legislators expected would collect. Lifeexpectancy in the 1930swas just over sixty-five years and benefits kicked in,perhaps not coincidentally, around the same time.*,16 The demographic datameant that old age benefits were originally designed for the catastrophe ofextreme age, rather than nearly universal assistance to cushion years and thendecades of retirement. Those who did collect were often in severe need, aselderly populations in prior decades were particularly prone to poverty (asituation thatno longerapplies today,whenelderlypoverty isquite lowwhileyouthpovertyremainsquitehigh).Fromthe1930sonward,thestateguaranteedagainstdisaster.

In 1966,Medicare debuted, providing funds for senior health care, so theelderlyweresuppliedwithbothamodestincomeandacertainminimumlevelofmedical care and insurance against catastrophic illness. As part of the Great

SocietyandtheWaronPoverty,fundswerealsoextendedregardlessofagetopoorpopulationsforbothhealthcareandincomeassistance—welfare,inshort.

So, the bulk ofwhatwe think of as the social safety netwas therefore inplaceby1966,alongwithgrowingprotections toensure thatclassesofpeopleother than comfortable whites could participate, at least in a partial way, innational prosperity and politics. For mainstream Boomers, childhood throughearlyadultyearssharedtheimportantcommonalitythatthingswerebothgoodand getting better; in the event circumstance or chance put prosperity out ofreach, the statewould ensure that individuals could only fall so far. Thiswaseven the case for blacks, who experienced the largest and fastest gains inequality since theCivilWar andReconstruction, though progresswas unevenandoftenmarkedbyviolence.

TheseconditionswereallprovidedforbytheBoomers’elders,whoworkedand saved to ensure that the fiscalhousewas in reasonableorderwhen itwaspasseddown.Doingsorequiredoldergenerationstotaxthemselvesatratesthatnopoliticiantoday,howeverfarLeft,woulddarepropose.Whenpossible,itwaspay as you go, so unlikemore recentwars, theKoreanWarwas substantiallyfinanced out of current tax receipts, as were many of the great infrastructureprojects, whose costs were overwhelmingly borne by earlier generations eventhoughlatergenerationswouldreapsomuchoftheirbenefit.Incaseswherenoleveloftaxcouldbalancethebudget,aswasthecasewithWorldWarII,priorgenerationsretiredthedebtasquicklyaspossible.Motivatedbyfiscalprobity,Americanspaidextraordinary taxesfor twodecades,with thehighestmarginalrate a downright confiscatory 94 percent in 1945 (against which today’s 39.6percent,thesourceofsomuchpresentangst,seemsmodest).17

Theresultofthesesacrificeswasthat,bythe1960s,WorldWarIIdebthadbeenreducedtoamanageablesize.Taxescouldthereforebelowered,thoughthetop rate remainedahefty70percent.18Although theVietnamWar eroded thenation’sfinancialposition,thingswerestillinrelativelygoodshapein1970.Asa percent of GDP, the deficit was –0.3 percent and the national debt 35.7percent; modest, compared to –2.5 percent and 103.8 percent, respectively in2015.*,19 Fiscal affairs were not perfect, but they were strong, especiallyconsideringtheenormousinvestmentsbuiltupafterthewar,andinvastlybetterorder than theywillbewhen theBoomerspass thebookson to theirchildren.The Boomers inherited a productive family farmwith a modest mortgage; intwenty years, their childrenwill take over a crumbling estate leveraged to thehilt.

Thus, the psychology of the Boomers formed during a period of Americaascendant,masteroftheworldandeven,by1969,ofthemoon.AstheBoomersreachedadulthood, theyinheritedarichlyendowedandfunctionalsociety,onethat,despitesomeflaws,protectedandprovidedfor theBoomersbetter thanithadforanyprecedinggeneration.Andyet,theBoomersemergedasradicalizedadults,rejectingsomanyofthepoliciesthathadgiventhemsomuch,replacingasuccessfulmodelwithanantisocialfailure.

InheritancesaslargeasthosetheBoomersreceivedcanhavewarpingeffects,as the unemployable trust-fund set whizzing down the slopes of St. Moritzshows. (The Boomer electorate has recently furnished a more domesticexample.)Still,prosperitytendstobeaboonoverall,andworthrisking.SowhatwentwrongwiththeBoomers?Hadother,lessdesirablefactorscontributedtoarisingclassofsuburbansociopaths?

Therewere, because the standards bywhich the Boomers had been raisedwere,byhistoricalstandards,downrightbizarre.

CHAPTERTWO

BRINGINGUPBOOMER

Thelittle,oralmostinsensibleimpressionsonourtenderinfancies,haveveryimportantandlasting

consequences.—JohnLocke,SomeThoughtsConcerningEducation1

AsallFreudiansknow,analysisbeginswithchildhood,thatrichswampfromwhich adulthood’s good and evil spring. This is not to say that humans areconsigned to perform a deterministic playwritten by childhood, only that theformativeyearsare justso:aperiod inwhichoperatingassumptionsandotherhabits ofmind form. For a generation later associatedwith individualism, theBoomershadsurprisinglyuniformchildhoods,atleastinthewhitemiddleclassthatthenaccountedforthepluralityofthepopulation.ThoughthemethodsusedtoreartheBoomersmighthavebeenuniformwithinthatgeneration,theywerestrikingly distinct from child rearing practiced on other generations. TheBoomers’ upbringings were dominated by a new set of influences, chieflypermissiveparenting,bottle-feeding,andtelevision.If theBoomersgrewuptobesodifferentfromanygenerationbeforethem,itwasperhapsbecausetheyhadbeenraisedunlikeanypriorgeneration;iftheyremaingenerationallyunique,itis perhaps because some aspects of their childhoods have never quite beenrepeated.

The popular television show Leave It to Beaver, which debuted in 1957,provides a fair portrait of Boomer childhood. The show’s utter lack ofimagination was both its artistic vice and sociological virtue. Compared totoday’s operatic contrivances and reality television, Beaver was pureanthropologicalrigor.Thesubjectsofstudy,theCleaverfamily,werestudiouslyunremarkable: two parents (Ward and June), two kids (the Beav and Wally;presumablythestatisticallyrequiredfractionaladditionalchildwouldhavebeenunsettling todisplay),plunkeddown ina suburbanhouseenclosed, inevitably,byawhitepicketfence.WardwasaWorldWarIIveteranwhohadattendedastatecollege,presumablyon theGIBill, andworkedata trustcompany; Juneranthehouse.TheCleaverchildrenwerebothBoomers,notionallybornin1944and 1950, and raised inways thatwould have been instantly familiar to theirpeersontheothersideoftheset—andalientotheirgrandparents.Foraboveall,Ward was a soft touch, a sharp contrast to his own father, an ancien régimemonsterofdisciplineandcorporalpunishment.

Childrearing:DawnofTime—AD1946If the oldestCleaver’smethods shock now, thatwas not the case formost ofhuman history.GrandpaCleaver’smethodswere those bywhich children hadlongbeenraised.Theoldsystemwasnotwithoutitsgrimlogic.Becauseofhighinfantmortality—even in the nineteenth century, itwas not uncommon for 20percent of children to die before age five—parents saw no reason to investsubstantialmaterialoremotionalresourcesuntilitwasclearachildwouldlive.Shouldachildsurvive,parentswouldsetthemselvesnottothearrangementofplaydatesandotherdiversions,but to theproductionof aminiaturegrown-up,conformed to adult notions of virtue and industry, ready for near-immediateemployment. Dialogue with children was unnecessary and motivation bestsuppliedbythestick.

Even more enlightened approaches, which began appearing in theseventeenthcentury,wereunforgiving.JohnLocke,famousnowastheexpositorofthesocialcontract(somethingtheBoomerswouldgleefullyripup),wasmorerenownedinhistimeasachild-careexpert.Locke’sSomeThoughtsConcerningEducation (1693), progressive as it was, inclined toward discipline (a wordappearinganaverageoftwiceapageinmyversionofThoughts).*Locke’sgoalhadbeen toproduce“virtuous,useful,andablemen”by the“easiest, shortest,andlikeliestmeans,”andthatcertainlydidnotentailpamperingofthekindtheBoomersreceived.2Thebehavioristsoflate-nineteenth-centuryAmerica,whosethinkingdominatedtherearingoftheGreatestGeneration,sharedLocke’sgoals.Theyhadonlytolookat thecountryindustrializingaroundthemtoknowhowLocke’s seventeenth-century process might be improved. Locke’s character-forming exercises, which depended on weird exercises involving leaky shoesand hard beds, were too haphazard for the modern world. Henceforth, goodchildren would be manufactured by a rationalized process of positive andnegative reinforcement, delivered immediately, and unburdened by Locke’sphilosophical meanderings about human nature. In 1899, “less sentimentalityand more spanking” was the order of the day, according to G. Stanley Hall,presidentofClarkUniversity,psychologist,andchild-careauthority.Ifchildrendidn’t like it, that was beside the point. One did not ask a widget whether itapprovedofthemeansofitsproduction.Whyshouldchildrenbedifferent?

Like Hall, Dr. Luther Emmett Holt of Columbia University favored thescientificrearingofchildren,andhisviewsenjoyedenormousinfluence.Holt’sThe Care and Feeding of Children (1894) was a best seller, eventuallyrepackagedbytheGovernmentPrintingOfficeandwidelydistributedasasortofstate-sanctionedguideforchildcare.Likefactoryworkersandfarmanimals,childrenwerenottobeindulged—theyweretobemanaged.Whilethespecificsofthesebehavioristtextsdifferedfrompriorpractice,thecentralinsightsaboutchild care remained the same until the 1940s: Children were to be formedaccordingtotheirparents’wishesandsociety’sneeds,withparentingamatterofcoercing useful behaviors, instead of catering to childish whims. Given thebottomless thrift, industry, and manners of the Greatest Generation, perhapstheseideasweren’tmeritlesssomuchasvictimsofexcessivezeal.

Dr.SpockandtheRiseofPermissiveParenting

Unstableorerraticparenting,orinconsistentparentaldisciplinemayincreasethelikelihoodthat[childhood]conductdisorderwillevolve

intoantisocialpersonalitydisorder.—DSM-V3

Rigor was therefore the dominant practice for American children untilBenjaminSpockchangedthingsinaninstant.Spockwas,likeLocke,atrainedphysician, with a specialty in pediatrics. With the assistance of his wife, heproducedTheCommonSenseBookofBabyandChildCare, firstpublished in1946, in time to guide Boomer upbringings. A best seller of tremendousproportions, itsoldfivehundred thousandcopies in its firstsixmonths,and inthehalfcenturyfollowingitsprinting,wassurpassedonlybytheBibleinsales(orsothestorygoes).4AcontemporarypollofAmericanmothersshowedthat64 percent had read Spock’s book, and even those who didn’t own a copycouldn’t help but absorb its precepts; excerpts cropped up everywhere, withsnippets even appearingon ILoveLucy and implicit inBeaver.5ThedefiningtextofBoomeryouthcamefromDr.Spock,notJackKerouacorRobertPirsig.

The Common Sense Book treated every imaginable topic, but its coreinjunctionswere always the same: that parents rely on their own instincts andaccommodatechildren’sneedswherever reasonable. Ina radicaldeparture, theCommonSenseBook evenstrove tocomprehendachild’sworldviewfrom theperspectiveofthechildhimself,ataskconservativesviewedwithapprehension.Inthepreface,Spockstatedthathis“mainpurposeinwriting[his]bookwastohelpparentsgetalongandunderstandwhattheirchildren’sdrivesare.”6Oldertraditionscouldnothavecaredlessaboutunderstandingachild’smotivations.

Unlike his predecessors, Spock did have psychological training, and hedisdainedtheoldfixationondisciplineanddistance,insteademphasizinglovingcare, physical affection, and a degree of deference to a child’s impulses. Hisattitude toward toilet training is instructive. Previously, experts advised aregimentedapproach,withchildrentobetrainedat threemonths(onewondershow)andevacuations takingplaceona set schedule,Taylorism for tots.This,

Spock believed, was an exercise both destined to fail and that risked thedevelopmentofcertainneuroticcompunctions,likeananal-retentivepersonalityoverly fixated on tidiness and orderliness, though likely to be productive anddeferential to authority (e.g., the Greatest Generation). Instead, Spockencouragedparents to letchildrenset theirowndefecatory timetable,asystemnot without its own dangers. Freud had warned that indulgent toilet trainingcould lead to an anal-expulsive personality, one that proceeded from literal tofigurative incontinence,personalitiesofmessiness,disorder,andrebelliousness(e.g.,theBoomers).

PartofSpock’srelativeleniencycamefromhisradicallyoptimisticviewsonhuman nature, his belief that children would grow up well so long as theirparentsprovidedagoodexample.Spockwrote that“discipline,goodbehaviorandpleasantmanner…Youcan’tdrill these intoachild from theoutside inahundred years. The desire to get along with other people happily andconsideratelydevelopswithin[thechild]aspartof theunfoldingofhisnature,providedhegrowsupwithloving,self-respectingparents.”7Twothousandyearsof parenting expertswould have disagreed; parentsmost definitely could drillhabitsintoachild,withthenotionofrelyingonachild’sgoodnaturetoachievethedesiredresultsbeingtheverydefinitionofinsanity.

Cultural conservatives predicted that America would collapse in lockstepwith discipline’s decline, and they were not entirely wrong. Norman VincentPeale, a preacher famous for writing The Power of Positive Thinking,characterizedSpock’smethodofchildrearingas“feed’emwhatevertheywant,don’t let them cry, instant gratification of needs.”8 Peale blamed Spock forhelpingcreatethecultureofpermissivenessintheSixties,andhewasnotalone,thoughPeale andother critics failed to considerSpock’s text as awhole.TheCommonSenseBookdidallowforspankingasalastresort—itjustpreferredtodeploy gentler options first. Still, in missing these nuances, the conservativesmighthaveprovedtheirpoint.Spock’sbookwasnotsupposedtobereadfrontto back like a novel, but topically, like a guidebook, consulted to resolve aparticular problem on a particular day. To the extent this structure made itpossible for parents to overlook a few admonitions about laxness, Peale wasinadvertentlycorrect.

TheBottle-FedBabyBoomTherewerefewsubjectsonwhichSpockdidnothavedefiniteopinions,manyofthem for the better, but on two critical subjects Spock harbored ambivalencewith far-reaching and negative consequences. The first was breast-feeding,which forobvious reasons,hasbeen thestandardmode for infantnutrition foralmosttheentirehumanexperience.Spockhadalwayspromotedbreast-feeding,butuntil1968remainedveryopentousingformulaasanacceptablesubstitute.BetweentheconvenienceofformulaandSpock’spermission,Americansturnedto the bottle in droves. So for one brief period in history, which overlappedalmostperfectlywiththeBoomers’childhoods,bottlelargelyreplacedbreast.

By the 1970s, research emerged suggesting that breast-feeding conferredimportant advantages that formuladidnot.Studies confirm that breast-feedingpositively impactscognitivedevelopment/intelligence,significantly reduces theriskofdiabetes,childhoodobesity,andother illness,promotesbetterhealth inthe mother, and strengthens emotional bonds between mother and child.9 (Insomeof these areas,Boomershave struggled, aswewill later see, though thebottlewasnotentirelytoblame.)Influencedbytheserevelations,ratesofbreast-feeding quickly rose and now compare to those of a century ago, with onlypoorer, less educated, and certainminority groups still relying heavily on thebottle.Butnoentiregenerationofchildrenbeforeorsincewassoinfluencedbyformula, and innutrition, as theywere in somanyotherways,Boomerswereunique.*,10

FromBottletoBoobTubeThe other major area where Spock gave some very bad advice regarded thatother great influence on Boomers, television. Older Americans perceive thearrivalofcomputersandtheInternetassuddenandpervasive,but thesenewertechnologieshavenothingontelevision,adoptedatastonishingspeedandscale.RCA began mass production of televisions in 1946. Before then, almost noAmericanhomeshadtelevisions.By1960,90percenthadTV.Incontrast, thefirst Internetconnectionswereestablishedin1969,butaccessdidn’tbecomeahouseholdstapleuntilthelate1990s,andevenby2012,morethanaquarterofAmericanhouseholdsstilllackedabroadbandconnection.11

NotonlydidtelevisionreachmorehomesmorequicklythantheInternet,usewas very intense from the start. The degree of American preference fortelevision appears most vividly measured as a percentage of leisure hours,becausewhengiventhechoice,AmericansgreatlypreferTV.Datacompiledin2015shows thatTVconsumedmore than50percentofAmericans’ free time,against just 13 percent for socializing and functionally 0 percent for pleasurereading (e.g., for teenagers, 8 minutes per weekend day).12 In a very seriousway,fromtheBoomers’childhoodsonward,TViswhatAmericansdo.Leavingaside for now the considerable body of research showing that televisionnegatively affects childhood development, reasonable people can immediatelysee the problem: It’s just not healthy to spend themajority of one’s free timeimmobilizedinfrontofthebox.

However,whenTV first arrived, itwas greeted as just anothermiraculousappliance,aninnocuouselectronicnanny.Thefirstmass-marketsetarrivedthesame year as Spock’s book, which was understandably silent on the issue.However, Spock had a generally permissive attitude toward radio, saying thatchildrencouldlistentoitasmuchastheyliked,solongasitdidn’tdetractfromsleep, homework, and outside play. In later editions, Spock said the same oftelevision,remainingunconcernedallthewaythroughthelate1960sbothabouttheamountofTVchildrenconsumedanditscontent.13TheBoomersthereforewerenotonlythefirsttelevisualgeneration,buttheonlyonewhoserelationshipwith the box was unmediated by the cloud of expert concern, parentalreservation, content chips, and so forth that later swirled aroundTV.Like the

Windsors’mistresses,TVwasadefilingenticement,onetowhichtheBoomerswerehelplesslysusceptibleandwouldconstantlyreturn.

EarlycriticismdevoteditselftoTV’saestheticdeficits,buttherealproblemhas never been one of art, but of medium. Unlike media that came before,television is at once ironic, mimetic, unidirectional, emotionally rich,informationally poor, highly habituating, and demands a certain suspension ofdisbelief.* These characteristics prevail regardless ofwhether a given show iselevatingorcrude,anewsprogramoracartoon,andtheeffectshavenotbeengood. While the many studies of TV have occurred over decades in whichprogrammingvariedwidely, theconsensushasalwaysbeen the same—alwaysnegative.

TV’s essential characteristicsmake it the perfect education for sociopaths,facilitating deceit, acquisitiveness, intransigence, and validating a worldviewonlylooselytetheredtoreality.Asabreedinggroundfordissembling,televisionalmostcannothelpitself,becauseunlikeoldermedia,itinherentlyoperatesonaminimumoftwolevels,thevisualandaudio,sometimessupplementedbyathirdlevel of text. These concurrent streams make it easier to achieve multiplemeanings,allowingfordivergencesbetweenwhatissaid,whatisseen,andwhatismeant. Televisual irony trains viewers to hold otherwise inconsistent viewssimultaneously, and it is no coincidence that in an erawhere TV is themostprofound cultural influence, the trendhas been fromearnest to ironic. It’s notthattelevisionmakeslyingeasierperse,butthattelevisionencouragesalayeredapproachtorealityinwaysthatothermediadonot.Televisionthereforeservesas a training and reinforcement mechanism for deceit, a key trait of thesociopath. The televisual-sociopathic apex probably arrived in Seinfeld/CurbYour Enthusiasm, both created by Boomer Larry David. David’s shows wereoutliers only in their brilliance; in their sociopathic aspect they were just theculminationofpreexistingtrends.

Television is alsomimetic, spurring viewers to imitate behaviors seen on-screen,andthebehaviorstheindustrywantstofosterareconsumptive.There’splenty of dense academic literature on this subject, but nothing speaks louderthan the enormous ad budgets devoted to TV, stoking the already robustsociopathic appetite.At least parents todayunderstand thedynamic, and sincethelate1970s,withtheintroductionofaffordableVCRsandpurchasablecontentlike DVDs and downloads, they have been able to reduce or eliminate thenumberofconventionaladstheirchildrensee(somewhatundonebytheriseofproductplacement).YoungBoomers couldnot even resort to the commercial-

free uplift of public television, because PBS didn’t debut until 1970, and itspublicpredecessorofferedjusttenhoursofweeklyprogramming.

Given thatpeoplespendmore than twiceasmanyhourswatchingTVthanthey do socializing, TV sets the tone for all communication, and that tone isunidirectional, the conveyance of opinion rather than the mutuality ofconversation.Theboxspeaksonewaytotheaudience,andthepeopleinsidetheboxoftenspeakpasteachother;it’ssoliloquy,notdialogue.Thoughthereweresomeearlyattemptsatseriousconversation,TVprovedaninfertilemedium.Nolater than the 1960s, the modern style of televisual dialogue had beenestablished.Duringthe1968RepublicanNationalConvention,theABCnetworksponsored debates betweenWilliam F. Buckley and Gore Vidal, icons of theRight andLeft respectively.Despite a gap of five decades, theBuckley/Vidalsessions would in their generalities be immediately familiar—two celebritiesscreechingat eachother.Stripaway thebad tiesand thepolysyllables (a finalhangoverfromtheempireofthewrittenword)andthemodernshoutingmatchemergesfullyformed,onethatdevolvedintoVidalcharacterizingBuckleyasa“crypto-Nazi” andBuckley returning the favorby callingVidal a “queer” andthreatening to “sock [Vidal] in the goddamn face.”14 Thesewere bad debates,but“goodTV.”Unfortunately,thestandardsoftelevisionleakedoutoftheboxandintoreallife,servingtodisfavorthesortsofexchangesthatmightpromotelearningandcompromise,majorchallengesfortheBoomers.

One of the redeeming features of Buckley/Vidal was that it featured twopeoplewho,however illbehavedin themoment,wereintelligentexpositorsofgenuinelydifferentpointsofviewonmattersofsubstance(ratherthan,say,twodifferentpointsofviewonastarlet’soutfitattheOscars).EarlyinTV’shistory,networks felt obliged to present controversial issues like the ones featured inBuckley/Vidalinafairandbalancedway(intheoriginallegalsense,nottheFoxNewssense).TheFCCenshrinedthisidealintheFairnessDoctrine,enactedin1949.15 By 1974, the FCC found that it had never had to enforce it becausebroadcastershadvoluntarilycompliedwiththe“spirit”oftherule;that’snottosay the networks were saints, only that they made modest gestures towardbalance.16

Bythe1980s,asBoomersachievedpoliticalpower,broadcasterswerefreedtodispensewitheventhemodicumofbalancethatguiltpreviouslyinducedthemtoprovide.In1987,FCCchairmanMarcFowler—himselfa(Canadianvariety)Boomer,andsooblivious thathedismissedTVas“a toaster,withpictures”—formally abolished the Fairness Doctrine.17 The elimination of the Doctrine

permittedtheriseofideologicallydrivenchannels,preachingtotheirrespectivechoirs, a project completed in the 1990s when Fox News andMSNBC weredisgorged by their parent companies. Dialogue became diatribe aimed at anagreeableaudienceinthesameperiodthatBoomersconsolidatedtheircontrolofgovernments. Boomers, who were adults by this time and also the heaviestconsumersofnewsprogramming,thereforespentmanyhourswithadevicethatwouldnotchallengetheirworldviews.

It’s not as if other media were paragons of sensible debate, but no othermediumcould competewith the sheer number of hoursAmericans spentwithTVnorthebox’sspecialpowers.Eveniftelevisionweretheacmeoffairness,itwouldstillbeauniquelylimitedandemotionalmedium,manipulatingthecruderparts of the brainwithmusical cues so as to keep the cortex untaxed, flittingfrom image to image, andotherwise radicallyunsuited to rational thought (wewill see some results in Chapter 5).Moreover, to enjoymany programs, onemust literally reject reality: strugglingwaiters inBrooklyndonot live ingiantlofts, fornicatingwith charming neighbors onEames furniture. So for hours aday,peoplesimplyindulgeinfantasy,forminghabitsthatleakintootherpartsoflife.(There’sprobablyadoctoraldissertationinthemoviePoltergeistalone,itsvaporousantagonistmanipulatingachilddirectlythroughherTV.)

TV’slimitsposespecialproblemswhenitcomestonewsprogramming,andthis is a grave problem for Boomers who, along with other (even older)Americans, are unusually dependent on TV’s witless reportage. Televisionoperatesatadistinctdisadvantagetoprint—adultscanreadabouttwiceasmanywordsperminuteasnewsanchorstypicallyspeak,andthisdoesnotaccountforthe various commercials, empty banter, and other substance-free filler thatconsumeathirdormoreoftheaveragebroadcast.Televisionisn’tkindtofactsand even less so tonuance.Causationmay runbothways, but the fact is thatpeople who watch commercial broadcast TV news are significantlyunrepresented in the category of people highly knowledgeable on matters ofcurrentevents,themechanicsofgovernment,etc.18

Thewarpingeffectsofalltheseproblems,fromthecollapseoftheFairnessDoctrinetothelimitationsofTVanditspresentationofthenews,couldbeseenin the Boomers’ avatar Donald Trump. Like many of his generation, Trumprelies heavily onTVnews, and expects his preferred channels to cater to himfirstandrealitysecond(ifatall).WheneventhehermeticworldofFoxprovedinsufficiently fawning,Trump triedwith somesuccess toconform thenews tohispreexistingconceits.ThespectacleofTheDonaldbullyingFoxinthecrudest

termsalarmedcertainaudiences,butafter theFairnessDoctrinecollapsed, thatevent was exceptional only in that an individual informed a network of hispreferencesdirectly,ratherthanthenetworkdiviningthosepreferencesthroughtheinexactmapofratings.

Television, therefore, is a disastrous influence in purely theoretical terms;what about in practice? As an empirical matter, it’s hard to evaluate the fullconsequences of television, because it’s now essentially impossible to run acontrolledstudy.SuchastudywouldrequireapopulationofTVviewerstobecompared against an otherwise representative group that did not watchtelevision,andinacountrywhereover90percentofhouseholdshavelonghadTVandwatchitseveralhoursaday,thatissimplyimpossible.Americaharborsnolost tribeofappliance-lessMidwesterners,watchingshadowpuppetson thewallandwaitingforsociologiststodiscoverthem.

But,foratime,CanadadidconcealitsowntroupeoftelevisualNeanderthals,and these were the subject of the only major controlled study of TV’sconsequences. It came about purely as the result of geographic accident. Onetown,whoseidentitywasconcealedbehindthejokingnameof“Notel,”nestledin avalley thatmostlyblocked the localbroadcast transmitter.Notel thereforedidnotreceiveeffectiveTVcoverageuntilyearsaftersurroundingcommunitiesdid;Notelwasotherwisesimilartothetwocontroltowns,whichdidhaveTV.19

AdjustingforothervariableslikeIQ,researchersfoundthatNotel’syoungerchildren scored higher on various tests, including reading comprehension andcreativity.20 After TV arrived in Notel, scores declined to levels of other TVcommunitiesandresearchersconcluded,amongotherthings,that“theweightofour evidence indicates there is a significant negative relationship betweenreading achievement and amount of television watched, even after IQ iscontrolled.”21 Notel’s children also becamemore aggressive after TV arrived,and TV might have exacerbated performance differences between moreintelligentstudentsandricherstudentsandthosewhowerelessso.22Effectsinsomecategorieswereweak,and inotherareasstrong,but theoveralleffectofTVwas decidedly disturbing. Eventually, children tended to converge towardthe same levels of performance as they got older, but TV seemed to slowacquisition of important skills and have some hangover effects, and of courseoncechildrenwereolder,the“No”hadvanishedfrom“Notel.”23

Even ifwecanno longerstudy largecommunitieswithoutTV, it is stillatleastpossibletostudydifferencesbetweenlightandheavyviewers.Thesetestsreveal a similar dynamic, “relatively strong negative correlations between

viewingandachievement.”24ReadingcomprehensionandmathperformanceallsufferwhenTVviewingisrelativelyheavy;childrenwhowatchalotofTVarealsomore aggressive than light watchers (regardless of whether the programsthemselvesareespeciallyviolent).25 In1980,newspaperswidelycirculated theconclusion of the California Superintendent of Schools: “Television is not anassetandoughttobeturnedoff.”26

Needless to say, the superintendent has never gotten his wish—TV useremains high, and the greatest consumers of TV remain the Boomers, thegenerationmostinclinedtoviewTVasa“necessity”(astatusascribedtoTVbyabouttwo-thirdsofBoomersandtheireldersandbylessthanhalfforyoungercohorts).27 It’s not that other generations don’t have their own issues withtelevision, and the effects of newer media like immersive video games,smartphones,andFacebookwillnotbeclearforsometime.Theyarealsobesidethepoint fornow,because itwillbeyearsbeforeyoungergenerations run thecountry.Theunavoidablefactisthatthenationiscurrentlyrunbypeoplewhohave a deep and unshakable relationship with TV, entranced from theirbeginningsbyamediumwithunambiguouslynegativeeffectsonpersonalityandaccomplishment.

All of these factors, the shift tomore progressive parenting, baby formula,andtelevision,hadeffectsthatmanifestedbythemid-1960s.Studiesrepeatedlyshow that more permissive parenting styles produce lower performance inschools, make children more susceptible to peer pressure, and more likely toexhibitproblembehaviors,thoughpermissivelyraisedchildrendohavenotablyhigherself-esteemthanthoseraisedinstricterhouseholds—adescriptionthatbynow may sound familiar. That’s not to say authoritarian parenting avoidsproblems, as it produces, inter alia, higher levels of depression in girls andgreater aggression in boys, but stricter parenting helps children achieve betterself-regulationandhigherachievementinschools.28

It isperhapsnot surprising thatBoomers’ test scoresbegan sliding.Beforetheywere even adults,Boomerswere already failing.Constant SAT scores inboth verbal and math categories slipped from 478 to 424 between 1964 and1980; i.e., when the Boomers were taking these tests; once the Boomersgraduated,testscoresstabilized.WewilltakeupthisdisturbingslideinChapter14.Boomersmay have beenwealthier andmore secure thanmany test takersbeforeorsince,buttheywerelessdisciplinedandhadbeenraisedindistinctlyoddandunhelpfulways.

SothatwastheBoomers’upbringing—televisual,formulafed,andaboveall,

influenced byDr. Spock and his new style of parenting. Those factors, alongwith the feelings of entitlement that postwar prosperity kindled, affected theentiregeneration,andthesubsetbornbetween1946and1955perhapsmostofall—and some of the Boom’s worst examples do seem to have been born inthose years, as we’ll see. Nevertheless, these were only influences, notinstructions. Some were negative and others were outright advantages. Andhowever odd their upbringings, the Boomers were always free to choose—astheyspentmanyyearsremindingthenation.

ManyBoomerschosepoorly,andthosecritics, likeNormanVincentPeale,whowarned that theBoomers’ novel upbringingswould lead to calamity, didnot have to wait long for proof. It arrived the moment the Boomers becameadults amid the turmoil of Vietnam. Unlike their parents, who faced a greatchallenge and left the world better for their participation, the Boomersconfrontedaminorconflictandfoundwaystomakeitsubstantiallyworse.TheproofofBoomersociopathybeginsthereandcontinuesfortherestofthebook.

CHAPTERTHREE

VIETNAMANDTHEEMERGINGBOOMERIDENTITY

Amongthecalamitiesofwar,maybejustlynumberedthediminutionoftheloveoftruth,bythefalsehoodswhichinterestdictates,andcredulityencourages.

—SamuelJohnson1

NosurveyoftheBoomerscanbecompletewithoutrevisitingtheVietnamWarand its upheavals, which defined early adulthood for all save the youngestBoomers.Thewarbegan as amodest foreign intrigue in theFifties,when theBoomerswerechildren,andescalatedintoagenuinewarfromthemid-Sixties,justasolderBoomerswerebecomingdrafteligible.Americawithdrewin1973andSouthVietnamcollapsedin1975,endingthewar.Americawasdesperatetomoveon,andPresidentJimmyCarterofferedawidepardontodraftavoidersinanattempttoclosethebook.Carter’sgambitfailedtoclearawaythestenchofstrategic failure and domestic strife, andVietnam still influences national life.BoomerWashingtonstillstrivestoavoid“anotherVietnam”evenasitembroilsitself in new quagmires. The politicians themselves cannot help but exhumeVietnam’s traumas.Anytimeamanborn in the1940sor1950s runs foroffice(Clinton, Kerry, McCain, Bush II, Bush-not-quite-III, Trump, etc.), the

electorate must endure another parade of yellow draft documents andmisinformation.GivenBoomer longevity,Vietnammay linger formanyyearsyet. Because of this, and the centrality of Vietnam to Boomer identity, it isimportant tounderstandVietnamforwhat itactuallywas, rather thanwhat theBoomerswouldhaveitbe.

TheBoomersarerightaboutonething:Vietnamwasremarkable,thoughinunusual ways. In the usual ways, Vietnamwas just a middling proxy war ofmiddling strategic importance, of less consequence, and prosecuted with lessmendacity and cruelty than otherwars that are either forgotten or provoke norealanxiety.TheSpanish-American,Mexican-American,andNativeAmericanwarswereasbadasorworsethanVietnam,rangingfromthefraudulenttotheborderlinegenocidal.Status:forgotten.TheCivilWar,anexistentialcrisiswithhorrificmoralandconstitutionaldimensions,generatesnomasshand-wringing;it’s even easy to drum up Confederate reenactors (try imagining Vietcongreenactors).WorldWarII,ofcourse,isgenerallyseenasa“goodwar,”despiteitsconsiderablemoralcompromises,rangingfromtheindiscriminatebombingofciviliancenterstothereductionofAmericancitizenstointernmentcamps.TheKoreanWar,whichwastheclosestanaloguetoVietnam(ColdWarproxyfightinAsia, indifferent conclusion, roughly similar fatality rates), lives on only inanodynererunsofM*A*S*H.EventheconflictsinIraqandAfghanistan,whichhave dragged on even longer thanVietnam and for purposes nomore certain,occasion nothing like the angst of America’s Indochinese adventure. Theselatterlyconflictslargelydisappearedfromthenewsevenastheygroundon;it’seasytoforgettheUnitedStatesremainsinvolved.WhythenallthestrifeaboutVietnam—wasitnot,bywar’sgrimstandards,nothingspecial?

The answer derives not from Vietnam’s strategic importance, which wasneveroverwhelming;rather,Vietnam’spoisonouslongevityarisesinsubstantialpartfromthewar’sentanglementwiththeotherdebatesinthe1960saboutcivilrights, economic justice, personal freedoms and,more than anything, Boomerhypocrisy.HindsightnowallowsmanyBoomerstorecallanantiwarpresciencetheyneveractuallypossessed,ofanunjustwarprosecutedbyoldmenovertheobjections of the young. A willful blindness about the mechanics of draftavoidance completes the whitewash, allowing many Boomers to characterizetheir escape from Vietnam as the mere exercise of an inconsequentialadministrative prerogative. Whether they see themselves as heroes or merelybystanders,theBoomersdonotconceiveofthemselvesastheauthorsofmanyof Vietnam’s misfortunes. The evidence shows something altogether less

convenient for the Boomers, and therein lie the engines of Vietnam’sdivisiveness. Vietnam triggers unease in America for the same reasons theEmpire remains an uneasy subject for Britons: The moral failures of eachstretchedwellbeyondthePentagonandWhitehall.

GuerrillasintheMistIt’sbeenoverfortyyearssincethelastAmericantroopsleftVietnam,andwhilethewarcontinuestomakeitselffeltaspartofthedarkmatteroftheAmericanpoliticaluniverse,detailshavegottenfuzzy.ForAmericanswhodidlivethroughthewar,includingalltheBoomers,timeerodesmanydetails.Othersfactshavemutatedorvanishedentirely(e.g.,theconfusionsurroundingthesincerityofB.Sanders’ application for conscientious objector status), lost to assiduousmythologizing like whitewashed draft histories (B. Clinton, D. Trump),misrepresentationsbypoliticalopportunists(theSwiftBoatadsthathelpedkillKerry’s presidential bid); plain weirdness (Trump’s statements about JohnMcCainbeingaloserforbeingcaptured);orinsomecases,asimplerefusaltodiscuss.2 For the rest, there are no memories to distort; over half of allAmericanswere born after the war and have no direct experience of it.3 TheAmerican history curriculum at public schools does little to inform theseyoungergenerations,andtheyknowaccordinglylittleabouttheconflict,thoughthisdoesn’tstopanyonefromhavingfeelingsaboutVietnam.*,4Soabriefrecapseemsinorder.

While the Vietnam War is a remarkable and important part of Americanhistory,fortheVietnameseitwasjustanotheriterationofatwo-millennia-longstruggle for independence (a history not dissimilar from those of Iraq orAfghanistan).Vietnamwasapalimpsestontowhichvariousempireswrotetheirown stories, all of which the Vietnamese struggled mightily to erase. TheChinesehadthe longest tenureanddesignatedVietnam“Annam,”or“pacifiedsouth.” The official name was more revealing—“The Protectorate General toPacify the South”; the present participle hints that even the most enduringhegemons had difficulty keeping hold of a region that wanted no foreignmasters.ThishistorydidnotdetertheFrench,whoarrivedasChinacollapsedinthenineteenthcentury,anymorethanitdissuadedtheAxisJapanesewhobootedtheFrench.WhenitwasAxisJapan’sturnfordefeat,theAmericansexpressedunderstandable misgivings about French reoccupation of Vietnam. But theFrench returned, flailed against the guerrillas for a time, and then evacuated,leavingbehindanationpartitionedbetweenacommunistjuntaintheNorthandanuglymilitarydictatorshipintheSouth,whoseonlyredeemingqualityforthe

Westwasitsnotionalcapitalism.Inadifferentera,Vietnamcouldhavebeen left to itsowndevices,but the

Cold War was raging through proxy fights the Communists seemed to bewinningintheFifties.CommunistshadestablishedcontrolofEasternEuropein1945,Chinain1949,andNorthKoreaby1953,andtheyweremakingadvancesinLatinAmerica.SouthVietnamlookedvulnerable,andPresidentEisenhowerworried that new victories would embolden other communist revolutionaries.Given events, the “domino theory” was not entirely ludicrous, nor were theatrocities of communism fictional or wholly unknown (though the youngBoomersoftenignoredthem).

However, Eisenhower had been elected to stop one proxy fight againstcommunismandhadlittlepersonalorpoliticalappetiteforanotherwar.Insteadof combat troops, Eisenhower dispatched a handful of advisers and specialoperativesinthe1950s.Hissuccessor,JohnF.Kennedy,amplifiedtheseefforts,but also refused formal combat. While the United States had a meaningfulpresenceinVietnam,ithadnotcommittedtofullwar,andtherewereevensigns(albeit highly inconclusive) that Kennedy considered abandoning Vietnamoutright.

The election of 1964, however, made a wider conflict inevitable, and thispoordecisioncanbeplacedalmostentirelyatthefeetofothergenerations.ButthewiderwarfinallydraggedBoomersintothemix,becausethetwocontestantsin1964agreed thata realwarwas in theoffing.SenatorBarryGoldwater, theRepublicanfromArizona,waspittedagainstJFK’ssuccessor,LyndonJohnson,andthetwoclasheddramaticallyoverdomesticpoliciesinwaysthatdefinedthefollowing decades; we’ll return to those issues in Chapter 6. However, bothcandidates agreedon a fullwar inVietnam.Goldwaterwas an anticommunisthawk, and his motivations were straightforward. Johnson was alsoanticommunist,andprovingitoverseaswashelpful tooffsetcriticismsthathissocialprogramsathomeveereduncomfortablytowardsocialism.Militarismwasnotexpected tobeoverlycostly,becausewhilepaddy-peasantsmightdefy thepusillanimousFrench,theywouldbecrushedbymightyAmerica.Thedifficultywasthat thewarwouldrequireAmericanbodies,andat the time, thosebodiesbelongedtotheBoomers.

Vietnam:TheUnremarkableWarNothing about the statistics suggested that Vietnam-qua-war would be thecatalystforthedramaticsocialstrugglesitultimatelyprovoked.Vietnamwasamoderatewar and somewhat collateral to coreAmerican interests.OnewouldneverknowthisfromtappingBoomermemories,butwhatthenumbersshowisamid-gradeproxywar,andit’shelpfultoreviewthemsoasnottobetrappedbythe idea that Vietnam was a struggle of world-historical importance to beresistedbywhatevermeansBoomersfoundconvenient.

Inbloodandmoney,Vietnamwasmodest forAmerica.Therewere58,307deadand303,644wounded,deathratesabouthalfthoseofWorldWarIandlessthanone-seventhofWorldWarII.*AmericanlossesweremuchclosertothoseexperiencedintheKoreanWar(36,000)andlowerthanthosebornebyFranceduring itsown twentieth-centuryconflict inSoutheastAsia (90,000 lostacrosstheFrenchEmpire).Thoughroughlyasdeadly,neithertheAmerica-KoreannorFrench-Vietnamese wars sparked major domestic upheavals. Vietnam wasn’teven particularly expensive. Measured as a fraction of annual GDP, combatoperationsinVietnamcost2.3percentatitspeak,substantiallylessthanKoreaatitsheight,somewhatmorethantheWaronTerror,andanorderofmagnitudelessthanWorldWarII.5

As for Vietnam’s supposedly unique length, it was long but not alwaysintense.Formostoftheperiod1955–1964,personnelnumberedinthehundredsandwerenotinvolvedinformalcombat.ManyAmericanswerenotevenawarethattheUnitedStateshadapresenceinVietnam,nordidtheycare,withalmosttwo-thirds of Americans saying as late as 1964 that they paid “little or noattention todevelopments inSouthVietnam.”6On theground,only fiveyearssaw elevated troop levels and the total number of person-years was notablylowerthanforothermajorconflicts.(TherecentwarsinIraqandAfghanistanonthis metric have been about as long a slog.) Vietnam dragged on, but itcommandedintenseattentionforonlyafewyears,onesthathappenedtooverlapwiththedraftoftheBoomers.

As for Vietnam’s reputation as a dirty, an immoral, and, above all, anunsuccessfulwar,itwasagain,byhistory’sdepressingstandards,unremarkable.Thejustificationswereneithernewnorentirelyunreasonable.TheKoreanWar

set a precedent for communist containment, and the domino theory wasn’tdivorcedfromreality.Ifanything,theargumenthadgottenstrongersinceKorea,givennewrepressionsintheEasternBloc.It’strueJohnson’sexcuseforthewar—a supposedly outrageous attack on anAmerican ship in theGulf ofTonkin(which led to the eponymous resolution authorizing force)—depended onflexibilitywiththetruth.PresidentJohnson’smendacityaboutTonkinemergedlater and, regrettably, represented no departure from the sorts of embroideryused to justify America’s often-dubious foreign policy. Indeed, it was nodifferentfromthesortsofdissimulationtheBoomersthemselvesusedfortheirownwars, as themost recentwar against Iraq showed.WhileVietnamwas afailure, that failure came after the domestic strife, and the loss was neitherunprecedentednorastrategiccatastrophe.Koreawasatbestahalfvictory,andwhatever the recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are or might be,“unqualified success” will not be the first term reached for. The easyexplanations aboutVietnamas a long, dirty, expensive, unprecedented failure,cannotthemselvesjustifyVietnam’sspecialplaceintheculture.

DodgingandItsDiscontents

Failuretoconformtosocialnormswithrespecttolawfulbehaviors…deceitfulness,asindicatedbyrepeatedlying,useof

aliasesorconningothersforpersonal[gain]…Deceitandmanipulationarecentralfeaturesofantisocialpersonality

disorder…—DSM-V7

IfVietnamwasamodestwar,deadlyandfraudulentbutnotespeciallysoinitsparticulars,whydiditprovesodivisive?Inaword,Boomers.Asagroup,theBoomersmanaged to be simultaneously for thewar and against serving in it.Their responses to Vietnam were confused, hypocritical, exploitative, andillegal,afarcryfromtheunstainedmoralcrusadeproducedbythelaundromatofBoomernostalgia.

Ofallthewar’sproblems,themechanicsofthedraftanditsevasionprovedthemostdivisive,andthemostilluminatingoftheBoomers’actualintentions—itwasnow that sociopathy reallyemerged.Whetherornot they liked it (mostdid not), the male half of the Boomers had to engage with Vietnam uponadulthood,becauseSelectiveService,aka thedraft, requiredmen to registeratage18,thoughtheywouldnotbeeligibleforinductionuntil18½,withprimaryeligibilitylastinguntilage26.8Sothetrick,forthosedisinclinedtoservice,wasto outlast the draft window. However, while the draft supplied substantialmanpower, the Vietnam force was not quite what people have (re)imagined.Only amodest fraction of forceswas drafted, not all of these draftedwent toVietnam,andonceinthewar,thelikelihoodoffatalitywassignificantlylowerthan it had been for prior conflicts—which is not to say that the war wasn’tterrifying,onlythatitwasn’ttheall-consumingmonsteroffatalconscriptionofsomeimaginations.

NotQuiteaDraftArmy

What’sgoingonhere?There is some confusion about the degree of conscriptionduringVietnam—thedraftwasmoreimportantsociallythanstatistically—andnotallmilitarypersonnelservedinVietnam,andnotallofthoseinVietnamservedincombat.ThePentagondidsendaconsequentialnumberofBoomersto

Vietnamagainsttheirwill;justnotasmanyascommonlyimagined.9

Whatever the percentages,many simply did notwant to serve and optionswere at hand: deferments and exemptions. At the beginning of the 1960s,studentsincollegeortechnicalschoolcouldavoidbeingdraftedforaslongasthey remainedenrolled.Otherswere rejected forobvious reasons likephysicalunfitness and moral turpitude. (From a brief time, marriage also provided adeferment.)Thedraftwasmodified in1967,raising themaximumdraftage tothirty-fiveandcurtailingstudentdefermentstothecompletionofabaccalaureateprogramorastudent’stwenty-fourthbirthday,whichevercamefirst.10Tellingly,theBoomers’reactionstotheVietnamWartendedtotrackboththeintensityofthe war and the mechanics of the draft itself. It’s not that creaky moraljustificationsfor thewarsomehowgotworse, it’s that thewar,specifically thedraft,gotworsefortheBoomers.

Today,popularmemorypresentsVietnamasastoryofawaropposedbytheyoung,but that is convenient rebranding.Youngpeople today tend toward the

pacific. During the 1960s youthful Americans (i.e., Boomers) were the mostmilitant cohort. Contemporary surveys routinely showed younger groups(generally under thirty) as the most supportive of the Vietnam War and ofaggressivestrategiesforprosecutingit.Theseprowarattitudesprovedstubborn,sodespiteaccumulatingnewsreportsofreversalsandabusesfrom1966onward,young people remained throughout thewar the group least likely to view theengagementasanerror.

Vietnam—TheChangingFaceofDeferrals

What’s going onhere? As theVietnamwar intensified, some deferrals became harder to get, and thiscontributedtotherisingangstofthelate1960s.AscollegedeferralsbecamelessroutineandthechancesofmainstreamBoomersservinginVietnamincreased,protestsbecamemoreintenseeventhoughthemoralityof the war remained fairly constant. Note also that the number of conscientious objectors was never

material.11

From1965to1971,thewar’speakyears,pollersatGallupaskedAmericansthesamequestion:“InviewofthedevelopmentssinceweenteredthefightinginVietnam, do you think the US made a mistake in sending troops to fight inVietnam?”12 It wasn’t until the second half of 1968 (we’ll see why) that amajorityofyoungAmericanscametoviewVietnamasamistakeand,mistakeornot,youthhadbeenstrongersupportersofescalationthantheirelders.13OlderAmericansfavoredlessaggressivestrategies,uptoandincludingabandonment

of the Vietnam project. As late as 1965–1966, younger groups were morehawkish, and college-educated young men aged eighteen to twenty-four“tend[ed] to support the President’s Vietnam policies more strongly than anyother demographic group in the population” (the president’s policies, at thattime,beingescalation).14Evenbythewar’send,whenmajorities inallgroupsharbored reservations, many young people remained aggressive, though thetenor of their opinions did evolve dramatically from mid-1968 to 1969.15Decadeslater,almost70percentofAmericansviewVietnamasamistake,butwhatmatters for us iswhat people thought at the time,without the benefit ofhindsight.16Therefore,therealitywastheinverseofthefable,ayouthhungrierfor war than many older Americans. By no means were most draft dodgershypocrites judged on their war attitudes, sincemany did oppose thewar. Butmanywere—andalmostalldodging,regardlessofideologicalconsistency,hadsociopathicovertones,aswewillsee.

The other revealing surprise is the support the war enjoyed, during itsinception, among the educated. A glance at the photographic record of theantiwarmovementshowsaseaofwhitecollegestudents,soit’seasytogettheimpression that the educated elite was against the war en masse, especiallybecause more educated groups today trend against military interventions. Butuntilearly1968,bettereducatedgroupsskewedinfavorof thewar,while lesseducatedandlessaffluentgroupsskewedagainstthewar,notleastbecausethedisadvantagedhadthehighestchanceofbeingdrafted.17Thereasontherearesomanyoldphotosof collegeprotestors is becausedeferments allowed somanyBoomerstobeincollegetoprotestratherthaninVietnamtofight(or,insomecases, to simply and quietly pursue their studies). Only around 1968 dideducational opinion gaps wither, not coincidentally as college defermentsbecamesomewhathardertoobtain.

Accountingfor thesedemographicsurprises, theunexpectedbelligerenceoftheyoungandtheeducated,andtheircrucialtransformationsfrom1967to1969,are two factors: the progress of the war and themechanics of the draft. In asignificant sense, the war really began not in the 1950s, when the first smallgroupsofadvisersarrivedinVietnam,butinMarch1965,whenthefirstcombattroopsarrivedtofightthegroundwar.Atthebeginning,thewarwasexpectedtobeeasy.GeneralWilliamWestmoreland’sthree-pointplanforvictoryscheduledtriumphwithin two years of initial deployments.*,18 For a time, theAmericanpeoplepatientlyawaitedsuccess,butevenastrooplevelsroseagainandagain,Westmoreland’seasywinslippedfurtheraway.

The turning point came in early 1968.Westmoreland once again predictedimminentvictory,butevenashewasdoingsotheVietcong(SouthVietnamesecommunist insurgents) and the North Vietnamese were preparing a majoroffensive to coincidewith Tet, theVietnameseNewYear. The TetOffensiveshockedtheAmericanpublic,notbecauseitsucceededinthefield—itdidnot—but because the enemy was supposed to have been so depleted as to makeanything likeTet impossible.Clearly, therewas somedivergence between theAmerican command’s sunny reports and the reality on the ground. Americanpublicopinionquickly reversed fromstrongnet supportof thewar toanevensplit. It would deteriorate from there, and mainstream media, includingNewsweek, theWall Street Journal, and critically, influential CBS anchormanWalter Cronkite, began to worry publicly that the war was unwinnable.However,evenaftertheTetOffensive,amajorityofyoungpeoplestilldidnotviewthewarasamistakeandcontinuedtofavorbelligerentpolicies.

Whatwouldcauseyoungpeople,potentialdraftees,tosupportawarinwhichtheypresumablyhadthemost,personally,tolose?Onecompellingexplanationisthattheyoungandbettereducated,whoweremostinfavorofthewar,hadnorealistic expectation that they would be forced to serve. This freed them tosupport awarmostBoomers expected to be of limited personal consequence.First,onlyafractionofforcesweredrafted;thesubstantialmajorityvolunteered,though thedraftdidpersuade some to signupvoluntarily if only to select theservice theypreferred,and the totalnumberofvolunteerswasfarsmaller thanthetotalnumberofdeferments.19Formany,educationaldefermentsprovidedasenseofsafety.Deferments,createdin1951,favoredcollegestudentsandthosewho scoredwell on aptitude tests, aswell as those forwhomwarwouldbe a“hardship” due to family or other circumstances. Until the draft picked up in1965,defermentseffectivelyoperatedaspermanentexemptionsfromservice.20Defermentswerenotsomeodd loophole, theywereexplicit socialengineeringdesigned to “channel”brighter students intouseful occupations.21Over fifteenmillion Boomers in a position to do so eagerly collaborated, using variousdefermentoptions.*,22

As the war intensified, so did the draft, and use and exploitation of thedeferment system, and controversy over the war. By early 1966, two millionmenhadsecuredcollegedeferments.Thenumberofstudentstakingthe(biased)SelectiveServiceQualificationTest, successonwhichcouldeither confirmorimperildeferment, rosefrom2,145 in1963 to767,935 in1966.*,23Obviously,many students wanted to go to college whatever the situation overseas.

However,agreatmanyothers simplywished toavoidVietnam.Thisbecomesevidentwhenlookingattheratesofcollegeenrollmentbeforeandafterthedraft—enrollmentsspikedduringthedraft’sheightandtailedoffasthedraftandwarwounddown,especiallyforhigher-statuswhitemenwithbaddraftnumbers.24Even enrollment in seminaries, another source of deferral, followed the samepattern.25Enrollmentswentbeyondcoincidence.Statisticalanalysisshowsthatavoiding the draft was a significant causal factor in the migration of youngpeopleintoeducationduringthepeakdraftyears.26

All else being roughly equal, the inescapable (statistically corroborated)conclusion is thatmanyBoomersgamed thesystemtogetoutof thewar,andtheyhadplentyofguidance fromawholecottage industrychurningout itemslike the popularHandbook for Conscientious Objectors, which went throughmultipleeditions.AlsoonhandwasnoneotherthanDr.Spock,theauthoroftheguidethathaddonesomuchtoinfluenceBoomerchildrearing,whocounseledhisgenerationalchargestoresistthedraftinthehopethat“100,000,200,000oreven500,000youngAmericans [would] either refuse to bedraftedor to obeyordersifinmilitaryservices.”Spockalsoencouragedresistancethroughrefusaltopaytaxes,whichbecameaBoomerthemeinotherwaysandcontexts.27

Playing the system became an art, effected by means whose baroquecomplexitymakescleartheintentofitspractitioners.Theformwasperfectedbyone William Jefferson Clinton, who established an early pattern ofhypertechnicalcomplianceandregulatorymanipulation,garnishedasnecessaryby occasional dishonesty. Like millions of Boomers, Clinton received adeferment during college and secured an additional deferment for graduateschool,aswascustomaryandlegal.However,aftergraduateschooldefermentswere eliminated in 1968, Clinton became eligible and received an inductionnoticein1969.Facingthisinconvenience,ClintonsignedanagreementwiththeReserve Officer Training Corp (ROTC), which lowered his chances of beingimmediately inducted, though it did require him to commit to a period ofmilitary service at a later date (perhaps after thewar had ended, as it shortlywould). The rules changed again when Nixon allowed graduate students topostpone induction until their current school yearwas complete. Clinton tookadvantageofthisdevelopment,breakinghisagreementwithROTC(whichhada100 percent chance of requiring service) presumably in the hope—ultimatelysuccessful—thatadraftlotterywouldbeintroduced,whichwouldbydefinitionhavebetteroddsthanROTC’ssurething.Asusual,Clinton’stimingwasapt:Itwaswellunderstoodthatadraftlotterywascoming,andevenifClintondrewa

low number (which meant a high chance of being drafted), Nixon had beenelected theprioryear tobringanend to thewar,whichmightmoot theentirequestion.The essential thingwas to continuedraggingout theprocess, just asthe Boomers are now doingwith Social Security and other programs.* In theend,Clinton’sgamblesucceeded;hegotagooddraftnumber,andtrooplevelspeaked in1969, reducingdraftpressures thereafter.TheneteffectofClinton’sseveralyearsofmaneuveringmeant thathewasable tositout thewar.28 (Co-BoomerDickCheney,meanwhile, rackedup fivedefermentsofhisown—andwhilethenumberisstartling,hisdefermentsweremorestraightforward.29)

The lottery worked for Clinton, but its introduction was not met withenthusiasmbyyoungerstudents.WhenClintonplayed the lottery,hewaswelloutofcollegeandhadexhaustedallotheroptions(other,thatis,thanserving);thelotteryhadbecomehisbestoptionforavoidingthewar.Forstudentsstillofcollegeageandabletoattend,theinnovationofthelotterywasmuchworsethanthe statusquoofguaranteeddeferral.A1966 surveyconductedatHarvardbytheUndergraduateCouncilshowed70percentofstudents infavorofretainingthe existing system of college deferments over a “more equitable” lotterysystem.30Charitably interpreted, thismeant students believed thatmaintaininguninterruptedstudywasabettermeansofsocialorganizationthanspreadingtheburden of the war. More realistically, it meant that they wanted to savethemselvesevenifitmeantperpetuatinganunfairsystemthatexploitedgroupsintheworstpositiontodefendthemselves.

Andthedefermentsystemwasexploitative.Whetheronewasfororagainstthewar,whetherdefermentwasorwasnot ideologicallyconsistent,defermentbymiddle-class Boomers simply shifted costs to less-advantaged groups. Themilitary requisitioned a fixed number of people every year, so each studentprotectedbyacollegedefermenthadtobereplacedbysomeoneelse—andthatsomeone tended to be poorer and less educated.The ranks reflected this.Oneroughestimateof enlisteddemographicsput composition at “about25percentpoor,55percentworkingclass,and20percentmiddleclass,withastatisticallynegligiblenumberofwealthy”andotheranalysesshowedthatthelikelihoodofservice,especiallycombatservice,wassubstantiallylowerformiddle-andhigh-income groups.31 In otherwords, the bottom third or so provided about four-fifths of the manpower. Senator John McCain, who otherwise holds a fairlyuntroubledviewofVietnam, thought thiswas thewar’s true injustice: “Thosewho were better off economically did not carry out their obligations, so weforcedtheHispanic,theghettoblack,andtheAppalachianwhitetofightanddie.

ThattomewasthegreatestcrimeandinjusticeoftheVietnamWar.”32WhenarevanchistRepublican,onewhoadornedhishawkishpresidentialcampaignwithawingnutgovernorofadistantprovince,providesvoiceforthe“ghettoblack,”youknowsomethingmorallytroublingwentdown.

Withdeferments,itcouldnothavebeenotherwise.Eventhoughcollegewascheaper in the1960s, itwasnotentirely free,and it requiredstudents to forgoyearsoffullincomewhiletheystudied.Studentswhodeferredhadatleastsomemeans, and richer students were better prepared for college in the first place.Therefore,thedefermentsystemalmostautomaticallyfavoredpeoplehigheronthesocioeconomic ladder (threeofwhomwouldbepresident).At leastamongtheBoom’smoremiddle-classmembers, the first signsof sociopathybegin toappear—self-serviceatthecostofothers(thepoor,minorities),acasualattitudetoward the law (e.g., Clinton’s representative manipulations), and actionscontrarytosocialnorms(e.g.,failuretoheedthenation’scall,breakingthelaw).Thedeepcompromisesentailedinavoidingthewarhelpexplainthegeneralfuryoverdraftdodgingthatpersists.Oddly,fewcareifapoliticianvolunteeredfor,or otherwise supported, awar that everyone now hates—it’s thedodging thatrankles.Peoplerightlysensesomethingunsavoryoccurred.

Although college deferments were legal—channeling better/advantagedstudentsintoschoolbeinganexplicitgovernmentaim—theBoomersabusedthesystemgenerally.Somestudentsfakedaninterestincollege,wastingresourcesbetter spenton thosewhoactuallywanted the education.Othersmanufacturedevidence to secureother sorts of defermentswhen college couldn’t supply thenecessary shelter. Thosewith access to sympathetic physicians, psychologists,andotherprofessionals(i.e.,moniedBoomers)couldanddidpresentthemselvesasunfitforservice,evenwhentheywerenot.Enterprisingcandidatescouldalsoproduce unfitness in themselves—James Fallows, who achieved fame as ajournalistinlateryears,reportedlystarvedhimselfdowntoadisqualifying120pounds.Heeventuallyconfessed to lingeringguilt foravoiding thedraftwhilethelessinformedweremusteredin.33

Themost infamoustacticwasoutrightdodging,whichinvolvedleavingthecountry.Dodgingwasn’ttheactofpennilessrebels,becauseitoftenrequiredapassport (which onlywealthierAmericans tended to have), funds for passage,andmoneytoliveincountriesthatdisbarredfromgainfulemploymentBoomerson the lam. Outright dodging was both completely illegal and morallyproblematic. It was also expensive and inconvenient, and so the numbersavailing themselvesof a refreshing,well-timed jaunt toStockholmwerenever

particularlylarge.Therewas an honorableway to avoid thewar, and thatwas conscientious

objection,aforthrightrefusaltoserveonmoralorreligiousgrounds,undertakenlegally through theSelectiveService system.Even thisnoble solutionwasnotwithout its inequities, as securing status as a conscientiousobjector (or “CO”)requiredbothknowledgeoftheCOexemptionandtherhetoricalskillsnecessarytopersuadeadraftboardthatone’sobjectionsweresincereanddivorcedfrommerepersonalself-interest,astrategyallbuttailoredforusebyelitesandnotthegeneralpopulation.Still, for thosewithsincereantiwarconvictions,COwouldseemthemostobviousandappealingroutetodeprivingthewarofbodies.*Forsociopaths, however, CO was among the least desirable options, because itrequiredsincerity,effort tosecure thedeferment,andsomeformofalternativeservice,usuallylow-paidandincommodious.Itisnosurprise,then,thatCOwasneverwidelyused;farfewerappliedforCOthanforcollegedeferment.About175,000wereaccepted(theSelectiveServicewasnotoverlyforthcomingaboutCO applications, but there were probably a few hundred thousand during theentire war, and those already in the military had their applications grantedfrequently—about63to77percentwereapprovedinthewar’slastyears).34

All conventional draft avoidance tactics required money and a certainknowledge and savviness about the system simply not available to lessadvantaged groups. The net effect was that college deferments became anexercise of class privilege, and, given the overrepresentation of minoritiesamong the poor, of racial discrimination. It was not unlike the hiring ofsubstitutes during the Civil War, during which a draftee could simply payanother person to take his place, butwith the government itselfmanaging thetransaction in the caseof theVietnamdraft.At leastduring theCivilWar thesubstitutegotacashbountyfromhissponsoringcivilian—itwas, inasense,acleanertransaction.

As usual, the options for those lower on the ladderwereworse and if thedilemmas of the disadvantaged demand sympathy, some of their solutions donot.ForthosewithoutcollegedefermentsorthemeansandeducationtoexploitalternativeslikeCO,onlytwostrategiesremained.Ifcalled,thefirstoptionwasto serve, which most did. The second was to take advantage of a “moraldisqualification,” a status routinely provided to those in prison, on parole, orawaitingtrial.Indeed,evenifapersonwerepresentlyfree,acriminalrecordofany kind was perceived to exempt its holder from service. So while manyprivilegedstudentswenttocollege,someoftheirpoorercounterpartsturnedto

crime. Several studies confirm the relationship between a rise in crime in the1960s and the draft, with avoidance as a causal explanation.35 This wasparticularly the case for blacks and people of lower socioeconomic status, butnot the case for wealthier whites (probably not because they were inherentlymore law-abiding, just that theyhadbetteroptions).36While a lackofoptionsmitigates the offense, the simple fact is that using crime to avoid the draft is,obviously,criminal;indeed,doublyso.(Onepaperpertinentlydescribesdodgingdownas“antisocial.”37)Worse,crimeshadtobereasonablysignificanttoreallycarryweightwithdraftboards,and thatmeant inflictingsomesortofharmoninnocentvictims,anotherinstanceofsociopathy.Theperpetratorsboretheirowncosts, as criminal records permanently reduce economic and social prospects,helpingperpetuateanurbanunderclass.

Aside from creating lawlessness at home, draft avoidance caused seriousproblems in the military. Many less-privileged recruits were not qualified toserve,havingfailedeitherthephysicalormentalaptitudetests,usuallythelatter.Asitbecamehardertosatisfyrecruitingdemandsbecauseofthelargenumberofstudents protected by deferment, the military simply admitted unqualifiedcandidates, who predictably did not thrive in Vietnam. The four hundredthousand troops admitted under relaxed standards suffered twice the averagedeath rate. There is, therefore, a causal connection between excess battlefielddeathsandtheabuseofthedefermentsystem,althoughoneintermediatedbyanimplacableDefenseDepartment.

These substandard troops also tended to be—not for reasons of inherentaptitude,butasafunctionininequitableeducationstateside—disproportionatelyblack.Afterthemilitarywaiveditsstandards,thefirstmajorpoolofsubstandardrecruitswas41percentblack.38Thiswasjustanotherpermutationoftheracialskewinthemilitary,whereminoritiessuffereddisproportionaterisks.At12–13percent, the black fraction of the total military was roughly in line with thepopulation, but blacks represented about a quarter of the fighting army inVietnam and sometimes more, compensating for a white recruitment pooldrained away into deferments, the officer and administrative elites, NationalGuardassignments(thestrategyofGeorgeW.Bush),andothercombat-avoidingstrategies.39

DrunkandDisorderly:BoomersinUniform

Individualswithantisocialpersonalitydisorder…may[have]apatternofrepeatedabsencesfromwork…

Theseindividualsmayreceivedishonorabledischargesfromthearmedservices…

Theymayhaveassociated…substanceabusedisorders…Theymayrepeatedlyperformactsthataregrounds

forarrest…suchasdestroyingproperty…Theseindividualsalsodisplayarecklessdisregard

forthesafetyofthemselvesorothers.—DSM-V40

Onceshovedintouniform,Boomerbehaviordeterioratedfurther.TheforcedeployedinVietnamwasperhapstheworstfieldedinthemodernera,plaguedby indiscipline, drug abuse, insubordination, desertion, and war crimes, withoccasionalhelpingsofoutrighttreasonandmurder.Draftarmiestendtobelessorderlythanvolunteerforces,buttheBoomer-heavyforceoperatinginVietnamwasvastlyworsethanthedraftarmiesthatfoughtinKoreaortheWorldWars,inpredictablysociopathicways.Andgivenhowwidespreadmisconductwas—thepercentageusingdrugswas almost certainly higher than the percentageofthosedrafted,forexample—misconductafflictedbothdrafteesandvolunteers.

ProblemsinVietnambecamesoseverethatColonelRobertHeinl,aseasonedmarine,lamentedthemina1971articlefortheArmedForcesJournal,andhisconclusions have been generally confirmed by other scholarly work.41 Heinldescribedanarmywhoseorderingprinciple,thatofcommand,wasvanishing.InVietnam,soldiersroutinelyrefusedorders,oftendramatically,aswhenthe196thLight Infantry Brigade “publicly sat down on the battlefield” like a group ofdyspepticschoolchildren.42Toavoidtherisksofcombat,otherunitsengagedin“search and evade” (instead of “search and destroy”)missions. The VietcongordereditsownunitsnottoengageAmericanswhodidnotengagethem,happytoexploitenemyindiscipline.Searchandevademighthaveworkedfortheunitsdoing the evading, but not for anyone else. When the enemy couldn’t beavoided, another “combat refusal” entailed deliberatelymissingwhen firing at

the enemy. In this case, however, the enemy was free to fire back unless itsomehowdivineditsopponents’pacific intentionsthroughthejunglechaos;ofcourse, fuzzy symbolism and wishful thinking always trumped reason in theBoomer calculus. For rational people, it’s hard to see how these “combatrefusals”didanythingbutincreasetherisksforothersoldiers.

Ifinsubordinationfailedtocommunicatethedispleasureoftherank-and-filewithitsorders,therewasalwaysthesimpleexpedientofkillingthosedoingtheordering. These murders were called “fraggings,” after the fragmentationgrenadeswhoseexplosionsmadethemdifficulttotrace,andthustheassassin’schoice.TheDepartmentofDefense recorded96 fraggings in1969and209 in1970; in total, Vietnam witnessed at least 551 fragging incidents causing 86deaths andover 700 injuries.43 There are no tallies for the number of officersassassinatedbyothermeansmorewidelyavailable,likegunsandknives,whichdoubtless added to the total. A few troops even put bounties on unpopularcommanders, at least one of which was advertised in an underground GInewspaper. Nothing like this had happened before and nothing like it hashappened since.During the lengthy recentoperations in Iraq andAfghanistan,whichfeaturenoBoomercombattroops,therehavebeenalmostnofraggingsorotherattemptedassassinations.

The litany of indiscipline continued. Sabotage became a problem, rangingfromthedynamitingofatelephonefacilityto,intheNavy’scasealone,“almost500casesofarson,sabotage,orwrongfuldestructiononitsships.”44Druguseinfiltratedmilitary culture.While estimates vary, heroin affectedmany troops(from 4 percent to 22 percent) and use of marijuana may have exceeded 50percent (bothhaving significantly increased from1967 to1970), drinkingwasheavy,andsoldiersroutinelyturnedupfordutyarmedandintoxicated.45Drugdischargesrampedupthroughoutthewaruntilthemilitarymoreorlessgaveupontheproblemandthewar.WinstonChurchillusedtocomplainthattheBritishnavywasall rum,sodomy,and the lash; theBoomerarmywas rumandhash,andas for sodomy,andwhathappened in theunderageandnotoriously slave-likebordellosonshoreleave,isbestleftunimagined.

Desertionsalsoranrampant,withmorethan507,000instancesbetween1964and1973,committedbyabout440,000individuals.46Becausethedefinitionof“desertion” tightenedupduring theKoreanWar, it ishard todirectlycomparetheexperiencesoftheVietnamWarwithearlierconflictsusingdraftedsoldiers.ButreasonableestimatesplaceVietnamdesertionratesatmorethantwicethoseofKoreaandhigherthaninWorldWarII(withtheexceptionafewmonthsin

1945).Totaldesertions toppedKorea,andevenWorldWarII,which involvedvastlylargerarmies.EveninVietnam,desertionhadnotbeenaproblemaslateas1966,beforeBoomerdrafteesarrivedinquantity.IntheArmy,thedesertionratemorethantripled,from14.7perthousandin1966to52.3perthousand,in1970.47 This period coincided with the declining availability of deferments,leaving legionsofentitledandresentfulstudentsstuck in the jungle.Desertionrates in Vietnam remain the highest and most sustained experienced byAmericanforcesanytimesincetheCivilWar.

In this catalogue of dysfunction, some of the worst examples (besides themurderofAmericanofficersbytheirsubordinates)werethecrimesperpetratedagainst the Vietnamese. The most significant of these were the bombings ofciviliansorchestratedfromWashingtonandtheillegalcampaignswagedinLaosandCambodia,whichcollectivelyaccountedformostunnecessarydeaths.Othergenerationsbear responsibility for thosedisasters.TheBoomersget theblameforlocal,freelancedisasters.Soldierssometimesranwild,committingatrocitiesin the paddies and villages, including the infamous incident at My Lai.Unfortunately, in thisone respect, theVietnamWarwasundistinguished fromearlier conflicts,which featured their own crimes. Fortunately, the lastwar tofeatureBoomertroopswasalsothelasttofeaturewidespreadanddeadlyabusescommitted at the troops’ own initiative.Recentwars have featured occasionaloutrageslikeAbuGhraib,butnothingatthescaleofMyLaior,atleast,nothingnotorderedbyseniorofficials(manyofthemBoomers).

TheLegacy:AllHarm,NoFoul

Theygenerallyfailtocompensateormakeamendsfortheirbehavior.—DSM-V

The scope of misconduct during Vietnam rules out the few-bad-appletheories; the conduct was systemic, and given the nature of the draft and thecompositionofthoseinvolved,itwasalsogenerational.However,it’simportanttonotethattheconsequencesweresocial,notstrategic.Thewarwasalostcausefromthebeginning,asHoChiMinhmadecleartotheFrenchin1946,sayingtothemthat“youcankilltenofmymenforeveryoneIkillofyours…butevenatthoseoddsyouwill loseand Iwillwin.”48As theFrenchweredispatched, soweretheAmericans;thereweretoomanyVietnameseguerrillasandnotenoughreasonstobeinVietnam.America’ssetbackwasnottheBoomers’fault—andaswe will see, neither was the peace the Boomers’ victory, since their protestsshriveledalongwiththedangerofbeingdrafted.

Whatishardtodoubtisthatmanyofthestrategiesforavoidingthedraftandthe indiscipline of troops once inVietnammade a badwar thatmuchworse.Oldercivilianandmilitarycommandersbearenormousblameforpresidingovera bad war and running a discriminatory draft; the Boomers must shoulderresponsibility for reacting badly to an admittedly bad situation. Defermentscouldbe legallyexploited,but the fact thata systempermitsexploitationdoesnot mean a person must engage in it. No one forced Boomers to opt for adefermentoverCOstatus,anymorethancorporationstodayareforcedintotaxinversions to avoid paying their fair share; both are legal, neither isuncompromised.Worsestill,ofcourse,wasmanufacturingmedicalexemptions,which was fraud, and securing moral disqualification by victimizing others,which was crime. Indiscipline made the war more lethal for everyone, andfraggingswereoutrighttreason.

The various strategies of subversion are often sanitized as a noble moralprotest,butithasbeenthecasesinceSocrates(oneofthedistastefulwhitemalesthenbeingexcisedfromthecanon)thatcitizensdonothavetherighttoignorelaws because they disagree with a policy.49 Lawlessness is lawlessness, and

inherently antisocial; it can be justified only in extreme cases where noreasonable alternatives exist. (COwas one such alternative.) Anything else issocietyàlacarte—anarchy,really.

Protests were one thing; such speech is a right and often a responsibility.Draft avoidance and insubordination were something else.Were they at leasteffective?ThathippiesmustbeforcedtoreachtowardtheirMachiavellisaysalot itself,butdidtheendsat least justifythemeans?Notreally, iffornootherreasonthanthattheyweretoolittle,toolate.Ho’smeat-grindertacticsrenderedirrelevantallotherdetails.AllthatmatteredwaswhentheAmericanpeoplegotHo’s message, which they did. As a practical matter, the election of 1968committed theUnitedStates toanexitand thewardulypeaked inearly1969,beforethemostintensedodgingandmilitarydysfunction.

As for crafting some redeeming moral narrative around draft avoidance,doingsowouldrequirelocatingmotiveswheresubvertingthewareffortwasatleastasimportantassavingthedodger’sownskin.Itwouldhavebeenhardforserious people to believe that dodging was an effective means of subversion,because at no point did dodging deprive the war of bodies generally, just ofspecificbodies,tobereplacedbypoorer,lessqualifiedsubstitutes.Andthemostintense period of draft avoidance occurred after the United States beganwithdrawal,bluntingitsalreadysmalleffect.

Vietnam histories tend to end around January 1973, when the Paris PeaceAccordsweresigned,which isamistake,becausewhatcamenextshedsextralight onwhat really happenedbefore.After ’73,America cut and ran, leavingbehindchaos thatnomajordomesticgroupdemanded thenation address. Thefirst victims ofAmerica’s collective handwashingwere, of course, the SouthVietnamese.NooneseriouslyexpectedSouthVietnam—anally,remember—tosurvive on its own, and onApril 30, 1975, Saigon fell. ThoughVietnamwasnowgeographicallywhole, ithadbeendevastatedbywar,withseveralmilliondeadandwounded,thecountrysideravagedbyAmericanbombsanddefoliants,and the economy in shambles—and the North eager to settle scores withAmerica’scollaboratorsintheSouth.

What about the protest movement, which had previously effected suchsympathy for the Vietnamese? After all, protestors at the 1968 DemocraticNationalConventionhadwavedNorthVietnameseflags insupportofsocialistcomrades,withsomeprotestorsofferingtotakeupcommunistarms(unlikely),andalternativenewspapersseethedagainsttheinjusticesbeingdonetoVietnam.Bytheend,therewasnodoubtAmericahadhelpedtocreateatremendousmess,

so given all the moral outrage and the expressions of solidarity, a sustainedmovement for reconciliation and rebuilding would have been only natural. Itneverreallycame,nordidtheonce-activistBoomersdustofftheirprotestgearandagitateforsuch.TheclosestthingVietnamgottoconciliationcamefromtheNixon White House, not the Haight-Ashbury, and those negotiations stalledbeforebeingrenderedmootbythewarbetweenVietnamandCambodia.

ThepointisnottoblametheBoomersforthefailuretomakeamends—oldergenerations bear responsibility—but to use Boomer passivity after the war toilluminatethegeneration’struemotivationsduringtheprotestera.*Asthethreatof the draft abated, so did the Boomers’ furious energy. It wasn’t that theinjusticeinVietnamhadended,itwasthattheperilvisitedontheBoomershad.Perhapsithadbeenaboutsavingone’sskinallalong.†

Later,Americans,includingtheBoomers,resentedeventhesmallesttokensof repentance.When the government eventually accepted about half amillionVietnamese refugees fleeing reprisals, it did so over public objection.A 1975Galluppollfound52percentofAmericansagainstVietnameseimmigrationwithonly36percentinfavor;roughlythesameheldtruein1979.50JerryBrown,thegovernor of California and icon of the youthful Left, protested attempts atresettlementanddemanded thatanybillallowing itgivepriority toAmericansseekingjobs(as,apparently,didJoeBiden).Thebiggestgroupofthoseseekingjobsinthe1970swere,ofcourse,theBoomers.Boomerfirst,ofcourse,hasalsobeenahallmarkofthewarsrunbytheBoomersthemselves,wheretheycannotevenbebotheredtospendatinyamountofpoliticalcapitaltoretrievemilitaryalliesliketranslatorsfromprobableassassinationinIraqandAfghanistan.51

Vietnam had one final lesson for theBoomers: They could get awaywiththeir misdeeds. Prosecutors had brought some high-profile cases against draftdodgersduringthewar,thoughfewwereconvictedandsentenced.ButeventhehintofdisapprobationwasunacceptabletoBoomersaccustomedtounqualifiedpraise.Almostimmediatelyafterthewarended,andwithBoomervotingpoweron the rise, dodgers were duly forgiven. President Gerald Ford wantedforgiveness to be conditioned on community service, whichwas toomuch toask.52 Carter one-upped Ford during the 1977 campaign, proposingcomprehensive amnesty to all civilians who had violated the draft rules (i.e.,those who had dodged successfully)—a direct sop to the Boomers. In 1977,CarterfulfilledhiscampaignpromisebyissuingExecutiveOrder11967granting(withverylimitedexceptions)ageneralpardon.Thiswasadramaticinstanceofthe rising political power of the Boomers and a certain sociopathy—it was a

pardon tailor-made for them,andofcourse, apardon impliesacrime.Despitetheotherchallengesof the1970s,Carterfoundthe issue(and itsconstituency)sufficientlyimportantthathemadethepardonhisfirstofficialact.

Pardonsnecessarily favored thosewhohad“dodgedup,”who tended tobewhiteandmiddle-class.Peoplewhohad“dodgeddown”bycommittingcrimescontinuedtopaytheprice.WiththemainstreamBoomersintheclear,questionsabout lingering domestic injustice, like questions of foreign reparations,evaporated.Asforthosewhohadservedoverseas,therewasnowarmwelcome.Someweregreetedbyprotests,andallfacedadysfunctionalveterans’benefitssystemthat,havingsucceededafterWorldWarII,slowlystarvedastheBoomermachineprioritizedotherprograms.But for thevastmajorityofBoomerswhostayedhome,theVietnameraconcludedin1977.Theyhadgottencleanlyaway.Thelessonsofconsequence-freesociopathywouldnotbeforgotten.

CHAPTERFOUR

EMPIREOFSELF

Individualswithantisocialpersonalitydisorderandhistrionicpersonalitydisordershareatendencytobeimpulsive,superficial,excitementseeking,reckless,seductive.…

—DSM-V1

IfyoucanrememberanythingabouttheSixties,youweren’treallythere.

—attributedvariously

Despiterisingprosperityandexpandingcivilrights,theBoomersfoundmuchtodislikeabouttheAmericatheyinherited,fromVietnamtotherestrictivesetofculturalandsocialassumptionsheldbyearliergenerations.Theydulyattacked,using as theirweapon the aptly named counterculture,whichwas above all adoctrine of opposition. The Leftist version is well known: antiwar, antistate,anticonformity.Rather surprisingly, theRight had its own version, a rebellionagainst a big government and a regulatory/welfare orthodoxy that manymidcentury Republicans had helped build. The Right’s counterculture getsforgotten, paradoxically because it achieved greater success becoming not somuchacountercultureastheculture,andperhapsalsobecauseofitssharedand

inconvenientoriginswiththeLeftistversion.Butbeforetherevolutionwouldbepolitical, it had to be personal, fashioning a template of sociopathicimprovidence that would provide the policy agenda once Boomers gainedcontrolofthestate.Thefirstagendaitemwouldbeunfetteringindividualsfromthe bonds of society, allowing the Boomers’ true priorities, license andindulgence,toflourish.

TheHedonistatHome:SexandDrugs

[Sociopaths]mayhaveahistoryofmanysexualpartners…Theymayhaveassociateddisorders…substanceusedisorders…andotherdisordersofimpulsecontrol…

[They]alsooftenhavepersonalityfeaturesthatmeetcriteriaforotherpersonalitydisorders,particularlyborderline,

histrionic,andnarcissisticpersonalitydisorders.—DSM-V2

Aswe’veseen,theBoomers’engagementwithVietnamfadedalongwiththedraft. The Boomers’ growing emphasis on personal satisfaction proved moreenduring.Asahistoricalmoment,then,1967isbestunderstoodnotasasummerofloveoraseasonofprotest,butasYearOneoftheSelf.

Thedefiningtraitofallprevioussocietieshadbeenthattheyweresocial—abodyofpeoplemoreorlessunitedbycommongoalsandvalues.Theindividualwas subordinated to the group or, as the other greatmidcentury Spock put it,“theneedsofthemanyoutweighedtheneedsofthefew,ortheone.”Asocialimperative doesn’t require socialism itself, whose practical instantiationsanyway tend less toward collectivist paradise thanmilitary oligarchy. It does,however, require a broader view, inwhich individual liberties balance againstgeneral welfare. Unfortunately, sociopaths are antisocial by nature, and theirlackofempathyandforesightconsignsthemtoviewsocietyonlyasarestrainton individual freedomof actionor a conduit forunearned treats, rather thanafontofgeneralbetterment.

It’s sometimes difficult to see the individualist current of the Sixties andSeventies because so much of the Leftist counterculture notionally embracedsocialistgoals,withhippiecommunesfoundedonconceptionsofjointpropertyalmost tailor-made to offend the establishment’s vigorous anticommunism.OffensewascertainlyasubstantialpartofthepointandifÉpaterlebourgeois!was the rallying cry, then on only those grounds did communal experimentssucceed.Ineveryotherway, tie-dyed,Marxist-LeninisthavenswereinherentlydysfunctionalandfailedtoprovidethematerialcomfortstheBoomersfoundtobe their true, long-term priority. The socialist experimentwithered away. The

exercisesinindividuallicensedidnot.At heart, itwas always and really about that license,whatever the official

branding. Formally, the Love Pageant Rally of 1966 and subsequent “HumanBe-In” had political goals, trying to unite in pursuit of a new age both theantiwar movement (whose elites viewed the hippies as too stoned) and thehippies(whoconsideredtheantiwarmovementastoouptightandenmeshedinconventionalpolitics).Inpractice,theculminationofthiseffort,1967’sSummerof Love, ended up less a synthesis of the various strands of Leftist politicalculture than a straight-up antithesis, standing againstmiddle-classmorality onmattersofdrugsandsexandforverylittleelse.*

In keeping with the hedonic theme, many ostensibly political events werereallymoreaboutdrugsthandemos.ThePageant’sdate,October6,1966,wasnot the anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the EmancipationProclamation, women’s suffrage, or anything too goody-goody or consistentwithpoliticalplatform.Rather,10/6/66wasthedaywhenLSDbecameillegalinCalifornia,aneventtobeprotested,inevitably,bytakingLSD.3Thegovernmentsomehowfailed towither inresponse,anymore than thePentagonlevitated inresponse to hippie chanting a year later, though Department of Defensegraciouslyprovidedthelong-hairedchanterswithapermittoliftthebuildingafewfeetofftheground.4

Allof itwassophomoricand ludicrous,and if ithadbeenconcededas the(illegal) party itwas thatwould have been one thing. Instead,manyBoomersdressedup indulgenceas amoral crusade, just as theyhadwithdraft dodgingandwouldagainwithtaxcutsandtheirownmilitaryadventures.(Boomersmayhaveevenbelieved thesenarrativesofworthiness, adualitypermittedby theirtrainingintelevisualironyandsuspensionofdisbelief.)Therefore,inthewordsof Sixties radical Todd Gitlin, LSD peddlers like Owsley Stanley, who“fabricatedpotentandpureLSDtabletsinthehundredsofthousands,”were,tobeclear,“notjustinitforthemoney;theykepttheirpricesdown[and]gaveoutplenty of free samples” in the “service of a new age”—an entirely differentmatter.5Theclaimwasthatacidandpotprovidedagatewaytoenlightenment,intoxicatinginwaysmorepacificandconsciousnessexpandingthanthemartinisofsuburbangeezers(orthanthestreetdrugsthatcamelater,whichtheBoomersas politically enfranchised adults violently suppressed). “It becomes necessaryforustogooutofourmindsinordertouseourheads,”perTimLeary,theex-Harvard lecturer andmost famous advocate ofLSD.6 Leary and his followerswerehalfwaythere.*,7

All generations have had their affairs with substances, but few were astransgressive orwidespread as theBoomers’.At the beginning of the Sixties,before the great mass of Boomers had come of drug-taking age, rates ofmarijuana experimentation among young people ran under 5 percent.8 By theearly Seventies, when Boomers accounted for the entirety of the teenagepopulation, the figurewas substantially larger, approachinghalf, andLSDandharderdrugs,previouslyfringesubstances,hadbecomemorewidespread.9

Comparing different generations at the same point in their respective lifecycles,theyoungBoomershadnotablyhigherratesofdrinkingandillegaldruguse thanpreceding and succeedinggenerations—teenagerswere then (asnow)theheaviestusers,anduserosedramaticallyduringthe1960sand1970s,peakedinhighschoolseniorsof1979–1980(i.e.,coincidedwiththeBoomers)andfellsubstantially thereafter.10 The use of alcohol, amphetamines, and cocaine byhigh schoolers and college-age populations began to fall substantially in theearly1980s,asBoomersagedoutofthesegroups.*,11Asseniors,Boomershavepushedtherateofelderdrugusesubstantiallyhigher;asthegovernmentputitin2015,“druguseisincreasingamongpeopleintheirfiftiesandearlysixties.Thisincreaseis,inpart,duetotheagingofthebabyboomers,whoseratesofillicitdrugusehavehistoricallybeenhigherthanpreviousgenerations.”12

ThereareendlessJesuiticaldiscussionstobehadaboutthepotencyofPurpleHazeintheSixtiesversusHinduKushintheNineties,orwhetherLSDthenwasmoremind-expanding thanEcstasy is now,or if today’sADHDmedication isreally just yesterday’s speed. To indulge in these debates is in some sense toconcedethepoint;theBoomersdidalotofexperimenting.Whencompilingthispart of the sociopathic inventory, there’s no need to get bogged down in toomuch detail. It’s sufficient that taking drugs was dramatically against socialnorms—even more so forty-odd years ago than now—and required breakinglawsinserviceofpersonalgratification.Itwas,inotherwords,anendeavorwithsociopathicovertones,andnotcoincidentally, theclinicalguidesnotethatdrugabuseisfrequentlycoincidentwithantisocialpersonalitydisorder.

As they were with substances, the Boomers were keen experimenters onmatters of sex. Given the mores of the day, this too required substantialtransgression—that the terms “sexual liberation” and “sexual revolution”wereessentially invented in the Sixties says a lot. The revolution was against thetraditional order, one hostile to carnality outside the bounds of heterosexualmarriage and, evenwithin those unions, in favor of less adventure rather thanmore.

Pre-Boomer America had never been entirely a temple of chastity;nineteenth-centuryOneida,NewYork,hadacommunitythenknownforitsfreelove,thoughitisfamoustodayasthesourceofOneidasilverware(athoughttocontemplate when next at the dinner table). Even conventional communitiesoccasionallydepartedfromthepuritanidea,asAlfredKinsey,WilliamJohnson,and VirginiaMasters showed from the 1940s on. However, thatMasters andJohnson had to rely on prostitutes for some of their initial research (goodAmericans being too upstanding for sex studies), and that certain discoveries,likethefactthatwomencanhavemultipleorgasms,cameasasurprise(tomen),suggestthatAmericansexualitywasnotterriblyadvanced.

PrudishnessfellawayduringtheBoomers’adolescences.Thiswasevidentinthebookstands,whichfeaturedbestsellerslikeEverythingYouAlwaysWantedtoKnowAboutSex*(*ButWereAfraidtoAsk)(1969)andTheJoyofSex(1972)andinothermedia.Conventionally,Hollywoodandmassmediagetmuchblamefordrivinga cultureof sexuality, but it is at least asmuch the case thatmoresexuality in real life drove a more sexualized media. By the Sixties, it wasridiculous to pretend, as decency regulations like the Hays Code had, that ateenagepopulationthatwashavingmoreandmorereal-lifesexwouldhavetheirworldsshatteredbyfilmicgenitalia,andtheselimitscrumbled.ThePawnbroker,set in the Holocaust and released in the United States in 1965, served as theunlikely vehicle for the firstCode-sanctioned display of celluloid breasts, andfrom therematters accelerated, with the Code abolished in 1968, opening theway for semi-erotica like IAmCurious(Yellow) (released in theUS in1969),LastTangoInParis(1972),andsoon.Givenwhatwashappeninginthedrive-insandtheatreseats,allthiswaslessavantlalettrethanaprès.

However joyfully the media embraced sexuality, society remained deeplyconflicted, simultaneouslydisapprovingof casual sexwhilehavingmoreof it.Until about2010,mostAmericanshaddeep reservationsaboutpremarital sex;majoritiesdidnotagreewiththestatementthatpremaritalsexwas“notwrongatall.”13Nevertheless,Americans had sex earlier and earlier, even as the age offirst marriage rose, suggesting that a lot of sex was premarital, if conflicted.NoticeabledeclinesintheageatwhichAmericanslosttheirvirginitybeganwiththecohortsborninthelater1940sandcontinuedthroughthosebornintheearly1970s,almostpreciselytrackingtheBabyBoom.14Generationsbornafter1975wereabitmoreconservative,withtheiragesatfirstsexrisinggenerally.15

TheBoomerswere also relatively promiscuous, andwhat is remarkable isthatthisistruenotonlyinrelationtoearliergenerationsbuttothosebornlong

after the sexual revolution had taken hold. In normative terms, modestpromiscuity today doesn’t bother most Americans now, but the Boomers’practices,evaluatedintheirparticularsandagainsttheprevailingsocialcontext,pointtosociopathictransgression.

Promiscuity was frowned on in the midcentury, and American practicesgenerally conformed to that view. Americans born at the beginning of thetwentieth century reported one sexual partner on average (presumably, therespondent’sspouse),risingto11.68onaverageforthoseborninthe1950s(agroupcomposedentirelyofBoomers).16Despitelooseningmores,numbershavefallen back somewhat for those born after 1970, though it remains to be seenhow online and mobile app dating sites like Tinder and Scruff ultimatelyinfluence the figures.*,17 Confirming this, a study that controlled for othervariables (including age) concluded that “the overwhelming majority ofvariation in number of sexual partners was generational”; in other words, aperson’sgenerationmatteredmore thananyother factor, andBoomers led thewayandinsomewaysremainunique.18

Theymayengageinsexualbehavior…thathasahighriskforharmfulconsequences.

—DSM-V19

Even though there wasmore sex, it was not necessarily safer sex, thoughBoomers had the means. The Supreme Court made prophylaxis nationallyavailable in time to benefit most of the Boomers, and it had been widelyavailable in many states even before the Court nationalized protection.20Surprisingly, even as condoms, the pill, and other prophylaxis became moreaccessible,levelsofunwantedpregnanciesincreasedbothpercapitaandintotal.Thenumberofteenagersseekingabortions,forinstance,increaseddramaticallyfrom1973until themid-1980s, a period that overlappedheavilywithBoomerfertility.21(Justtobeclear:abortionisbeingusedasaproxyforresponsiblesex,notforgeneralmorality.)Abortionratesforallwomenrosefromthe1955birthcohort (the earliest data available), peaked for the 1970 cohort (just past theBoomers),andhavefallensince.22

Itwouldbetidytoattributethesetrendstochangesinabortionregulation,butit’s hard to pin everything onRoe v.Wade, decided in 1973.Unlike divorce,whereitmaytakeyearstoseparatealltheunhappycouples,therecanonlybeso

muchbacklog in the case of abortion—ninemonths at the outside, and, givenRoe’s trimester framework, closer to three.Anyspikedue just to legal changethereforeshouldhaveendedshortlyafterRoewasdecided,buthigherabortionratespersisted throughout theBoomers’ fertileyears.Rates fell thereafter, andnotbecauseabortionsbecameillegalorvastlyhardertoget—totheextentthathappened,ithappenedaftera1992CourtdecisionrevisedRoetoforbid“undueburdens”onabortion,whichBoomer legislators tookasan invitation to figureoutjusthowmuchdueburdentheycouldimpose.23

Shifts in abortion practices were predicted by changes in rates of teenagepregnancy,wheretheBoomerswereagainanomalous.Teenagepregnancyratesrose rapidly through the 1970s until 1991 (late Boomers and their immediatesuccessors being the relevant populations) and have since been falling towellbelowtheratesoftheearly1970s,ontheorderof40percentlower.24Whateverthemoral content of having sex earlymight be,modern teenagers seem to bemoreresponsibleabout it than theBoomers.This iscertainlydue tobettersexeducation,butneithersexednorcontraceptiveswereunknowntotheBoomers;how could they be, given the huge media attention given to court decisionslegalizing prophylactics? If the Boomers could cook up LSD tabs by thethousands and establish “people’s stores” to distribute free marijuana, theexertionsandembarrassmentsofbuyingacondomweresurelynotbeyondthem.Thatfailurewasn’tjustaproductofthecallownessofyouthortheignoranceofthe time.RatesofSTDinfectionhavebeengrowingvastly fasteramongolder(Boomer) Americans over the past several years than in the population as awhole, a fact tastefully overlooked in the pastoral commercials forCialis.25 Ifnaturalfirmnessofpurposehasprovedfleeting,sexualrecklessnesshasnot.

Again, the inherent morality of Boomer sexuality matters less than itstransgressivenessandconsequences.Thesimple fact is thatpremarital sex andnumerous partners were exercises in personal gratification and, given publicopinion during the Boomers’ youth, distinctly against the social grain. Thatraisesquestionsofsociopathy,answeredbyprevalenceofBoomerabortionandinfection.Bothwereeasyenoughtoavoid.Failingtodoso,asmanyBoomersdid,indicatesirresponsibilityand,astounsafesex,adisregardforthesafetyofothers.AndtheBoomerswereunusuallypronetothesebehaviorscomparedtotheirparentsandchildren.

TheMuch-MarriedDivorcée

Decisionsaremadeonthespurofthemoment,withoutforethoughtandwithoutconsiderationfortheconsequencestoselforothers;thismayleadtosuddenchangesof…relationships…

incapacityformutuallyintimaterelationships…Theymaybeirresponsibleasparents.…

—DSM-V26

Perhapsnotunrelatedtothesexualrevolutionwasthegrowingphenomenonofdivorce,whoseprevalence rose rapidly from the late1960s.Part—butonlypart—ofthisnewtrendwasduetotheliberalizationofdivorcelaws,whichhadbeenhighlyrestrictive.Formostofitshistory,theChristianWestmadedivorceexceedinglydifficult, so thaton theeveofParliament’s reforms in1857,only324divorceshadbeenrecordedinEngland(HenryVIIIaccountedforjustoneofthese,therestofhismarriagesbeingcurtailedbyexecution,naturaldeath,orannulment).27 Colonial America adopted the motherland’s restrictions, with agivendivorceoftenrequiringspecificactbyastatelegislature.

When jurisdiction migrated to the courts, divorces became easier but noteasy,so thatuntil the1960s,apetitionerstillhadtodemonstrate“fault”ratherthansimple incompatibility,with thebarsetatabandonment,adultery,cruelty,or permanent insanity. A spouse opposing divorce could contest fault by therather extraordinary practice of showing that the other sidewas equally guilty(i.e.,“Ididitbutsodidyou”),whichhadtheperverseeffectofforcingcoupleswhoweremutuallyadulterous,cruel,and,theoretically,evencompletelyinsane,to stay together. Spouses could and did collude towork the system,with onefalsely alleging cruelty and the other admitting to it, a strategy that whileeffective required no little perjury. Thewhole systemwas unworkable and in1969,California pioneered “no-fault” divorces,which allowed spouses to partbasedsolelyonirreconcilabledifferences.ThislawwassignedbythengovernorRonaldReagan,whoseowndivorcehadpavedthewaytounionwithNancy(or“Mommy,”ashetooktocallingher).28

Easier divorce was certainly a social good—and one pioneered by earlier

generations, not theBoomers. The frequency withwhichBoomers resorted todivorce, however, proved alarming and generationally unusual. It suggestedsomecombinationofgrowingimpulsivityaboutenteringaunion,unwillingnessto expend the effort necessary to make relationships work, and perhaps afundamentalincompatibilitybetweenanantisocialBoomercultureandthestateofmatrimonywhich, after all, is a society of two.Rates of divorce increasedrapidly from the late 1960s onward, reaching a peak in 1980 (22.6 per 1,000marriedwomenannuallyandonalargelydownwardtrendsince).29Someofthiswasnomorethanthesystemprocessingthelargeinventoryofunhappycoupleswhocouldsuddenlytakeadvantageofliberalizeddivorcelaws.Yetsomeofthiswas a Boomer predisposition to divorce. Looking at marriages at comparablepoints in time, Boomers—especially older Boomers—divorced much morefrequentlythantheirparentsandtheirchildren.30

While divorce overall declined and then stabilized, it has been growingrapidlyamongAmericansoverfifty,thatis,heavilyamongBoomers,withratesdoublingfrom1990to2010.31Doubtless,thisisaproductofAmericanslivingmuchlongerthanbefore—asaninstitution,marriagemaybeancient,butbeforethe twentieth century, its participants rarely were. Nevertheless, Boomersdivorcemore than their elders did at comparable ages.32 This, too, suggests adegreeofsociopathicinabilityto“formlastingrelationships.”

Theconsequencesofdivorcealsopointinasociopathicdirection.Divorceisexpensive:Itisemotionallytraumatic,theproceedingsarecostly,andittendstodecreaseeconomicsecurityforeveryoneinvolved.Whiledivorcecanhaverealbenefits,theyareoftennotequallydistributed.WilliamStraussandNeilHowe,writing a quarter century ago, noted that “four-fifths of… divorced adultsprofess[ed] tobeinghappier afterward…but amajorityof their children fe[lt]otherwise.”33 It was the perception that children paid the highest price fordivorce that prompted many pre-Boomer couples to stay together “for thechildren,”astheoldclichégoes.In1962,halfofwomenbelievedparentsinbadmarriages should staymarried for a child’s benefit. By 1980, when Boomersmadeupasubstantialpartofthesurveypool,only20percentheldthatview.34DuringtheheydayofBoomerdivorce,inthelate1970sand1980s,therewasawidespread belief that children from “broken homes” were destined toexperiencepermanentdamage.Recentresearchcastssomedoubtsonthatbelief,even suggesting that divorce can be a net benefit for children of the mostdysfunctionalmarriages.However, thatresearchemergedafter thedivorceratebegantofall.Andalthoughtheeffectsofdivorceonchildrendonotappearas

badasonce thought, they still havenotablynegativeeffects in the short term,andforaminorityofchildrentheseeffectscanbelonglasting.36ManyBoomerdivorces,therefore,wereexamplesofself-interesttrumpingempathy,wheretheinterestsofparentsoutweighedtheas-then-understoodneedsof theirchildren.*Moreover, divorced Boomers are four times as likely to be poor and havedisabilitiesasmarriedBoomers.Doubtless,causationismixedhere,thoughthenet effect is not. Further, the gray divorcé(e) phenomenon has its ownchallenges.Asone set of researchersput it, “the rise in later lifedivorcemayultimatelyplaceadditionalburdensonsocietyat large,asdivorced individualswill be forced to turn to institutional (i.e., government) support,” and to theextentchildren/ex-spouses“cannotbecalledontoserveascaregivers,”thiscanreduce“intergenerational”happiness.37Thus,evenadultchildrenwhoseparentsarestillmarriedmay,bythemechanismsofwelfareandthenationaldebt,endupsufferingtheconsequencesofBoomerbrokenhomes.ThesystemofBoomermarriages and divorces fits sociopathic archetypes, a pattern of relationshipsimpulsively entered and dissolved, preference trumping duty. Not manydivorcéesaresociopaths,butagreatmanysociopathsgetdivorced.

Boomervs.Boomer:TheDivorceGeneration

What’sgoingonhere?Divorcesbecamemorecommonasobtainingthembecameeasier,butthiswasnota one-way trend. This chart shows the number of men who married and remained so at their tenthanniversary,andthe trendforwomenwasunderstandablyquitesimilar. (Themedianageformarriage in

thisentireperiodwas23–26.)WhiletheCensusdoesn’tkeepclosetrackofmarriages,themarriagesuccess

ratesforthecoreBoomersdoappearnotablylowerthanthoseofgenerationsbornbeforeandafter.35

InstantGratificationandPostponedConsequences

Apatternofimpulsivitymaybemanifestedbyafailuretoplanahead…

—DSM-V38

Deficitsinself-controlwerenotlimitedtothesexualandmarital.Perhapsthepurestexampleofself-controlandforesightissaving,thedenialofpleasurenowinfavorofsecuritylater.ThisprovedalmostimpossiblefortheBoomers,whoseinabilitytosaverepresentedyetanotherradicalbreakfromearliergenerations’practices and ultimately required them to plunder the accounts of othergenerations.

TheBoomers’parentshadbeen relentless savers, andas they reached theirpeak earning years in the early 1970s, they drove the savings rate up, brieflyover 13 percent.39 As the Boomers came to represent a larger fraction ofeconomicactivity,thesavingsratesliddownwardfrom1975untilitreacheditsabsolute lowof1.9percent in July2005.Though improvedafter the chaosof2008,savings languishedaround6percent,orabouthalf therateof theperiodfrom1959to1975.It’snot that incomesweresoconstrainedafter1975that itbecameimpossibletosave.It’sthattheBoomerssimplychosenottosavenearlyas much as their parents, as individuals or as a society.* We will delve intodetailsandconsequencesinlaterchapters.

TheAnt,theGrasshopper,andtheBoomer

What’s going on here? Private savings have been in decline since the Boomers entered their primeworkingyears.Becausevery littlecohortdataexists,economistsdebateexactlywhythesavingsratehasdeclined—questioningwhetherthewealtheffectofstockmarketbubblesdiscouragedtherichfromsavingin the 1990s, the natural tendencyof amodestly aging population to dissave, and so on.But during theperiodofsteepsavingsdecline,theBoomershadmajorinfluenceonthesavingsrateandshouldhavebeenaggressive savers, yet the inexorable directionwas down, until the crash of 2008 forced people to savemore.ThefactthatmanyBoomershaverelativelylittlenetworthcomparedtotheirretirementneeds(datawedo have on a cohort basis) also tests the idea that lower income savings could be offset by gains in

homesandstocks,thoughtheseassetshavebeenpronetobubblestheBoomershavebeenkeentoinflate.40

Failures in impulse control also manifested in gluttony. As Americantravelers know, and Europeans delight in observing, the United States is anunusually heavy place. This is so measured against international peers andagainstAmerica itself, at least theAmerica of sixty years ago.Relatively fewadultswereobesebefore the1960s,aboutonein ten.Sincethen,adultobesityhasbeenincreasing,withasharprisefrom12.7percentinthelate1970sto36.4percentby2011–2014.41Youngergenerationsarealsonowheavy,withtheshiftoccurring in the 1980s and 1990s, though there have been some recentimprovements.

Doubtless, some thickening was just a function of age; America has beengetting older and older people tend toward, in Wilkie Collins’s memorablephrase, an “autumnal exuberanceof figure.” It’s only apartial excuse.Europeand Japan have much older populations and nothing like the same level ofobesity.42AndintheperiodinwhichAmericanobesityrosemostquickly,onein which the large group of Boomers had the greatest influence on nationalstatistics and culture, the Boomers were not autumnal, they were at mostmidspring, and raising the first generationsof fairlyheavyAmerican children.Predictably,theBoomers’autumnsareprovingunusuallyample,evenrelativetotherelaxedstandardsofoldage.From1999to2002,31.6percentofmenagedsixty-five to seventy-four (none ofwhomwereBoomers)were obese, and by2011–2014, when the group was essentially all Boomer, the rate was 41.5percent;womenofcomparableagesincreasedslightly,from39percentto40.3percent, having experienced greater gains a few years earlier than men.43Obesityratesamongeighteen-totwenty-seven-year-oldsrecently(non-Boomers)also rose dramatically over the past decades, though obesity figures fornonseniorshaveremainedrelativelyconstantsince1999.44Overall,theBoomersgainedweightfasterthanpriorgenerationsandcontinuedgainingweight,while

younger generations appear to have at least stabilized at a new unhealthynormal.45

TheBoomersdid and continue to eat toomuch, and toopoorly, andwhilejunk food isn’t blameless, it also isn’t entirely to blame (this should be self-evident, though given Boomer proclivities to relocate blame, it needsdiscussion).Junkfoodhasexistedforalongtime,inAmericaandabroad.Whatdid not exist, in America past or Europe present, was a set of consumers sosusceptibletothejoysofimmediategratificationandsoregularlyseducedintoits pursuit by the Boomers’ other major unhealthy consumable, ad-driventelevision.Theconsequenceofthisindisciplinehasbeenatideofillhealth,fromdiabetes to heart disease. The pleasures of overconsumption, of course, wereentirelypersonal.Thecostshavebeensocialized in the formof risingmedicalexpendituresbornebythestateandmoretemperatemembersoftheriskpool,anirritatingleitmotifintheBoomers’sociopathicsymphony.46

Me,Myself,andICompelling as sex, food, and spendingwere for the sociopath, nothing couldmatchthepurepleasureofSelf.ThiswasonlyoneofmanygenerationalodditiesTomWolfeidentifiedwaybackinthe1970s,inhis“MeDecade”essayontheyoungBoomers.47Carriedtoextremes,self-obsessionisinherentlyantisocial,aseveryman(paceJohnDonne)becomeshisownisland,indifferenttotheneedsandconcernsofothers.

Indeed, self-focus would become a primary motivation of the Boomers’neoliberalreformsafter1980,whereretentionof incometookprecedenceoverits partial redistribution and investment for social purposes.While there’s noway topreciselymeasure self-obsessiononanational scale, shifts in languageprovide a reasonable guide. As the Boomers influenced culture, the pluralevolved into the singular: “We Shall Overcome” (first recorded c. 1952), theanthem of civil rights solidarity, became by 1965 “(I Can’t Get No)Satisfaction,”thehymnofthesingularhedonist.(Let’sdispensewiththeoldsawthat the latter tune critiques consumerism—the lyrics only passingly condemnadsbeforeskippingontotheusualBoomerobsessionwithsexand,anyway,theRolling Stones licensed the rights for $4 million for use in a Snickerscommercial,rollingupjunkfood,fornication,TV,andcognitivedissonanceintooneperfectBoomersong/snackpackage.)48

Asitwas insongs,so itwas inbooks,surveysofwhichshowuseof“we”decliningsomewhatsince1960,suggestingafalteringsenseofcommunity.Useof“I”hasbeen increasing for fortyyears, acceleratingdramatically in the late1980storatesin2008about42percenthigherthanin1960,suggestingarisingdegreeof self-focus.*,49 “You” has also enjoyed a heyday,with usage triplingoverthesameperiod.Thesecondpersonpronounisamoreambiguousindicatorthanthefirst,butUniversityofCalifornia,SanDiegoprofessorJeanTwenge,apersuasiveandthoroughresearcherintothesetrends,speculatesthat“you”actsas a marker of individualism by separating the actor from the audience (incontrastto“we,”whichisstronglyinclusive).50Asthepronounchartcollapsedinto the singular, soother parts of languagewere reoriented, powerless beforethegravityoftheselfhoodsingularity.Thus,“give”madewayfor“get,”andsoon.51 For a sense of what effects these changes in language and conception

mighthaveonpolitics,oneneednotreachforSapir,Whorf,andWittgenstein.JustrewriteaChurchillianfragmentinBoomerese:“Wemakealifebywhatwegive” “ImakealifebywhatIget.”

DownwiththeOpposition!

Individualswithantisocialpersonalitydisordertendtobeirritableandaggressiveandmayrepeatedlygetintophysicalfightsorcommitactsofphysicalassault.

—DSM-V52

It’sworth dwelling on one other feature of the individualist revolution: itsrelianceonillegalandoftenviolentmeans.ThedraftavoidanceofVietnam,aswe’veseen,hadmotivationswherepersonalbenefitwasatleastasimportantaspolitical change, and its methods ran the gamut from legal (if questionable)deferments to the patently criminal. Another illegal strategy—one whosepolitical instantiation would form the core of Boomer neoliberal policy—wasrefusing to pay taxes. Some failed to remit only the temporary 10 percent taxenactedaspartofwarpolicy,whichwhileself-servingand illegalwasat leasttailored to the political issue; others, like the singer JoanBaez (who providedsomethememusictoantiwarprotests),refusedtopaythemajorityoftheirbills,even though at most a quarter or so went to defense and the rest to benignenterprisesliketheWaronPoverty(apparently,“antiwar”wasafairlyexpansiveconcept). The widespread manufacture, distribution, and use of recreationaldrugs was, of course, also plainly illegal, and more aggressive and lesssuccessfulthantheeffortsoflatergenerationstolegalizemarijuanathroughtheconventionalpoliticalprocess.

Far more troubling was the violence sometimes used by the white middleclass. The Sixties riots in black neighborhoods like Watts and Compton hadoriginsinthenation’soriginalsinsofslaveryandracism;ifthereactionswereviolent,soweretheprovocations.Somedraftmisconductcanbejustifiedunderthe same logic, though only some. It is much harder to construct redeemingexplanationsforsomeoftheextremetacticsandmuddledmotivationsemployedin collegedemonstrations,whichwereusually theworkof privileged studentsdistantfromthechaosofthejungleandthepolicestateoftheghettoes.Evenontheir own terms, these demonstrations involved a certain amount ofcontradiction,withviolencebeingdeployedtoprotestviolence.Protestorsmighthavechuckledabout theinfamousmilitarystatementthat“itbecamenecessary

todestroy the town to save it,” evenas theirownconduct embodied the samewoolliness.

The Columbia University riots of 1968 embodied all these themes. In theriots, white students (led by the perhaps misleadingly named Students for aDemocratic Society) were dismissive of the black community’s specificconcerns and objectives, even though a key feature of the white protest wasdistaste for Columbia’s dismissiveness of the black community’s concernsregardingdevelopmentplansinHarlem.Theblackstudentsdisapprovedof thewhite group’s more aggressive tactics and the opportunistic use of thedevelopment issue as a springboard for a wider protest against the war. Thisdeterredthewhitegroupnotonebit.ExhibitingthesameAnglopaternalismtheyweredecryinginclass(whentheycaredtoattend),whitestudentswantedwhatthey wanted and would use whatever means they deemed appropriate, takingoveruniversitybuildings,destroyingproperty,takingDeanHenryColemanasahostage (until the black students apparently let him leave the next day) andgenerally escalating matters well beyond the narrow issue of Harlemdevelopment. All this was undertaken, mind you, in the name of peace andcross-racialunderstanding.53

Outside the university, political violence found greatest expression inChicago, home of the 1968 Democratic National Convention. The Yippies, ayouthparty,threatenedtokidnapdelegates,taintthewatersupplywithLSD,andotherwise sow chaos—the epitome of antisocial behavior.*,54 The resultswereentirely predictable. The police got aggressive, the protestors reacted bythrowingrocks,andtheestablishmentwentberserk.TheYippieplatformstoodfor anarchy, and anarchy they got. Dozens on both sides were injured. Theprotestorsgottheworstofit,andnotjustphysically—thepracticalresultoftheriotswasnotananarcho-socialistutopiabutadebaclethathelpedconvincethepublicthatlaw-and-orderDickNixonwasjusttheticket.55

Acrankyobservationbytheoldabouttheyoung:Theyjustdon’tmake’emliketheusedto.InthecaseoftheBoomersversustheirparents,thestatementisdepressingly true.Boomersweremorepromiscuous,divorcedmorefrequently,hadmoreabortions,savedless,atemore,hadmoreproblemswithauthority,andsoon.Thestatementistrue,inamoreconsolingway,inthecaseoftheBoomersversustheirownchildren.Youngergenerationsdivorcelessfrequentlyandseemto be saving more. They do have sex somewhat earlier, but they are lesspromiscuous overall and significantly more responsible, with rates of teenageand unwanted pregnancies declining (the exception being in some minority

communitiesforreasonsbeyondthisbook’sscope).56Only onmatters of narcissism and self-focus are generations younger than

theBoomersnoticeablyworse,thoughtheBoomersgetcreditforkickingoffthetrend.It’struethattheabsoluterateofsomeproblemsremainshighrelativetothose experienced by the very oldest living generations, but aswe’ve seen, atleastyoungergroupsaremovinginencouragingdirections.Eventhesupposedacme of youthful self-absorption, the use of electronics at the dinner table, itturns out, is more a Boomer than a Millennial habit, and if Boomers can’tmanage to pin dinnertime tech violations on the Millennials, maybe youngpeopletodayarebetterthanseniorsthink.57

The Boomers remained steadfast in their dysfunction. These antisocialtendenciesmatter,becausewhenBoomersascendedtogovernment,personalityquirkswould transmute into national policy.The phylogeny of the personal—profligate,indulgent,andirresponsible—wouldberecapitulatedintheontogenyofthepolitical,asneoliberalism.

CHAPTERFIVE

SCIENCEANDSENTIMENTALITY

AllthatstuffIwastaughtaboutevolutionandembryology

andtheBigBangtheory,allthatisliesstraightfromthepitofhell…theBible…teachesushowtorun

ourpublicpolicyandeverythinginsociety.—Rep.PaulBroun,MD(b.1946),member,HouseCommitteeonScience,Space&Technology1

Before the Boomer revolt could achieve its neoliberal apotheosis, it had todisposeoftheoldorder’sremainingpaladins.Ofthese,themostformidableandinconvenientwererealityandreason.Forsociopathsthesevirtuesbecomevices;they could not be depended upon to supply convenient answers. Reality andreason are casualties of all sociopathic regimes, frommedieval theocracies tomodern dictatorships, as Galileo’s house arrest or Lysenko’s famine-inducing“Sovietscience”attest.

The obvious place to begin the sociopathic assault on reality was on theempiricalmind-setitself,theinterlocutorbetweenhumansandthefactualworld.Whetherwecallit“empiricism”(whichIwillforlexicalease),or“reason,”or“science,” or “causal studies,” the core principles are always the same: thecollection of perceptible data and the testing of theories against them using

carefulthought.ThiswayofthinkinghadbeenthedominantmodeintheWestsince the lateseventeenthcentury. In thephilosopherIsaiahBerlin’ssummary,that system requires that “all statements with claims to truth must be public,communicable, testable—capable of verification or falsification by methodsopen to and accepted by any rational investigator.”*,2 Nothing could be lesshelpfultotheshort-sightedgluttonyofsociopathythanthisexplanatorysystemofevidenceandcausality,one thathappenedtoundermine thedeceitofwhichsociopathsaresofond.

Vastlybettersuitedtothesociopathicenterprisearefeelings—guaranteedtoalignwiththeneedsanddesiresofthemoment,becausetheysupplytheminthefirstplace.Asa system fororganizing the sociopathicworld, feelingsperformbeautifully,perfectlyindividualandexemptfromdebate—bynatureimmuneto,and the inverse of, the helpful requirements that reasoning be “public,”“testable,”or“verifiable.”Therefore,itshouldcomeasnosurprisethatthestoryofthepastfortyyearshasbeenthesubstitutionofsentimentforscience,offactfor feelings. That doing so deviated from centuries of practice that drove thegreatestexpansionofhumanknowledgeandwelfareeverseenmatterednothingto the revolutionaryBoomer personality. It’s not that there isn’tmore sciencetoday—thereis—itjustreceiveslessdeference.

Feelings would be the great enabler, allowing Boomers to undermine thewholeedificeoffactandreasoninfavorofpersonaltruth,expedientandfinal.Henceforth, if thescienceofclimatechangecommandedreducedconsumptionorothersacrificesincompatiblewithsociopathicdesires,itwouldbedenied.Ifbasic accounting held radical and permanent tax cuts entailed a correspondingreductioninservicesBoomersenjoyed,Boomerswouldcreateaparallelrealityfurnished with a more convenient set of books. The Boomers were the firstmoderngeneration toharbor reallynegative feelingsabout realityandscience,and their success in undermining these goods has been tremendous. And byreposing ultimate truth solely in feelings’ subjective dominion, the Boomerswere able to discount and dismiss the entire concept of expertise, scientificconsensus, and elite opinion, previously a source of restraint on impulsegratification.FortheBoomer,lavérité,c’estmoi.

TrainstoTailfins:America’sFormerInfatuationwithScienceTheBoomers’anti-empiricism is recent—it is the revolution,not the tradition,certainly not in America. Notwithstanding the religious motivations of itsearliestsettlers,Americahasbeenformuchof itshistoryanempiricalsociety,devoted to reason and organized around fact. In declaring independence, theFoundersmayhaveheldcertain“truths”tobe“self-evident”(hardlyscientific),butwereelsewherecarefultoinvokethe“LawsofNature”andtosetforththeirbasesforrebellioninacarefulappealtologicanduniversalprinciplesaccessiblebyreason.3 Independencewas to be justified by the application of intellect tofact,notbysentimentalone—itwasnot“wewanttobefree,”but“herearethereasonswhywemustbefree.”Royalipsedixitwasout,rationalargumentwasin.If this themehadcontinued, therewouldbenoneedtodip intoahistoricaldigression. Because the Boomers ran the empirical project off the rails, it’sworth a look at pre-Boomer America and what the combination of publicopinionandresourcescontributedtothepursuitofprivatehappiness.

The pre-Boomer establishment devoted itself to science and technology,eagerly importing the European Enlightenment and the scientific revolution,understood then to be the foundations of prosperity. To ensure a welcomingenvironment for the “Progress of Science and the useful Arts” the FramersestablishedpatentandcopyrightprotectionsrightatthestartoftheConstitution,inArticleI,aheadofmorequotidianmatterslikethecourtsandtheNavy.4Theyalsoparticipatedintheendeavorthemselves,researchinganddesigning,thoughBenjaminFranklinandThomasJeffersonbelievedsodeeplyinthediffusionofknowledgethattheyrefusedtotakeanyexclusiverightsintheirowninventions.

Thus came the spectacle of the great politicians of the age toiling onexperiments, infinitely distant from the troglodytic science-bashing of somecontemporary politicians. Almost 250 years before Senator James Inhofebrandished his snowball on the Senate floor as full and definitive proof thatglobal warming does not exist, data be damned, the Founding Fathers werepersonallyexpandingthefrontiersofscienceandtechnology.5Jefferson,DavidRittenhouse, andFranklinwere all famous inventors anddiscoverers;Franklinwas, if anything, as famous in Europe for his scientific work as his political

activities. As foreigners observed, this scientific inclination was only to beexpected,becausethepracticalandtherationalwere(then)thenaturalframeofthe American mind. Writing in 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville noted Americanenthusiasmforthe“practicalapplicationsofscience.”6DeTocquevilledidmuseabout America’s pervasive Christian dogmatism and distaste for scientifictheory, but these worries were 150 years premature—by the mid-nineteenthcentury,Americanswerebecomingpassionateaboutsciencegenerally.

Enthusiasmnotwithstanding,itwouldbesometimebeforeAmericanscouldfullycompetewiththeEuropeantechnicalestablishment.Europehadthemoney,ithadtheuniversities,and,notunrelatedly,ithadalmostallthegreatscientistsand industrialists. The fruits of Europe’s marriage of capital, industry, andsciencecouldbeobservedatLondon’sGreatExhibitionof1851.Itselfawonderof engineering, the Exhibition’s glass-and-iron “Crystal Palace” held aninventoryofmechanicalmarvelsandscientificspectacles.Visitorscouldseethedaguerreotypesthatprecededmodernphotography,mechanicalvotingmachines,apredecessortothefax,andotherinventions,beforeunburdeningthemselvesinanother novelty, the first public toilet since the Roman Empire. In 1889, theFrench staged their own exhibition, crowned by a giant iron tower. La TourEiffelwasmonumentwitharevealingdualityofpurpose,atonceacelebrationoftheFrenchRevolutionthathadoccurredexactlyacenturybeforeandatrophyoftheIndustrialRevolutionthenunderway,hintingattheconnectionsbetweenthetwo.Inthis,itwasliketheStatuteofLiberty,aFrenchgiftfortheAmericancentennial,towhichGustaveEiffelalsocontributed.

Americansdesperatelywantedtojoinin,andthatrequiredatransformationof their scientific community, previously a loose federation of amateurs. It’sworth considering these older blueprints,which contributed so successfully toAmericanprosperityandwhichhavebeensobadlyneglected.Thenaturalplacestobeginwerethecentersoflearning.TheoriginalandalmostexclusivefocusofAmericanuniversitieswastheproductionofyoungmenforreligiousandlegallife. Accordingly, these institutions were led by men more concerned withsalvation than steam engines. Harvard’s sixth president, Increase Mather,achievedenduringfamenotforhis(indifferent)academicadministration,butforhisinvolvementwiththeSalemWitchTrials.Obviously,divinityschoolsrunbywitchhunterswereunsuitedtotherationalistenterpriseinwhichAmericahopedtocompete,sonewscientificcurriculawereimportedfromEurope,firsttoJohnsHopkinsUniversity,andthentootherschools.

Merely refocusing the fewexisting institutionswasnot enough; theUnited

Statesrequiredacomprehensivenetworkofuniversities,andthismeantfederalresources. To accomplish this, Senator Justin Morrill, a founder of theRepublicanParty,proposedmassivefederal intervention(aratherdifferentsortofradicalRepublicanagendathanweseetoday).Morrillwantedthegovernmenttocontributelandwhosesalewouldfundcollegesto,“withoutexcludingotherscientific and classical studies and including military tactics… teach suchbranchesoflearningasarerelatedtoagricultureandthemechanicarts…[and]promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes.”7 TheMorrill Act of 1862 provided over seventeen million federal acres for thosepurposes, an area slightly larger than the state ofWestVirginia. The actwassuccessful: many state colleges like Ohio State, Rutgers, Texas A&M, andUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeleyhadoriginsas land-grant institutions,asdidsomeprominentprivateuniversitiesincludingCornellandMIT.*

ThefirstMorrillActpassedonlyafterSouthernlegislatorsseceded;theyhadopposed theActostensiblyonconstitutionalgroundsbut substantiallybecausehigher education didn’t fit with their conservative, religious, anti-industrial,plantationmentality.EvenaftertheCivilWar,theSouthcontinuedtoresist,inpartbecausetheland-grantprogramrequiredthatfundsalsobeusedtoprovidefacilitiesforblackstudents.(Thereissomeechoofthistoday,intherefusalofconservative states toaccept federal subsidies forhealthcare; ideology trumpspractical benefit.) The South never embraced land-grant universities, and itsculture didn’t value reason, science, and inquiry, or the institutions thatpromoted them in the same way the North’s did. The trajectories of the tworegionsthereforeprovidearoughexperimentinthedifferentoutcomesvaryingculturescanproduce.*

People in theNorth hadonly to lookup to see the benefits of empiricism.Skyscrapers rose, vertical emblems of progress made possible by steel andelevators andmade useful by the American inventions of telephones, electriclights,andair-conditioning.Publicbuildingsinstantiatedtechnicaltriumph,andthe great civic structures of IndustrialAmericawere not religious institutions,but train stations, cathedrals where salvation was mediated through speed,prosperity,andchange—itwasanageofaPennStationmodeledontheBathsofCaracalla, rather than the dismal sewers and elevated strip malls of today’sAmtrak.

Mediaoftheagecelebratedtheseaccomplishments,injournalslikePopularScience magazine, founded in 1872. In American cities, lectures on scientifictopics, demonstrations of new inventions, and even public dissections were

must-seeevents.ThenewspaperscloselyfollowedThomasEdison,the“WizardofMenloPark,”andAmericanspridedthemselvesonhisingenuity.TheWrightbrothers, who invented the heavier-than-air plane, and Charles Lindbergh, thefirstpersontoflysoloacrosstheAtlantic,alsobecamecelebritiesandheroes(inthecaseofLindbergh,notwithstandinghisrepellentpersonalviews).TherewasnotoneElonMusk,thereweredozens.

Thestatureofscienceand technologypeaked in the twodecadesfollowingWorldWar II. In theAmericanmind, thevictoriesof sciencewere literal andexistential,withtriumphovertheAxisdueinnosmallparttothecontributionsof the scientific and technical establishment, especially theManhattanProject.Notonlyhadsciencebroughtvictory,butmaterialplentybesides,andAmericareturnedthefavorinlavishfederalfunding.SputnikpromptedtheUnitedStatesto redouble its efforts, enormously expanding government funding to addressperceivedgapsinscienceandtechnologyandstrengtheningrelevantcurriculaatalllevelsofeducation.PresidentKennedycalledonthenationtoputamanonthemoon,andNASAengineersandastronautswerecelebratedasLindberghandEdisonhadbeen.

The 1930s to 1960s were, of course, also the age of the science-mindedWorld’s Fairs. The wonders of the 1939 World’s Fair, with its interstatehighways and suburban affluence, had come true. The 1962 World’s Fair,centered on the newSpaceNeedle, contained variouswonders like cars (bothemissionlessandflying)andfeaturedthreefairgroundsforscienceandindustry,against justoneeach for art andentertainment, aproportion invertedand thenabolishedbytheBoomers.FuturamaIIin1964wasthelastofthescienceFairs.By1982,thebestonofferwasKnoxville’sSuntower(339feetshorterthantheSpace Needle) and a mechanized Rubik’s cube (itself a Hungarian, notAmerican, invention). The Space Shuttle made a desultory appearance at the1984Fair,butenthusiasmfor thissortofdisplaycanbe inferredfromthefactthattherehasnotbeenanAmericanFairsince.*

In an age of endless sequels, Futurama II alone begat no grandchildren.Futurama 1964 was the end of the line, in part because of the growingskepticismof theBoomers about themerits of science and technology,whoseroles in the military-industrial complex felt compromised. As usual, theBoomers’viewwasdevastatinglyunsubtle,because if technologyprovidedthebombs,italsomademodernexistencepossible.Averagelifeexpectancy,thankstomedicine and public health, hasmore than doubled over the preceding fivehundred years. The tyranny of distance, which formerly confined people to a

short radius around their place of birth, has been abolished by airplanes,automobiles, and the Internet. Physical toil has been replaced by mechanicalpower,liberatinglegionsofAmericansandtheiranimalsfromdrudgery(afactsome animal-loving environmentalists forget). The world’s more than sevenbillionpeople are fed by scientific, high-yield agriculture and sustained in oldage by modern drugs. The moral case for technology can be reduced to thesimplefact thatwithout it,billionsofpeoplewouldnotexist in thefirstplace,andhundredsofmillionsofotherswoulddieprematurely—farmorethanthoseharmedbyimproperusesoftechnology.

Science and technology also allowed many billions to achieve trulycomfortable lives.Fromthefallof theRomanEmpireuntil theRenaissance,aperiodoftechnologicalstagnation,percapitaeconomicgrowthwasfunctionallyzero—economiesdidincrease,justata1:1ratewithpopulation.Inotherwords,populationsdidnotgetricher;lifewaszero-sum,andwealthwasreallocatedbypolitics and violence, a condition that has reappeared in different ways. Bycontrast,theearlyIndustrialRevolutiondroveeconomicgrowthto1.5percentinEngland, a pace that doubled output every forty-five years. By the latenineteenthcentury,annualexpansionranover3percent,cuttingdoubling timetoundertwenty-fiveyears.Thecausesweremany,butscience,technology,andtheenablingdoctrinesofrationalismandempiricismhadthegreatesteffect.

Onecouldgoon,buthavingtojustifythebenefitsoftheempiricalenterpriseatall isadepressingnovelty. In1950, researcherscould leave itat“science isnifty,” and demand a congressional appropriation for whatever was cookingback in the lab.Over thepast threedecades, thingshave changed even as thebenefitsofpriorworkflowedintoeveryhousehold.Federallargesse,whichonceprovided public colleges and space programs, has been directed to otherpriorities. Giant science projects like supercolliders have been put on hold orcanceledwhilelaunchesdisappearedfromtelevision,unlesstheywentbadly,aswith theChallenger disaster; attention focused instead on the venal doings ofPrincessDi,adevelopmentthatwouldhaveshockedtheanti-royalistFounders.

Asaresult,thenationthatwontheSpaceRacecould,by2011,nolongerputapersoninorbit.Theforcesofanti-empiricism,inreligious,natural,andotherflavors,havedecisivelyassertedthemselves,toourlastingimpoverishment.

TheOriginalRomantics:EmpiricismandItsEnemiesIfempiricism inclines toward the future, itsopponents incline toward thepast,anditwasinhistorythatBoomerslocatedthemeanstooverthrowtheempiricalorder.Unsubtle,cynicalmindscouldalwaysexploitreligionforthetask,andaswe’llsee,manyBoomersturnedinthisdirection.Conventionalreligion,though,wasnotwhollysuitableforthesociopath,givenGod’sintolerabledictatesaboutchastity, temperance, and so on.Less compromised (for sociopathic purposes)were the secular, sentimental movements of the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies, theonesIsaiahBerlincalleda“counter-Enlightenment.”ThesewereRomantic, pastoral, and obsessedwith feelings—onemajor branch evenwentunderthetitle“Sensibility”(histrionicsensibility,thatis).

The counter-Enlightenment had its beginnings in seventeenth-centuryEngland, with Protestant “Diggers” advocating communal pastoralism (theyfailed).Thegroup’snamewasappropriatedbySixtiesradicalsinSanFranciscowho practiced similar principles (failed, again). In eighteenth-century Europe,Jean-JacquesRousseau expanded the romantic liturgy, extolling the virtues ofnature and sentiment and peddling under these hazy banners thoughts on theproper and organic ordering of person and society, and more permissive andcompassionateapproaches tochildrearing, abewiggedDr.Spock to theGallicmasses.TheAmericanversion,championedbyHenryDavidThoreauandRalphWaldoEmerson,offeredsimilarvisions.

The spectacular compromises and failures of the counter-Enlightenmentshould have been warnings to the Boomers. For the sociopathic personality,however, Romanticismwas too seductive to let details get in theway. Leaveaside, then, that the Diggers achieved little, Rousseau the child expert hadconsignedhisfivechildrentoorphanages(thebettertopursuehisménagewithMme.Louise d’Epinay and her sister-in-law), andEmerson, possessed of oddracial views, alsodependedonmoney from thevery industrial capitalistswhowere despoiling his treasured isolation—all facts which hinted at certainlimitations and contradictions. Forget, also, that not all of these thinkerswereagainst science, as with Thoreau, an avid reader of biology and geography.Rememberonly, asBoomers did, that theyprovidedprecedent and legitimacyforthecultoffeelings.

Thecounter-Enlightenmentfellvictimtooccasionalincoherence,hypocrisy,

andeventually,violence. InFrance,workers flungwoodenshoescalledsabotsintothegears(sadly,thisisprobablynottheoriginoftheterm“sabotage”)whileEnglish workers wrecked machines and rioted during their flirtation withLudditism.Junkers,Prussia’smilitaryandagriculturalaristocratswhoweretheimplacableenemyofprogress,a sortofTeutonicOldSouth,pursuedvigorousandsometimesdeadlyresistancetotheEnlightenment,moderngovernment,andanythingthatwoulddisrupttraditionalwaysoflife(untilNapoleondisrupteditforthematJena;anotherlesson,whichJunkerslikeBismarcklaterinternalized).

Against sentimentalism’s emotional and physical violence, science couldonlypointtoitstangiblebenefits,forithadnolanguagewithwhichtoengagethecultoffeeling.Foratime,tangiblebenefitswereenough.Buttheappealofsentimentalism was never far away; it just needed a body politic willing toignorewholesale,asoldergenerationshadnot,thehardevidenceofreason.

TheInfallibleSociopath:AntisocialandAntiscienceTheBoomerrevolutioneventuallyprovedmoreeffective thanitspredecessors.ThiswasnowheremoreevidentthaninthefinancialprioritiesBoomersimposedon the nation. At some level, one has to understand and appreciate the valuescience creates before one can be persuaded to invest in it. MidcenturyAmericansclearlydidandwould;theBoomersdidn’tandwouldn’t.Judgedbythehardrealityofthenationalbudget,scienceandtechnologycommandedmuchless importance for the Boomers than other twentieth-century generations.NondefenseR&D spending peaked at almost 6 percent of the budget in 1966before declining to around 3 percent for most of the 1970s; it has nevermeaningfully exceeded 2 percent since 1982.8 Public R&D in particular hasfallenprecipitously,andnowisperhapshalftoaquarterofthe“sociallyoptimallevel.”9 As a percentage of GDP, government funded R&D has declined tosomewhat more than a third of its 1960s highs, with total R&D investment(publicandprivate)trendingdownfromthelate1980sandmaintainedabove2.5percent of GDP only by private investment. But private companies do notusually engage in the foundational work of basic science, on which mostinnovationsultimatelyrely.10Mostof thepipelineofcurrentwondersdependsonworkdonedecadesago,andthealarmingdeclineinbasicsciencenowseemstobetranslatingintoslowerinnovationoverall.

ThedeclineinfundingcouldhavebeenpredictedbylookingattheBoomers’culture and its opinions about science, which differed importantly from thoseheldbypriorgenerations.Duringthe1950s,beforeBoomerswereoldenoughtoexert political control or even participate in opinion surveys, polls showedoverwhelming support for science and technology.*When askedwhether, “allthingsconsidered,wouldyousaythattheworldisbetterorworseoffbecauseofscience?,”83percentofAmericansanswered“better.”The“betterpercentage”dropped to around 70 percent in the 1970s,whichwhile still high in absolutetermsreflectedadisturbingshiftinattitudes.12

FromResearchtoDevelopmentto…?

What’s going onhere? Although total R&D funding as a share of the economy has remained roughlystable,thecompositionofthefundinghaschanged,withbusinesspickinguptheslack.Businessismuchlessinclinedtodobasicresearchandmuchmoreinclinedtoincrementaldevelopmentwork.Hadthelinesmoved upward, in tandem, therewould be no problem.As they have not, it’s hard to find these trends

reassuring.11

Notably,thepercentagewhobelievedthatsciencehadmadethingsoutright“worse” rose from 2 percent to 5–8 percent, low numbers to be sure, butalarming enough, given their embrace of a view radically contradicted by thefacts.13 Thesewere sentiments onemight expect from popes and Junkers, notBoomers swaddled in SpaceAge prosperity.While only aminority held suchextreme views, by the 1970s, several polls suggested that a majority ofrespondents harbored mixed feelings about science and technology, believingthem the causes of “some” or “most” of “our problems”—again, anextraordinary result,andoneheldbyapluralityof thepublic.14Confidence inthe scientific establishment also declined significantly, from a majority to aminority,while thepublicdisplayed increasingskepticismfor science’sabilityto solve “society’s problems.” Unsurprisingly, support also fell for basicresearch(withconsequenceswewillshortlytakeup).15

TheBoomers drovemuchof the change. Studies in 1972 and 1974by theNationalScienceBoardshowedthatofallagegroups,thoseunderthirty(atthetime, a survey group composed entirely of Boomers) held the most negativeviewsaboutscienceandtechnology,includingthatS&Tchangedtheworldtooquicklyandproducedoutcomesthattendedtowardtheworse.16(Peopledidlikesomespecifictechnologies,notablythetelevision.)Youngpeoplealsoreportedhigherdegreesofalienationfromtechnology.17

Alarmedbyshiftsinpublicopinion,theNSBdevotedanentiresectionofits1976annualreporttotheissue.Fouryearslater,thingswerenobetter,andthepresidentoftheNationalAcademyofScienceswarnedthat“therehasarisenanantiscientific,antirationalist trendthatshouldgiveuspause.”18Theshiftsweredriven in substantial part by the Boomers’ sociopathic tendencies, alreadyevident in the1970s, and lingering today.19ThepastoralLeft, religiousRight,and everywhere in between were afflicted by a resurgent sentimentality anddesire for immediategratification incompatiblewith theuncompromising factsandlong-terminvestmentofempiricism.

Part of theBoomers’ attitudes toward science doubtless derives from theirrelative ignorance about it. In a 2014 survey, a majority of Boomers did notknowthathumansdescendedfromearlierformsofanimal.Americansalsohaddifficultyansweringhowlongittakestheearthtorevolvearoundthesun,whichshouldn’tsurprisegiventhataround24to30percentofAmericansfifty-fivetosixty-fourandolderbelieved that thesun revolvesaround theearth, insteadoftheotherwayaround—andlet’snotevengetintotheirviewsontheoriginsoftheuniverse.20 (Heliocentrism,theBigBang,etc.,conflictwiththesociopath’sworld-began-with-and-revolves-around-me solipsism; it’s at least internallyconsistent.) Older Americans also have the weakest grip of the principles ofscientificinquiry.Youngergenerationsdorelativelybetter,thoughtheabsolutelevelofscientific facilityamongallagegroupsdwellsatunsettling lows.21Atleast majorities of younger groups are more familiar with evolution andheliocentrism.*,22

Theproblemwiththisignorance,ofcourse,isthatlifeconstantlycallsuponadultstomakedecisionsrequiringatleastsomedegreeofscientificfacility,likeemphasizing climate change as a political priority or providing funding to theNational Institutes. But Americans, especially older Americans, cannot bebotheredtoevenlearn(oranyway,rememberorbelieve)thebasics.Hencetheregular spectacleofBoomer lawmakersbeginning addresseson sciencepolicy

withthephrase“I’mnotascientist”(whichiswherethespeechesshouldend)andthenproposinglawsthatflyinthefaceofscientificconsensus.

Themodest and static fraction of American students taking undergraduatedegrees in science, technology, engineering, and math confirms the limitedimportance Americans repose in those fields, starting with the Boomers. Thetotal number of STEM degrees has risen, but so has the population; as apercentageoftotaldegreesgrantedSTEMhasatbestremainedfairlyconstant.23However, especially at graduate levels, the enrollment of foreign students hasbeenanimportantdriverofSTEMeducation,andforeignstudentsaccountforamajority of graduate students in critical programs.24 Oddly, when they arefinished, many graduates are forced back home due to bizarre immigrationpolicies.Thetrendsurprisesallthemore,becauseinanevermoretechnologicalworld, one in which holders of technical degrees have the best economicprospects, you’d expect a considerable rise in such degrees by native citizensand higher funding by theAmerican government. (Foreign students often paymore,andcash-hungryuniversitiesrecruitaccordingly.)Whatchanged,then,isnot the employment prospects for scientists and engineers, or some massshutteringofAmericanengineeringschools;whatchangedwastheculture.

Part of the problemwas caused by the difficulty of STEM,which ismorechallengingfortheaveragestudentthanotherdisciplines.Difficultthingsdonotsit well with people for whom immediate gratification and impulse controlpresent problems, i.e., sociopaths. That the empirical disciplines are hardwasbadenough,buttheirembraceofrealityposedthegreatestchallenges.These—like thefact that thesundoesnotrevolvearoundtheearth,or lessfacetiously,thathumansarewarmingtheplanet—canbeinconvenientforpeoplewhoholdopinions contrary to reality. They may require long-term planning and otherbehaviorsincompatiblewiththeneedforimmediategratification.

Fortunatelyfor theBoomers, thearrivalofdoctrines likerelativismandthedebasement of epistemology provided means to dispense with distastefulrealities. In a crude, and for the Boomers, useful, form, relativism posits thatdifferentpeoplecanhavedifferent truths.Relativismhas itsuses in fields likecultural studies,but isof limitedapplication in technical realms.Nevertheless,the Leftist Boomer academy produced different “sciences” while the Right,much as it ventilated about Leftist relativism, aped the same strategy, andmanufactured confections of its own, like “Bible science” and “creationscience.” The defining trait of all these new sciences was that they wereobliginglytailoredtothespecificneedsoftheiraudience,notdeducedfromfact.

FormanyBoomers,science’sremainingvirtuewasitsabilitytolendapatinaoflexicalrespectabilitytoitsfactualantitheses.

Theprofusionofsciencesraised thepossibilityforconflict,and toevaluatecompeting claims, the New Left developed constructivism, which held thatscience was merely a social artifact like artistic merit, dependent on a giveninvestigator’s beliefs and circumstances. These new ways of thinking aboutscienceandrealityprovedenormouslyconvenient to theantisocialpersonality,providingtoolstocontradictordismissanyfactsitfounddistasteful,aswhentheNew Right attacked climate science, which constructivism revealed to bepopulated by biased tree huggers with liberal axes to grind, and thereforedismissible.Ifallelsefailed,onecouldinvokeafakeepistemiccrisisbystating—accurately, ifmisleadingly—thatscientistsarenot100percentcertainabout,e.g.,globalwarming.Wecannotbe100percentsure thatwe’d loseagameofRussian roulette with a fully loaded six-shooter, either, though this is largelyhowBoomerclimatepolicyhasoperated.

Havingdeposedempiricism, theBoomerswerefree toseeknewsourcesoftruth,andthesetheylocatedinfeelings,acommoditynotinshortsupplyduringtheAgeofAquarius.The triumphof feelingsshowsup in the literatureof theperiod.Usageoftheword“feel,”stablefordecades,rosedramaticallyfromthemid-1960s,asdidthemorerevealing“howIfeel”and“Ifeelthat.”25Forpeoplewithoutsufficientaccesstotheirownthoughtprocesses,thedebutoftheMoodRing in 1975—a tacky contraptiondesigned to change colors in response to aperson’s mood (or body temperature, anyway)—provided a handy gauge.Concurrently,useof“true”declined, truthbeingadespisedcudgel technocratshademployedtodisposeofsociopathicallydestructiveprograms.26

Theproblem,aspublicpolicygoes,isthatfeelingsgranteachpersonaccesstopurelypersonaltruths,aboutwhichtherecanbenorealdebateandthereforeno social consensus. Each person becomes an infallible pontiff on anymatterthatmightprovokeemotion.Questioningthelegitimacyofthosefeelingsisbothahopelessenterpriseandboundtoprovokeoffense,whichseemstohavebeenan increasingly common emotional state from the Boomers’ college yearsonward.“Youdon’tknowhowIfeel”becameacommonresponsetoauthorityfiguresfromthe1960son.Ithadacertaintruthwhenutteredbyblackstudentstowhiteprofessors.Itwasconsiderablylessvalidandrelevantwhenspokenbyan overwhelmingly white and privileged student body to its overwhelminglywhiteandprivilegedprofessoriate.Thesubtextof“Youdon’tknowhowIfeel”is, of course, “You cannot tell me what to do.” Perfect for the ego-driven

sociopath.

DeletetheEliteTheBoomers’relativistandromanticagendasposedchallengestothecultureofthe expertise and elites generally, core functions of which are providingguidance,leadership,andtheoccasionalrestraintonmasswill.Theauthorityofsuchgroupsderives fromtheircompetenceandknowledgeand thesocial trustthose abilities should create, especially regarding complicatedmatters beyondthe scope of the average person or too time-consuming for lay study. In acomplex world, deference to experts should be rising instead of, as hashappened, falling.But inasystemwhere feelingswereparamountandsciencewas diminished, why defer to experts at all? Every person, in the Boomers’Reformation of Feelings, had access to personal truth, making every man anexpert, every woman an omnicompetent elite of one. The triumph of murkyrelativism,overuniversalvaluesof thesortenshrined in thenation’s foundingdocumentsandexposedbyconstructivismaspatriarchalnonsense,exacerbatedmatters.

No institution sufferedmore thangovernment.At least at its higher levels,government is nothing but an elite of experts, responsible for policies whosecomplexities were once considered beyond the ken of ordinary voters. If theCouncilofEconomicAdvisers thought thebudget shouldbecloselybalanced,perhaps it should. If Federal Trade Commission models suggested a mergerwouldproduceadangerousmonopoly,thenbyallmeansforbidit.Iftherewassomething to be gained by diverting rivers of cash to NASA, do so. If theprograms didn’t work quite as hoped, then let the experts try again, with thebenefit of new experience. Americans did just that; they trusted theirgovernment. From 1958, when consistent surveys began, until 1964, over 73percent of Americans reported that they “trust[ed] the government inWashingtontodowhat’srightjustaboutalways/mostofthetime.”27

Thatchanged,startingwithPresidentJohnson’ssecondterm,whichprovidedeveryone with something to hate. For conservatives, the Great Society wassocialist treachery. For others,Vietnam undermined the credibility ofmilitaryplanners and their civilian overseers.Levels of trust fell throughout Johnson’ssecond term, though they began to stabilize after Johnson left. The release ofdocumentslikethePentagonPapers,whichrevealedunseemlyandundisclosed

aspects of thewar, raised new questions about Johnson, but by the time theywerereleased,Nixonwasinpower.

Even as Nixon cruised to an easy second term and the country wasrecoveringitsfootingWatergateerupted.ThoughFordpardonedNixonwiththeintentofputtingthescandalbehindthenation,hewasimmediatelysuspectedofhavingstruckadealwherebyhewouldofferclemencytoNixoninexchangeforthe White House. Trust continued sliding through Carter’s indifferentpresidency,whichmanyAmericansviewedasanexerciseinpureincompetence.By1979,onlyaboutaquarterof thepeoplehadmuchfaith ingovernment,analmostperfectinversionfromthelevelsjusttwodecadesbefore.28

Americanfaithingovernmenthasneverreallyrecovered.It’scertainlytruethat political elites did themselvesno favorswhile theBoomerswere enteringadulthood.Themedia(beforethedeadly“liberal”and“elite”werepinnedonit)exposed political failures, and the Boomers reacted strongly and frequentlycorrectly.They just carried the theme toowidely and for too long. ItwasonethingnottotrustRichardNixonafterWatergate;itwasanotherthingtodistrustgovernment ever after. For one thing, the vast, largely apoliticalmachinery ofbureaucracy—theweather service, theNational Institutes, the FDA, FTC, andSEC, etc.—was never implicated in the failures of a handful of politicians.Reasonable people understand that any institution as complex as governmentwillmakemistakes on occasion, or pursue policieswithwhich they disagree.Previously, evenwhen the government failed, as it did in theKoreanWar, orwhen it pursued divisive policies, as was the case after Brown v. Board ofEducation,thepublicgavethegovernmentthebenefitofthedoubt.Onlyifthegovernmentpersistentlydidthewrongthings,overthecourseofdecadesandfornogoodreason(asitsupperreacheshaveundertheBoomers),wouldsystemicdistrustbecomeappropriate.

Thesociopathicpersonality requiredanewpoliticalclassanyway,one thatneed not be trusted, because that class would not be permitted to exercisediscretion on important matters, discretion that might curb the sociopathicappetite. Originally republican in the little “r” sense, a government ofenlightened expert-representatives, America becamemore directly democratic.Politicianshadlessleewaytoexercisediscretionbasedonstudy,asgroupslikethe National Rifle Association issued rankings that allowed politicians to beevaluated on a single and not very sensible metric.* Between the pseudo-transparency these reports offered and the refusal to defer to expert opinion,representatives could no longer “vote their conscience” in favor of proposals

that, however unpopular, research showed to be the prudent course.Representatives would now be mere transmission mechanisms betweengovernmentandanantisocialelectorate.The republicanprocesscouldevenbesidesteppedentirely.So,thenumberofplebiscitesrose,especiallyduringthetaxrevoltsofthe1970swherevotersenactedtaxcutsbydirectreferenda,electoraltoolsnowusedasweaponsinthewaragainstrights.

It was allegedly a conservative revolution, but as with neoliberalism, thename doesn’t quite fit. Formost of itsmodern history,Western conservatismfollowed the model of Edmund Burke, the statesman/philosopher (a categorynow extinct): not against liberty or the occasional revolution, but generallycautious, thoughtful, and intermediated by experts, policy divorced wherepossiblefromthepassionsoftheuninformedmasses.Revolutionarythoughtheywere, the Founding Fathers did not fashion an Athenian democracy, but aRomanrepublic.*TheFoundersdidnoteventrustthepeopletoelecttheirownsenators (a situation revised only in 1913); they feared sociopathic passionsshouldanignorantmobbeproduced.Asithappened,theirfearswereborneout.

Themoreintemperatethepeople,themoreintermediationwasnecessary.Inwordsofcurrentapplication,ur-conservativeBurkeheldthat“menarequalifiedfor civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to putmoral chains ontheir ownappetites,” continuing that “society cannot exist unless a controllingpoweruponwill and appetite beplaced somewhere, and the less of it there iswithin,themoretheremustbewithout.”29Forthetrueconservativeconfrontedwithasociopathicelectorate,thecorrectstrategywasmoreexperts,morevotingof conscience, less catering to the passions of the masses; no Boomer wasputting“moralchains”onhis“appetites.”Butcontemporaryneoliberal culturedemands a “responsive government,” greasing the skids of disaster. In thesociopathicmarketplacepoliticshasbecomejustanotherservice,andqualityismeasuredbydoingwhat apluralityofvoterswant in themoment, rather thanwhat’s best for everyone in the long run. “Your way, right away” works forBurgerKing,notWashington.

The great victim of sociopathic democracy was the federal government, acancerspreadingoutfromitsmarmoreal lairsonthePotomacto interferewiththelivesofgoodpeople.Asusual,RonaldReaganhadthebestline.“TheninemostterrifyingwordsintheEnglishlanguage,”theGipperopinedin1986,were“I’mfromtheGovernmentandI’mheretohelp.”30Thegovernmentwentfrombeing a benign expert to an inept,meddlesome octopus (and onewith odiouspowers of taxation). Compare Reagan’s vision with Senator George

McGovern’s,offeredjusteightyearsearlier:“LetusinsistthatGovernmentcanandmustsolveproblems,thatitcanandmusteliminatepoverty…thatitcanandmust set goals and define a vision for the nation.”31 (McGovern also thoughtAmericans, who he believed were too addicted to the fleeting pleasures ofsaturatedfat,shouldgoonadiet.32)Afterdiligentanddecentservice,fouryearsin theHouse and eighteen in the Senate,McGovernwas eliminated the sameyear Reagan gained the presidency. It did not stop with Reagan, whomerelyventuredanamusingopinion;itwasBillClintonwhoformallydeclaredthattheeraofbiggovernmentwasover.

Although the government could not be entirely abolished (it provided toomanyenticingbenefitstotheBoomers),itcouldatleastberepopulatedbyanewkind of public servant,whose craven capitulation to the sociopathic electoratemade prophecy of untrustworthy government self-fulfilling. For this, theessentialpoliticalasset fromthe1970sonwardbecamestatusasan“outsider,”immunetothewarpingforcesofthebureaucrat’slifetimeofissueanalysis.So,Ronald Reagan: governor outsider. Bill Clinton: Rhodes scholar/governoroutsider. Bush II: dynastic outsider. JohnMcCain: maverick/senator outsider.SarahPalin: outside outsider.HillaryClinton: inside outsider.Bernie Sanders:senator independent Democrat outsider. Donald Trump: billionaire outsider.Excepting Trump, none of these people were actually “outsiders,” not fromgovernment:fourgovernors,threesenators,asecretaryofstate,familymembersofpresidents,etc.,whocollectivelyservedlifetimesasgovernmentemployees.Somemightoperateasoutsiders to reason,butall (includingTrump)are fullycreaturesoftheestablishment.

So,perversely,thekeyattributeofoutsidercandidateswasnotinexperienceofpoliticsoractualdistancefromtheestablishment,buthostilitytotheAxisofElitismthatranfromHarvardthroughWashington,preferablyaccompaniedbyahearty dislike for the very entity from which they sought employment. In awildlyinfluentialaddress,latersimplyknownas“TheSpeech,”RonaldReaganasked voters “whether we believe in our capacity for self-government, orwhether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a littleintellectualelite inafar-distantcapitolcanplanourlivesforusbetterthanwecan plan them ourselves.” (Whom Reagan was addressing becomes clear inChapter7.)NevermindthattheRevolutionwastheproductofjustsucha“littleintellectualelite”orthatitistheveryfunctionofgovernmenttoplanthingsthatvoterscannotplanforthemselvesor,aswewillsee,thattheBoomersmanifestlycannotplanwellforthemselves.ForBoomers,whatcouldbeworsethanagroup

of highly intelligent people thinking about difficult subjects? Henceforth,politicians and high officials would be subject to the same standards asHollywood celebrities, standards emerging from People instead of the Post(Washington, not NewYork). The highest compliment now payable is that acelebrity/politicianis“oneofus!”—i.e.,nomoreknowledgeableortalented.

Eventheintellectualsthemselveshadtosanitizetheirresumes.BillClinton’scampaigns were sustained exercises in downplaying the governor’s rarefiededucation in favor of his earthyBubba-ness.The contrastwas not only to theRhodes-scholar-that-was(forClintonhadbeenjustthat),butalsotothepatriciancautionofhisopponent, the firstBush.Thesepolitical shows,whereauthorityturnedon itself, further liberatedvoters from theneed toconsider the inputofanyonewhomight—thankstoeducation,experience,andcarefulthought—daretocontradictorrestrain.

Boomers reached beyond the government to attack the establishmentwherever it could be found, never willing to defer to the experts. Campusprotests erupted across the country while students shouted down professors,invaded faculty offices, and took administrators hostage. Nixon’s lieutenant,Spiro Agnew, tossed off the most memorable summary: “Education is beingredefinedat thedemandof theuneducated to suit the ideasof theuneducated.Thestudentnowgoestocollegetoproclaimratherthantolearn.Thelessonsofthepast are ignoredandobliterated [in] a contemporaryantagonismknownas‘TheGenerationGap.’”33YouknowwhatgenerationAgnewwastalkingabout.

JohnCalvinBecomesCrefloDollarWhiletheexperimentsoftheLeftlongmonopolizedthenarrative,theRightalsopartookofitsownantiestablishmentrevolution,especiallyonreligiousmatters,withprofoundeffectsonBoomerpolitics.Indeed,withouttheantiestablishmentstrategiespioneeredbytheLeft,thereligiousRightwouldbeafarweakerforcetoday, for the size and relative influence of socially conservative evangelicalgroups depended on defections from, and erosion within, the traditionaldenominations.

ThoughAmericawasfoundedbydiverseandfragmentedProtestantgroups,itcondensedduringthenineteenthcenturyintoamorelimitedandconventionalsetofchurches—the“mainline”ProtestantdenominationsoftheEpiscopalians,Lutherans, Presbyterians, and so on. From then until the 1960s, mainlinechurchesaccountedforamajorityofAmericanProtestantsandthese,alongwiththe Catholic Church, proved reliable supporters of the establishment’spolitical/industrialagenda.

By the 1960s, the mainline churches were collapsing, victims of the era’ssocial strife,which left these churches in a novel anddifficult position.Manymainline clergymen partook of liberalizing sentiments, marching in peaceprotests and expressing solidarity with the civil rights movement. Before theantiestablishment revolution, thiswouldnot havebeen a problem.Pastors hadlongbeenaccustomedtotellingtheirflockshowtovoteandoftensucceededingetting their way; certainly they did not have to fear congregants leaving indroves and tithing to the apostatic fringe. Clergy were, after all, God’srepresentativesonearth,beaconsofmoralinstructionandauthority.

Giventhis,onemighthaveexpectedthatchurchescouldhaveevenservedassomethingofareformingforceonmanysocialmatters.Butcongregationswererestive.Themembersnaturallydisposedtoliberalizationdriftedawayaspartofgeneral secularization, which accelerated during the 1960s. Those remainingweremore socially conservative, with the important exception that they werenowwillingtocontestauthority.Theelitestoodatoddswithaflocknolongerwillingtotakeorders.Itdidnotmatterthatchurchfathers,steepedintheologyand canon law, had reached considered positions after evaluating thewar andcivilrightsagainstTestamentaryinjunction.Itdidnotevenmatterthatchurcheshadthedutyandauthoritytoinstructonmoralmatters(whichthewarandcivil

rightscertainlywere)orthatconventionrequiredthelaitytoobey.NobookishpastorwouldevermoretellaBoomercongregantwhattodo.

Even theCatholicChurch,more conservative than its Protestant peers andorganized around the inviolable authority of the Pope, found itself struggling.JohnXXIII,amoderate,convenedacounciltoprodtheChurchmodestlytowardthetwentiethcentury.TheresultwastheSecondVaticanCouncilof1962–1965(“Vatican II”), which slightly liberalized the church by allowing use of thevernacularintheMass,extendingparticipationoflaymenintherites,andsoon.Itwasn’t terribly radical, but conservatives came to view it as somethingof aCatholicWoodstock.MichaelNovakcharacterizedtheAmericanresultsthusly:“For the most extreme, to be a Catholic now meant to believe more or lessanythingonewishedtobelieve,oratleastinthesenseinwhichonepersonallyinterpretedit.”34

However, itwasn’tVaticanII thaterodedCatholicauthority fromabove; itwastheriseofsociopathicanti-elitismfromtheflockbelow.FollowingVaticanII, many pre-Boomer Catholics refused to indulge themselves in even themodest,optionalconcessionstomodernitypermittedbyVaticanII—theywouldstill have fish on Fridays, takeMass in Latin where available—and as to thechurch’s firm proscriptions on matters like abortion, they toed the line. OnlywhentheBoomerstookoverdidthatchange,astheychosetobelievewhatwaspersonally convenient regardless of the encyclicals pouring out of St. Peter’s.And so today, many American Catholics believe and behave in ways utterlycontrary to official teaching; for example, 40 percent believe that abortion isacceptable(emphaticallynot,perHumanaeVitae),manybelievethatdespoilingthe environment is dandy (contraLaudatoSi’), that divorce is acceptable, etc.American Catholics appear to operate under the impression that Francis isrunningsomesortofBerkeley-in-the-Borgo,sanctioningwhateverlicenseoneispersonallydisposedto.35

While traditional churches confronted disarray, membership bloomed inevangelicalchurches,whichofferedamoreconservativetone,notsomuchasamatteroftheologyasofmarketingand,occasionally,bigotry.Thistacticcouldsucceed onlywith the help of the antielitist, consumer-drivenmentality of theBoomers.Additions to theparishrollsmixednewadherentsand—thiswas theradical part—converts from the traditional churches. It’s hard to see how thisconservative transformation could have happened without the culture of self-orientation and antiauthoritarianism. Leaving a church is a deeply willful act,one of personal rebellion. So the motives may have been different, but the

mechanismwaspurehippie.Ifanything,churchdefectionsrequiredevenmoredramaticactsofpersonal

willthanfiringupajointorcohabiting,venalsinswhichmightberemitted.ForCatholics, it requires a defectio, “an act of apostasy, heresy, or schism” (theoriginal text on the Vatican website is entirely in bold, just to make thingsclear).36 Defections grew: Where in the 1960s and 1970s, discontentedparishionersdriftedawayindividuallyfromthemainlinechurches,bythe1980sand1990s,largechunksoftheflockstrayed.ThetrendreachedapeakwhentheAnglican Church appointed an openly gay bishop in 2003 and congregationsdefected(inseveralcasestosemischismatic“Anglican”-Nigerianchurch,whichisdecidedly lessgay friendly).37Membership in the evangelical churches rosedramatically.Theconservativeevangelicalrevolutionthereforehasoddrootsintheliberalcountercultureitdespised.

Withevangelicalranksswelling,theChristianRightfounditselfinapositionto profoundly influence political dialogue. Previously, evangelical pastors likeBillyGrahamhadremainedmostlynonpartisan(unlike,say,theCatholicFatherCharles Coughlin). By the 1970s evangelical leaders had become activelyinvolved in politics after Congress and the IRS began examining their tax-exempt status (especially regarding theirunrelatedoperations likeTVstations,bakeries, and whatnot, and also tax subsidies to religious schools that hadnoxious racial policies).38 Those government actions merely expressed theEnlightenment precept that church and statemust be separated and confirmedthatcursorydenominationalaffiliationdidnotoperateasasortofchurchy taxhaven. They were, however, of grievous consequence to the evangelismindustry, which suddenly found an intense interest in politics. Partly, certaincrudealignmentsexistedbetweentheconventionalRight’staxwishlistandthoseofthechurches.Justasimportant,apoliticalturnbecameinevitablebecausetheoriginal appeal of evangelical churches over the mainline ones lay in hardstancesonpoliticized issues likegay rights—theycouldhardlybenonpartisanwhile championing theological issues that were themselves political. Withincreasing fluidity in church membership, evangelical doctrine increasinglycompetedinamarketplaceofideas,Reaganismamongthepews.

ManyevangelicalchurchesbecamelessvehiclesforChristianministrythanpolitical action committees organized by political ideology. This was almostnecessarily the case, because few of the new churches had the history orintellectual resources to support the scholasticism practiced by establisheddenominations. Some perhaps lacked even the inclination, what with St.

Ambrosedroningonaboutsaintlybummerslikeprudence,justice,temperance,andfortitude,insteadoftheDSM’sinventoryofriskseeking,lackofempathy,impulsiveness,andcapitulationtoshort-sightedurges.

Accordingly, therewould be no hour-long chat on the700Club about themistranscription of vowels in homooúsios and its implications forconsubstantiation,butPatRobertsonfulminatingabouthomosexuals,feminists,andprayingforthedeflectionofhurricaneswhilehiswebsiteminionsopinedonthe afterlife of pets.39 These new organizations depended on flattering theexistingsentimentsoftheirmembersandpreyingontheirweaknesses.Thus,therigor of St. Ignatius Loyola and thoughtfulness of St. Thomas Aquinas weretransmutedintothegold-platedspectacleofJimandTammyFayeBakker.Theconnectionbetweenlucreandsalvation,afterthelonghiatusimposedbyMartinLuther,reappearedinthereptilianformofCrefloDollarandotherevangelistsofthe“prosperitygospel,”which took themetaphorofMalachi3:10andmade itliteral.Titheatenthofearnings,andGodwould“pouryououtablessing,thatthere shall not be roomenough to receive it,” a (tax-exempt) rate of return towhichGoldmanSachscanonlyaspire.40Thisnewformofworship,genuflectingto God-as-vending-machine, was all the salvation with none of the guilt, adoctrine of consumption instead of charity, individually tailored to thepreexistingpoliticalbeliefsofthecongregation.ItwasperfectforBoomers(andin the case of the Bakkers and Dollar, peddled by Boomers). The growingevangelical rolls provided a ready-made mailing list, one the Right exploitedeven as itwas co-opted by it, and paved theway for resounding conservativevictoriesfromReaganon.

Thus, the sociopathic monster was assembled bit by bit—a populationuntetheredbyreality,unwilling todefer toexperts, increasinglyself-interested,with personal access to incontrovertible truth and abetted by the tax-freeapparatusofapoliticizedevangelicalmovementswollenbyrebelliousBoomers.Allthatremainedwasthelightningstriketoanimatethewaitingbody,andthisneoliberalismwouldprovide.

CHAPTERSIX

DISCOANDTHEROOTSOFNEOLIBERALISM

Wehavealwaysknownthatheedlessself-interestwasbadmorals;weknownowthatitisbadeconomics.

—FranklinRoosevelt(1937)1

Everybodythinksofeconomicswhetherheisawareofitornot.

Injoiningapoliticalpartyandincastinghisballot,thecitizen

implicitlytakesastanduponessentialeconomictheories.

—LudwigvonMises(1940)2

One could be forgiven for dismissing the 1970s as a best-forgotten waitingroombetweentheyouthfulrebellionsofthe1960sandtheReaganiteglitzofthe1980s.Theshagand thestagflation, the fleetingpresidenciesof thecrook, thebumbler,andthepeanutfarmer,thespacestationthatfelloutoftheskyaboveandthemaniaforPongdownbelow;it’shardtotakethediscodecadeseriously.

But lurking beneath the ephemeral tackiness lay a profound reordering ofpriorities, a process that was tentative, moderate, and even reasonable at firstbefore it became increasingly, sociopathically unhinged in line with theBoomers’growingpoliticalpower.

Thefalteringofaneconomypreviouslysogoodatdeliveringmassprosperitymadesomechangesinevitable.TheSeventies’combinationofslowgrowthandhighinflationwereheldbyconventionalmodelstobeimpossible,andwhentheimpossiblehappened,themodelswereunderstandablyataloss.Thenagain,themodels weren’t prepared for the novel combinations of the 1970s: the newphenomenaofoilcrises,oddagriculturalcomplications,sloppymonetarypolicy,and thesudden influxofmillionsofBoomers, includingnew“careerwomen,”alllookingforjobs.Nevertheless,theoldsystemprovedfairlyresilient.Thougheconomicconditionsof theSeventiesmayhavebeentheworstsincetheGreatDepression,theywerenotsobadinabsoluteterms:livingstandardscontinuedtorise and performance was better, overall, than it would be in subsequentrecessions.

GiventhattheSeventieswereatimeofmoderatedifficulty,youmighthavepredictedanequallymoderateresponse,andforatime,that’swhatthecountrygot.Unfortunately,theseconventionalstrategiescouldnotbringinflationundercontrolandtheFed,underChairmanPaulVolcker,ledadramaticandsuccessfulintervention from 1980 to 1982. Volcker hiked interest rates dramatically,prompting a sharp recession that helped tame inflation.With the inflationarythreateliminatedandtheoldsystem’slongandotherwisesuccessfullegacy,thenatural path for further reform was incremental, not revolutionary. Even ifsubstantial changes were on the table, they might be expected (givenconventional understandings of Sixties sanctimony) to take the form of newcommitmentstothepartsoftheoldprogramthatworkedwell, likecivilrightsandenvironmentallegislation,thereformofprogramswithmixedbutgenerallypositive results, likewelfare, and renewed commitments to the fiscal restraintandinvestmentprioritiesthathadworkedinthe1950sand1960sbutseemedindangeroflapsing.

Theseemingly least likelychoicewaswhatactuallyhappened,aheterodoxrevolution that took theworst elementsofolderprogramsandcombined theminto a bizarre “neoliberal” agenda that featured an economy simultaneouslylaissez-faire and heavily dependent on state spending and occasional federalbailouts; a conservative government, yet onewith radical ideals; a rhetoric ofprobity, but a policy of total fiscal and other indiscipline; Republicans

overseeinggovernmentbloatwhileDemocratspromotedfreetradeandthe“endofwelfare aswe know it.” Itwas ideologically incoherent and it didn’tworkparticularlywell,notformanyAmericans.But—thecritical“but”—itdidworkwell for one group, and that group would be the most powerful votingconstituencyduringneoliberalism’slongreign:theBoomers.

JustastheBoomerscannotbefullyunderstoodwithoutknowingsomethingaboutDr.SpockandVietnam,sotheirpoliciescannotbecomprehendedwithoutunderstandingneoliberalism.Neoliberaldoctrineservesastheoperatingsystemof Boomer dominance and is so pervasive and damaging that it requires achapterofitsown.ManyoftheAmericanpolicycalamitiesofthepastdecadeshave,astheiranimatingsource,somepervertedfragmentofneoliberaldoctrine.*

Neoliberalism1.0A key feature of Boomer sociopathy is maximizing present consumptionregardlessoffuturecosts,soreshapingtheeconomywouldbethefocusoftherevolutionary project. This proceeded under a set of theories, political andeconomic, now known as neoliberalism. Boomer neoliberalism isn’t trueneoliberalism(the latter isat leastcoherent)—theBoomerversion ismorefreemarketàlacarte,aswe’llsee.

UnderstandingBoomerneoliberalismrequiresanappreciationoftheoriginaldoctrine and its flaws, in the sameway that if onewants to recreate aRomanrepublic or Leninist paradise, it helps to know about the gladiators, slaves,gulags,andshowtrials.The“paleo-”liberalismthatprecededthe“neo-”versionwas classical liberalism, which dominated Anglophone policy from theIndustrialRevolutiontotheGreatDepression.Liberalism’sJurassicincarnationemphasizeda“slim”state,inwhichindividualscoulddoastheypleasedandthegovernment did a dead minimum, limiting itself to arbitration of disputes,nationaldefense,andthesupplyofafewpublicworkslikethepost.Everythingelsewassuperfluous,withAustrian-AmericanliberalLudwigvonMises,alaterexponent,opining(in1927,twoyearsbeforetheGreatCrash)thatthe“taskofthe state consists solely and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life,health,liberty,andprivatepropertyagainstviolentattacks.Everythingthatgoesbeyondthisisanevil.”3

Liberalismviewedgovernmentasanumpirewithagun,onetobefiredonlyincasesofthemostobviousemergency.Thestatedidnotneedtostimulatetheeconomy in a depression, concern itself with the poor, establish a minimumwage,banchild labor,keeptoxinsoutofstreams,orreally,muchofanything.For ultraliberals, any interventionswould be both immoral (vonMiseswasn’tjustbeingpoeticinusingtheterm“evil”)andpointless.Nothingcouldorganizethemarketbetterthanitself;anyintervention,bydefinition,wouldreducetotalutility.*,4Unfettered capitalismwasDr.Pangloss’sbest of all possibleworlds.Liberalisminitspuristformandinaspiration—thoughnotpracticalinstantiation—remainsrelevantasthecapitalistutopiatowhichdiehardsdesperatelyseekareturn; it is the (ostensible) omega point of themodern neoliberal revolution.Thisiswhatthevariousneoliberalacolytes(thesaintsPaul:Ryan,Rand,Ron)

are excited about, smacked on the head byAtlas Shrugged on their roads toWashington.

TheDepressioncreatedacertaininconvenienceforliberalism,sinceitsbestcounsel was to stand by while quasi-Darwinian forces brought the systemaround.TreasurySecretaryAndrewMellonsupposedlyadvisedthegovernmentthattheappropriateresponsetotheDepressionwasto“liquidatelabor,liquidatestocks, liquidate thefarmers, liquidaterealestate…itwillpurge therottennessoutofthesystem.Highcostsoflivingandhighlivingwillcomedown.Peoplewill work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, andenterprisingpeoplewillpickupthewrecksfromlesscompetentpeople.”5ThismayhaveendearedMellontoAynRand,butnottotheenfranchisedmultitude.

HooverandMellondidmorethanhistorygivesthemcreditfor(i.e.,theydidmorethanabsolutelynothing)andit’sneverbeenclearifMellonactuallycalledforanyonetobe“liquidated.”Noneofthatmattered,becausebytheelectionof1932,themarketwasclearlynothealingitself.TheotherpartsofAdamSmith’shandmight have been invisible, but the position of its middle digit could beeasilydetected.

AmericansthereforeelectedFranklinRoosevelttopursueamoreaggressivecourse. The electorate felt the poor deserved shelter, the jobless yearned forwork, the bankers needed regulation, and the Hobbesian securities marketneededitsLeviathan;these,Rooseveltsupplied.Roosevelt’spolicieshelped,asdidamonetaryexpansionthatcamefromanoddcombinationofafallingdollarand the simultaneous flowof funds out of a destabilizingEurope and into thesafetyoftheUnitedStates.*Theeconomybegangrowing,thoughbytheendofthe 1930s it still hadnot reached its pre-Depression levels andunemploymentremainedhigh.

WhatwasmissingwasstimulusonatrulyKeynesianscale,innosmallpartbecause John Maynard Keynes himself was, for American purposes, alsomissing. The New Deal, which began in 1933, gets cast as a Keynesianenterprisebutitwasnot,atleastnotinitiallyorintentionally.Keynespublishedhis first work on depressions in 1933, didn’t meet Roosevelt until 1934, anddidn’tputouthismasterwork,TheGeneralTheoryofEmployment,InterestandMoney,until1936.Asithappened,FDR’spoliciesofregulationandpoorreliefoverlapped in substantialpartwithKeynesianism,even if thosepoliciesdidn’tquitegoasfarasKeynesmighthaveliked.ThisdisconnectmeanttheNewDealwasnotaperfectexperimentandthathascausednoendofpoliticaltrouble.Forultra–freemarketers, theNewDealwasnotreallyKeynesian(sortof true)and

thiswas a blessing, because itmeant FDR’smeddlingmerely delayed, ratherthanderailed, the inevitable recovery (less true).For theKeynesians, theNewDealwasasuccessbutcouldhavebeenmoresuccessfulstill,hadFDRpushedasfarastheorydemanded(plausible).MyownviewisthattheNewDealanditssuccessors were neither Keynesian nor not-Keynesian, but rather whollyAmerican: pragmatic responses to specific problems informed by, but neverslavishto,theory.

Inthetwenty-firstcentury,itmayseemabitstaletoreexaminethepoliciesofatimesodistantthatthechampionofthemasseswasfondofwearingacapeandtophat,butthedebateoverhow theDepressionendedremains immenselyrelevant.Afterall,theGreatRecession,whichinmanywaysbeganin2001,hasnever quite been banished, and people still argue about regulation, stimulus,bailouts, and trade.TheGreatDepression andGreatRecession arenot perfectanalogues, but they are comparable. Because we cannot run controlledexperiments, comprehending what got the economymoving during the 1930sand then kept it going for another four decades is one reasonable way tounderstandwhatmightworknowandinthefuture.*

MutantNeoliberalismFollowing the Great Depression, classical liberalism seemed dead: Everyoneconcededabroader role for the state, and theessentialquestionwasabout therightamountofintervention.Unlikethemoderndebatewewillshortlytakeup,this midcentury dialogue was fruitful. The Keynesian Left argued that themodern economy was prone to problems only the state could address. Theoriginal neoliberal Right argued that too much intervention would produce asclerotic, ever-expanding welfare state, as it indeed would in pre-ThatcherBritain. Each doctrine provided useful correction to the other. Unfortunately,neitherviewwassociopathicallyoptimal.TheoriginalKeynesianismwent twoways—notonlydidthestatehavearoleinstimulatingtheeconomy,italsohadan obligation to tamp speculation and bubbles. Since that implied occasionalcurbs on consumption, it was unacceptable to the sociopathic mind. As forneoliberalism, it was not only ideologically impure, which was incompatiblewiththesociopath’sdistastefornuance,thetheoryalsodidn’tprovideasmanyattractivesocialbenefitsandwasirritatinglyobsessedwithfiscalrestraint.

Even as the original neoliberalism developed, the purists assembled theirforces. Influential thinkers like von Mises as well as Friedrich Hayek, KarlPopper, and Milton Friedman founded the Mont Pelerin Society to fight forlaissez-faire.* Per its website, Society members saw—and still saw as of thisbook’s printing—“danger in the expansion of government, not least in statewelfare, in the power of trade unions and business monopoly, and in thecontinuing threat and reality of inflation.”6 Despite the Society’s obscurity—asearchof theNewYorkTimes archivesproducesonly ahandfulof references,with more about the resort than the Society itself—it has nevertheless beenexceedinglyinfluential.PelerinhasincludedeightNobelistsineconomicsandin1970addedtoitsrollsCharlesKoch,thebillionairewhohasunderwrittenmuchoftheconservativemovement.7IfKoch’smoneyfailedtoproduceresultswhenallied to feckless nonentities likeMarcoRubio,when combinedwith heft likePelerin’s, it produced results.After thedebacle of 2008, the reasonwhy therewasanydebateatallaboutstimulusandtherisksofinflation(atatimewhenthecountrywasflirtingwithdeflation)isbecauseofgroupslikePelerin.

Obviously, given that neoliberals themselves struggle over what their

doctrine means, the term has been slippery, operating as a sort of economicRorschachblobthatrevealsmoreaboutitsviewerthanitself.FormanyLeftists,“neoliberal” is just a polite term for capitalism rampant, a doctrine that leadsstraight fromRonaldReagan to thedystopiaofBlake’ssatanicmills,operatedbyenslavedchildlaborersandbelchingsootandinequality.FortheRight,itissimply a label with no content, as the various subgroups prefer to organizethemselves as “Austrians” (after the country that producedHayek, vonMises,andothers)or“ChicagoSchool”(thehomeofMiltonFriedman,etal.),etc.†

For everyone else, including the critical group of politicians that countsamong its members every president since Reagan and relies on the doctrine,neoliberalism boils down to this: Individuals are best suited to take care ofthemselves,andthereforethedefaultpositionisthatgovernmenthasnorole.Or,anyway,aswe’llsee,noroleuntiltherightkindofindividualsmakethewrongkindsofdecisionsandneedalittlerefreshmentintheformoffederalfunds.

Regardless of the school, every variety of neoliberalismdepends upon keyand problematic assumptions: that individuals are rational, prudent, andinformed, and that they therefore canbe reliedupon tomeet their ownneeds.Most economic theories rely on these assumptions, but few to the degree thatneoliberalismdoes.However,alargebodyofwork,especiallybyAmosTverskyandDanielKahneman, shows thathumansarenotwholly rational agents, thatwe are susceptible to numerous cognitive biases that drive our thinking awayfrom the rational idea. These biases lurk in normal people, but sociopathsoperate at even greater remove from the rational ideal, prey to needs forimmediate gratification, fond of risk, and unable to plan for the future.Neoliberalism requiresAdamSmith and JohnStuartMill’shomoeconomicus,therationalindividualoptimizingamonghiseconomicchoices,butatbestgetsflawed homo sapiens, and from the 1970s on, must content itself with theBoomers’homosociopathicus.Theresultshavenotbeengood.

The various problems of neoliberalism remained concealed for some time,because theNewDeal’s successmooted the doctrine. The adjustments of theNewDealsetapopularbaselineforgovernmentintervention.Moreimportantly,for decades, the economy grew and deliveredmass prosperity despite (for theneoliberals) or because of (for everyone else) a government that operated asocial safety net, invested heavily in physical and educational infrastructure,toleratedlabororganizations, intervenedintrade,stimulatedtheeconomyfromtime to time, and maintained reasonable budget discipline including throughhigh taxes. For years, no influential politician embraced the full neoliberal

agenda,nordidcitizensdemandsuch.Onlyintwoareas,fiscalresponsibilityandastrongdollar,didconservative

ideas retain any real sway, with generally good results. World War II madebalanced budgets impossible, but the following twenty years saw a concertedattempt toreducedeficitsandbringdowndebt.Theseeffortswerenotentirelysuccessful, because of the expense of social programs, military outlays, andEisenhower’senormousinfrastructureprograms.Still,thegovernmentdidmakesubstantial progress toward a balanced budget, and the federal debt becamemuchlessburdensome.Stimuluswasprovided(andlessfrequently,withdrawn)tomoderatethebusinesscycle,butanylargedeficitsstimulusengenderedwereto be tolerated only in the short term, not as the permanent fixture they havebecome.

Asforthedollar,strengthwasmaintainedbyafixedlinkbetweengoldandthe dollar ($35 per ounce) and between the dollar and other currencies by theBrettonWoods exchange system. In theory, if you were concerned about thevalueofthedollar,youcouldsimplygouptotheGoldWindowandexchange$35foroneounceofgold,thoughinpracticeonlyforeigngovernmentsdidthisand usually through the account books. These constraints kept the greenbackfromdepreciating,preservingpurchasingpower.Forconservatives, abalancedbudgetandastrongdollarwerenotonlygoodeconomicpolicy, theywere theinstantiationsofmorality itself.Unfortunately, these antiquenotions restrainedconsumption and would prove an insurmountable obstacle to the adoption ofneoliberal (or neo-neo-liberal) policies by the Boomers. Until the late 1960s,however, theycommanded the supportof thepeopleandgovernmentsofbothparties.

Soliberalism,neo-andotherwise,hadtobideitstimeasatheorywaitingforanaudience.Before the1970s, therewasonlyonecredibleattempt toadvanceanything like liberalism,and thenonly in its Jurassic form.The failureof thatcampaign suggested the future compromises necessary to get the rest of theneoliberal agenda in place. The 1964 presidential race, between Johnson andGoldwater,providedtheforum.IndramaticcontrasttoJohnson,Goldwaterhadnopatience foranyof thegovernmentprogramsor fiscal indiscipline thathaddespoiled the capitalist landscape.He said asmuch in his election-year book,The Conscience of a Conservative. More than the standard and ephemeralelection-year reminisce,Conscience shaped the entire conservative movementand remains sufficiently powerful that Paul Krugman, an advocate forgovernment’s ability to solve problems, Nobel Prize–winning economist, and

New York Times columnist, titled his 2007 book Conscience of a Liberal,somethingofaripostetoabookwrittenmorethanfortyyearsbefore.EventheDemocraticnomineeof2016,HillaryClinton,hadbeenaGoldwatersupporterandaslateas1996attributedcertainofherpoliticalbeliefstothoseconservativeearlydays.*,8

ThethirdwaywasnotGoldwater’s;hehewedinsteadtotheclassicalliberalposition, demanding that government butt out as a matter of both soundeconomics andmorality. In his view, the government could participate in theeconomyonlyintheexerciseofits“legitimate”functions,asexplicitlysetforthin the Constitution.9 The Constitution, however, doesn’t exactly dwell eitherspecificallyoratlengthaboutmostoftheactivitiesofthemodernstate—whichwasGoldwater’spoint.Asidefromafewthingslikeestablishingamilitaryandpost office, the Constitution spends most of its length on the mechanics offederalofficeholding.Crucially,however,itslanguageisflexibletoallowforawide rangeof powers—asRoosevelt decisively established, albeit by coercivemeans,inlegalcasestestingtheNewDealbeforetheSupremeCourt.Therefore,Goldwaterwouldhavetoconvincepeopleasapolitical,ratherthanlegal,matterthat the nation had drifted into unconstitutional waters. His and otherconservatives’failuretodosoexplainsthehardRight’sfixationsincethe1980swithcontrollingthecourts,toachievebyjudicialmeanswhatpoliticscouldnot.

BrandishingtheConstitution,GoldwaterinformedtheAmericanpeoplethatprograms like Social Security, farm regulation, and labor relations appearnowherewithintheConstitution,andaskedforamandatetoabolishthemall.Asfor taxes, anything beyond the amounts necessary to fund “legitimate”operationswere to be eliminated.What taxes did remain,Goldwater believed,should be flat instead of progressive (i.e., everyone should pay the samepercentage, rather than higher earners paying a larger fraction).10 Even theinfrastructureprogramsandmodestwelfareprogramsEisenhowerpresidedoverwere “disappointing” in their profligacy and extent, to say nothing of whatJohnsonproposed.11Astothat,GoldwaterviewedJohnson’sGreatSocietyasanexpressway to communist hell, paved with food stamps and educationalsubsidies.“SocialismcanbeachievedthroughWelfarism,”Goldwaterasserted,perhaps viewing Johnson’s war in Vietnam as nothing more than a squabbleamongcommunistfellowtravelers.12

The senator’s message didn’t resonate, at least, not with most of theelectorate,notatthetime.JohnsontrouncedGoldwaterin1964,with61percentofthepopularvoteto39percent,capturingeveryregionofthecountryexcept

Goldwater’s home state and—this would be crucial—the deep South. In part,Goldwaterwas seenasdangerouslyaggressiveandwilling toconsider tacticalnuclear bombing inVietnam. (An infamous Johnson attack adplayed to thesefearsbycuttingfromashotofalittlegirlpickingflowerpetalstofootageofamushroom cloud going up.) But the senator’s social and economic visionprobably undid him asmuch as ormore than the saber rattling, asGoldwaterhimself should have predicted when reading the book his ghostwriter hadprepared, which repeatedly emphasized (and deplored) “Welfarism’s strongemotional appeal tomany voters.”13 Regardless, ifGoldwater’s views of fiftyyears ago seemoddly fresh, it’s because theyprovidemuchof themotivatingdoctrineofthemodernRight.Goldwatermayhavelostin1964butmanyofhisviewsprevailtoday,withafewcriticalmodifications.

BeforetheGoldwatercandidacycouldevolveintotheReaganpresidency,ithad to contend with one last champion of big government, Richard Nixon.Nixon’spro-governmentlegacyhasbeenobscuredbyWatergateandbycertainLeftists’ unnuanced disgust, but personal failings notwithstanding, it was theRepublican Nixon who favored a government bigger than anything Clinton(either one) orBarackObama dared propose, promoting domestic policieswewould now view as unambiguously Leftist, so much so that even NoamChomskycalledhim“inmanyrespects,thelastliberalpresident.”14

Whether Nixon truly believed in big government, pursued it because itflatteredhis imperialgrandiosity,orwas simplyengaging inpolitical strategy,thefactremainsthathehugelyincreasedgovernment’sremitinAmericanlives.He did so despite his loathing of the Washington bureaucracy, the poor,minorities (and really,everyone).UnderNixon,analreadysizablegovernmentgrewtothepointwherealmostnoaspectofAmericanliferemaineduntouched.Nixonhelped regulate the environment through legislation and by establishingtheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Hesupportedsaferworkingconditionsbycreating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. He proposedhealth-carereform,suggestingexpansionofstate-administeredprogramstoofferinsurance to all Americans, which—Obamacare notwithstanding—remains adreamunfulfilled.WiththeFairLaborStandardsAct,heincreasedtheminimumwage,andhesupportedtheEqualRightsAmendment,whichwouldhavehelpedensurewageparitybetweenmenandwomen.Eventhearts,thehabitatofpinkointellectualsNixonsodetested,receivedenormousincreasesinfederalfunding.Perhapshisboldestideawastoscrapwelfareinfavorofaguaranteedminimumincome for all Americans, an experiment so radical that it has never been

adoptedbyanymajornation.Congresskilledtheidea,butitwasaboldoneandgot surprisingly far, further than in any other until the Swiss picked up (thendropped)theideainthetwenty-firstcentury.15

Nixon therefore represented the high-water mark of the big state, a worldwheregovernmentcouldsolveproblemsratherthansimplybeing theproblem.Buttheoldordersoonfell,avictimofaseriesofcrisesthatindividuallycouldhavebeenabsorbedbutcollectivelyprovedtemporarilyoverwhelming,openingthedoor forneoliberalism.Thefirstchallengewas inflationand thedollar.Bythelate1960s,theeconomicframeworkthathadprevailedfollowingWorldWarII had, like everything else, begun to fray. Though the economy continued toexpand,withemploymentandwagegrowthat levelswewould todayconsideracceptable,heavygovernmentspendingonthewarandsocialprogramscreatedinflationary pressures whose consequences would be the defining economicexperienceoftheyoungBoomers.

TheDeadlyChimeraAlthoughJohnsonhadimposedtemporarytaxestoatleastpartlydefraythecostsofVietnam(somethingBushIIwouldn’t repeatduringIraqII), thesewere toosmalltopersuadethemarketsaboutWashington’sfiscaldiscipline;thefinancialcommunity worried that bigger deficits would lead to inflation. Today, thiswouldsimplybereflectedbyafallingdollarintheforeignexchangemarket,butthatwas (formally) impossible before 1971, because the dollarwas pegged togoldat$35perounce.Andbeforethelate1960s,itdidn’tneedtobereflectedinanything: Roughly balanced budgets created little fear of inflation, and anyskepticscouldsimplyexchange theirdollars forgold,ofwhichmore thanhalftheworld’ssupplywasheldbytheUnitedStates.

The gold-dollar system had been the centerpiece of the Bretton Woodsagreement,whichrequiredmajortradingnationstoadheretothegoldstandardand created institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the WorldBank to manage the system. Bretton Woods had successfully lubricated thepostwar global economy, but the system always had weaknesses (involvingproblemswith theAmerican current account too technical to delve into here),anditcertainlycouldnotwithstandapermanentdeviationbetweentheofficialpriceofgoldandthemarket’sviewsonwhattherealpriceshouldbe.Johnson’sheavy spending on the Great Society and Vietnam convinced foreign holdersthattherealvalueofthedollarwasfalling,andtheyexchangeddollarsforgoldattheofficial,andintheirview,artificiallyhigh,price.

As longas theUnitedStatesheld enoughgold, it couldmaintainwhateverfictivegold-dollar rate itwanted, but by the late1960s, theUnitedStateswasrunninglowongoldandthesystemdestabilized.TheprospectoflettingBrettonWoodsgodismayedmostleaders.Variousandincreasinglydesperatemeasureswere taken tokeepthesystemgoing, includingminoradjustments to thegold-dollar rate,pricecontrols, andcajolingmembers intoaccepting losseson theirdollarholdings.Noneofthesetacticssufficed,andinAugust1971,NixontooktheUnitedStatesoffthegoldstandard.

Conservatives have fumed about this ever since, because it meant thegovernment really could just print as much money as it wanted, eroding thevalueof some assets.Of course, itmatterswhoholds those inflation-sensitiveassets,andwhentheBoomersjoinedthecapitalistclass,theyweredeterminedto

strangleinflationregardlessofthepricetogrowth.TheBoomersareperhapsthesavviest generation about inflation sinceWeimarGermans, because they livedthroughperiodsofbothhighandlowinflationandtheyknowwhomitcanhelpandwhomitcanhurt.InflationistotheBoomerswhatrainistofarmers;usefulwhensowing,dangerouswhenreaping,andalwaysasubjectofpreoccupation.The 1970s provided Boomers with an invaluable education, and they wouldmanipulateinflationpolicyinruthlessserviceoftheirownends.Butthatwouldcomelater;inthemeantime,the1970shadotherinflationarylessons.

Toresume,withgoldconvertibilitygoneandnoeffectiverestraintsleft,thevalueofthedollarfellandinflationaccelerated.Thetraditionalresponsewouldhave been to cool demand through some combination of lower spending andhighertaxes.However,theeconomyhaddippedveryslightly,andNixonwantedstrong growth ahead of the 1972 election. Though nominally a conservativeRepublican, Nixon embraced Keynesian mechanisms (even if he never quitesaid,“WeareallKeynesiansnow”).ThepresidentcajoledtheFederalReserveandCongressandorderedagenciesunderhiscontrol tospendasmuchastheycould,amandatetheDefenseDepartmentfulfilledbybuyingatwo-yearsupplyoftoiletpaper.16Growtheeconomydid,atthepriceoffurtherinflation.It’snotclear the economy neededmuch stimulating in the first place, anymore thanNixon neededWatergate shenanigans to secure his 1972 landslide, butNixonlikedoverkill.

Between the Nixon stimulus, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system,Vietnam spending, and natural growth, the economy overheated and inflationaccelerated.Compoundingtheproblemwerenew“supplyshocks”intheformofsuddenrises in thepriceofessentialcommodities,especiallyoiland food.Oilwasdenominatedindollars,soaweakeningdollarafterthecollapseofBrettonWoods lowered the incomes of the oil-producing nations.OPEC subsequentlyrepricedoilingoldterms,whicheffectivelyraisedthedollarpriceofoil.OPECraisedpricesagaininresponsetotheYomKippurWar.Followingthepeaceof1974,pricegrowthdecelerateduntiltheIranianRevolutionof1979,whichsentprices even higher than the shocks of 1973. Prices abated over time, but thelegacy remains in America’s enduring commitment to protecting Gulf oilsupplies. It also lingers in the financialized economy the oil spikes helpedproduce. All those oil dollars, liberated from individual pockets, wereconcentrated and sent back to a limited number of American financialinstitutions, providing them with capital that would be deployed in theinvestment-bankingeconomythathasprevailedsincethe1980s.

Theothermajorproblemwasunemployment,whichwasrising,albeitfromtheexceedinglylowlevelof3.9percentinJanuary1970to5.1percentjustafterthefirstoilshock, thenrisingsubstantiallyasrecessionset in.By1979, itwasbackto5.6percent,beforeanotheroilshockwroughtmorehavoc,butthroughthe1970s,conditionsneverquiteachievedthesameseverityaswhathappenedpost-2008.17 It was a fairly good result considering the oil shocks, the largenumbers of veterans returning to civilian employment after Vietnam, and thehordes of Boomers entering the workforce every year. But unemploymentthreatenedtheyoungBoomersmostofall;theeconomywassimplynotgrowingfastenoughforthem.

Youth unemployment is often higher than the general rate, and the 1970swerenodifferent.Theproblemespeciallyaffectedyoung,blue-collarworkers.TheUnitedStateswas substantiallymoreunionized then thannow; some20+percentofworkerswereunionizedversus11.1percentin2014.*,18Theunions’seniorityrulespreservedoldworkers’jobsattheexpenseoftheyoung,andthismadetheunemploymentcrisisamongBoomersespeciallyacute.

The whole mess was termed “stagflation,” and it seemed intractable. Theconventional tack for slower growth would be stimulus, but stimulus wouldprovoke inflation; the traditional response to control inflation would be tosuppress growth, but growth was already suppressed. This left planners in abind.Intheend,theyleftmonetarypolicyloose,riskinghigherinflation,whichtheygot.

Torepeat,however:The1970sweren’tentirelyterrible.Althoughthedecadewitnessed the (then) worst economic conditions since the Depression, thingswerenowherenearasbadastheywereinthe1930sandnotnearlyasmuchofalost decade for middle-income Americans as the 2000s and 2010s would be.Between1970and1979,inflationandunemploymentpeakedat13.5percentand9.0 percent, respectively.19 The economy continued to grow, averaging 3.2percent real growth between1970 and 1979, and theS&P500 rosemodestly,from85atthebeginningof1970to108attheendof1979.MostBoomersgotjobs, andmost of the jobsweregood.The1970swere also the last decade inwhich the working class experienced meaningful wage growth.20 While theeconomic dislocations of the 1970s were surely stressful and alarming, theeconomy’s overall performance was at worst mediocre—indeed, it wasnoticeablybetterthantheperiodbetween2000and2015,despiteperhapsgreaterchallenges overall,many either benign (a growing population ofworkers, i.e.,Boomers)orexogenous(IranianRevolution,etc.).Nevertheless,forageneration

habituated to fast growth and high employment, the entire decade came as ashock.

Whatwastobedone?Aswe’veseen,therewerethreemajoroptions.Option1: a revision of the existing Keynesian/New Deal/Great Society project—perhapsbalancingbudgetsabitbetter,making theeconomy lessvulnerable toexogenousshockslikeoilembargoes,maybealittlelessregulation.Option2:areturn to the classical order that prevailed before the Depression. Option 3:neoliberalrevolution.Eachsucceedingelectionprovidedopportunitiesforvoterstochooseapath,andeveryyear,theBoomercomponentoftheelectorategrewand pushed politics further down the neoliberal path. In the long term, therecouldneverhavereallybeenaquestionaboutwhichoptionwouldbechosen,fortheonlyonethatcateredtosociopathicurgeswasOption3.

The Boomers were not yet in control, and neither President Ford norPresidentCarter enjoyedamandate for change.Givenpolitical stasis, thebestthatcouldbemanagedwasahighlyunconvincingOption1.Forhis firstyear,Fordoptedforatraditionaleconomicpackage,trimmingunnecessaryspending,providingtargetedstimulus,andraisingtaxesoncorporationsandhigherearnerstoensuresomelevelofbalanceinthebudget.TheRepublicanevenaddedadashof New Deal, a Community Improvement Corps to hire the jobless forbeautification projects if unemployment rose to over 6 percent. Ford alsoproposed stronger regulation, especially of antitrust laws, to avoid abusivepractices.21 The fatal mistake, however, came when he asked the Americanpeople to voluntarily reduce consumption to help ease inflationary pressures.Ford’s proposals irritated an increasinglyBoomerishAmerica. Eventually, thepresidentwasforcedintowhathispresssecretarycalleda“179-degreeturn.”22Instead of going up, taxes were cut somewhat and spending increased. Thebudgetdidnotbalance,slippingin1974–1975fromadeficitof–0.4percentto–3.3 percent.23 Ford pleased no one, especially not diehards in the RepublicanParty, who were dismayed by the president’s failure to enact radical welfarecuts,hispolicyofdétentewiththeSovietUnion,andhisembraceoftheEqualRightsAmendment.TheRightistNationalReviewevencalledforthecreationofa thirdparty to challengeFord in1976 (fortyyears later, theywouldget theirwish,moreandless,withTrump).In1976,therewasnoneed,becauseRonaldReaganwasleadinganinsurrectionfromwithintheparty,thoughtheinertiaofincumbencydeliveredtheparty’snominationtoFord.

In the end JimmyCarter narrowly prevailed, with just 50.1 percent of thevote.Carter’s proposalswere asmodest as his victory—balancing the budget,

enacting a tiny tax cut in the form of a fifty-dollar rebate, and leaving thegovernment mostly intact. His only truly significant economic initiative wasderegulation,whichhadlongbeenhopedforbyconservatives.Thisbeganwithairlinesandtrucking,whosepriceswereconstrainedbyfederalmandate.Earlyderegulation was generally good, especially when accompanied by vigorousenforcementofotherstandards—it’sonethingtoderegulatethepriceofaplaneticket, it’s another thing to abolish the FederalAviationAdministration. Theywere also long-term reforms,which could not reasonably be expected to bearfruitforsometime.

Somethingmoreimmediatewasrequired,andhereiswhereWaterloocametotheWhiteHouse,intheformofa1979addressknownastheMalaiseSpeech.Preparing for reelection, JimmyCarter decided to be frankwith theAmericanpeopleabout theproblemshesaw,thelasteffortofadecentmantocajoletheAmerican people (by then, heavily composed of Boomers) into their formerprobity.TheMalaiseSpeechisworthdwellingonbecauseitisatoncesocorrectasadiagnosisandsofecklessasapoliticaldocument,andquotedareitssalientpoints(allitalicsmine):

• It’s clear that the true problemsof ourNation aremuchdeeper—deeperthan gasoline lines or energy shortages, deeper even than inflation orrecession.• In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knitcommunities, and our faith inGod, toomany of us now tend toworshipself-indulgenceandconsumption.•Human identity is no longer defined bywhat one does, but bywhat oneowns.•ThewillingnessofAmericanstosaveforthefuturehasfallenbelowthatofallotherpeopleintheWesternworld.• As you know, there is a growing disrespect for government and forchurchesandforschools,thenewsmedia,andotherinstitutions.•Thesechangesdidnothappenovernight.They’vecomeuponusgraduallyoverthelastgeneration,yearsthatwerefilledwithshocksandtragedy.•We simplymust have faith in each other, faith in our ability to governourselves, and faith in the future of thisNation.Restoring that faith andthatconfidencetoAmericaisnowthemostimportanttaskweface.Itisa

truechallengeofthisgenerationofAmericans.•Weareataturningpointinourhistory.Therearetwopathstochoose.OneisapathI’vewarnedabouttonight,thepaththatleadstofragmentationandself-interest.Downthatroadliesamistakenideaof freedom,theright tograspforourselvessomeadvantageoverothers.Thatpathwouldbeoneofconstantconflictbetweennarrowinterestsendinginchaosandimmobility.Itisacertainroutetofailure.•Idonotpromiseyouthatthisstruggleforfreedomwillbeeasy.Idonotpromiseaquickwayoutofournation’sproblems,when the truth is thattheonlywayoutisanall-outeffort.24

You can almost hear the wheels of the presidential Pinto squealing rightbefore it flew off the cliff. It’s not that Carter was wrong; he was simplyproposinga return to thevalues thathadworkedsowellbefore,gettingat theroot of a problemwhose symptomsmay have been stagflationary, but whosecauseswerebehavioral and fundamental, even,Carter,hinted, “generation[al]”and maybe even the future responsibility of one generation in particular.However, while Carter was smart enough to diagnose the cause, he failed toappreciate thereal implicationsofhismessage.Theverypeopleexhibiting thesociopathyhedescribedweretheonesleastreceptivetohisprescriptions.Moresavings,lessconsumption?Moretrust,morefamily,lessindividualism,lessself-interest?Hardwork?

Carterdidn’tfullyunderstandthedeepchangestotheAmericandemographicthe Boomers had wrought, nor did he count on the emergence as a seriouspoliticalfigureofRonaldReagan,theactorwhosesidekickBubblestheChimphadbeenreplacedbyArtLafferandhisMagicCurve.Reagan(or,atleast, thepublic’s version of him)was tailor-made for the sociopathic electorate.Neveragain would the Boomers be told to save, or adjust the thermostat, or definethemselvesotherthanbytheirmaterialpossessions,toworkontheirfamilies,totrust a meddlesome government, to abandon the pursuit of unrestrainedindividualism, or to undertake an “all-out effort” of any kind. All problemswould be resolved by neoliberalism, for once the decks had been cleared ofencumbering regulation and thehumanbilgedischarged from theholdsof thewelfare state, things would take care of themselves: growth, jobs, inflation,consumption,allofit.

The essence of Reagan’smessagewas paleoliberalism, but Goldwater had

shown that paleoliberalism was a hard sell. The people liked many of thebenefitsbiggovernmenthandedout,soevenifdoctrinerequiredtheirabolition,the most that could be done was shutting off the flow to the least telegenicrecipients. The second obstacle was fiscal restraint. Sociopathic consumptiondemanded tax cuts, but it also demanded government largesse. Liberalistorthodoxy also required tax cuts, but insisted on a balanced budget.Reducinggovernmentspendingonresearch,development,thearts,andsooncouldneveroffsetthetaxcutsbeingproposed,andreducingmiddle-classbenefitswasoutofthequestion.Theonlyoption,therefore,wastotoleratehugedeficits,untilsuchtimeasAmericanswerepreparedtodoawaywiththebigstate.

Inthemeantime,tocultivateapatinaoffiscalresponsibility,Reaganturnedtoanewtheorythatheldthattaxcutswouldpayforthemselves.(Here’swhereTV’ssuspensionofdisbeliefbecamecrucial,bothfortheactor-presidentandforthevoterswhoelectedhim.)Thegovernmentwouldreturndollarstothepeople,the people would use them more productively than the government, and theeconomywouldgrowsomuchthatevenatalowertaxrateitwouldprovideasmuchormoreintotaltaxespaid.Thistheory,instantiatedinagraphnowcalledthe “Laffer Curve” and originally inscribed on a cocktail napkin (andpresumablyundertheinfluenceofthecocktailthatcamewiththenapkin),wasinstantlyridiculedas“voodooeconomics.”Here’sthedifficulty:Tohalvetaxesbut still collect the same total dollars, the economywould have to essentiallydouble.Thatoutcomewasplausibleonlyoverthelong,longterm—toachieveadoublingintheeconomywouldrequireatax-drivenincreaseintherealgrowthrateof5percentoveritsbaserate,anditwouldstilltakefifteenyears—andinthemeantimedeficitswouldabound.

Aswe’veseen,acombinationlikethishadneverbeentriedbefore,andmanyof theconstituentpartshadnotworkedverywell in isolation.Lowinvestmentled to low growth, lighter taxes and less progressiveness led to greaterinequality, fiscal indisciplineproduceddebtandcouldproduce inflationunlessgrowthoverallwasslower,andsoon.Theonlyunambiguousbenefitwouldbeanear-term increase in consumption. Therefore, the program required anelectorate that cherishedconsumptionaboveall,waswilling tooverlook long-term consequences in favor of short-term gain, had no compunctions aboutstripping benefits from the most vulnerable, and could tolerate the magicalthinking of the Laffer Curve while discounting the large body of evidencecounselingagainstthesestrategies.Asithappened,justsuchanelectoratewasathand.

CHAPTERSEVEN

THEBOOMERASCENDANCY

Theaccumulationofallpowers,legislative,executive,and

judiciary,inthesamehands,whetherofone,afew,ormany,andwhetherhereditary,self-appointed,or

elective,mayjustlybepronouncedtheverydefinitionoftyranny.

—JamesMadison(FederalistNo.47)1

If the Boomers had been just another generation, their sociopathy would bemerelylamentable,butdemographicsandhistorygrantedBoomersthepowertoreshapethenationindevastatingways.NootherAmericangenerationhadbeenaslargeandenduring,andnoothergenerationhadoriginsashomogeneous,orambitions as focused, as the Boomers. Nor has any other group, or evencombinationofgroups,ofcomparablesizeandcohesionyetrisentoopposetheBoomers.Americaoverthepastthirty-oddyearshasbeenaBoomerAmerica.

WhatestablishestheBoomersasapoliticalgeneration is that theBoomers’overriding policy ambitions have been defined not in conventional terms likeraceorgender,butbyageandlifecycle.Thishasbeenthecasefromtheverystart. The Vietnam draft was, obviously, age based, as were the domesticresponses,likelowerthresholdsforvotinganddrinking.AndBoomer(andthus

American)politicswill continue tobedrivenby lifecycle,with theBoomers’desire tomaintainold-agebenefitsoverridingallotherpoliticalconcerns.*Thetrue power of theBoomers has been partly disguised by the nominal politicaldivisions within the Boomers and also by the culture wars of the 1980s and1990s,whichprovidedcolorfulheadlinesbutrarelydistractedtheBoomersfrompursuing the many economic policies on which they agreed, and, given theirstrength,achieved.

Appreciating the vast scope and influence ofBoomer power is essential tounderstandingthattheeventsofthepastfewdecadeshavenotbeenanaccident,the product of grand consensus across many groups, or the anti-democraticperversionsofaplutocraticcabal,butratherthegenerallydemocraticexpressionof a uniquely influential generation and its self-serving priorities. Colorful asFreemasonry, theTrilateralCommission, andBilderbergmay be,we can doffthe tinfoil hats in favor of straightforward explanations: the awesome size ofBoomer voting power and the generation’s demonstrable interest in using thatpower to promote its own agenda at everyone else’s expense. The Boomerswould eventually resort to less conventional mechanisms to retain power, aswe’llseeinChapter16,butforalmost itsentirelength, theBoomerrevolutionwasdemocratic.

ThePowerofMajorityMore than anything,Boomer influence is a story of sheer numbers.As of theearly 1980s, when the Boomer revolution really kicked off, the generationrepresentednolessthan42percentofthevoting-eligiblepopulationandupto51percent, depending on whether one calculates the Boom’s start from 1940 or1946.2Undereitheranalysis,theBoomershavebeenbyfarthemostimportantpolitical group for several decades—e.g., there were roughly as many whiteBoomers in 1990 as all ethnic minorities, of all generations, combined.3 TheBoomers’numerositymeant that even amodest tilt in anyonedirection (self-serving sociopathy, as a pointed example) influencedoutcomesprofoundly. Inmatters where the Boomers identified themselves by generational interests, asthey often did, their powerwould be overwhelming, allowingBoomers to setpolicy essentially by themselves, without any of the usual coalition building,compromises, or concessions to other interests. It has been an extraordinarysituationinAmericandemocratichistory.*

TowardaLowerVotingAgeInessentialmatters,theBoomershavefromthestartidentifiedtheirinterestsonagenerationalbasis,quite literally from themoment theygot thevote.Before1970, the voting age in the United States had generally been twenty-one—“generally,”becausestateswerefreetoadoptlowervotingagesfortheirownelections. Before 1969, only four states did so.4 It just didn’t seemworth theexpense tomaintainseparate registriesofeighteen-year-olds for stateelectionsand twenty-one-year-olds for federalcontests.More important,mostadultsdidnot believe that teenagers possessed the maturity to exercise the franchise.However,duringthe1960s,momentumgatheredbehindtheideathatdraftinganeighteen-year-oldwhiledenyinghimthevotewasunjust.Soin1970,Congressamended, andNixon signed, theVotingRightsAct to lower thevotingage toeighteen, and the states ratified the Twenty-Sixth Amendment the followingyear,tothesameeffect.Bydefinition,noneoftheseactorswereBoomers,butthey all understood the consequences of failing to cater to a group thatwouldgainthevotesoonenough.Theresultsoftherevisedthresholdscanbeseeninthejumpinthenextchart.

TheonlyimmediatebeneficiariesoftheTwenty-SixthAmendmentweretheBoomers.Rightfromthebeginning,thegeneration’spoliticalidentitywasbasednotonconventionalcharacteristicslikegender,income,orrace,butonage.Thatwas a political landmark in itself. The only comparable equivalent was theenactmentofSocialSecurity,whichunitedseniorsin1935andwillserveastheBoomers’finalrallyingpoint.

Boomers:TheEssentialElectorate

What’sgoingonhere? TheBoomers have been hugely influential in politics formany decades.Whiletheirrawvotespeakedintheearly1980s,theirtrueinfluencekeptgrowingastheyaged,gatheredoffices,

madepoliticaldonations,andmostimportantly,astheirvotingparticipationratesincreased.5

Of equal consequence was how the change was achieved, because thejustifications for the lowered voting age were shaky and the mechanisms notwithout risks to others. That these infirmitiesmade no difference provided anearly lesson to theBoomers that thecritical factor inobtainingpoliticalgoodswasnotlogicorprudence,butgenerationalstrength.

Theconventional and superficially appealing justification for thechange invoting agewas “old enough to serve, old enough to vote.” By that logic, thevotingageshouldhavechangednotin1970,butin1942,whenthedraftagewasloweredfromtwenty-onetoeighteen(orreachingbacktoWorldWarI,perhapssixteen).Andintheensuingdecadestherewere,infact,dozensofproposalstoreconciletheagesofvotinganddraft.Allofthemfailed.

Sowhatchangedin1970?Certainly,notthemeritsofthearguments.SenatorTedKennedytrottedouttheoldsawthatitwasunjustforademocracytodraftaman who had no political say about the war he would be required to fight.Kennedy’sargumenthaddeepflaws,startingwiththeobvious,whichwasthatmodernnationsshouldn’tbeinthebusinessofdraftingteenagers.Theobviousplacetostartwastherightplacetostart,andbeginningfromthatpremisewould

have avoided a lot of tortured logic, ofwhich therewould be plenty. For onething, Kennedy’s argument wouldn’t justify the extension of the franchise toyoungwomen,whoweren’tdraftorcombateligible(onlya limitednumberofwomen served in support roles). For another, ~70 percent of theVietnam-eramilitary had volunteered, so obviously the substantialmajoritydid have somechoiceinthefight.Whileinjusticeshouldalwaysberootedout,therewerealsovastlyfewerteenageconscriptsinVietnamthaninWorldWarII.Innumericalterms, the argument had gotten weaker, not stronger, and it was furthercomplicatedbythefactthatsomanyBoomersavoidedthedraftbymeanslegaland otherwise. The argument, anyway, would soon be mooted—as everyoneunderstood. One of Nixon’s 1968 campaign pledges was to end conscription,andapresidentialcommissioninearly1970clearedthepathtodoso.Thedrafthad been declining radically since 1969 and would be formally abolished in1973.Nevertheless,whiletheargumentstoreconcilingthedraftandvotingageswereslight,flawed,andtransient,teenageBoomersweregrantedthevote.Thebegrudging service of a tiny minority was used to confer benefits on tens ofmillions.

Draft or no draft, the extension of the franchisemight havemade sense ifteenagerswouldbeprudentstewardsoftheirnewrights.ThiswasexactlywhatKennedy argued, saying that eighteen-year-olds “possess[ed] the requisitematurity, judgment and stability for responsible exercise of the franchise.”6Cognitiveresearchdisagrees:Personalityandjudgmentdonotfullymatureuntiltheearlytwenties.(Perhaps,inKennedy’scase,thebloomofjudgmentdidnotopen until even later, given the events of Chappaquiddick shortly before hisvoting-agecrusade.)Forproof,onecanjustreviewthecatalogueofsex,drugs,and draft dodging during the 1960s, or for themore digitallyminded, perusetheir own histories on the time machine of Facebook. Kennedy alsooptimisticallypointedtothebettereducationsofmodernteens,butthenecessaryclasses incivicswerecursoryatbest,both thenandnow,andwhileAmericancivic knowledge overall is abysmal—more people can identify Beyoncé thanname the three branches of government—it has always been by far theworstamongyoungpeople.7

Amore persuasive explanation of the timingof reform is that in an era ofclose elections, the prospect of capturing a large population of new votersprovedirresistible.In1970,everyBoomerundertheageoftwenty-onestoodtobenefit, some 60 million new votes available for the taking.8 The immediateexpansionoftheelectoratewassmaller,ofcourse,butstillenormousinpolitical

terms: some 10–11 million voters, around 8 percent of the voting-eligiblepopulation.9FromWorldWarIIto1970,fourpresidentialelectionssinceWorldWarIIhadpopularmarginsoflessthan10percent.KennedyandNixon(inhis’68campaign)eachcarriedthecountrybylessthan1percent;Carterwouldwinby2.06percent.Evenifonlyhalfthenewlyenfranchisedyouthvoted,itmightchangetheelectoralbalance.Tothecountry’sgreatcost,thisspeculationwouldsoonbeprovedout.

CongressdulyamendedtheVRAtopermityouthvoting,anearlyconcessiontoBoomernumerosity.LikemanyBoomer-orientedpolicies,itputothergroupsat risk. Granting Boomers the vote through the VRA gave courts a primeopportunitytorevisitotherportionsoftheact,includingtheabilityofthefederalgovernment to police states that had historically discriminated against racialminoritiesinthevotingbooth.Nixon,alawyer,knewwhenhesignedtheVRAamendment that it was likely unconstitutional, and cynics about Nixon couldreasonably question whether he was inviting the Court to restrict the VRA’sapplication to blacks under the guise of expanding its protections forBoomers.*,10 And indeed, something like that happened, albeit decades later,when a Court led by Boomer John Roberts was happy to take advantage ofsloppycongressionalworktodispatchwithpartsoftheVRA.Inanyevent,thepre-BoomerCourtof1970allowedCongresstolowerthefederalvotingagebutprohibiteditfromenforcingthisresultonthestates,andwentnofurther.

Nevertheless, with the federal voting age lowered it became politicallyimperativetopassaconstitutionalamendmenttobringstatelawsinline,andthespeedwith which this was achieved confirmed the considerable power of theBoomers.*TheCourt’srulingsubjectedallcongressmento thesub-twenty-onevote;anycongressmandaringtoopposetheamendmentcouldexpectabacklash.TheHousedulypassed the amendment 401–19.11 Facedwith a fait accompli,states submitted additional ratifications, and Nixon signed the whole packagefivedaysaftertherequisitethirty-eighthstateratified.Itwasthefastestapprovalfor any amendment, essentially one hundred days from start to finish. Bycomparison, it tookmore than two years for theBill ofRights to achieve thesame result; the guarantee of the franchise for blacks through the FifteenthAmendmenttook342days,tosaynothingoftheCivilWarandthecenturiesofslaverythatprecededit;and,theNineteenthAmendment’sdeliveryofwomen’ssuffragetook441daysanddecadesofwork.†,12

The lesson for the Boomers was that they were uniquely powerful incontemporarypoliticsandperhapsevenespeciallydeserving,whichrein-forced

their sociopathic predispositions.‡,13 In this case, theBoomerswere given theprivilege; in later years, they would simply take it. As it happened, Nixonexpectedfirst-timevoters(Boomers)tovoteforhim,anditappearstheydidifby a slim majority; then again, so did most Americans in 1972.14 TheRepublicanadvantageinBoomervoteswouldgrowovertime,thoughitwouldsometimesbeovercomewhenDemocratsofferedupaparticularly charismaticcogenerationalist like B. Clinton. Even then, prominent Boomer DemocratstendedtopursuepoliciesanyNewDealer/GreatSociety-istwouldhaveviewedasfairlyconservative.

Capturing new under-twenty-one votes became an urgent matter, and welabor still under the heritage of those efforts, which helped establish theBoomers’ permanent political orientations.Democrats, the natural party of theyoung, failed to capitalize on the opportunity presented by the Twenty-SixthAmendment. At the time, the Democrats’ youth wing was in disarray. In the1960s, the College Democrats had split from the Democratic NationalCommitteeoverVietnamandwouldnotbereabsorbeduntil1990.Givenstudentpoliticalpreferences,thelosswasprobablynotsomuchinimmediatevotesasinfailure to build an effective Leftist youth machine or establish lasting partyaffinities.

TheRepublicans, sensinganopening,quicklyoccupied it.Hewing to (pre-Trump)stereotype,theGOPhaditsacttogetherandaggressivelycourtedyouth.Just after the Twenty-SixthAmendmentwas ratified, theRepublicanNationalCommitteemadeCollege-RNCitsofficialyoutharm.C-RNCbecameasortoftraining camp for future Republican organizers, startingwithKarl Rove, whosoughttheC-RNCchairmanshipin1973.Rovewasalreadyanoperator,havingrunaWatergateJr.,breakingintotheofficeofaDemocraticcandidate(perRovehimself, it was a “youthful prank” of a nineteen-year-old; so much for TedKennedy’s“requisitematurity,judgmentandstability”).15HiscontestfortheC-RNCchairmanshipwas equally unsavory, involving an electoral kerfuffle andcontestedresults,resolvedbythepersonalinterventionofRNCchairGeorgeH.W.Bush—foreshadowing,perhaps,Bushv.Gore(whereallthemembersoftheCourt’smajorityheldappointmentsduetoReagan/BushI).

The Democrats flubbed a prime chance to make loyal millions of newlyminted voters, while the Republicans turned their youth organizations intoeffective finishing schools. Over time, white Boomers drifted Rightward andstayed there, pulled along by effective youth organizations and the GOP’ssuccess in assembling a platform that, overall, might not have mirrored any

voter’stotalpreferencesbutalwaysmanagedtoincludethedispositiveissueformany voters, be it taxes, guns, cultural matters, Social Security, whateverworkedinthemoment.Thesociopathicpersonalityguaranteedthat thissortofpander-pick-and-choose politics would succeed, because there was only oneissuethatreallymattered:thefreeexerciseofSelf,asdefinedbythatSelf,notsometheoristcommittedtocoherence.AstheBoomersmovedRightward,theiroutsized demographic and other powers pushed the system along towardconservatism.16 For a centrist fixed circa 1972, the Boomer political galaxyexperienced a sort ofDoppler shift, becoming redder as itmoved further andfasteraway.

FightingfortheRighttoPartyThevotingagedebatehadacorollary,oftemporarybutsignificantbenefittotheBoomers,andthatinvolvedalcohol.We’vealreadyseenthattheBoomershadacertain fixation on substances, and if legal pot was then impossible, teenageboozingwasnot.Again, this involvedaconsiderableand riskydeparture frompriorpractice.FromProhibition’send to1970, thedrinkingage inmost stateshad,likethevotingage,beentwenty-one,andforthesamereasons.Inthewakeof the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, old-enough-to-serve became old-enough-to-be-served, and by the 1970s, thirty states reduced drinking ages to as low aseighteen.17Obviously, theold-enoughargumentwasquestionable as tovotingandplainlyspeciousastodrinking.Andjustasobviously,liketheTwenty-SixthAmendment,theright-to-drinklobbyhadexactlyonedemographicbeneficiary:the Boomers, who, thanks to the new voting age, were able to influence thisissue—oneoftheirfirstdirectexercisesofpoliticalpower.

Despite almost immediate evidenceof rising traffic fatalities—another caseof benefits captured by Boomers with costs externalized to others, and onewhich cast further doubt onKennedy’s perorations on thematurity ofmodernyouth—throughoutthe1970s,onlyonestate(Michigan)revertedtothetwenty-one-year-old limit. A handful of other states did raise their drinking ages tonineteen(asifthatmadeadifference);mostdidnot.Onlyin1984didCongresspass theNationalMinimumDrinkingAgeAct,whichdidn’t expressly requirestatestoraisethedrinkingagetotwenty-one,thoughitwouldwithholdfederalhighwayfundsafter1986–1987 if statesdidnotcomply,whichamounted toamandate.18Bythen,theveryyoungestoftheBoomerswouldbetwenty-twoortwenty-three,andthusunaffected.Thelawpassedandthestatesrevertedtotheold system. And so the Boomers had shaped, by virtue of numbers, a newpoliticallandscape,onethatpermittedthem,sozzledandacned,toengageinthesolemndutyofselectingthenation’spoliticaldestiny.

TheColonizationBeginsMeasured by raw voting power, the moment of greatest Boomer influencearrivedintheReaganyears,butvariousdynamicsmadetheBoomersevenmorepowerful over time.A slowly diminishing share of the votewas offset by theBoomers’ growing rates of voter participation, increasingwealth and politicaldonations,andtheascentofcogenerationalistsintopublicoffice.

TheBoomersachieved theheightof effectivepoliticalpower from the late1980suntiltheearly2010s,aperiodwhich,aswewillsee,hascoincidedwiththe systematic transfer of wealth to their generation and a set of sociopathicinitiatives putting the price to others. Boomer power derived originally fromvotingstrengthandthen translated intopoliticaloffices,whoseacquisitionhadbeen delayed both by the difficulty in displacing incumbents, conventionalpreference for “mature” candidates (apparently, no one cared about maturevoters),andagerestrictionsoncertainoffices.

Nevertheless,theBoomertakeoverbeganquicklyenough.ThefirstBoomerin theHousewasMarvinMathis (b. 1940),whogot the job in1971; the firstBoomersenatorwasnoneotherthanourpreviousvicepresident,JoeBiden(b.1942),whoarrived in theSenate in1973andmoreor lessproves thecase forBoomerpoliticallongevity.JustasBoomerstookoverCongress,theytookoverthe governors’ mansions, with David Boren (b. 1941) leading the way inOklahoma’s1974gubernatorialrace.Theconcurrenceofyouthenfranchisementandthenear-immediateelectionofBoomerswasnotcoincidental.

By the 1980s, the Boomers already represented a substantial fraction ofCongress,andby1994theyaccountedformorethanhalfoftheHouse,reachingapeakof79percentin2007–2008.*,19Boomersremainpowerful,withover70percentofHouseseatsinthe2015–2016Congress,agreatersharethantheyhadeven in the early 1990s. At the start of 2016, they controlled 86 percent ofgovernorships. Nor will Boomers relinquish power anytime soon, given theBoomers’ expected longevity and a political process that favors incumbents(about 95 percent of incumbent Congressmen were reelected in 2014). The2017–2019 House is set to be 69 percent Boomer, so the generation stillmaintains supermajority control over the national agenda in the legislature,executivebranch,andcourts.

Even over the coming years, as age finally whittles away generationalmajorities,Boomerpowerwillremain.Moreover,withmostof thesociopathicagenda in place, the Boomers need only to block new legislation, easilyaccomplished by minority actions like vetoes, filibusters, shutdowns, andlitigation.TheBoomerswillretainpowerforalongtime.

AnotherdynamicthatwillprolongBoomerpoweris thatanAmericaunderthe influence of graying Boomers now tolerates ever-older candidates. Thepathbreaker in this regardwasnon-BoomerRonaldReagan,whowonhis firsttermatwhathasbecomeanow-unremarkablesixty-nine—thoughbackin1980,hisagewasaconcern,andavalidone,givensubsequentrevelationsabouthisAlzheimer’s.By2016,votingmayaswellhavebeenforpresidencyofthelocalsenior center. Hillary Clinton (b. 1947) was sixty-nine on election day andTrump (b. 1946)wasnoyounger.Bothwere spring chickens compared to theostensiblechampionofyouth,BernieSanders (b.1941),whoshuffled into the2016Democratic primary at seventy-four. If the youngestBoomer can do thesame—plausiblegivenimprovementstolongevity,thoughnotcompetence—wecouldhaveaBoomerpresidentaslateas2045.Fortheapocalypticallyminded,ifBoomersrepeatStromThurmond’sfeatofservingtoonehundred,therecouldbe a Senate of Methuselahs into the 2060s (making “senator” uncomfortablyliteral,derivedasitisfromsenex,meaning“old”andalsotherootof“senile”).These are extreme and unsettling cases, but even moderate longevity stillproduces aBoomer-dominatedmachine formanyyears to come, especially inthe federal judiciary, which operates by lifetime appointment—meaning theSupremeCourt could not only become entirelyBoomer over the next decade,but remain substantially so until around 2050. The lower courts have alreadybeenpackedwithBoomers.

The mere fact that Boomers will retain office for some time does notautomatically ensure Boomer policies will continue, but obviously people arepredisposedtowardconcernswithwhichtheythemselvescanidentify,creatingareceptiveaudienceforBoomerdemands,especiallyinthejudiciary.Whatseniorsenator, lubricated by a Metamucil mimosa, could resist a little gray-pantherlobbying? And what Boomer Justice, peering over his bifocals at a writ ofcertiorari, could fail to see the immense application of the Twenty-SixthAmendmenttotheseniorfranchise?

IncombinationwithBoomers’stillsubstantialnumbers,thegreatertendencyof older people to vote, the fragmentation of other interest groups, and theconcentration of wealth in Boomer hands—truly unleashed by the Citizens

Uniteddecisionin2010andotherexpansionsofmonetaryspeechcondonedbytheBoomerChiefJustice—theBoomersremainaforcetoreckonwith.Boomerlobbyinggroupsarerobustandwell-funded,andtheirlinkstopoliticscloseeveninthephysicalsense:ofthetwomajorembassiesclosesttoCongress,thefirstisCanada’s and the second, AARP’s, located a five-minute Rascal-ride fromCapitolHill.Butdemographicchangesmeanthatitwillsoonbecomepossible—for the first time in decades—for a union of younger voters to contest thatdominance, and the possibilities of doing so will be considered in the finalchapter.

BoomersInvadetheHouse

What’s going on here? Boomers controlled Congress by the first half of the 1990s. AlthoughCongressional votes tended to break on party lines, the parties themselves began converging as theirBoomer leaders pushed policies toward a new, Boomerish consensus. This convergence helped producestriking (and unhelpful) instances of Boomer bipartisanship on matters of prison policy, tax, andentitlements.ThetrendintheHousewasmirroredinstatelegislatures,thejudiciary,bureaucracy,andother

powerfuloffices.20

TheContinuingEvolutionofBoomerPoliticalIdentityTherearevariouswaystomeasureBabyBoomerpoliticalaffinities,bysurveysandbyoutcomes,andwhilethesedonotalwaysagreeintheirparticulars,theyallsurpriseinthesamegeneralway.WiththeLeftismoftheSixtieshanginglikeapermanent cloudofpoliticalpatchouli, it’s easy to assume that theBoomersare die-hard Democrats. But exit polls—which measure how respondents saytheyvotedrightafterleavingthevotingboothandareoftenmorereliablethanopinion polls leading up to elections—show thatwhilemanyBoomers have aweak Democratic bias, Boomers are more conservative than the populationoverall,andthegenerationhasbeendriftingRightwardovertime.

Boomerpreferencescanbeassessedinanother,perhapsmorerevealingway.Presidential approval ratings, which aremeasuredmore frequently, also showBoomersholdopinions further to theRightof thegeneralpopulation.For thistask, it’s helpful to strip outminority voters,who generally trendDemocratic(e.g., blacks on the order of 85+ percent), and whose very reliability allowsDemocrats to take their votes for granted while offering policies designed toentice less committed groups. Making this adjustment shows white BoomersgenerallynotonlyhavebeenmovingRightwardbutarenetRepublican,almostall on the order of +1–8 percent depending on birth year.21 The onlyBoomersubcohort with significantly Democratic leanings was that of 1947–1954, andlike the rest of the Boomers, they drifted Rightward and are now relativelyneutral.Thesheersizeofthegeneration,combinedwiththeoverallRepublicantilt in its preference, has dragged the entire white electorate into Republicanterritoryfromthemid-1980sonward.

RightwardHo!Atsomelevel,noneofthisissurprising:Theentirecountryhasmovedtothe

RightsinceReagan’selection.ThisisnotwithstandingthefactthatfromCarterto Obama, Republicans and Democrats have evenly split time in the WhiteHouse. Equal time in the Oval Office doesn’t matter so much as the actualpolicies pursued in that office, because the net drift Rightward in the whiteBoomerelectoratehasfreedconservativepoliticianstomovefurthertotheRightwhile politicians on the Left have also moved Rightward to remain viable.

Exceptoncertainsocialmatters,ObamawasfarmoreconservativethanRichardNixon, for example, and this has been the Democratic story since Boomersstartedvotingenmasse.TheinitialderegulatoryimpulsebeganunderCarter,notReagan;itwasClinton,notBushI,whopromisedto“endwelfareasweknowit” and declared that the “era of big government is over”; itwasObamawhomademostoftheBushtaxcutspermanent,andsoon.ButtherehavealsobeensomeoddspectaclesontheRight:theprovisionofprescriptiondrugbenefitstoseniorsunderBush II (MedicarePartD; apparently the eraofbiggovernmentwasnot quite over), and substantial increases toMedicare andSocialSecuritytaxesunderReaganandthatpresident’sdecidedlystatistsalvationofthesavingsand loan industry.What accounts for these odd paradoxes? Shouldn’tBush IIhavebeen theone takinganax towelfareandClintonbeenpushingMedicarePartD?

Theansweristhattheseevents,inexplicableinconventionalpoliticalterms,allhadonethingincommon:theybenefittedtheBoomers,whohadthepoliticalmuscletorealizetheirpreferences.ThisisthemosteffectivewaytounderstandthepoliticalinfluenceoftheBoomers—notbytheirexpressedsentiments,butbythehardrealitiesofthepoliciesthattheyenacted.Aswehaveseen,whenevenreasonably united, the Boomers had more than enough political power to getwhat they wanted. So the question remains: On which policies could theBoomersagree?

Oneof the featuresof the sociopath is that, lackingempathy forothers,hefavors only himself. It may seem that in a diverse body of sociopaths, noagreementwouldbepossibleanymorethanyoucouldaskanarchiststoformapolice department. True enough: Only when sociopaths are similarly situatedwill theyvote in similarways.And theway inwhichBoomerswere similarlysituatedisthat—withinthelongspansoverwhichpolicymakinghasitseffects—Boomers are all about the same age. This is particularly true on certaineconomicmattersandexplainshowotherwisegridlockedlegislatures—onesthatallowmemberstostallvotesbyreadingfromaphonebook(or,inSenatorHarryReid’scase,fromhisownbook)—actuallymanagedacomprehensiveeconomicrestructuring.

We will presently take up the many consequences of the Boomers’generational unity regarding taxes, debt, inflation, trade policy, and so on, butwecanpreviewoneextremelyclearexample:SocialSecurity.SocialSecurityisapolicydefinedexplicitlyby theageatwhichbenefitsarepaid,and thereforeforthepurposesofunitingtheBoomers,theonlythingthatmattersisthatSocial

Securityholds together longenough topayoff themajorityof thegeneration.ThemedianBoomerwasbornin1952,andforthosealivetoday,theycanexpectto live to roughly eighty—i.e., until 2032. The Social Security Trust Fund isexpected to be exhausted between 2030 and 2037, with 2034 being thefrequentlyforecasteddateofdepletion.Again,notacoincidence.

TheRomantribuneandjuristRavillabeganhisinvestigationswithasimplequestion:Cui bono?Towhose benefit? It is economic interest that frequentlyunites the Boomers as a generation, it is their sheer size that allows them todeterminepolicy,and it is their sharedsociopathy that struckoff the restraintsthatoncefetteredothergenerations.Itwillbethetaskofthesucceedingchapterstotracetheflowofmoneyoverthepastseveraldecades,decadesinwhichtheBoomers have been firmly in control, to the Boomers themselves. Cui bono?Boomers.

CHAPTEREIGHT

TAXES

Averagefederaltaxratesin2013forhouseholdsinallbutthetopincomequintileweresignificantlybelowtheaverageratesoverthe1979–2013period…Overthatperiod,theaverageindividualincometaxratepeakedat11.9percentin1981,declined[andthenvaried]in2008and2009toalowof7.2

percent,asaresultofdeclinesinincomeandchangesintaxlaw.—CongressionalBudgetOffice(2016)1

Ingeneral,theartofgovernmentconsistsintakingasmuch

moneyaspossiblefromoneclassofcitizenstogivetotheother.

—Voltaire(1764)

Etymologyalwayshassomethingtoreveal,evenaboutitself:ItcomesfromtheGreeketumos,thewordfortruth.Inthecaseof“economics,”itsoriginsarealsoGreek, also illuminating: It derives from οiϰονομιϰός, a term that originallyreferredtothemanagementofthehousehold.Economicswasfirstappliedtotheadministration of national households in the seventeenth century as “political

economy.”2Thatoldertermwasvastlymoreaptthantheadjectiveless,modern“economics,” because all economics arepolitical economics: the shuffling ofmoney according to the preferences of those in charge. No shuffling is morepoliticalandmoreeconomicthantaxes—andnogroupmorepowerfuloverthepastdecadesthantheBoomers.

So it shouldbenosurprise thataprime theme in theBoomers’sociopathicascendancyhasbeentheconsistentmanipulationof taxes toservegenerationalends. There were two major mechanisms by which Boomer enrichment (andnationalimpoverishment)wasachieved.Thefirstwasstraightforward,ageneralloweringof tax rates that coincidedwithboth theBoomers’ascent topoliticalpower and thebeginningof their prime earningyears.The secondmechanismrequired constantly adjusting specific tax policies to favor the interests ofBoomers as they moved through their financial life cycles, lowering incometaxesduringperiodswhereBoomers labored forwages, reducingcapitalgainstaxesasBoomersbecamestockholders,andlimitingandevenbrieflyabolishingestate taxeswhenBoomersexpected to inherit.However, taxesdidnotalwaysmove downward.When Boomers perceived tax hikes to be in their interests,some rates (like Social Security and Medicare taxes) were allowed to rise,thoughonlyenough tobenefitBoomers,manyofwhomcanexpect to retrievemore from the system than they put in, before the system falls apart as theBoomersdieoff.*

Indeed,ifyouweretoconstructawishlistoftaxpolicy(asidefromnotaxes,asituation thateven theTeaParty reluctantlyacknowledges isunfeasible), thebest possible one for Boomer sociopaths would produce tax policies thatmirrored Boomers’ progressions through their life cycles—a menu that lookslikeAppendixBandwhosemostsalientpartsarecovered in thischapter.Thesociopathic tax wishlist corresponds rather tightly with how policy actuallydeveloped. The consistency in the beneficiaries of these policies, enacted byboth political parties regardless of economic climate (in booms, busts, andeverything in between) demonstrates both the true power of theBoomers andtheirsociopathiclackofforesightandempathy.

Thesociopathicappealofgenerallylowertaxestotheconsumption-orientedBoomers is self-evident. The sociopathic consequences aremade clear by thereallocation of financial burdens to everyone else: other payers of present-daytaxes and future payers in the form of debt, piled up after decades ofunrestrained spending not accompanied by corresponding tax collections. Thesystemwehaveisthesystemthesociopathswanted.

ABriefHistoryofIncomeTaxationTaxesoccupyastrangepositionintheemotionallandscape,oscillatingbetweenmomentsofgreatpassion(April15andelectiondays)andnear-lethalboredom(every other day), and this is what makes fiddling with taxes so enticing:Politicianscanalwayswhip theelectorate intoa lather,winningamandate forchange,butrelyondullnessandcomplexitytoobscurethetrueconsequencesoftax adjustments. All that matters is making sure that a plurality of votersunderstandthattheywillbebeneficiariesoffavorabletreatment(evenifnottheprimary beneficiaries), without focusing overmuch on what the consequenceswillbe andwhatotherswill bear them.Thatpluralityofvotershas, formanydecades,beentheBoomers.

Totheextentit’snecessarytoprovetaxesareboringanddifficult,oneneedonlypointtothefactthatmostAmericanspaysomeoneelsetodotheirs.3Asforpassion, there is theevidenceofhistory.Disputesover taxeshaveerupted intodisorderandoftenviolencemanytimes, includingtheevent thatnotionallyledto our nation’s founding, the Boston Tea Party, whose name has beenappropriatedbycontemporaryantitaxers.

The physical violence has subsided; the anger has not. Instead, tax furybroadenedtoencompasstheideathatalltaxesareeffectivelyconsumptiontaxes,andforthesociopath,thievery,ratherthanasocialtithe.Soyesterday’shandfulofmoonshinerswieldingpitchforksintheWhiskeyRebellion(1791–1794)havebeen supplanted today by entire Boomer governments grinding to a halt overmoney disputes (1995 onward) before reaching a sociopathically palatableoutcome.All three full peacetime government shutdowns inAmerican historyhappened during Boomer Congressional control, and each featured taxes andrelatedbudgetarymattersasmainevents.

Theprimarysourceofdispute today is income tax,andBoomerpoliticiansfindthereisalwaysplentytobeangryabout.Flipopenthetwenty-plusvolumesoffederaltaxlawandpickaline—injusticewillbefoundwhereverthefatfingeroftheBoomerCongressmanfromMiddleNowhere,animatedbytheHolyGhostof theAARP, happens to land.At least as to income taxes, itwas not alwaysthus,forthesimplereasonthatforalongtimetherewasnothinglikeamodernfederal income tax. This tax-free Eden remains relevant, because it is to this

prelapsarianconditionthatGroverNorquistandhishighlyinfluentialAmericansfor Tax Reform wish to return. Let’s be clear: This is not an overstatement.Norquist(b.1956,primeBoomer)hasopinedthat theAmericahewantstore-createistheonethatexistedright“upuntilTeddyRoosevelt,whenthesocialiststookover….[andimposed] the incometax, thedeath tax, regulation,all that.”4“Regulation, all that,” of course, means everything we understand to be themodernstate;itis,perNorquist,anathema.

Norquist—an executive director of the College Republicans until 1983—emergedasanationalfigureduringtheRepublicancampaignsofthe1980sandhas been a force ever since. In 1986, Norquist prepared “The Pledge,” apseudocontract between candidates/officeholders and the electorate, thatrequireditssignersto“opposeanyandall”personalandcorporatetaxincreases,whether these hikeswere accomplished directly or through the elimination ofdeductions;candidatessignedonindroves.5Inthe1990s,BoomersNorquistandGingrichcoauthored theContractwithAmerica, another tax-hostile agreementbetween electorate and GOP representatives (and again, at odds with thenotionally elitist concept of representative democracy). In the 2000s,Norquistallied closely with Bush II, who pushed tax cuts further than Reagan. In thepresentantitaxera,Norquistisasortofanti–St.Jude,apatronsaintofwinningcauses.(Trumphasalsopreparedhisownanti-tax“Contract.”)

Before 1913—when “the socialists took over”—income taxes wereunconstitutional. The federal government had occasionally experimented withthem,includingduringtheCivilWar,duringwhichotherConstitutionalnicetieslikehabeascorpushadalsobeensuspended,buttheSupremeCourtputitsfootdowninPollockv.Farmer’sLoan&TrustCo.(1895).Asoriginallywritten,theConstitution required thatall“direct taxes”be“apportionedamong theseveralStateswhichmay be includedwithin thisUnion, according to their respectivenumbers.”6Thegovernmentcouldn’t taxbasedonamountsof income, just onamountsofpeople;inotherwords,percapitataxes,thesimplest,mostregressiveformoftaxpossible(watchersofFoxNewsmaynowbeseeingthecurrencyofthis digression). Pre-1913, if the federal government needed revenue, theConstitution allowed customs, duties, and excise taxes, which are a mixedblessing,since theyoperateasconsumption taxes (generallygood)but restrainfreetrade(so-sothen,badnow).

RatificationoftheSixteenthAmendmentin1913allowedformodernincometaxation.Taxesstartedlowandthenrosesubstantiallyoverthenextthirtyyears.AfterWorldWar II, the highestmaximum rates reached70–91percent.Were

HillaryClintontohaveproposedanythinglikethisleveloftaxation—levelsthatprevailedunderur-RepublicansEisenhowerandNixon(bothimplicitlybrandedbyNorquistas“socialists”)—theDNCwouldhavebeenthefirsttorummageupany willing remnants of the Bush dynasty to replace her. The point of thiscontextisnottodemandareturntotheeraof90percenttaxation,butsimplytoremindthatinthecontextofpresentdebates,ratesoftaxationarerelativelylowinnominalandotherterms.Indeed,taxesaretoolowoverall,insufficienttokeepthe government fully functioning ormake essential investments for growth, atleastnotwithoutmajorrevisionstoentitlementprogramsofwhichBoomersareandwillcontinuetobethechiefbeneficiaries.*

ItissaidtheDevilcanquotescripturetohisownpurpose;asthecorefederaltax code is approximately three times longer than the King James Bible, thevarious Satans of Taxation (pick your ideological Lucifer: Paul Krugman,ThomasPiketty, or the opinionators of theWall Street Journal and its parent,NewsCorporation,etc.)neverlackformaterial.Betweenthe5,248pagesoftheInternalRevenueCode, the additional68,606pagesof “relatedmaterials,” thetensofthousandsofinterpretivereleases,legalprecedents,andsoon—allprolixand incomprehensible and amended almost continuously—it seems the onlythingonecantrulyknowabouttaxesisthatone’sownshareistoohigh.7

So how to sort through this thicket, to find some reasonable way tounderstand how taxes have evolved over the past several decades? There arethree basic lenses: (1) nominal rates (i.e., official tax rates); (2) average rates(i.e., the percentage of income actually paid, after accounting for deductions,adjustments,giveaways, etc.); and, (3) total taxpaidacross theentire taxbase(i.e., the government’s real take). Alone, each tells a different story. Quotingselectively,boththeRNCandDNCcaneasilyfindwaystotestifythattaxesareradically high or dangerously low.Only comparing the three differentmetricsshowsthefullpicture,alandscapepervertedbygiveawaystoBoomerpoliticalpower.Whattheyreveal,aswewillsee,isthatnominalrateshavebeeninsteepdecline,effectiverateshavebeenmixedamongincomegroups(tendingtofavorthemiddle-class andpersonsnowold), and total taxes havenot declinedverymuchasafractionoftheeconomy—andincombination,thatmeansthehistoryof Boomer tax policy is not so much a history of tax reduction as taxreallocation.

TheFirstTaxRevoltsNo generation has been quite so convinced of I’m-paying-too-much than theBoomers, though of course, their dependence onmagical thinking andmoodyhatredofrationalargument,combinedwiththesheercomplexityofthetaxcode,makesitdifficulttoengagewiththemonthesubject.Nevertheless,thedataarewhat theyareand thesheerunsubtletyofBoomerismmakes iteasyenough toseewhatishappening—asBoomersbecamemorepowerful,theirtaxesdeclined.

As with so many things, the beginning of the Boomer tax revolt had itsoriginsintheVietnamWar.FortheBoomersnotonlydidnotwanttoserveinthe war (naturally, for moral reasons), they did not wish to pay for it, either(also,naturally,formoralreasons).ExpandingontheprotestweencounteredinChapter3,agroupof448writersandeditors,includingleadingBoomerstudentorganizer Todd Gitlin (b. 1943), took out a full-page ad in 1968, saying thesignerswouldrefusetopayaproposed10percentfederalwarsurchargebecauseit would be used to fund a conflict of which they disapproved; in an act offreelance accounting, about a third refused to pay an additional 23 percent oftheirincometax,whichtheyalsothoughtwouldfundthewar.8(Thewordusedin the solicitation for signatureswas “pledge,”whichmust amuseNorquist.9)TheNew York Times, theWashington Post, theChicago Tribune, the BostonGlobe, andothers refused to take thead, theTimes on thegrounds that theadcalledforillegalactivity(itdid),butthenasnow,theNewYorkPosthelditselftoadifferentstandardandranit.*Butasweallknow,taxesarecomplicated,sojusttobesafe,singerandantiwarprotestorJoanBaezwithheld60percentofherbill.10 The explicit inspiration for this little tax rebellion was Henry DavidThoreau (quoted in the ad itself), the mystic narcissist and icon of Boomerantirationalismwhomaterialized inChapter5.Thoreau said he refused to paytaxes as a protest of theMexican-AmericanWar and slavery, but hisWaldenjailingactuallyresultedfromfailuretopayalocalpoll taxthathadlittle todowitheitherwarorslaves.11Noteventhepresidentgetsaline-itembudgetveto,but theseWalden-inflected groups proposed to give it to themselves. Societycannotworklikethat.

NoTaxation,withRepresentationThearrivalof realpoliticalpower rendered informalprotestsunnecessary,andBoomers quickly began rewriting the tax code, starting with marginal rates.Marginal rates resemble “suggested retail prices” in that they are the officialrates that no one actually pays; yet when the public thinks about taxes, it’smarginal rates that transfix. Most of these rates, especially on the last andhighestdollarsof income,havebeen insteepdecline forsome time,aprocessoriginally motivated by some good intentions and with some economicjustification. Over time, tax cuts became unmoored from their worthyfoundations,pushedalongbypuresentiment.Theneteffectwasdestructiveandenduring, becausemarginal rates are sticky:Once they go down, it is hard tomakethemgobackup.

Forcontext,thehighestmarginalratesduringandafterWorldWarIIrangedfrom91to94percent,andthetaxcodewasincrediblycomplicatedbesides,withaprofusionofbrackets, thirty-threedifferentonesby1974.12 Inthe1970s, thecomplexity of the tax code became worse as inflation drove “bracket creep.”Because thevariousbracketswerenot linkedto inflation, increases innominalwages drove payers into higher brackets that themselves remained fixed, eventhoughworkers’realwagesmightnothaveincreasedatall.Asaresult,peoplecouldenduppayingagreaterpercentageoftheirincomedespitenorealchangein the amount theymade.Thesewere problems that required redress, but likemanyrevolutions,thetaxrevoltranfarbeyonditsoriginaljustifications.

LedbyPresidentReaganintheWhiteHouse,RepresentativeJackKempintheHouse,andWilliamRothintheSenate(wholatergavehisnametotheRothIRA),Congressreformedtaxesin1981.Overseveralyears,thelawwouldlowermarginal rates (the top ratewouldgo from70percent to50percent, e.g.) andindex brackets to inflation, eliminating creep. The net effect of the ReaganrevisionswerethatallAmericansexceptthepoorest20percentwouldpaylessintaxes.Taxcuttersarguedsocietyasawholewouldgainasbenefits“trickleddown,” thoughwhen it became clear the flowwould really be a trickle, not aflood,thejustificationwasquietlydroppedevenasthepolicy(andthedeficitsitspurred) continued.Thiswas sociopathically irrelevant, of course, because theprimeobjectiveoflowertaxeswasachieved.

Althoughthetaxsystemclearlyneededreform,badchangesweretuckedinalong with the good, with predictable beneficiaries. The 1981 act not onlylowered taxes overall, it had specific generational consequences. Somemechanisms were explicit. Inheritances below $175,625 had been previouslyexcludedfromtaxation;theexclusionwouldincreaseto$600,000in1987,morethantriplingthetax-freeinheritanceamount.13Thechiefbeneficiarieswouldbe,of course, the Boomers—and the reason the estate tax cut could be safelydelayed until 1987 (unlike reductions to the income tax, which had to beimmediate)wasthattheBoomers’parentsstillhadafewyearsleftinthem.Thesecondmechanismimprovedtax-freeretirementsavings,andagain,thiswasofgreatestbenefittoworkersfurthestfromretirementage,i.e.,theBoomers.

Contrary to popularmyth,Reagannot only cut taxes, but raised them, andthislaidbarethestrugglebetweennewBoomerpreferencesandtheoldercultureoffiscalresponsibility,abattlethatwouldeventuallyanddecisivelyberesolvedin favor of the Boomers. The 1981 cuts spawned deficits vastly larger thanpredicted. So Congress, still populated by more responsible generations,modified the earlier cuts, slowing their adoption and tinkering with sometechnical details, and the Gipper assented. The largest tax cut in Americanhistory was therefore almost immediately followed by one of the largestincreases. The net effect of the two programs was still a significant cut; notexactlyatriumphofprobity,butindicativeofa(fading)senseofresponsibility.However,Boomerswouldsoonbethrownanotherbone.In1984,tohelpoffsetdeficits, Social Security benefits for higher earners were taxed for the firsttime.*,14 Of course, even the oldest Boomers were twenty years away fromcollectingbenefitsandthatdistance,coupledwiththepossibilityoflaterrepeal,limitedBoomerobjections.

MarginalTaxRates:ThePriceNoOnePays

What’sgoingonhere?Thesearethehighestandlowestmarginaltaxrates—andwhilepoliticiansfixateonthem,thesearenotthetaxratesanyoneactuallypays,thankstodeductions,credits,lowermarginalrateson the first units of income, etc. As a general matter, marginal rates were notably low in the Boomer

years.15

During the 1980s, Congress also raised payroll taxes—the only taxes toexperience sustained increasesduring theBoomer ascendancy—tokeepSocialSecurity and Medicare solvent through Boomer retirements. The immediatecostswouldbebornebytheBoomersandtheirchildren,buttheBoomerscouldaccept this because theBoomers expected to recoup everything they paid andpossiblymore.Thatemployersusuallyborehalfofpayrolltaxesalsohelped;theBoomers were not yet significant owners of capital, and not all of the effectwouldflowintochangedincomes.Therevisionofpayrolltaxescouldthereforebeviewedassomethingofagenerationalwin.

In1986,thetaxsystemwasoverhauledagain,inevitablyinwaysfavorabletotheBoomers.Thenumberofbracketscollapsedfromfourteentotwoby1988,with the lowest setat14percentand thehighestat28percent (down from50percent).Thelimitsfortax-advantaged401(k)swereloweredfrom$30,000peryear (whichhadbenefittedolder,wealthierworkersatcost to theBoomers) to$7,000,whichwasmoreinlinewithwhatyoungerBoomerprofessionalscouldactually save. Capital gains lost preferential treatment, and themaximum ratethereforeroseto28percent(from20percent),butthemedianBoomerwasonlymid-thirties, had neither a large stock portfolio nor plans to mass-liquidateanytimesoon,andtherefore(likeemployerpayrolltaxes)theburdenfellonthe

old and the rich, whose ranks the Boomers had not yet joined. So RonaldReagan, the fabled tax crusader, not only increased taxes, but did so severaltimes—just invery targetedways that happened to coincidewith theneedsoftheBoomers,whowerethenanenormousfractionoftheelectorate.

The one area where the 1986 reform appeared bad for Boomers was theelimination of deductibility of personal-interest payments of any kind—apotentialconstraintontheconsumptionthesociopathicBoomerscherished.Themore than compensatory sweetener was that mortgage interest would remaindeductible,nowforup to$1million in indebtedness, andanother$100,000 in“unrelatedinterest”—andthus,thehomeequitylineofcreditwasborn.*Alittlepaperwork, and theBoomers once again had their personal interest deduction,and indeed, “much of the [new, mortgage] debt finance[ed] vacations, cars,boats, and other consumer purchases.”16 Of course, this was the part of theBoomers’ life cycle inwhich theywere snappingup real estate at tremendousvolume,andwhilethenumericalbulkofthedeductionwenttotherichest(asisthe casewithmost deductions), themost populous beneficiary groupwas themost-indebted (i.e., youngest) homeowners, whose ranks were swelling withBoomer voters. The reforms of the 1980s did not help as much as taxpayersthought theywould, but they definitely adjusted the burden downward and inmany cases away from the Boomers, or toward programs from which theBoomers(butnottheirchildren)couldreasonablyexpecttofullycollect.

Overall,thetaxreformsofthe1980shadmanybenefits—nominaltaxesweretoo high, bracket creepwas a real problem, the tax base had been too narrow(i.e.,toomanyloopholesandexclusions),andthereweretoomanybracketsandother complexities—but these sowed in the fertile fieldof theBoomermindapoisonousseed.Andtheseedwasthis:Theonlyappropriatedirectionfortaxeswasdownward,atleastfortaxesapplicabletotheBoomers.

The1990s—ReadTheirLips:NoNewTaxesTheeffectofBoomertaxobsessioncouldbeseenintheearly1990s,whentwovery different politicians raised taxes very slightly, and were punishedaccordingly.PoliticianOnewasGeorgeBushtheFirst,whoinstructedCongress:“Readmylips:Nonewtaxes.”Ofcourse,nosucheffortwasnecessarybecause:(1) Bush spoke the words audibly and (2) he raised taxes. Bush’s overallincrease was small, with the highest earners bearing 40 percent of the risedirectly;another40percentofthehikecamefromincreasedexcisetaxes.17Thereform was responsible, modest, and fell most heavily on a core Bushconstituency (the rich) who could be counted on to suffer the indignity andreelect their candidate. Instead, Bush was fired, which was a remarkableoutcome.BushIhadjustpresidedoverthesuccessfulGulfWarI,earningsomeof the highest approval ratings in history. Though the economy had slowedmodestly, the 1990–1991 recession was historically mild, brief, and nothingcomparedtothecrisesthatfollowed.True,Bushbrokehisword,butthatalonewasunremarkable.Presidentsviolatepromisesallthetime,andfewforreasonsas good: Bush sincerely believed that changed facts commanded changed taxpolicy,andthetariffsthatfellheavilyonhisbase.Empirical,responsible,self-sacrificing—another electorate might have found Bush’s tax policycommendable.Theproblemwas thatBushviolatedhiswordon taxes,andforBoomersthatelevatedthesinfromvenaltomortal.

Thus, aminor increase in taxes helped pave theway for the first Boomerpresident, William Jefferson Clinton. Clinton accused Bush of beinguntrustworthy(!) and campaigned for tax relief for “middle-class Americans”and“familieswithchildren,”twogroupswithwhichtheBoomerscorrectlyself-identified.18 (At thispoint,medianBoomerswere forty,hadchildren,and likeallAmericans rich, poor, and otherwise, viewed themselves as “middle-class”andthuspotentialrecipientsofClintonianlargesse.)BillClintonalsopromisedto“force the rich topay their fair share.”19Letus leaveaside, asClintondid,thatthiswasjustwhatBushhadstartedtodo.

Clinton dulywon and then proceeded to repeatBush’smistake. Clinton islionizedbycertainLeftishop-edpagesforraisingtaxesin1993,andhedid,butthatwasnotexactlywhathepromised,orwhatmanyvotersexpectedhim,todo.

Indeed,oftheroughly25percentofvoterswhothoughttheviolationofBush’s“readmylips”pledgewas“veryimportant”intheirpresidentialvote,two-thirdsvoted forClinton—andoneconclusion, incombinationwithClinton’s rhetoricaboutmiddle-classrelief, is that theseandothervotersexpectedClinton tocuttheir taxes.20 Instead, Clinton raised taxes, mainly but not exclusively on therich.21ItsqueakedoutoftheHouse218–216(morethanfortyDemocratsvotedagainst it) and escaped aDemocratic Senate only becauseAlGore cast a tie-breaking vote—i.e., opposition to Clinton’s 1993 increase was partlybipartisan.22

Clinton’swasnotablockbusterhike,anditcertainlyhelpedthat it targetedtherich,amongwhoseranksnecessarilyfew,still-youngishBoomers,oranyoneelse, dwelled. (It’s called the 1 percent for a reason.) Still, the tax packagepassedonlybyGore’ssingle,fortuitousvote;eventheDemocratswentberserk,andClintonfoundhimselfapologizingtohisownbasefordaringtoraisetaxes,howevermodestly.23This aftermathhelps show thatwhatpeople thought theywerebuyingin1992wasataxcutter,notataxhiker.

Thus, another modest tax revision allowed the second great Boomerpolitician to emerge, Newt Gingrich. The commonalities between the twosociopathic Boomer chieftains is striking—age, philandering, murky financialdealings, ethics violations, tax avoidance, dramatic censures (the secondimpeachmentofapresident, inClinton’scase; the firstofficial reprimandofaSpeaker of the House, in Gingrich’s), a premature graying of hair entirelyunderstandable in lightof theforegoing—really, theycouldhavebeenthebestof friends. And they even agreed over time, sort of, on the need for taxreduction.

Thistime,nopoliticalmistakeswouldbemade,nonewchargestotherichorsensible supplements to payroll taxes, absolutely nothing that could bemisconstrued by the tax-obsessedBoomers.Benefitswould bemade perfectlycleartothevoterswhomattered.TheBoomers,thenmiddle-aged,hadallsortsofmiddle-agedissues,includingschool-agechildren,decrepitparents,homestotradeup,stockportfoliostomaximize,andretirementstoplan.Alloftheseweredulyandexpresslycateredto:achildcreditof$400appeared(risingto$500in1999);theestatetaxexemptionwouldincreasefrom$600,000to$1millionby2006,andallassetswouldbe“steppedup”attheparents’death,meaningthatallunrealizedcapitalgainsaccruedduringtheparents’lifetimecouldbetaxfreeatdeath(i.e.,Boomerinheritancesinstantlybecamemuchmorevaluable);gainsonsaleofhomesupto$500,000wereexemptedfromtax;andthetwocapitalgains

taxbracketswerelowered,from28percent to20percentand15percent to10percent.24 An added bonus was the creation of Roth IRAs, which werefunctionallyuselesstooldergenerationsthenretiring,butofgreatusetomiddle-agedBoomers, aswere the various education credits established, the better tosubsidizetheschoolingoftheBoomers’children.25

Doctrinally, the Clinton cuts were somewhat confusing: economicallyunorthodoxandcontrary tocommonlyunderstoodDemocraticpolicy.In1997,the economy was growing and it was by no means clear that a tax cut wasrequired; could it not, perhaps, stoke some sort of speculative bubble in theassets favored by the tax bill, like stocks or houses? And had not DemocratClinton, after all, promised to soak the rich during his first campaign? Theanswers were obviously all some form of “yes.” Then again, Clinton and hiscounterpartsinCongresswereBoomersandbeholdentotheircogenerationalists.TaxcutsemergedfromthelegislaturewithstrongbipartisansupportandClintonsigned.

The2000s—Lather,Rinse,RepeatFast-forward past the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which effectively ended theClintonpresidency,toBushII.Thesituationhadchangeddramatically:thedot-comcrash,9/11,andamajorrecession.Theprescription,however,remainedthesame:moreBoomer-friendly taxcuts.Essentiallyall tax rateswereslashedbyabout10percent,withBoomersdoingbyfarthebest.Intheirpeakearningyearsandwithretirementfastapproaching,itwasessentialtolowerincometaxesandto cut capital gains taxes to fertilize stock portfolios that would soon beharvested. To better appeal to Boomers, tax-advantaged retirement accountsweremodifiedsothatpeopleover50(atthetime,theBoomerswerebetween37and61,with themedianBoomerapredictable49)couldmakeexcess tax-freecontributions.Andneedlesstosay,withtheBoomers’parentshavingonefootinthegraveandtheotheronabananapeel,ithadbecomeessentialtomodifytheestate tax. The estate tax exemption quickly rose from $675,000 in 2001 to$2,000,000in2006,thento$3,500,000in2009andwasfinallytobeabolishedaltogetherin2010,aperiodcorrespondingwiththeactuariallyforecasteddemiseofthemedianBoomers’parents.26

Therewassomesenseincuttingtaxesduringarecession,buthowthetaxeswerecutwas illuminating—fromaKeynesianperspective, thebestcutswouldbe the cuts that led to the fastest spending, not the fastest squirreling awayofretirementfundsbyolderAmericans.Theorywas,ofcourse,meaninglesstothenonempiricalBoomers.Thepoliticalbargainwasthatmanycutswouldsunsetin2010, but by 2010, themedianBoomerwould be fifty-eight, aging out of theincome-earningyears,andnearingeligibilityforSocialSecurity.Taxcutsmightsunset,butitwouldbeasunsettheBoomerscouldrideinto.

So what happened to the Bush II cuts? They were followed in 2003 bylegislationthatacceleratedcertainportionsofthe2001cutsandfurtherreducedtaxes on qualified gains.27 Even the election, in 2008, of Bush’s ideologicaloppositedidn’tchangethegeneraltrajectory.In2010,undertheleadershipofanow Democratic Congress and Executive, almost all Bush II’s tax cuts wereextended; it was “change you could believe in,” if you believed theBoomerswere still in control, which they were. Inheritance taxes reappeared, but at alower rate thanbefore theBush II cuts (40percentvs.55percent) andwith a

much higher exemption ($5million versus $675,000 in 2001),which coveredessentiallyallBoomersstill inaposition to inherit,sincefewestatesexceededthe exemption.28 Certain payroll taxes also rolled back for a bit, but thereduction was temporary and small, and while not helpful to the long-termsolvency of Social Security, would have little impact on the Boomersthemselves.29Itwasagiveaway,anditpassed.

Therewassomejustificationduringtherecession’snadirtoavoidataxhike,thoughthat logichad littleapplication to itemslike loweredestate taxes—thenagain, logic was not in command. Predictably, even after the recessionended(ish), the Bush tax cuts were essentially made permanent by PresidentObamain2013,withtheexceptionofamodestreversionintoprates,from35percentto39.6percent,forthewealthiesttaxpayers(e.g.,couplesmakingmorethan $450,000 a year). FICA (payroll) cuts were also reversed.30 Maximumcapital gains rateswere restored to 20 percent, but here’s the thing—dividendrates, scheduled to return to 39.6 percent, were kept to a maximum 20percent.*,31 Because retirees favor dividend stocks (like utilities), which areperceived as safer and provide current income, the capital gains twist was adirect giveaway to the dividend-collecting classes—i.e., the rich and the old.Evenmore important, the capital gains tax did not increase for the cherishedmiddleclass.32Asforestatetaxes,theyhadbecomeevenmoreurgent.By2013,the median Boomer was already sixty-one, and those Boomers’ parents whowerestilllivingwouldnotremainsoformuchlonger.Thealreadygenerous$5millionexemptionwasthereforeindexedtoinflationtopreserveitsvalue.33The2000s,therefore,mighthavebeennomorethanatacticalsuccessforlowertaxesoverall,buttheywereadecisivevictoryforBoomers.

TheRestoftheGoodieBagThereweretwootherdisguisedtaxgiveawaystotheBoomersfromthe1970stothe 2010s: property taxes and corporate taxes. Both can be covered briefly.Property taxes before the 1970s had been amess, riddledwith loopholes andanachronismsfromtheageoffarms,landgrants,andlowinflation.Duringthe1970s, before theBoomerswere fully in control, there had been a number ofproperty tax revolts in several states,mostprominently inCalifornia. Inflationhaddriventheassessedvaluesofpropertiesup,andsincetaxeswerebasedonnominal values, taxes went up faster than any corresponding change in realvalue. So California voters limited taxes to 1 percent of assessed value andcapped the rate of assessment increases.34 Instead of indexing to reality,California set themaximum rate of appreciation at an arbitrary 2 percent peryear.Generalinflation,ofcourse,wasmuchhigherthenandtheappreciationofCaliforniapropertyhigherthaninflationoverallformuchofthenextfortyyears.The immediate effect was mild, because California had a larger-than-averagegovernment that could be productively trimmed and a budget surplus thatcushionedtheimpactonlocalitiescollectingpropertytax.(Thestatesurpluswas$5billionin1978dollarswhenthepropositionwaspassed,orabout$18billionin present dollars versus large annual deficits in the recent past, reachingnegative$20billion in 2011–2012before achieving roughbalance in 2014.35)Foratime,propertytaxlimitswerenotamajorproblemand,hadtheybeenastemporaryas the inflation thatprompted them,evenappropriate to theunusualconditionsofthelate1970s.

After inflationhadbeenvanquishedby1982, it becameclear that the capshadbecomelessshieldthansubsidy.Bythispoint,Boomerswerehomeownersandthereforethebeneficiariesofthepropertytaxcapswhosecalculationsgrewmoreunrealistic (and thusmorevaluable) everyyear.Given that theBoomerswere increasingly in control, they would never give up this cherished perk,forcing budget shortfalls disproportionately onto the shoulders ofnonhomeowners—i.e.,theyoungandthepoor—intheformofregressivehighersales taxes and the like—anything, that is, but taxes on Boomer homes. Theeffectwasa transfer toBoomers,at thecostofyoungerpeoplewhoseratesofhomeownershipweredepressedandwhoenjoyedlessbenefitfromthehousing

taxshield.The second major change, to corporate income taxes, also had substantial

benefit to theBoomers, albeit indirectly.Effective corporate taxes rosebrieflyandsharplyfrom1979to1987andthenfellsubstantially.AndeventhoughtheUnited States still has some of the highest official corporate taxes in thedevelopedworldandtheserateshaveremainedlargelyunchangedsincethemid-1980s,theeffectiveratesofcorporatetaxationfellsomewhat,andforsomelargecompanies all theway to zero.Although effective rates overall are notwildlydifferentfromotheradvancedeconomies,thereisnowanincreasingdivergencebetweencorporateprofits’shareoftheeconomyandthesharerepresentedbythetaxesonthoseprofits.*Thefigureonthenextpageillustratesthetrend.

Thebeneficiaries,ofcourse,werepeoplewhoownedsharesinthecompaniespayinglowertaxes.In1979,theBoomersweretooyoungtoholdmanystocks,sotheirhugevotingpowertiltednotsomuchproorconasindifferent.AstheBoomersjoinedthestock-owningclassesinthemid-1980s,whenmostwereintheirthirtiesandforties,effectivecorporatetaxesbegantodecline.Higherafter-tax profits could then be realized in higher stock prices, higher dividendpayments, or both. The only thing necessary for Boomers to maximize thosegainsweredecreasestocapitalgainsanddividendtaxes,obedientlydeliveredin1987and1997,byRonaldReaganandBillClinton,andpreservedbyBush IIandObama—fourradicallydifferentpoliticians,thoughallwiththesamecriticalconstituency: Boomers. Most of the gains accrued to the wealthiest, buteveryone in the stock-holding classes, including theBoomers, benefited at theexpenseoftherest.*Thiswasespecially thecaseformiddle-incomeBoomers,who held their stocks in tax-advantaged accounts. The income/contributionlimitsofsuchaccountsmeansthatit’stheBoomermiddleclassthat’savoidingand/or postponing capital gains taxes to a relatively greater extent than theworkaday rich (whose additional wealth is sufficient to place it outside tax-advantagedretirementplansbutisinsufficienttojustifytheexpenseofbespoketaxshelters).

Corporations:SomethingtoContribute

What’sgoingonhere?Corporateprofitshavebeenrisingasashareofthetotaleconomyforsometime,butcorporatetaxeshavebeenfallingthenflatteningonthesamemeasure.Thereisthereforeatleastsomeroom for convergence and additional revenue (accompaniedbymeaningful reformof the vast loopholes

thatallowsomelargecorporationstogetawaywithverylowtaxbills).36

Finally, totheextentexplicit taxdecreasesdidnotsatisfy, thedefundingofthe IRS and concurrent reduction in the likelihood of audits, especially formiddle-income payers, authorized less scrupulous taxpayers to adjust theirpayments to more desirable levels. Just between 2010 and 2015–2016,enforcementpersonnelattheIRSdeclinedby23percent;bytheendindividualauditshitaneleven-yearlow,andnewIRSappropriationsfromCongressweredirectedawayfromenforcement.37EventhoughtheIRStrumpetedthehiringofsevenhundrednewenforcementworkers in2016, itwouldend that fiscalyearwithtwothousandfewerstaffthanatthatyear’sbeginning.38HobblingtheIRSwaslikepostingaspeedlimitandthenremovingallthecopsandcameras;forsociopaths,itwasagreenlightforfraud.Theannual“taxgap”—thedifferencebetweenwhattheIRSbelievesisowedandwhat isactuallyandtimelypaid—ranover$400billiondollarsannuallyforthe2008–2010period,themostrecentyearsanalyzedbytheService,andthatwasbeforerecentcutstoenforcement.39Itwillhardlybesurprisingifthetaxgapwidens.

TaxationandConsequences

Letusrememberthatthebasicpurposeofanytaxcutprogramintoday’senvironmentistoreducethemomentumofexpendituregrowthbyrestrainingtheamountofrevenuesavailableandtrustthatthereisapoliticallimittodeficitspending.

—AlanGreenspan(1979)40

Hogcock,whichisacombinationofhogwashandpoppycock.—JackDonaghy,30Rock

Notwithstandingallthesetaxcuts,thegovernmenthasnotsimplyevaporatedor been cut in half, although that was the stated intent of the 1980s taxrevolution.Returning toGroverNorquist, thepurposeof the tax revoltwas tostarvethegovernmentofrevenuesothatitwouldshrinkbacktoitssizearoundtheturnofthelastcentury,makinggovernmentsmallenough“todrownitinabathtub.”41 (The government is not a person, but metaphorical murder of aninstitutionthatembodiessocietydoesreekofsociopathy.)ThereasonNorquisthas succeeded in lowering tax rates but not abolishing the government is thatpeoplelikethebenefitseachprovidesandwillnotpartwitheither.

Thispresentsacertainmysteryaboutmechanisms—iftaxesfell,howcouldgovernmentsoldieron?Partly,thegovernmentborrowedheavily;we’lltakethatupinChapter9.Secondly,whilenominaltaxrateshavegonedown,taxes’totalshareofGDPremainedfairlystable,asidefrombriefgyrationsduringthefirstdot-combubbleandduringtheGreatRecession.Thatoverallstability,againstabackgroundofconstantchangestothecode,impliesareshufflingoftaxburdens.

Thefirstandmost importantaspectofreshufflingwastherisingsharepaidbytherich,whopaidalargeandincreasingshareoftaxesthrough2000,hadarespite,andsawtheirratesriseafter2012.Givenalltheheatedrhetoricabouttherich, that might come as a surprise, but the electoral math more or lessguaranteed thatwould be the case. For some time, the real story of decliningtaxation played out in the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers (aka, the mythical

“middleclass”).Onlyin2000didtaxburdensontherichreallydecline,butthenagain, burdens fell for almost everyone else.Here’swhat theFederalReserveBankofSt.Louishadtosayin2010:“Before2000,thetaxburdenshiftedfromthelowest80percentofearnerstothehighest20percent;since2000,theburdenhasshrunkforallgroups,butmoresoforthehighestearners.”42Since2013,therichhaveexperiencedthesharpestincreaseintaxes.43

There are several ways to think about what happened, each presented ingraphsonthefollowingpages.Thefirst istoconsiderhowaveragefederaltaxrateshaveevolvedsince1979.Therehasbeenapronounceddownwardtrendintaxburdenonthemiddleclass,especiallyrelativetotherichandthepoor,withtaxes perking up slightly since 2013. The middle class got relative tax cutsthroughout this period, a period that heavily overlapped with the Boomers’primeworkingyears.

The second way to think about taxes are “average” rates.Marginal ratesapplytodifferentchunksofincome,startingwithlowratesonthefirstdollarsofincome and progressively rising to 39.6+ percent for dollars of income over$413,200. Average rates, by contrast, represent the fraction of total incomeactuallypaid,andarealwayslowerthanmaximummarginalratesbecauseevenrichpeoplepayverylowmarginaltaxesontheirfirstdollarsofincome.Theseaverage rates are quite low for most income groups and they can even benegative for the poorest Americans, who can receive more money fromWashington than theypay in federal taxes.This leads to anotherway to thinkabout taxes—the share of government revenue provided relative to a person’sshare of income. It’s not quite “give versus get,” since rich people frequentlyconsumemoreofsociety’sresourcesthanpoorpeople,thoughithassomethingofthisdynamic.Moreprecisely,mostAmericanspaylessinfederaltaxesthanthey earn as a fractionof total income.This shouldn’t be surprising, since thepointofaprogressivesystemistosubsidizepoorerAmericanswithhighertaxeson the rich—what is surprising (or should be tomiddle-class Tea Partiers) iswherethebreak-evenpointrests.Onlythetop20percentpaysmoreinfederaltaxesthanitearnsasashareof income,showingjusthowshieldedthemiddleclass (and even upper middle class) has been under the Boomers. Thesedynamicsappearinalaterfigure.

TheGovernment’sStableShare

What’s going on here? The government’s total take, as a fraction of GDP, has remained surprisinglyconstantover time,withsomevolatilityafter themid-1990sas theeconomycopedwithbubbles,panics,and some large taxcuts.However, thegeneral stabilityof tax revenue strongly suggests that endless taxadjustmentsreallyjustshiftedburdensaround.Becausesomuchofgovernmentrevenueafterthe1980sisaccounted forby levies forseniorprogramsanddistributedaccordingly,andbecause thoseprogramsarenotfullyfunded,theburdenhasbeenshiftedawayfromthemiddleclassandoldandtowardeveryoneelse

—i.e.,awayfromthemainstreamBoomers.44

So,wait—did taxesgoupordown?Forwhichgroups?Andwithall thosetaxcuts,howdidthegovernmentnotcollapse?Thereareseveralanswers,someofwhichwe’vecoveredbutareincludedagainforconvenience,sincetaxesareconfusing, perhaps deliberately so. First, taxes on the rich generally increaseduntil2000,asatotalandoftenasapercentageofincome,subsidedforaperiod,and thenmovedupward again after 2013.This offset falling taxes onmiddle-classBoomers. Second, the tax basewidened somewhat; i.e., somewhatmorepeople paid taxes.Third, the economyhad some one-off spurts, as in the late1990s(dot-comI)thatliftedmanypayersintohigherbracketstemporarily.

It’sthefourthandfifthanswersthatarebyfarthemostimportant,however,and these heavily involve theBoomers.Answer four is that tax burdenswerereallocatedsubstantially,awayfromtheBoomerstowardalmosteveryoneelse—i.e., theBoomerspaidless,andeveryoneelsepaidmore,andthisaccountsforboth the relative stability of the tax take over time, and many of the fifteenthousand–plus changes to the code, some of which we have covered, likemortgage interest deductions and tax-advantaged retirement programs. The

middle-classBoomersfacedlowertaxburdensduringtheirprimeearningyearsrelativetothemiddleclassofthe1940s–1970sandthroughout,themiddleclassdidn’tpayasmuch in federal taxesas itearnedasashareofnational income.Thefifthandfinalanswerhas thesameconsequenceas thefourth:Thenationhasnot,with(no)duerespecttoGreenspan,respondedtolowertaxeswithfiscalrestraint.Thegovernmentcontinuestospendatafairlystable(andsubstantial)rate,andtheresultingdeficitshavebeenfinancedwithdebt,whoseburdenswillbepassedon toyoungergenerations.Finally, thenatureof spending changed:TherewasashiftfrominvestmentinitemslikeR&Dtoconsumptiontransferslikeentitlements,thelatterasusefultotheBoomersastheyareunsustainable,atleast in their current configuration. It is to these manipulations we now turn,startingwithdebt.

TaxCutsfortheMiddleClass

What’s going on here? This chart shows how average federal tax rates (what people really pay) havechangedrelativetotherateschemein1979.ThestoryhereisthatmiddleclasstaxrateshavebeengoingdownwhiletaxesonwealthierAmericanshavevaried.Noneofthisshouldbesurprising,sincethestatedgoalofmainstreampoliticiansisalwayssomeformofmiddle-classtaxcut.Thischart,bytheway,doesnot

sayanythingaboutthelevelofrates—justtheirrelativedirectionovertime.45

WhoPaysWhattoWhom?

What’sgoingonhere?The federal taxsystem isdesigned tobe“progressive,” so thatwealthierpeoplepayalargerfractionoftheirincome,whichisredistributedtotherestofsociety—andthatiswhatthischartshows.Onlythetopquintilepaysmorethanitsproratashare(thisiswhatthebarsshow).Stateandlocaltaxescanbemoreregressivethanfederalleviesandoffsetsomeofthisdynamic,butwhatisstrikingishowdependenttheUnitedStatesisonitsrichestcitizens.Thelines,fortherecord,indicatetheaverageactualtaxratepaidbyeachgroup—andagain, theshapeof the line isnosurprise(wealthierpeoplepayhigherrates),butthelevelmaybeasurprise,sinceaveragetaxesaresomuchlowerthanthe“rackrates”wesawinthemarginalrateschart.Moreover,thegraphsuggeststhatmanyAmericansmaynotbecontributingas

muchastheythinktheydoandthattaxratesoverallarenotenormouslyhigh.46

CHAPTERNINE

DEBTANDDEFICITS

Increasingnumbersofbaby-boomgenerationmembersarebecomingeligibleforSocialSecurityretirement

benefitsandforMedicare…Theagingofthepopulationandrisinghealthcarecostswillcontinuetoputupwardpressureonspendingand,absentactiontoaddressthegrowingimbalancebetweenspendingandrevenue,thefederalgovernmentfacesanunsustainablegrowthin

debt.—GovernmentAccountingOffice(2015)1

On January 8, 1835, Senator ThomasHart Benton stood inWashington andannouncedthat“thenationaldebtispaid.”2Ifitwasn’texactlytrue,itwascloseenough.TheTreasury records that in1835, thenationaldebthad fallen to just$33,733.05,withinspittingdistanceofzero.3Theperiodbetween1835and1836was theexception;debt is the rule.Pre-Boomer, thenationaldebtusually roseduringcrises,fellduringcalmand,between1950and1980,averagedaround50percentofGDP.*,4ThattheUnitedStateshashadanessentiallyperpetualdebtwithoutgoingofftherailsshowsthatthemereexistenceofsomenationaldebtisneitherunusualnor,absentotherfactors,doesitposeanexistential threat.The

keysaresizeandthose“otherfactors.”Overthepastfourdecades—i.e.,duringtheBoomerascendancy—thenation’sdebthasrisenfasterthanduringanyotherlongperiodofpeaceandisexpectedtogrowfasterthantheeconomyoverall.Itnow stands at the highest sustained level save World War II, and, per theCongressionalBudgetOffice (CBO),willwithout correction exceed even thatexceptional threshold during the 2030s.5 The CBO is perhaps being tooforgiving—therecordwillprobablybebrokennoticeablyearlier.

So far, the sizable debt has been manageable for two reasons, neither ofwhichisguaranteedtolast.OnefactorisstrongdemandforUSdebt,especiallyfrombuyers(includingmanyforeignbuyersoverthepasttwodecades)seekingthe relative safety of American bonds and the higher interest rates Americanbonds offer versus those of other advanced economies. And while AmericanyieldsaresomewhatbetterthanthoseofferedbyGermany,Japan,andthelike,American rates are abnormally low,which provides the secondhelpful factor:TheUnitedStatespresentlyborrowsquitecheaply.Again,thedebtisquitelargeand readilymanageableonly for reasons thatmaybe transient.Ourquestions,therefore, are straightforward.First,willAmericandebt everprovokea crisis?Second,whobears responsibility for thedebt?And third, is thereanythingwecanorshoulddoaboutit?

DebtandDangerA little history of debt is instructive, especially given the necrophilia thesupposed debt hawks of the Right have for America’s early politicians.America’s first leadersemphaticallybelieved that,outsideofexceptionalcaseslike war, national debt should be kept small and paid off promptly. ThomasJefferson argued that passing on a debt to future generations (ahem) wasimmoralandthatsettingdebtlimitswasamatterdefinedingenerationalterms.“Nogenerationcancontractdebtsgreaterthanmaybepaidduringthecourseofits own existence,” Jeffersonwrote, insisting that itwas “incumbent on everygenerationtopayitsowndebtsasitgoes.”6ManyofJefferson’slettersfocusontheimmoralityofpassingondebtfromonegenerationtoanother.Threedecadeslater,thegreatpopulistAndrewJackson,recentlydeposedfromthefrontofthe$20 bill, was so obsessed about debt that he routinely vetoed spendinglegislationandaggressivelysoldfederalassetstopayoffthenationalmortgage—itwastheseactionsthatallowedSenatorBentontoproclaimthedebtpaid.

Though Jefferson and Jackson were derided for their simplistic views onnational finance, even more moderate and financially sophisticated Foundersbelievedthatdebthadlimits.AlexanderHamiltonfamouslysaidthedebtcouldbea“blessing,”butonly“ifitisnotexcessive,”notingthat“thecreationofdebtshouldalwaysbeaccompaniedbythemeansofextinguishment.”7Sothereyouhaveit,straightfromtheRevolutionaryOlympus:Large,intergenerationaldebtswere/are immoral. It’s a crosscultural concept, and not for nothing do theGerman and Dutch words for “guilt” and “debt” overlap (schuld). Nietzschefixated on this, expanding rather darkly on the relationship between debt andpunishment.*,8OnewonderswhatübermenschenwouldhavemadeofVisa.

Morality aside, large debts with uncertain prospects for repayment can bedangerous. The Founders could not help but know this. In 1780s, threemajorcountries faced debt crises: the United States, Great Britain, and France. TheAnglo-and Francophones realized dramatically different outcomes. In theconfederatedUnitedStates,debthadbeenamessofstateobligations;after theConstitutionwas ratified in 1788,Hamilton federalized these debts and beganrepayment,which reassuredcreditorsandeased the flowof funds.Asa result,despiteitsyouthandtenuousposition,theUnitedStateshadaccesstoessential

finance.FranceandGreatBritainhadalsoincurredenormousdebts,innosmallpart due to the revolutionary wars in the Americas. Like America, Britain’sorganizedsystemofdebtandtaxgranteditaccesstocredit,andBritainemergedfromNorthAmericanand laterEuropeanwarsasa stablepolity,despitegiantborrowing.

France went differently: In 1789, just as American credit was restored,France collapsed. The social kindling was in place, with sparks provided bypersistentgovernmentduplicityabout the sizeof thedebtcoupledwithdoubtsovertheking’sabilitytotax.ItwasnotthatFrancewaspoorerthanBritainorAmerica; France was larger and richer than both, with an infinitely longerhistorythantheUnitedStatesandasubstantiallysmallerdebtthanBritainintheearly 1780s.9 Abstractly, France presented the lower credit risk. In reality,lendersreckonedthatFrance’sroyalistsystemcouldnolongerdeliverconsistentpayment, a prophecy that became self-fulfilling.Once themarket believed themonarchycouldn’tpay,creditorsceasedtoprovide terms, taxpayersrefused toremit,andthegovernment,starvedoffunds,collapsed.10

The lesson of this historical detour is that debt becomes a problem whencreditors no longer trust a nation’s political system to achieve long-termfinancialstabilitywithinitseconomiccontext,asituationthatcanhappenatanymoderatelyhighlevelofnationaldebt.ThatiswhyGreece,whichhadadebt-to-GDP ratio of 118 percent in 2008, collapsed into chaos in 2009, spawning aquasidepressionthatcontinuesstill.TheGreekshadnocredibilitywhenitcameto payment, so bankers called in the loans.Meanwhile, Japan experienced nocrisis despite having debt-to-GDP ratios significantly higher than pre-crisisGreece;China, too,hadveryhighlevelsofaggregatedebtandnocrisis.11Notonlywerethesenon-Helleniccountriesinbettereconomicshape,theyalsohadpoliticalsystemsthatseemed,atleastintheeyesoflenders,capableofkeepingtheirnationalfinancestogether.IthelpsthattheseAsiannations,unlikeGreece,owemuch of their debt to their own citizens, rather than unforgiving foreignparties, like German bankers keen on schuld und rechnung. (For context, theUnitedStates owes foreign parties $6.2 trillion, about a third of its total debt,whichdoesn’tmeanthat“ChinaownstheUS”assomecruderthinkershaveit,thoughitdoesmarkasubstantialincreasefromtheroughly$1trillionowedtooverseascreditorsasof2001.12)

It’s worth noting that a major component of Greece’s dysfunction was atwinned inability to generate tax revenue and to reform its overgenerousentitlement system—a situation well underway in the United States. Various

permutations of theGreek tragedy have emerged at the subfederal level,withcities (Detroit) and counties (Orange County) having gone bust. In 2015 theentire territory of Puerto Rico defaulted on its bonds, which have beendowngraded to junkstatus.The island territoryhasnotgonebankruptonlyforthereasonthat(asofthiswriting)thereisnolegalmechanismforterritoriestodoso.AndwhileterritorialbankruptcymayonlyrequireanactofCongress,itmay actually be unconstitutional as to states, which means states probablycannotengageintheexpedienceoffederalbankruptcyreorganization.*,13

Eventhefederalgovernmenthasflirtedwithdebtcrises,in1995and,moredramatically, in 2011, when it came within forty-eight hours of a technicaldefault on its interest payments. In that second crisis, three agencies issuedwarnings about American credit, with Standard & Poor’s actually cutting itsratingofUSTreasuriesforthefirsttime.14Yetanotherdebtcrisisemerged,onthe same lines, in2013.Although theseweremajor events at the time,peoplequicklyforgot.Still,crackshaveappeared,thoughatpresent,therearenosignsthattheUnitedStateswillhaveanythinglikeaGreekcrisisforthesimplereasonthat people keep buying American debt, partly in eagerness to export moneyfromlesspoliticallystablecountries to therelativesafetyof theUnitedStates.At somepoint, however,Americandebt anddysfunctionwill rise to thepointwherethatceasestobethecase.

Debt:ItsOriginsandAmountThere’snomysteryto theoriginsof thenationaldebt:Thegovernmentspendsmore money than it takes in, and the result is the deficit, financed by theissuanceofgovernmentdebt.AfterWorldWarIIanduntil1974,deficitswereregular, but not particularly large.Because theUS economygrew rapidly, theratio of debt to GDP shrank through the 1970s; in other words, the debt goteasier tobear, justasamortgage takenoutbya juniorassociateata lawfirmbecomesmoremanageablewhen that associatemakespartner.However, since1980theUnitedStateshasbeencommittedtoacombinationofstable-to-lowertaxesandever-higherspending,evenasgrowthhasdecelerated,andthishasledtomuchlargerdeficitsandagrowingnationaldebt.It’sentirelyclearfromthenext chart which generations are responsible: Some blame lies with theBoomers’parents,butthesubstantialmajorityrestssquarelyonthesociopathicshouldersoftheBoomersthemselves.

TheBoomerDebtPileWhatamIlookingat?Totalgovernmentdebthas increasedto levelsnotseensinceWorldWarII,andgivenprojecteddeficitsof~3percentindefinitely,willsurpassthosehistoriclevelswithintwodecadesandperhapsconsiderablysoonerthanthat.Thedistinctionsbetween“intragovernmentaldebt”and“debtowed

to the public” will be covered later in this chapter—what’s important for now is how quickly and

substantiallydebtshaverisen.15

Thedebtbeganreallygrowinginthe1980s,substantiallytheproductoftaxcuts whose goal was to “starve the beast”—the beast being the governmentgenerally and its socialwelfare system in particular.16Not surprisingly, socialprograms failed to vanish in response to tax cuts. Moreover, Reagan hugelyincreaseddefensespending(feedingthebeast)whileendorsingtheimplausibleLafferCurve,whichsaidthatthetaxcutswouldpayforthemselves(makingthebeast’s food free, presumably). Reagan lowered taxes but ended up starvingnothing. In 1985, aWhiteHouse official concluded that “wedidn’t starve thebeast…it’sstilleatingquitewell—byfeedingofffuturegenerations.”17Overtheyears,theBoomer-dominatedpoliticalsystemcontinueditsbizarredebt-dietarypolicy—allbinge,nopurge—resistingmajorcutstogovernmentprogramswhileembracing virtually all tax relief (for Boomers), and deficits and debt grewaccordingly.

Nor were there any mechanisms to provide hard restraint. Earlier movestoward a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget (not a perfectidea,butindicativeofacertainsenseofresponsibility)hadpickedupfromthe1950s on, so that by 1983—just as the Boomers became a majority of theelectorate—thirty-two state legislatures had passed resolutions in favor of thebalanced budget amendment. If only two more states had ratified in 1983,starving the beast might have become vaguely plausible. Nevertheless, asBoomers gained power, states rescinded their ratifications and the issue died.Themoment has passed, and there probably never will be a balanced budgetamendment.

Nevertheless, there was a brief period in the late 1990s when the annualfederalbudgetwasinsurplus,inpartbecauseofadot-combubblethatboostedtax receipts, in part because of some accounts fiddling, and also because thenation was genuinely growing (though, as it turned out, in some problematicways).The nationwas subjected toVerySeriousPeoplewringing their handsabout how to conduct monetary policy when the nation paid off its debts.Forecasterspredictedaten-year,$5.6trillionsurpluswhenBushIItookoffice,enoughtoretireessentiallytheentirepublicdebtatthetime.18Ofcourseitwasaheadfake,astheexpertsshouldhaveknown.SomeontheLeftliketotrumpetClinton’sbudget surpluses,andwhile theydidexist, theshareofdebtheldbythe public fell only by a modest $476 billion while total debt, including

entitlementsdebt,actually increased. (We’llexplore thedifferent typesofdebtshortly.)Clintonianfiscalimprovementswerenarrowandbrief,andwhiletheywerereal,theywerenotdurable—andnotjustbecauseofBushII,butbecauseof Clinton. So instead of a $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2012, theUnited States ended up running a $6 trillion deficit, a swing of $11.6 trillionbetween’90sfantasyand’00sreality.19Asaresult, theUnitedStatesnowhasits largest peacetime debt, one that it will grow substantially, gross and as apercentageofGDP,fortheforeseeablefuture.20

JustHowMuch,Exactly?There are two schools on the debt, the optimists and the pessimists, and eachmeasures debt in different ways, but however you look at it, debt has risendramaticallyunderBoomertenure.Fortheoptimists,thefederaldebtisnolargerthan74percentofGDPasofFY2015.21Optimistslookonlyatdebt“heldbythepublic,”i.e., theamountthegovernmentowesdirectlytothirdparties—thepeople who buy Treasury bonds, like banks, bond funds, and foreigngovernments.Whilethisisthesmallestreasonablemeasureofdebt,thenumbersit produces are not reasonably small: $14-ish trillion is a lot.22Thepessimiststake a much broader view and include the amount the government owes toeveryone, including itself (via things like the Social SecurityTrust Fund).Onthisbasis,thedebtwasslightlylargerthanGDP,about$18.2trillioninthethirdquarter of 2015, $18.9 trillion by the end of 2015 (and rising since then—updates will be posted on this book’s website,www.generationofsociopaths.com).23Congressmeasuresdebtonsomethinglikethis basis to calculate compliance with the debt ceiling. Of course, the debtceiling has been raised sixteen times from 1997 to 2015, which makes itsomethinglikeadietwherethenumberofpermittedcaloriesrisesthefatterthedietergets.24

Thedifferencebetweenthetwoschoolsturnsonintragovernmentaldebt,soopting between optimism and pessimism means figuring out a reasonabletreatment for the entitlements that comprise the vast majority ofintragovernmental debt. As a legal matter, the optimists can fairly excludeentitlement obligations, because retirees have no legal entitlement to SocialSecurity, i.e., thegovernmentdoesn’tactuallyoweanyoneanySocialSecuritypayments,soifitfailstopay,therewouldbenolegaldefault,andonthatbasis,thereisnodebtperse.

Legalanalysismaybefineforthelawyersandaccountants,butasapoliticalmatter,beneficiariesexpecttheirchecks,andthegovernmentwillmakegoodonits obligations for as long as possible. As a political matter, entitlementobligations for thenext twodecades are as good as debts, and they shouldbeincludedinthetotals.Itmaybedisturbingtorealizethattherearenohardassetsin theTrust Fund againstwhich entitlement obligations can be netted.That is

because, contrary to common conception, Social Security is a pay-as-you-goprogram: current benefits are paid out of current receipts.TheSocial SecurityAdministration freely admits that the government collects payroll taxes andspendsthemimmediately;noactualmoneyisdeposited.25The“SocialSecurityTrust Fund”—some $2.8 trillion allegedly squirreled away to pay forBoomerretirements—isjustanaccountingentry.26Althoughthereisstillgoldinfederalvaults (and there used to bemorphine stockpiled there in the glory days, too,which may come in handy at this point), none of it is earmarked for SocialSecurity.TheTrustFundsexistonlyinthesensethatthegovernmentpromisestorepayitself(andthusfuturebeneficiaries)atalaterdate,apromisethattakesthe formof “special-issue”Treasury securities, available for purchase only bygovernmenttrustfunds.27

All this is sufficiently mind-bending to most people—because it issufficiently complicated and divorced from personal practice (which cynicsmight argue is the point)—as to require some analogies. If you promise yourchildrentoleavethem$1millionandyouhaveanetworthof$250,000,andyoudon’tevenputanyofthatquartermillioninabankaccountbearingthenamesofyourapple-cheekedissue,isitreallya“trustfund”?*Oranotherexample—youdeposit your paycheck into the local bank,which then uses not the profits onyourcash,butyouractualcashtopayitsrent,salaries,andelectricitybill—andthendepositsitsownbondsinyouraccountinlieuofcash.Isthisa“deposit”?IfaCitibankATMspitsoutacorporatebondinsteadofawadoftwenties,wouldyoubehappy?

It is the substitution of your cash for a future promise (made by the sameinstitution collecting your cash) that transforms the Trust Funds into debt inpractical terms. Recall that the government has already spent payroll taxescollected to date, so all benefits payable in the future must be funded out offuturetaxes.Apromisetopayfromfutureincomethatisnotoffsetbyhardandsequestered assets is, by all reasonable measures, a debt. (This is not just aRepublicanconspiracy;AlGoreharpedaboutaSocialSecuritylockboxforthesamereason.)Entitlementdebtswillnecessarilybebornebyfuturegenerations,as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) admits: “intragovernmentaldebt holdings reflect a claim on taxpayers and the economy in the future.”28SocialSecurityaccountsformorethan$2.8trillion,whileMedicareaccountsforanother few hundred billion, though the liabilities of each system are actuallymuchhigher,asChapters11and12willshow.†,29

Unfortunately,reasonablemeasuresoftotaldebtgobeyondtheinclusionof

intragovernmental liabilities. The government hasmany other quasi liabilities,andwhile theseobligations, likeentitlements,arenot legallybinding,both thepublic and the bond markets implicitly view them as such. Given that thesegroups can compel the government to make good on these obligations (thepublicvia thevotingbooth)andarenecessary tosupply themoneyin thefirstplace (the financiersvia thebondmarket), theiropinionsare relevant.At leastfor the purpose of assessing the nation’s long-term creditworthiness, it’sappropriate to include these sundry, informal obligations in gross debtcalculations.

At the federal level, such informal obligations include the government’simplicit obligations for entities the government functionally owns or hasotherwisebackstopped, likemortgageoperatorsFannieMae andFreddieMac,which operate under the telling moniker of “government-sponsored entities”(GSEs).* Netted out against the assets of these entities, the government hasprobably backstopped several hundred billion to one trillion or more dollars.SomeoftheseliabilitiesaremixedintothingsliketheFederalReserve’sbalancesheet,whichreported$1.8trillioninGSEandagencydebtin2015(asanasset,bytheby).Intheory,theFedadjuststhecarryingvalueoftheseitemstoreflecttheiractualcollectability; timewill tellhowrealistic theFed’saccounting is.30Otherslurkoffbalancesheet,butaswediscoveredin2008withthebigprivatebanks,duringeconomiccrises toxins tend tomigratefromoffbalancesheet toon. Evenmore quasi liabilities of this kind exist, like bank deposit insurance,securities insurance, and pension guarantees. The meager insurance funds onhandforthesewouldbeinstantlydepletedbyanothercrisis,certainlyprovokingabailout (fundedbymoredebt).Theexactaccountingandpossibleoffsets forthesepotentialliabilitiescanbereasonablydebated;whatisrelevanthereisthatthemereexistenceoftheseitemsrendersthesmaller“publicdebt”calculationssomewhathardtocredit.†

Ofcourse,it’snotjustthefederalgovernmentthatborrows.It’smuchhardertoaggregate the totalborrowingof state and localgovernments, though it’s atleast $3 trillion.31 How, you could reasonably ask, can states borrow trillionswhen every state but Vermont has a balanced budget requirement? How hasPuerto Rico, which also has a balanced budget requirement, gone bust? Eachstate has different rules, but as a generalmatter, states are allowed to financecapitalprojectswithbonds,and thisaccounts for themajorityofdebtbuildup.Therestistheproductofsubjectivity,becausewhileoperatingbudgetsmustbebalancedwhenpassed,badplanningorbadluckcaneasilytipstatesintodeficits

that roll forward. The vast expansion of state debt occurred during Boomertenure(recalltheyhavebeenresidentingovernor’smansionsforsometimeandcontrolled86percentofthemin2016).WhetherornotthefederalgovernmentchoosestobailoutDetroit,PuertoRico,orwhicheverill-managedlocalitygoesundernextislessimportantthanthefactthatshouldstategovernmentsfail,thefederalgovernmentishighlylikelytostepinandpayonewayoranother,eitherdirectlythroughabailoutorindirectlythroughincreasedtransferpaymentslikewelfare.Andtheoddityisthatwhileoneortwolocalgovernmentscanbesafelyletgo(ashasbeenthecase),themorethatfail,themorelikelyafederalbailouttoavoidtotalcollapsebecomes.Inotherwords, ifandwhentheproblemtrulyemerges,itwillbesubstantial.

The federal government already subsidizes state debt, by the way, sofederalizationofstatedebtsisnotexactlyunthinkable.Thefederalgovernmenthasdonesoexplicitlybyextending thebenefitof itscredit rating to thestates(muchasGermanydoestotheEuropeanUnion)aswithBuildAmericaBonds(BABs),issuedafterthe2008crisis.ForBABs,theTreasurypaid35percentoftheinterestondebtissuedbylocalgovernments.Theprogramranonlybriefly,issuing $181 billion in bonds, but the Treasury’s own statement makes clearwhatwasgoingon:“BABsprovideadeeperfederalsubsidy tostateand localgovernments.”32(Whichimplieswhatwillshortlybediscussed:theexistenceofa permanent federal subsidy in the first place.)The subsidybecamenecessarybecause the“financialcrisisof2008severely impairedcreditmarkets forstateand local governments… and many municipal issuers had no access to thecapital markets,” so the “Treasury pays a 35 percent direct subsidy to theissuer[s].”33 Local governments usedBABs for (mostly)worthy infrastructureprojects,butmanycouldnothavedonesowithouthandoutsfromtheTreasury.Otherversionsof thesequietsubsidiesexist, includingtheexemptionofmuni-bondinterestfromfederaltaxation.Thatexemptionreducesthefederaltakeand,given persistent deficits, emerges on the other end as federal debt.Again, it’simportant to avoid double counting, so state problems are not included in thefederalstatisticspresented.

Nevertheless, it’s important to remember that state and local debts couldeasily become federalized, one way or another—whether by bailing out theirpensions, paying out more federal benefits as local residents slip further intopoverty,andsoon.HowevermuchcertainRepublicansliketheideaofthestatesas independent “laboratories of democracy,” the fact is that they are unitedstates,andwhatbindsthemismoneyor,anyway,debt.Inthenextfigure,then,

isthetotallayercakeofAmericangovernmentdebt—youcanchoosehowmanyslicesyou’dliketoconsume,buttheminimumportionisalwayssizable.

UnjustDes(s)erts:ThePresentDebtLayerCakeWhat’s going onhere? This is the rough total of debt owed by various government entities, plus theirlikely pension backstop obligations. (“Rough” because no one really knows, not even the government.)Pessimistsmightadd to this the trillionsofadditionalunfundedentitlementsobligations, thevariousandimplicitguaranteesthegovernmentgrantsquasi-publicentities, thedeferredcostsof infrastructurerepair,

andsoon.34

Debt:MaintainingItAlthoughtotaldebtissubstantial,itsburdenandsustainabilityareafunctionofinterestrates,becauseinnormaltimes,interestistheonlycomponentofdebtthegovernment isfunctionallycalledupontopay.Thegovernmentrollsoverdebtconstantly.Some$7trillioninnewdebtwasissuedinFY2016and$6.7trillionwas repaid, the difference roughly being the deficit, so it was something likerefinancingan$18trillionhousewithaseriesofinterest-onlyloansofindefiniteduration.35So longas thebondmarketbelieves in thegovernment’s ability tomake timely interest payments, there is no problem; if the bond market getsworried,itcaninflictahugepriceintheformofhigherinterestrates,orevendountotheUnitedStateswhatitdidtoGreeceinthe2000s,andtoFrancein1789.

ThatthebondmarketholdsgreatpowerisnosecrettoeitherWallStreetortheTreasuryDepartment,andshouldn’tbetopoliticians.Afterall,itisthebondmarket—thecollectionofallbuyers,individuals,banks,othernations,etc.—thatsuppliesmoneyinthefirstplace.Whendisappointed,“bondmarketvigilantes”havepunishedtheTreasurymarket.JamesCarville,BillClinton’schiefpoliticaloperative,foundhimselfentirelysurprisedbythepowerofthebondmarketandonceexpressedadesiretobereincarnatednotasthe“presidentorthepopeora.400baseballhitter…butasthebondmarket.”36

Vigilantejusticeisinflictedthroughhigherinterestrates,andthisrequiresaquickrefresheronbonds.Allbondsaredebtobligationsthatconsistofprincipaland interest. The interest rate is a function of the risk premium the marketdemands,acollectionofjudgementsaboutcreditworthiness,inflation,liquidity,othermarketopportunities,andsoon,butforgovernmentbonds,thetwothingsthat really matter are inflation and credibility. The government cannot reallyforcethebondmarkettobuyasingledollarofbondsifthepriceisn’tright,soitauctions off securities in the followingway: (1) theTreasury says itwants toborrow$1,000andwillpay5percent simple interest ($50annually), repaying$1,000in,say,tenyears;(2)thebondmarketcanmakewhateverbidsitwantson thosebonds—$900,$1000,$1,100—basedon itsownmodels. Ifbondsareboughtat the$1,000facevalueandheldtomaturity, thecalculationissimple:The government pays $50/year and then $1,000 at the end of year ten. If themarketwantstopayonly$900forthebonds,thegovernmentmuststillpayback

$1,000attheendofyearten,butgetsonly$900now,andsotheimplicitinterestrateisactuallyhigher;thereversehappensifthemarketbidsover$1,000.

It is thisfreemarketdynamic thatpermitsvigilante justice.Whenthebondmarketisdisappointed,iteitherbidsunderfacevalueorsellsitsexistingbondsat progressively lowerprices.Both strategiesdepressbondprices andhave aninverse effect on interest rates, as the preceding paragraph showed—thefollowing table presents themechanics. Faced with a bond-market revolt, thegovernmentendsuppayingmoretoborrowuntilitrebalancesitsbooksmoretothemarket’staste.

A Quick Example of the Inverse Relationship Between Bond Price andInterestRates

Face Value of 10-Year Bond (amount government must repay—alwaysfixed):Scenario1:EverythingHappensatFaceValue:$1,000Scenario2:BondMarketBullish:$1,000Scenario3:BondMarketBearish:$1,000

StatedInterestRate(the“coupon”alsoalwaysfixed)Scenario1:EverythingHappensatFaceValue:5%Scenario2:BondMarketBullish:5%Scenario3:BondMarketBearish:5%

WhatBondMarketActuallyPaysforBond(canvary)Scenario1:EverythingHappensatFaceValue:$1,000Scenario2:BondMarketBullish:$1,100Scenario3:BondMarketBearish:$900

EffectiveAnnualInterestRateScenario1:EverythingHappensatFaceValue:5%Scenario2:BondMarketBullish:<5%Scenario3:BondMarketBearish:>5%

WhatamIlookingat?Everyonegetsconfusedbybonds,butanotherwaytolookatitisthis:Nomatterwhat,thegovernmentisgoingtopayyou$50peryear(theinterest)andthen$1,000backafteradecade

(theprincipal).Thoseamountsarefixed.Whatdoesvaryiswhatyoupayforthosecashflowsanditmaybemoreintuitiveifwemakethescenariosimplausiblyextreme.Let’ssayyoupay$1fortheentirepackage—youstillget$50peryear,$1,000afteradecade,andyourreturnoninvestmentiseffectivelyinfinite(everyyearyouget50timesyourmoneyback,plusabonus1000xatyear10).Conversely,let’ssayyoupaythegovernment$1billionfor thesamebond—youstillget$50peryearand$1,000afteradecade,butyoureffectiveinterestrateisextremelynegative.

Again, the bondmarket considersmany thingswhen it trades—indeed, itsmodelsoftenhavedozensoreventhousandsofinputsandoutputs,butthesecanbe summarized in two concepts. Input: credibility. Output: effective interestrates. “Credibility” and “credit” have related etymologies and related effects.Whencredibilitydeclinesthepriceofcredit(interestrates)rises.

Credibility is relative, of course. The current price of American credit isunusuallycheapforavarietyofreasonsthathavelittle todowiththeinherentcredibilityofAmericanpolitics.Partly, theUnitedStates isgrowingsomewhatfaster than other rich economies and is perceived as somewhat safer/lessdysfunctionalthanalmosteveryothermajoreconomy,somoneyflowsintotheUnited States because it is the least bad alternative. This is partly why after2008, despite a giganticAmerican financial crisis and ballooning deficits, thedollar rose and interest rates fell; everywhere else looked even worse, andmoneyparked itself in theUnitedStates forwantofbetterplaces togo.RateshavealsobeenlowbecausegrowthhasbeenanemicandtheFederalReservehasadjusted policy to keep rates down. Experts can reasonably quibble about thedetails,butingeneralterms,thesehavebeentherecentdynamics.

The result has been extremely cheap financing for the government, and ofcourse, for consumers (think of all those robo-calls and spam e-mails aboutmortgagerefisat“historicallylowrates”).From2010to2015,thegovernmentpaid an average of 2.47 percent on new ten-year Treasury debt; subtractinginflation, the real rate of interest traveled to around 1.5 percent or lower.37Basically, extraordinary circumstances allow the United States to borrowessentially for free, a situation thatwill almost certainly change over the verylongterm.

Hopingforhigherinterestratesisinsomesenseanactofoptimism,becausethe past decade of exceptionally low interest rates has been the result ofeconomic distress. Optimism has its own costs, though. During the period ofexceptionally low rates, fromFY2010 toFY2015, gross interest on the debtcost about $360–450 billion annually, and the average was roughly 85–90

percent of the present annual budget deficit (in other words, if we owed nointerest, the annual federal budget would essentially balance if we viewintragovernmentaldebtas“debt”).38Shouldratesrise,sowillinterestcosts—thequestion is whether new economic growth produces enough additional taxrevenuetocovertheincreasedcost.

Theproblemwithgovernmentdebtcomesfromthefactthateventhoughthedebt isperpetual, themeansoffinancing itarenot.Aswe’veseen, thefederalgovernmentconstantlyrollsovertrillionsofolddebtalongwithafewhundredbillionextra(theextrabeingthatyear’sdeficitplusoddsandends).39Therefore,everyyearasubstantialchunkofthefederaldebtcancomeupforrefinancingatnew rates—think of it as an adjustable-ratemortgagewith a potential balloonpayment,andyoucanguesswhowillberesponsiblefortheballoonpartwhenthebondmarketdecidesit’shadenough.

Each additional 1 percent the market demands adds about $180 billion inimmediateannual interestpaymentsonthepublicpartof thedebt,orabout40percentofthepresentannualbudgetdeficitandmoreovertime.*A2.5percentgross increase in interest costswould almost double the annual budget deficit,andceterisparibus,thiscouldsparkaviciouscyclewherehigherinterestcostsspawn larger deficits, greater concern about fiscal integrity, further rateincreases, and soon.Over a fewyears, other factors—like the flowofmoneyinto the United States as a safe haven—can swamp this dynamic. Were taxrevenues and economy to expand quickly, that would also make interestpaymentsmanageable,thoughastherestofthebookshows,thoseoutcomesareunlikely on America’s present course. Therefore, in the multidecade horizonrelevanttopeopleyoungerthantheBoomers,theUnitedStatesshouldexpecttopayagreaterpriceforitsborrowing.ForthesociopathicsubsetofBoomers,thisfalls into the ever-expanding category of Someone Else’s Problem, and that’swhytheseaofdebthasbeentolerated.

Areturntohigherratescouldhappenrelativelysuddenly;thebondmarketisquirkyandrunbymercurialhumansand,increasingly,byinscrutablemachineswhose processes aren’t necessarily transparent to their masters.Were rates torise topre-2008long-termaverages,anuptickofabout2.7percent inabsoluteterms,theadditionalcostsofservicingourdebtbythemselveswouldbecomeaslarge as the entire present deficit.40 Slow growth and the lack of inflationarypressuresmakeitunlikelythatrateswillrisethatmuchverysoon,buttheywillrise—unless the United States remains mired in permanent stagnation, whichwillmakethedebthardertoserviceinotherways.

Inordinarytimes,thebondmarkethasmorepowerthanthegovernment;inextraordinary times, the government can exercise vastlymore power than thebond market. After all, the government owns the printing presses (and, theextremistswouldpointout,thearmy),butitcanuseextraordinarypowersonlyrarely.Eventhoughimplementationwasoftenpoor,thegovernmentrightlyusedits emergency powers after 2008, but for reasonswewill take up later, it hasexhaustedmuchof itsconventionalarsenal.Therefore,absentanuclearoptionlike default, compelled purchases, or debasement of the currency, the bondmarketwillexercisegreatercontrolinthecomingyearsthanithasintherecentpast, and the cost of American debt could rise substantially. Still, a nuclearoptionisn’tunthinkable,giventhatBoomerdebtinsanitywasonfulldisplayin2016 when Trump went so far as to suggest the government issue debt withintent of subsequently renegotiating its terms—i.e., premeditated default.41Because that’swhatmanyBoomers have donewith their personal borrowing,Trumpwasn’tsomuchbloviatingasreflectingarealitypracticedathome.

PrivateLiabilitiesAs to that, justasgovernmentborrows tomaintain its lifestyle, sodocitizens.Onapersonalbasis,Americandebttotaled$14.2trillionin2015,ofwhichabout$9.5 trillion is mortgage debt, $1.3 trillion educational debt, plus an assortedremainder.42 Some of these debts, like student loans to pay tuition at eliteschools,arereallyinthenatureofdebt-financedinvestments.*Othersareoffsetinwholeorpart by assets likehouses, thoughas theunderwatermortgages inFlorida, Arizona, and Nevada show, not as much as one would hope.Nevertheless, there is simply a huge amount of debt outstanding, of everyimaginable variety,much of it spent unproductively, and increasingly steadilysince1980tounsettlinglevels.

Corporationshavealsoindebtedthemselvesheavily,withgrossnonfinancialcorporatedebttriplingsince1981onarealbasistoatotalof$8.1trillionasof2015,maybe$6trillionorsonetofcash.43(Financialfirms,darkpools,etc.mayadd evenmore, though their iffy accountingmakes things hard to pin down.)Withthecreationofjunkbondsinthe1980sandthewaveofleveragedbuyouts,it’s tempting to think the Reagan years accounted for the great expansion incorporatedebt.Corporatedebtdidroughlytriplefrom1981to1990,butitwasfromthe1990sonward,whenBoomerswereinfullcontrolofcornerofficesthatdebt really exploded, as a share of GDP and relative to assets.* Debts areheaviest in the financial sector and smaller firms,which is troubling, becausesmall companies struggle during recessions. This development cannot bedismissedasacorporateproblemdivorcedfromreality—ifcompaniescan’tpaytheir debts, they fail, with very real impacts on stocks, savings, and the realeconomy.

Oneveryconceivablebasis, then—absolute, relative,asa ratioofearnings,per capita—theUnited States has been on a borrowing binge, public, private,andcorporate.Thenationhasmovedintounchartedterritory,thekindofplacethatoldmapsusedtopopulatewithmonsters.

TroublesomeTrajectories:BankruptciesAstheeconomyslows,debteventuallybecomesonerous.Itcanbenosurprisethatbankruptcieshavebeenmounting;whatissurprisingisthattheyhavebeenmounting for quite some time, evenduring theostensibly “goodyears” of the1980s and 1990s. In the abstract, bankruptcies have enormous social utility,affording bankrupts the chance to reorganize themselves and perhaps createfuture value, while avoiding themedieval practice of debt bondage, in whichdebtors became the functional slaves of their creditors.We can acknowledgebankruptcy’suseandfairnesswithoutgivinguptherighttoquestionwhetherasocietyinwhichbankruptcyisfrequentisonethatiswellfunctioning.

Although the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to providebankruptcy relief, it used to be fairly difficult to obtain. Congress liberalizedmattersin1898andbankruptciesrose,thoughtothelowlevelof1.3per1,000adultsby1965.44 In1978,whenthemedianBoomerwastwenty-six,Congressloosened the law again and has since adjusted the law first to make it easier(when Boomers were primarily debtors and thus beneficiaries of relief).Throughout almost all theBoomers’ adult years, bankruptcies remained fairlyeasy togetand rosequickly, to7.5per1,000adults in1998.45More recently,debthasbecomehardertodischarge(nowthatwealthierBoomershavebecomenetcreditors).

A casual attitude toward fiscal probity developed under the Boomers, onethat would be totally unfamiliar to prior generations, manifesting even in theselection of candidates for highest office. Consider the field of financialimprovidencethatconstitutedthe2016primarycontenders.DonaldTrump,theonly person to make Silvio Berlusconi seem Churchillian, manages to bepersonallywealthywhilepresidingoveraramshacklerealestateempirewhoseonly products are architectural vulgarity and serial bankruptcies.MarcoRubiopresented as a moral crusader (against debt) while tossing away money onspeedboats, saving essentially nothing, and appears to have held a long-termcreditcardbalancewhoseburdenswereoccasionally relievedby improperuseoftheGOPhousecard.46ScottWalker,thegovernorofWisconsinandafleetingfavorite,hadanetworth that rangedfrombarelypositive tooutrightnegative,dependingonassumptions.47BernieSandershadconsiderablecreditcarddebt,

whilehisfamily’smodestnetworthresidedentirelyandratherquestionablyinhiswife’sname;he’ssaidhe’spaid itoffandhisspokesmanpooh-poohedthewhole thing as “normal,” but as of 2014, he carried at least four times thenationalaverage,thoughhewasalsobetterpaidthantheaverageworker.48TheClintons, of course, have had their financial ups and downs and long beenattached to questionable get-rich-quick schemes like Whitewater and somemurkinessaroundtheClintonFoundation.TedCruzreceivedapoorlydisguisedand highly questionable loan from Goldman Sachs, his wife’s formeremployer.49 John Kasich, the Ohio governor and, per the New York Timeseditorial board, the only “plausible”Republican candidate (primary voters didnot agree), had a previous life as a LehmanBrothers executive from 2001 to2008, and knew “close to zero” about investment bankingwhen he started, astate of enlightenment apparently paralleled by the bank as a whole given its2008collapse.50Ahugechunkofcandidatesinrecentyearshaveflirtedwithorhad long-term relationships with debt and impropriety. And yet, those nowconstituteouroptions,aseaofredinkandimprudencethatleavestheAmericanpoliticalbrowuntroubled.TheBoomershavehabituatedthenationtodebtanddefault.

Concerns about bankruptcy abuses prompted Congress to crack down in2005, decades after it unlocked the bankruptcy door for the Boomers. LikeGeorgeOrwell’spigs,somebankruptsendedupbeingmoreequal thanothers.Oneof the2005law’smostsignificantchangesmadedischargingstudentdebtexceedinglydifficult.TheBoomersdidnothavetoworry,asformerlygeneroussubsidies meant they carried relatively little of such debt. Their children,however, carried quite a bit, with interest remitted to companies in whichBoomersheldshares.ThatwasofnomomentfortheBoomerlegislature.After2005,studentdebtwouldfallintothesamelegalcategoryasdebtslikecriminalpenaltiesandchildsupport.

A largeminority of bankruptcies come fromcatastrophic health-care costs,andsomeofthesecan(and,asanaccountingmatter,are)justwrittenoffasbadluck. Nevertheless, medical bankruptcies have their own sociopathic aspects,given the Boomers’ lackadaisical attitudes toward their own physical andfinancialhealth,andtheirfailuretoenactcomprehensiveinsurancereform.Andmuch of the dollar volume of bankruptcies derives from nonmedicalimprudence.TheBoomersmademistakesandcraftedremediallawsinresponse;with their errors absolved, bankruptcy reform can trend toward the punitive,except,ofcourse,inthecaseofmedicalbankruptcies,wherewecanexpectthe

Boomerstoindulgeinmorelegislativeforgiveness.

RepaymentDespiteitsalarmingsize,thenationaldebtneithercanbenorshouldbeentirelyrepaid, certainly not within the lifetime of any American now living. Evensettingaside10percentofthebudget—whichgiventhepresentdeficitofaround–2.5percentto–3percentwouldrepresentanimpossiblylargebudgetaryswing—wouldcauseasevererecession,ifnotdepression,andstillnotretirethedebtfor many decades. It will be a century, if ever, before we need to exhumeSenatorBenton’scorpse foranencoreof thedebt-is-paid speech.However, atsomepointinthenextdecadeorso,Americamustprovidethebondmarketwithamorereasonableplanforservicingandeventuallyretiringmuchofthedebt—thatdoesnotmeantheUnitedStatesshouldstopborrowing,onlythatitshouldhaveastrategythatgoesbeyondonemorecrapulentwallowatthetrough.

Sadly,we cannot expect any suchplan soon.Because interest rates remainlow, the debt crisis probablywill not emergeuntil theBoomers are near theirends.Boomershavenopersonal incentive to addressdebt andhave shownnoappetitefordoingso.Thefailuretodoanythingaboutthedebt(otherthanaddtoit)amounts,therefore,toadeclarationofgenerationalbankruptcy,financialandmoral,withcoststransferredtosubsequentgenerations.

The formal debt represents only part of the obligations of the government.Thevastsystemofentitlementsrepresentsanother.Andfinally,thetrueshapeofthedebtcanbeassessedonlyinthecontextofwhathasbeenhappeningtothenation’s networth.Because not only has the government been incurring hugeamountsofdebtsimplytomuddlealong,ithassystematicallydissipatednationalassets like themilitary,physical infrastructure,education,andresearch. It is tothesewenextturn.

CHAPTERTEN

INDEFINITELYDEFERREDMAINTENANCE

Impulsivityorfailuretoplanahead…Recklessdisregardforsafetyofselforothers…Lackarealisticconcernabouttheircurrent

problemsortheirfuture…Repeatedsquanderingofmoneyrequired

forhouseholdnecessities…Theymayminimizetheharmfulconsequencesoftheir

actions…[or]indicatecompleteindifference…—DSM-V1

Ifoneweretocreatefromscratchacategoryguaranteedtorepelthesociopath,it would be infrastructure—roads, power plants, sewers—or, as the OxfordEnglish Dictionary aptly puts it, the physical “facilities… needed for theoperationof a society.”2 (Apologies for thehigh schoolessaymaneuver there,butitwastoogoodtopassup.)Infrastructuredemandsprovidenceandsharing;sociopathsofferimprudenceandshortsightedself-interest,andthattranslatestoneglect.Excludingnationaldefense,grosstotalinfrastructurespendinghasbeenfalling for some time, to about 2.5percent ofGDP, significantly less than the

UnitedStatesspentinthe1960s(around4percent)andlessthanwhatmanyofAmerica’sindustrializedpeersspendtoday.3

Thesituation inpublicly funded infrastructure isespeciallyalarming.LarrySummers,presidentofHarvardandaformerTreasurysecretary,arguedthatnetgovernmentinvestmentwaszero,adjustingfordepreciation(roadsdowearout).Zero was only the slightest exaggeration: it was, under the most generouscalculations, 0.5 percent of GDP in 2014 (versus around 3 percent at itsmidcenturyheight).*,4 The federal government actually oversawnegative ratesof investment in several major categories in 2014, with state and privatespending accounting for themodestlypositive showingoverall.Tounderstandthatunderinvestmenthasbeen serious,youneednotporeover eyeball-glazingarcana like BEA’s National Income and Product Accounts. You can simplyobservethevariouscasualty-producingfireballsthatemergedin2010and2014–2015 from California’s mismaintained, fifty-year-old pipelines; the poisonedwater in Flint,Newark, and elsewhere; sundry train derailments; and (per JoeBiden) “Third World” conditions prevailing in the cesspit that is LaGuardiaAirport.5

While the Boomers grew up in a country that had the world’s greatestinfrastructure, they now run a nation where infrastructure ranges fromfrustratinglybackwardtodownrightunsafe.Beforethe1980s,nooneconsideredAmerican infrastructure dangerously deficient overall in part because manymajor systems had only just been completed (though a few systems, like rail,needed work). By 1988, as many systems approached their second or thirddecades, Congress ordered a review. The grade then was a C, indicatingconditions“fairtogood…requir[ing]attention.”6

Unfortunately,matters requiredmore than just “attention,” they required anonsociopathicpolitical class. Itdidnothelp thatCongress failed to revisit its1988report,leavingassessmentstoindustrygroupsliketheAmericanSocietyofCivil Engineers (ASCE).* ASCE’s independent reports, compiled as theInfrastructureReportCards,concludedthatconditionshaddeterioratedtoaDby1998.7 IfGenXparents receiveda similar report card regarding their children,the whole war machine of upper-middle-class Helicopter Fathering and TigerMothering would swing into action: money, tutors, apocalyptic lectures,pedagogical investigations, and marches on the PTA. The Boomers, devotedpractitionersoflatchkeyparenting,simplyshrug.

Meanwhile, the costs of remediation compound while maintenance isdeferred indefinitelyevenasdemandgrows, further taxingalreadyworn-down

infrastructure.8 The latest report card, from 2013, marked Americaninfrastructure a D+ overall, meaning that “infrastructure is in poor to fairconditionandmostlybelowstandard,withmanyelementsapproachingtheendof their service life. A large portion of the system exhibits significantdeterioration.Conditionandcapacityareofsignificantconcernwithstrongriskoffailure.”†,9

In2001,ASCEestimatedtheUnitedStatesneededto invest$1.3trilliontobring infrastructure up to snuff over five years; by 2013, rising demand andincreasingneglectdrovethepriceupto$3.6trillionthrough2020,significantlyhigheronanannualizedbasis.10Eventhefull$3.6trillionwouldonlydragthemarkuptoaB(“adequatefornow”),agradewhosemodestyindicatesacertaindeclineinAmericanambition.Giventhebudgetspassedsincethe2013ReportCard (allocating about 55percent of the required amount) and emergingnewsaboutlead-taintedwaterinvariousmunicipalities,itwouldbealmostimpossibletoachievean“adequate”gradeby2020eveniftheBoomermachinewantedto,whichitdoesnot.

Forsociopaths,indifferencetoinfrastructurehasacertainlogic.Bridgesandwaterworks take years to complete and often decades to return investments.What little interest the Boomers had in infrastructure therefore dwindles withage, especially if such investments risk the entitlements budget. As long asBoomerscontrolgovernment,therewillbenosmartgrid,nopublichyperloop,nowholesalemovetocleanpower,notevenappropriatemaintenance.

TheSelflessandSelfishCasesforPublicGoodsTheargument for infrastructure reduces to twofacts: (1)weneed it,and(2) itgeneratesasignificantandpositivereturnoninvestment.Thatwerequireroadsand sewers demands no further comment. That infrastructure generates netpositive returns has long been understood by experts (including Americangovernments of themidcentury), thoughnot thepresent political class.Peoplecanandshoulddebate thedetails,butasageneral rule,onedollar inproducesmore than one dollar out,with gains often shared societywide.Much as somefreemarketerswouldhave it otherwise, private enterpriseusually cannot do italone:Manyprojectsyieldprofitsthatcannotbeeasilyprivatized,aresimplytoolarge for a given company to undertake, or require the exercise of thegovernment’s sovereignpowerof eminentdomainorgrantofmonopoly tobeviable.

Ifanything,thecaseforinfrastructurehasonlygottenstrongeroverthepastfewyears.Usehasgrowneven as theburdensof buildinghavedeclined.Theprimarycostsofinfrastructure,beyondtheoutrightexpense,areinthecostsoffinancing and in opportunities forgone (perhaps the money could be moreprofitably invested elsewhere). Those concerns are not presently germane.Capitalisdesperateforreturns,whichiswhywecanborrowquiteabitatlowratesand thenprofitably invest inroads,bridges,andsewers.Thanks toforceswe covered in Chapter 8, America can borrow the whole $3.6 trillion, atforgivinginterestratesandwithoutcutstootherservices.(Onecouldarguethatthe bond market might even be encouraged by government spending onsomethingwithproven economicbenefits.) It isnot investing in infrastructurethatcarriesgreaterpublicandprivatecosts,withcongested,ill-maintainedroadsthat cause traffic delays, pollution, poor health, vehicle damage, bigger repairbills, andpersonal injuryclaims, collectively farmoreexpensive than fillingapotholeinthefirstplace.*

Therefore,unlikeSocialSecuritypayments, infrastructure isnot somuchaconsumption expense as an investment, and a good one.†Theconsensus fromdiversesourcesliketheIMF,theCBO,privatefinancialinstitutions,andsoon,isthatforeachnew$1.00invested,infrastructuregeneratesabout$1.40to$1.80over time.11 Though the precise variables and conditions are complex, the

generalconclusionisnot.Infrastructureismoneywellspent,unlessacountryisalreadyrichlyendowed,astatustheBoomerUnitedStatesdoesnotenjoy.Andwhile infrastructure provides returns over decades, some benefits can be hadalmost immediately. Building provides middle-class jobs and favors workerswho have recently been underemployed, including certain minorities and thelargepoolof laborerswithouthigher education.So, by allmeans, borrowandbuild.AsLarrySummers put it: “Futuregenerations will be better off owinglotsofmoneyinlong-termbondsatlowratesinacurrencytheycanprintthantheywouldbeinheritingavastdeferredmaintenanceliability.”12

GettingfromAtoA,SlowlyA substantial fraction of the (meager) infrastructure budget goes totransportation, andmuch of that goes to roads,which get heavy use and lightfunding. In 2015, 260millionAmerican vehicles traveled 3 trillionmiles andconsumed 173 billion gallons of fuel.13 It’s 3 trillion miles of frustration:congestedroadsforceAmericanstowaste5–7billionannualhoursintraffic,atthe cost of hundreds of billions of dollars in lost output, wasted fuel, andaccidents.14GiventhatAmericaisacarcultureandwillremainsofordecades,it’sfrustratingthattheroadsaresoinadequate.

As usual, the problem stems from sociopathic improvidence. Transportdepends heavily on gas taxes, and as with taxes of all kinds under Boomertenure,thesehavebeenfalling.Thefederalgastaxis18.4centsplusa(volume-weighted) average 26.59 cents at the state level, for a total of 44.99 cents pergallon as of 2015.15 Until the 1970s, this arrangement had a certain logic, asprices were stable and road use tightly correlated with gas consumption.However, theoilshocksof the1970sencouragedcitizens toshift tosomewhatmoreefficientcarswhilespurringinflationthatdiminishedtherealvalueofgastaxesbecause the federal andmost stategas taxes arenot indexed to inflation(unlikebenefitspaymentsor taxbrackets thatbenefitBoomers).16Technologymay only exacerbate the disconnect, because if electric cars are ever widelyadopted,theirusewillonlyexpandfundinggaps;e-carsareliteralfreeriders.

Thefederalgastaxratelastrosein1993,justasBoomerswerecompletingtheir transition topower,and itsvaluehaserodedsteadilyforalmostaquartercentury since 1983, even as the number ofmiles has almost doubled.The netresultisthattherealvalueofthefederalgastaxhasfallen,whileusehasgoneupsubstantially.17Although some states have raised their nominal taxes since1993,hikeshavenotkeptupwithinflation.Inforty-onestates,thetotalrealgastax(stateplusfederal)waslowerin2015thanin1993.18EventheliberalbastionofMassachusetts, longinclinedtootherpublicworks,couldnotreformitsgastax, with the legislature’s attempt to inflation-index the gas tax repealed thefollowingyear bydirect plebiscite,withBoomer-agegroups providing criticalrepeal support before the vote.19 Other than a minor experiment in Oregon,replacing automobile gas taxes with sensible alternatives, like fees linked to

actualuse,hasbeenadeadletter.20ThefederalHighwayTrustFund,inpositivebalance since its establishment in 1956, went bust in 2008, requiring subsidyfromgeneralrevenues.Inearly2016,theHTFsportedapositive(ifnear-zero)balance,butcontinuestodependonfurtherbailoutsandaccountinggimmicks.21Notably, in 2008, presidential aspirants John McCain and Hillary Clintonendorsed the idea of a gas taxholiday the same year the Trust Fund requiredbailout.22Eventhe1993hikeunderBillClintonwasusedforseveralyearsnotfor highways, but to pretty up the deficit figures.23 Clearly, the Boomerestablishmentdoesnottakethisissueseriously.

StarvedbyBoomersoffunding,transportationagencieshavebeenunabletorepeat the canal, railroad, and highway revolutions overseen by priorgenerations.The InterstateHighwaySystemwas largely finishedby the1970sand1980s,andCongresswasheditshands,notevenbotheringtopushthroughthe final fewmilesof thesystemscheduled forcompletion in theearly1990s.Given rising demand, it’s no surprise that average annual traffic delays permotorist rose fromeighteenhours in1982, thesameyearBoomersbecameanelectoralmajority,tothirty-sevenhoursby2000andthentoforty-twohoursby2014.24Realcongestioncostsquadrupledoverthesameperiod,to$160billionannually. (Crucially, taxesdidnotexperience thesamegains,whichwasmorepolitically important.)Americansnowspendalmost asmuch time in traffic asmendo in church,on average.25Theonly reasonwhyAmericansdon’t spendevenmoretimeintrafficisapersistentlyweakeconomy.

The failure to build new infrastructure makes it all the more important tomaintain and modernize existing stock. Each year, poor roads cost over $60billioninavoidablecarrepairsalone.26Maintenancewouldsavelivesandallowfor tensofbillions in additional (and taxable) economicgrowth; it alsowouldhave required some combination of tax and foresight. That hasn’t happened.Instead,asBoomerscoast towardacommute-free retirement,neglecthasbeenprettiedupas“deferredmaintenance.”Obviously“deferredmaintenance”isnotmaintenanceatall,itisadeferredliability.

Inactionhasthereforebecometherule,aparalysisthattranscendsliberalorconservative ideology,with terrible conditions existing in citiesof all politicalaffiliations.Despitebeing tinyand rich,SanFranciscohasappalling roads; itspoliticalopposites,DallasandPhoenix,havehorribletraffic.AsforWashington,thefederaldistrictseemsdeterminedtoenactintrafficthegridlockmanyseeinCongress.Asof2015,amajorityofDC’sroadswere in“poor”or“mediocre”

conditions.27 It’s hard to imagine the world’s diplomats cowed by Americanexceptionalismastheyinchalongdecrepitroads.28

Manyroadseventuallytraveloverbridges,whichhaveatleastbeenanareaofimprovementundertheBoomers.NotwithstandingthefatalcollapseoftheI-35bridgeinMinneapolisin2007orthefloatingbridgenearSeattlethatceasedto be a bridgewhen it ceased to float, bridges have been getting better.TheirgradehasimprovedfromaC–toa(byBoomerstandards,superlative)C+.That’sjustanaveragegrade;thereareplentyofspecificproblems.PertheDepartmentof Transportation, in 2015, out of 611,845 bridges, 58,791 are “structurallydeficient”and84,124“functionallyobsolete,”withmanymorebeingaslightlyless threatening “deficient.”29 The positive spin is that these definitions don’timplyimminentcollapse,thoughtheydomeanthatbridgesareriskierandlesscapable than they should be. The negative spin is that the bridges ranking asseriouslydeficient tendtobelarger,carrymoretraffic,andaregenerallymoreimportant.30

Many of these problems are a function of age. Bridge stock is fairly old,forty-three years on average, and while some are designed to last for muchlonger,othersarenot.TheTappanZeeBridge,anessentialcrossing intoNewYorkCity,wasoriginallydesignedtolastuntil2005.Despitebeingacandidateforreplacementsince1980andcarryingmorethanitsdesignedloadforlongerthanitsdesignedlifetime,Tappanwillnotbereplaceduntilthirteenyearsafterits sell-by date. The federal government featured the old Tappan Zee on thecoverofits2016budgetasasymbolof(onepresumes)whatsuccesslookslike.*Still,at leastTappanisbeingreplaced,notasamatterofroutineprudencebutsubstantially in response to the newsworthy collapse of I-35, leaving 58,790bridgesinneedofurgentredress.

Roads are bad enough, andCongress likes cars;Congress hates rail, and itshows.Althoughfasttrainsareeconomicallyviableinpopulousregionsandalsoecologicallysound,Americahasnohigh-speedtrainsworthyofthename.Thebest on offer is Acela, which can theoretically muster 150 mph. In fact, itgenerallyaveragesabumpy80mphbetweenNewYorkandDC,farbelowthe125mph thatCongress sets as theunspectacular threshold for “high-speed.”31Onlyafewsegmentsoftrackcansafelyaccommodateafull-speedAcela—andgivenvariousAmtrakderailmentsin2015–2016,perhapsnoteventhat.AmericacanexpectnoimprovementundertheBoomers.WhenAmtrakrecentlyofferedatruehigh-speedoption, todebut in2040, oneAmtrakvicepresident admitted:

“Thereisnomechanismatthefederalleveltosupportthistoday.”32Amtrakdidannounce itwasbuyingnewerand faster cars to replaceanaging fleet,whichwilldolittleunlesstrackstockisupgraded.

TheAmericanrailsystemisabizarreexperienceforforeignvisitors.Francehashadhigh-speedtrainssince1981,withspeedsnowaveragingover170mphon the best lines and despite its imperfections, its system usually has positivemarginsandofferssmoothrides.33Japanissettointroduce300mphtrains.Thefault extends beyond Boomer governments into militant (and often Boomer)backyards, the latter’s owners opposed to intrusions into their bucolic suburbsandtheformerunwillingtoexercisetheirpowersofeminentdomaintocompelsociopathicconstituentstosubmit.Thatstasisconsignsmanyprojectstolimbo.

The rest of transportation infrastructure is no better: airports are bad (D),mass transit is bad (D), inland waterways are worse (D–) and each of theseexperienced significant declines from1998 to 2013.34 The subway inDC, thenation’s secondbusiest, hasdecayed somuch that the entire systemhad tobeshut down for a day, andmany lineswere andwill be shuttered for extendedperiods. The system’s own chairman describes it as “maybe safe” and“somewhatunreliable.”35

There is one segment of American transportation infrastructure that is notseriouslydeficient: theports.Essential for the importof consumernecessities,thesestructureshavereceivedsomeattentionandearnedoneoftransportation’soutstandinggrades,aC.

WaterandWasteThevariousdisastersinNewOrleans,Flint,thefailureoftheLakeDelhiDam,watershortagesintheWest,andthetotalabsenceofanylong-termstoragesitefornuclearwastemakeclear that thestateofwaterandwaste infrastructure isnot good. The only improvement seen during Boomer tenure was in thetreatmentofsolidwaste.ThegradetherewasupfromaC–toaB–,thehighestscoreearnedintheentireASCEReportCard.36

There’s no need to dwell on the various disasters of the recent past; it’senough to assess thegeneral declineofwater andwastemanagement to sensewhatmighthappen in the future.The record isn’twhollyan indictmentof theBoomers, as the treatment of solid waste has improved somewhat and theproblemsofhazardouswaste,especiallynuclearwaste,emergedlongbeforetheBoomers took power. Nevertheless, the Boomer legacy has been one ofmismanagement andmissed opportunities, as the saga of theYuccaMountainNuclearWasteDepositoryillustrates.Asthenuclearindustryrampedupinthe1960s and 1970s, it became necessary to find a permanent storage facility forspentfuel.In1982,Congresscommissionedasearchforafinalrestingplace.By1987, Yucca Mountain had been selected, and over the next twenty years,billionswerespentonresearch,planning,andconstruction.TheDepartmentofEnergy filed for a license in 2008, but abruptly terminated the process a yearlater.PertheGAO,Yuccawasabandonedfor“policyreasons,nottechnicalorsafetyreasons,”thepolicyreasonsbeingBoomerNIMBYism.37Therefore, theUnited States went from having a decent plan to having no plan, billions ofdollarsandyearswerewasted,andthenationissubjectedtothetedioustheatreof handwringing about nuclear terrorism while leaving piles of radioactivematerialsscatteredacrossthecountryintheequivalentofagardenshed.

TheneglectvisitedonYucca is repeatedacross the landscapeofwaterandwaste, responsibility forwhich is consigned to amotley group of actorswithvarying commitments to safety. Although the federal government does areasonablejoboverseeingitsdams,itoperatesjust4percentofthetotal.Localgovernmentseitherownoroverseetherest, includingthe69percentinprivatehands.38Thiswouldbefinewerestateofficialsuptothetask,butinthecaseofAlabama, there are literallyno state officials: The state has 2,241 dams (with

over 600 having substantial “hazard potential”) and not one dam inspector.39SouthCarolinahastheequivalentof6.6full-timeinspectorstocheckits2,400+dams.40Nationally, thereareabout200damsperstate inspector,againstabout250working days per year; if that does not seem like enough, it’s because itisn’t.41Whilemanydamsaresmallandposelittlerisk,thousandscouldfail infatalways.

Asforusablewater,needsgrowunaddressed.NewYorkCityreliesontwooldwater tunnels for its civic supply and nowdesperately needs a third, bothbecause of growing demand and because the lack of redundancy makes itimpossible to close the first two tunnels for inspection, a task last carried outwhen the tunnels were put into service in 1917 and 1936, respectively.42ConstructionofWaterTunnelNo.3began in1970,and thanks tobudgetcutsand lack of priority, it will not be completed until the 2020s.43 On theWestCoast,Californiadependsonasystemwhosemajorcomponentswerefinishedby1973andthoughCalifornia’spopulationhasroughlydoubled,watersupplyhas not. Nationally, pipes, plants, and sewers are all old and in many casesdangerous,andthepresentleveloffundingishalfofthatnecessarytokeepthesystem in acceptableorder.Thewhole system is entirely inadequate to supplywaterordealwithwaste.Whetherornotcitiesindesertsornuclearpowerplantswere originally good ideas, they now exist and need to be serviced. Leavingradioactivedebriscoolinginpoolsneverintendedtobepermanent(whichisthenation’spresentstrategy)orprayingforraininCaliforniainsteadofexpandingthewatersystemisfolly.

TheBestDefenseIsaFundedDefenseStandard accounting does not normally include national defense as an itemofinfrastructure, though it resembles conventional infrastructure in many ways.Defensecomprisesasocialassettoolargeforanyprivatecorporationtofurnish,andofitsbenefits,allpartake.Anddefensefundingdoesn’tsimplyvanishwhenabulletleavesthemuzzleofagun:Quiteabitsupportsnon-combatoperationslikeR&D,employment (militaryandcivilian),healthcare,education,physicalinfrastructure, as well as conventional hardware. These investment and jobsprograms have positive social effects that stretch beyond simple “combatreadiness.”44Whatevertheaccountingtreatment—asinfrastructure,educationalspending, a veryweird kind of social engineering—defense has as a practicalandpoliticalmatterlongbeenconsideredinthesamegeneralcategoryasroadsandbridges.TheConstitutiongrantsthepowertoprovidea“commonDefense”in Article I, Section 8, the same provision that allows Congress to provideroads.45Olderpoliticiansexplicitlyviewedinfrastructureaspartofdefense,withtheconverseimplicitandnatural.(Thefullnameofourhighwaysystemis the“Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and DefenseHighways”).*,46 Defense does differ from other infrastructure in that itseconomicbenefitsaremuchhardertoquantifyandinhavingmoraldimensionsthat, say,a stormdraindoesnot.Still,defense isanationalassetandone fewwouldbeinclinedtoforgo.

As they have with infrastructure generally, the Boomers squandered theirmartial inheritance. Unlike other categories of infrastructure, the Americanmilitarystill leads, though thegrowingpowerofothernationsand thegradualhollowingoutofAmericanforceshaserodedtheUS’srelativeposition.Thoughfamouslylarge,AmericanmilitaryspendinghasbeenfallingdramaticallyduringBoomer tenure.Nominaldefensespending isabout$600billion,butmeasuredasafractionofGDP,defensespendinghasfallenfromanaverageof7.9percentofGDPfrom1950to1985to4.1percentduringthefollowingthreedecadesofBoomer domination.Cuts and sequestration have driven recent spending evenlower,toabout3.2percentofGDPinFY2016,projectedtofallto2.6percentby2026.47Evenfactoringinthevariousstrayprograms,one-offappropriations,andtheentirebudgetoftheDepartmentofHomelandSecurity,createdin2001

andresponsibleforanassortmentofsecurity-relatednoncombattasks,addsonlymodestly to the total and does not change the general direction of defensespending.

TheBoomers’decisionnottoinvestinthemilitaryhas,andwillcontinuetohave,consequences.TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)cannotopenlyadmitthefull degree of its impairment, though it concluded that readiness, alreadydeclining,“furthersufferedduetotheimplementationof[budget]sequestrationinFY2013andtheforcehasnotkeptpacewiththeneedtomodernize.”49TheDoDgamelyoffers,foritcouldnotdootherwise,thatPresidentObama’spartialrestorationoffundswouldallowitto“defeatordenyanyaggressor,”thoughatgreaterrisk.50

TheBestDefenseIsaFundedDefense

What’s going on here? Defense spending has declined considerably under the Boomers. While lowerspending made sense immediately following the end of the Cold War, the Boomers have continuedAmerica’s policy of constant foreign intervention without keeping up levels of spending, and arbitrary

sequestrationandspendingcapswilldrivedefensespendingevenlowerincomingyearsunlessreversed.48

Independent assessments of the military, and by implication governmentpolicy, indulge in less optimism. The bipartisan, congressionally charteredNational Defense Panel “want[ed] to make two points crystal clear.”51 First,recentbudgetcuts“precipitatedan immediate readinesscrisis.”52Second, (andmuchmoregloomily than theDoD), theObamaadministration’sproposals for

partial funding restoration “are nowhere near enough to remedy the damagewhichtheDepartmenthassufferedandenableit tocarryoutitsmissionsatanacceptable level of risk.”53 The “capabilities and capacities” called for in thenation’s master defense document, theQuadrennial Defense Review, “clearlyexceed budget resources made available to the Department”; innonbureaucratese,themilitarysimplydoesn’thavethemoneytodoitsjob.54

Therefore, itcancomeasnosurprise that theSecretaryofDefenseworriedthattheArmy,Navy,andMarineCorpswouldnotachievereadinessgoalsuntil2020 and theAir Force not until 2023, or that the head of theMarine Corpsinformed Congress that half of its home-stationed units experiencedunacceptable shortfalls that could “result in a delayed response and/or theunnecessary loss of… lives.”55 Various think tanks question the military’scapacities,withthe(admittedlyhawkish)HeritageFoundationratingthemilitaryoverall as “marginal,” and the Army scoring no better than “weak,” not aninspiringadjectiveinanycontext,especiallythemartial;otherinstitutionsofferchirpiergloss,butgenerally fretover themilitary’spresent sizeandposture.56TheAirForceoperatestheoldestandsmallestfleetinrecenthistory,theNavyhasshrunk,andoverallmanpowerhasbeen indeclinesince theBoomers tookcontrolofCongress.

It’s revealing that the posture of the armed forces has actually weakenedsincetheperiod1990–1995,aperiodofunusualpeace.Whileoptimistsinvoked(partof)FrancisFukuyama’s“endofhistory”tocontendthatallnationswouldtransition to liberal,Western, and presumably nonhostile democracies, 1991’shopesofglobalharmonyprovednomorerealisticthanThomasMore’sUtopiaof 1516 or any of the many fantasies that followed.* The world remainsdangerous and America militant. The United States has been more or lesscontinuallyinvolvedinmilitaryactionsofsomekindsinceIndependence,anditcannomoreplausiblyforgoconflictthantheRomanscouldclosetheGatesofJanuswithanysincerity.

Ataminimum,since thedrawdownof the1990s, threatshavegrown,withSoviet aggression now recast as Russian adventurism in Crimea, Ukraine,Georgia, and Moldova; the Chinese engaged in island-building menace andcyberespionage;NorthKorea’sderangedkleptocracynownuclear-equippedandengaged in cyberattacks; the Middle East persistently unstable; and terrorismspreading. At the same time, the scope of territory that America has obligeditselftodefendhasswollentoincludeformerEasternBlocstates,someofwhomhave tiny forces (Estonia has roughly the same number of regular troops as

Houstonhaslawenforcementpersonnel,“about6,000”),whilecrucialallieslikeGermanyregularlyunderspendNATOneeds,nowherenearontracktomeetthe(paltry) 2 percent of GDP goal NATO has set. Europe’s inaction implicitlypasses theburden to theUnitedStates.57Despite this, theAmericanmilitary’sshareofGDPdoesnotevenmeetthelevelsofthepacificearly’90s.58

ThemilitaryemergedfromVietnamtiredanddiscredited,andoverthenexttwodecades—thelastgaspoftheoldguard—itreformedandrebuiltitselfintoaconsiderable asset the Boomers have shown no sustained appetite formaintaining.ThecharitablemightwonderhowtheVietnamgenerationmanagedto embroil themselves in endless conflictswhile simultaneously runningdownthemilitary.The answer resides, of course, in the relentless sociopathy of theBoomercohort.TheseventeenorsomilitaryconflictsunderBoomerleadershipwere just thenaturalproductsofexpediencyandsociopathichostility;militarydecline the result of improvidence and selfishness. That young soldiers(obviously,noneofwhomareBoomers)cannolongercarryoutmissionsatan“acceptablelevelofrisk,”is,forthegrayingsociopath,notgermane.Thatitwilltakeanotherfiveortenyears,perhapslonger,torebuildamilitarydepletedbyBoomeradventurismandneglect simplydemonstrates the irrelevanceofdoingso toasociopathofdwindlingyears.All that is required is toavoidwholesalemilitarycollapseduringBoomers’goldenyears,whilecontinuingtochannelthebudget into the retirement and health programswhose gains can be harvestedtoday.

Forecast:OverBudget,UnderExpectations,withRaysofHopeAlthoughinfrastructuredemandsseveralhundredbillionadditionaldollarseachyear,thenationcanaffordit.Leavingasidedefense,infrastructuretendstopayforitself.Privateandpublicownerswillpickupthetabiftheleveesbreakorthebridgescollapse,sotheymayaswellmaintainthem,especiallyasproperupkeepisusuallycheaper than replacementandcertainly lessproblematic thanpayingoffwrongfuldeathsuits.

Someon theRight questionwhether government is competent to be in theinfrastructurebusiness;perhapsall theextramoneywill justdisappear intothevastmawofmismanagement.Someon theLeftquestionrelianceonfor-profitbusinesses citing, e.g., the privatization of Bolivian waterworks whosemechanicsweresosuspectthattheyprovidedthetemplatefortheBondmovieQuantumofSolace.Theseareinterestingacademicquestionsandhelpfulatthemargins.Theyarealsooflittlepracticalrelevance.Thegovernmentistheonlyentitythatcanorganize,payfor,and/orinspectalotofcriticalinfrastructureandbypracticalnecessity,itreliesonprivateenterprisetocarryoutitsplans.

However,itdoesseemharderandcostliertobuildthingsthanitusedtobe.The original San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge took about three years tocompleteandcostabout$1.4billionin today’sdollars; thereplacementof justitseasternspantookelevenyears,costatleast$6.5billion,requiredimmediaterepairs,andproblemsareongoing.59TheEmpireStateBuildingtook410daysto complete; One World Trade Center took about seven years. RecentexpansionstotheNewYorksubwayarebadlyoverbudget,late,andinthecaseof the recently opened Hudson Yards station, already leaking.60 Theexplanationsarecomplexandcomparisonsdifficult.Optimistscanpoint to thegrowingcomplexityandcapacitiesofmodernbuilding,aswellasthegenerallyhigher standardof livingnow,which translates intohigherconstructionwagesandcosts,aswellasOSHAprotocolsthatpreventsafetyfrombeinglostattheexpenseofspeed.Allwellandgood,andnotuntrue.

Still,puzzlesremain.Wagesalone(falteringanywayintheBoomerdecades)do not explain vast increases in building costs. Nor does modern complexityexplaineverything;priceshavegoneupevenforsystemsthathavechangedlittle

sincethe1950s.AnF-35isdifferentfromaSopwithCamel,butaroadisstillessentially a path with asphalt. One probable explanation is sloppy andsentimental thinking. It used to be understood that for every mile of tunnel,buildersexpectedacertainnumberofmentodie.Today,there’sanexpectationthatbuildingshouldbefreeofdirecthumancosts,with theresult thatprojectsare slower, costlier, and have redundant precautions that often do not work.Safetyregulationsmay(ormaynot,inthecaseofrecentcranecollapsesinNewYork)savesomelives,butanexcessivefocusononetypeofsafetyignorestheother, less dramatic fatalities that accrue as drivers rely on deficientinfrastructure and waste leaches into water supplies. Environmental impactreviews (EIRs) also slow things down. Genuine and reasonable concernmotivatedEIRs, tooriginallygoodeffect, though theyneed tobeconsiderablyrethought as facts change. Reviews can focus too much on avoiding highlyspecific harms instead of overall benefits, e.g., the impact of a solar plant onlocal birds instead ofmaximizing the existential threat of climate change thatthreatens all birds. They also depend on a judicial system, an item of quasiinfrastructureitself,thatissorelyunderstaffed,resultinginprotractedlitigation.

A particular and relatively new complication is the antidevelopmentNIMBYismofhomeownersandthecravencapitulationofBoomergovernments.Thismovement started in the 1950s and 1960s, with a battle betweenRobertMoses, whowould have bulldozed some of NewYork City’smost charmingareas,againstJaneJacobs,whowantedtopreservesceniccommunitieswhatevertheirinefficiencies.WhileJacobsthenhadthebetteroftheargument,adegradedversion of her mantle has been assumed by Boomers who refuse to considerchange to their personal quality of life as amatter of fixed principle.Boomerbourgeoisiestasismustgivewaytoforwardthinking.WedonotneedtogoasfarasChina,whichsimplybulldozesthestraightestpathbetweenpointsAandB.Wesimplyneedtoexercisetheconstitutionalmeansofeminentdomainandleta fewhomeownersstewinfavorof thegreatergood—peoplewithwoodenteeth had this figured out 250 years ago; can’t we do at least as well?Unfortunately, the Boomer refusal to engage with evidence, to take the longview,ortomeasureoutcomesotherthanthroughthetinyapertureofimmediateself-interest hasmade large projects difficult, but not impossible—America isstillveryskilledatbuildingthings,whenitwantsto.

TheBoomersdidnotinheritaperfectsystemfromtheirparents,butitwasaverygoodone,certainlybetter than the rapidlydecaying legacyandmountingbills the Boomers propose to leave their children. The sociopaths ran down

infrastructuretohelppayfortaxcuts,and,unlessthey’restopped,theywillrunit down further to pay for their retirements. They failed to capitalize on theenormous, positive-return possibilities of proper investment and maintenance.The facts would astonish any thinking citizen. And therefore, the conduct ofBoomerpolicyrequiredtheeliminationorrepackagingofthosefactsandalltheother inconvenienciesgeneratedbyBoomerpolicies.Thiswasachievedbythemostexpedientmeansofall:lies.

CHAPTERELEVEN

BOOMERFINANCE:THEVICIOUSCYCLEOFRISKANDDECEIT

Theyarefrequentlydeceitfulandmanipulativeinordertogainpersonalprofitorpleasure…

Theymayrepeatedlylie…conothers,ormalinger…Theymaydisplayaglib,superficialcharmandcanbequiteverballyfacile(e.g.,usingtechnicaltermsorjargonthatmightimpresssomeonewhoisunfamiliarwiththetopic).

—DSM-V1

I’mtiredofLove:I’mstillmoretiredofRhyme.ButMoneygivesmepleasureallthetime.

—HilaireBelloc2

Given the Boomers’ legacy of mismanagement and misappropriation, howhave we gone so long without some sort of counterrevolution? Part of theanswer,aswesawinChapter7,isthattheBoomersstillhavegreatrawpoliticalpowerandwillforsometime—andastotheentitlementbudget, theyhavethesupport of their elders. Another significant explanation is that, in classic

sociopathic fashion, the Boomers have engaged in a campaign of deceit,reaching into theirwunderkammer of generational duplicity to offer consolingfictions to the population they govern. The mendacious assortment includesdisingenuous financial dialogue essential to maintaining the expropriationsnecessary to fund theBoomers’ insatiable consumer appetites and stretches tooppressivepoliticaldiscoursedesignedtosquelchdebate(carefullypackagedintheformofsensitivity to thevariousshibbolethsof theRightandLeft). In theevent mere words fail to lull the electorate, the Boomers have resorted tooutrightoppressionsmadeby the state’smonopolieson themoneysupplyandviolence,andwhetherthelabelsbe“crisismanagement”or“lawandorder,”theoppressiveeffect is thesame.Whenallotheroptionshavebeenexhausted, theBoomers simply ignore problemswhose greatest effectswill fall outside theirlifetimesandareofcorrespondinglylittleconcern.

All people lie, and thepolitical classmostof all, but the scopeofBoomerdeceptionsgoes farbeyond thecustomaryembellishment (e.g., the improbabletalepeddledbyHillaryClinton,b.1947,aboutbeingnamedaftermountaineerSir Edmund Hillary, who summited Everest in 1953 and was previously abeekeeper whose first major summit was in 1948, to say nothing of themisstatements emitted by her 2016 presidential opponent).3 Boomer lies aresystemic, sociopathic, and an essentialmechanism for both the destruction ofwealth and the transfer of what remains from younger generations to theBoomers. The result is a socially dysfunctional but highly effective systemofpacification founded on pathological misrepresentation, oppression, andsustainedfailurestoact.

Nowherearethedynamicsofdeceptionmorepervasive,ingovernmentandthe private sector, than in the financial arena. The Boomers’ reshaping ofcommerce combined an astonishing tolerance for risk with widespreaddishonesty. Every time the systemwobbled, the Boomers’ solutionwasmoreriskandmoredishonesty. Itwouldbeconvenient,perhapsevencomforting, todismissfinancialimproprietyundertheBoomersasjusttheproductofafewbadactorsinaperpetuallydisreputableindustry.Theevidencedoesnotfullyadmitsuchconsolations.FordecadesafterWorldWarII,personalprobityandanewregulatory framework produced a calmer and more honest system. With theexceptionoftheSavingsandLoancrisis(inwhichsomeBoomersparticipated),bubblesandscandalswerecomparativelyfewandsmall.

As theBoomers tookgreatercontrolofboth thepublicandprivatesectors,financialscandalsgrewtoascaleneverbeforeseenandwenowliveinaneraof

permanentfinancialemergency.Itwasnot just theworkof isolatedbankersorsloppy regulators. The transformation required the participation of all parts ofBoomersociety.Take,forexample,theissuanceofjunkmortgages.Theseloansrequiredconsumerstoapplyforthem,oftenwithoutanyreasonablebelieftheycould be serviced; banks to underwrite them; investors to buy them aftersyndication; watchdogs to look away; auditors to sign off on incredibleaccounting;alegislaturetogutrestrainingregulation;andacentralbank,trappedin the middle, to engage in the expedient facilitation of all of the above.Subprimemortgages were just one part of a financial fractal where the samestoryrepeatedendlessly.Inreality,thepastfewdecadeshavenotbeensomuchafinancialscandalasasocialone,withtheBoomersplayingaleadingrole.

TheRegulatedMarket:NewDealtoNeoliberalismBetween the Depression and the Boomers’ neoliberal revolution, financeenjoyed a certain staid respectability. Scarred by the Depression, earliergenerations tolerated less risk and deception than the Boomers would. Theseculturaltraitswerecodifiedin,andreinforcedby,anewregulatorysystemthatdemandedreasonablepractices,adequatecapital,periodicreporting,mandatoryinsurance to protect customers, and more. Entities like the Federal DepositInsuranceCorporation(FDIC),SecuritiesandExchangeCommission(SEC),andCommodityFuturesTradingCommission (CFTC)enforced fairnessandorder.Boththepublicandprivatesectorswerehelpedbythedevelopmentofgenerallyaccepted accounting principles (GAAP) from 1939 to 1973, which allowedinvestors and regulators to better understand firms’ performance.4 Theseinnovations favored truth over expedience, and objective fact over subjectiveprojection, helping create amore stable financial systemout of the chaos thatcamebefore.

Another helpful development, often overlooked, was the collection andpublication of statistics. As future Justice Brandeis put it, “Publicity is justlycommendedasaremedyforsocialandindustrialdiseases.Sunlightissaidtobethebestofdisinfectants.”5ThefinancialLysolwasprovidedbyagenciescreatedin the New Deal and reinforced in the 1970s by entities like the Office ofManagementandBudget(OMB)andtheBureauofEconomicAnalysis(BEA).Datahelpedthemarkettodisciplineitselfandregulatorstomakemoreinformedjudgments.*

Pre-Boomergovernments,markets,andconsumersdemandedamoreorderlysystem,andtheylargelysucceededinproducingone.Thesystemdidnotpreventoccasional panics and financial failures, but securities frauds were limited inscope, bank failures few, and government intervention to save institutionslargelyunnecessary.Citizens could reasonablyquestionwhether finance, circa1975, was insufficiently imaginative and somewhat overregulated withouttossingoverboard,astheBoomerswould,essentialpartsofthesystem.

TherevolutionaryBoomer temperament,expressing itself thoughneoliberaldoctrine,disdainedincrementalism.Oldpracticeswerepushedaside,andasthepredictableresultsmanifested,theBoomerssweptthemundertherugthrougha

wholesale campaign of financial deceit. It is not the mere fact that Boomersengaged inwidespread financial deception thatmakes them sociopaths. In therough-and-tumble 1870s, the Boomers’ practices would have been odious,though not completely deviant. By the 1970s, the casewas different. Boomerfinancialcultureoperatedcontrarytoprevailingmoreswhileevading,wateringdown, and sometimes gutting the regulatory framework established by theirparents.Theresulthasbeenascandaloussamsaraoffraud,abuse,andbailout.

DeceitandDeregulationThedegradationofwordsandnumbersbecameanessentialfrontinthewarofdeception.Linguistically, therevealingopprobriumofold-fashionedtermswasdispatched; when old wine tasted rank, it was decanted into new and lessjudgmentalbottles.Yesterday’s“borrowing”and“debt”becametoday’s“credit”and “leverage,” while “speculation” morphed into “investment” and “junkbonds” transitioned into “high-yield securities.” “Second mortgages,” a termsynonymouswithimprovidence,weresanitizedinthe1980sinto“homeequitylines of credit” andbecame a fixture ofBoomer finances. In the event anyofthesebetssucceeded,leviesongainscouldbeavoidedthough“taxefficiency,”altogethermorepalatablethanold-fashioned“taxevasion.”

Theunsettling riseofdebtandcomplexityonWallStreet requirednot justadditionstothefinancialthesaurus,butentirelynewentriesinthedictionaryofdeceit.Topacifyregulatorsafter thedot-comcrash,WallStreetassigneditself“complianceofficers”and“riskmanagers.”Theirchiefpurpose,asthefinancialcollapse just a few years later made clear, was neither compliance nor riskmitigation,buttheexpansionofportfoliostothemaximumextentpossibleunderthe least plausible conception of laws.To avoid detection, companies adopted“document retention policies” after the 1980s,whose chief effectwas just theopposite:thedisposalofinconvenientdocumentsassoonaslegallypermissible.ArthurAndersen, forexample, invoked itscompliancewithEnron’sdocumentretention policy as a defense for elimination, via industrial shredder, ofinconvenientevidence.6

Even before the books were shredded, they were cooked. An especiallyimportant innovationwasoff balance sheet (OBS) accounting.Aconventionalbalancesheetissupposedtoshowallofanentity’sassetsandliabilities,withthedifferencebetweenthembeingtheowners’equity,asortofnetworth.ThelargeandoftendisastrousliabilitiesBoomersaccumulatedtaintedtraditionalbalancesheets.* OBS accounting opened a wormhole into an alternative financialuniverseintowhichtheseproblemscouldbedispatched.Theterm“offbalancesheet”didnotreallyexistbefore1968orso,anddidn’ttakeoffuntilthe1980s,before enjoying a truly spectacular heyday during the most recent financialfiascoes. The accounting profession adopted newly accommodating standards

during the 1990s and 2000s thatmadeOBS accounting particularly attractive.Obviously, one should always be suspicious of a parallel set of books,traditionally the friends of tax cheats and embezzlers.However, theBoomers’affinitywithdeceit,irony,andmagicalthinkingnotonlypermittedthecreationofthisfinancialmultiverse,butdeemeditaninventionworthyofpraise.*

AswesawinChapter7,thegovernmentitselfhasenormousOBSliabilities,especially relating to entitlements; here’s how it accounts for them. Insteadofpresentingtheseitemsonthemainbalancesheet,thegovernmentdepositsthemin a footnote. For fiscal 2015, the main balance sheet shows $3.2 trillion inassets(ofwhichalmost$1trillionarestudentloans)offsetagainst$13.2trillionin public debt, $6.7 trillion in pensions and benefits for federal employeesincludingveterans,andanother$1.6trillionin“other”—foratotalnegative“netposition”of$18.2trillion.7However,hereofthegovernment’sfinancialreportconsistoftwonotestothefinancialstatements,whichrevealsome$41.5trillionin unfunded additional liabilities relating to entitlements, which themselvescontainvariousnotesandexternalreferencesoftheirown,arecursiveprolixitythatwouldhavestoppedDavidFosterWallaceinhistracks.8So,thegovernmenthasafinancialnetworthofsomethingbetweennegative$18andnegative$60trillion.Thegovernmentdoesn’texactlyhidetheproblemssomuchasreclassifythem, for the simple reason that Washington would be in breach of majorbudgetingrules, like thedebtceiling, if itdidnotbrush themunder therugofOBS and other types of accounting. (This is an example of where the “myproblem” versus “not my problem” view of OBS accounting is useful—entitlements are “not my problem” for the Boomers because they won’t bepayingforthem.)

The government also does not have the firmest of grips on its liabilities.Partly,acertainhazinessabout thefigures justcomesfromtheunderstandabledifficulties inaccounting for the largest,most complicatedentity in theworld,especiallyoveramultidecadetimeframe.Partly,however, thegovernmenthasnot established adequate procedures for self-comprehension. Like corporatefinancial statements, government books are subject to audit, and those auditscome with an opinion about the fairness, integrity, and reasonableness of thebooksthemselves.Thecomptrollergeneral’sauditopinionofthegovernment’sfiscal2015booksdoesnotencourage,asitnotes“certainmaterialweaknessesininternalcontroloverfinancialreporting,”includingofthe$41trillioninSocialSecurity and Medicare entitlements in the notes, an “ineffective process” forpreparing the entire set of financial statements, and the “federal government’s

inabilitytoaccountforandreconcileintragovernmentalactivitiesandbalances,”which presumably includes the critical intragovernmental liability of theentitlementstrustfundswesawinChapter8.9Thesefailings“hinderthefederalgovernmentfromhavingreliablefinancialinformationtooperateinanefficientand effectivemanner.”10 The comptroller says that controls have gotten bettersince 1996—this has been a long-standing problem—but the considerableweaknessesthatremainaffectbyfarthemajorityofthegovernment’sliabilities.Any improvement is small consolation: If you were a General Electricshareholder and the auditors said GE’s accounting department was out of itsdepthbut slightly less so thanbefore,GEwouldnotbea stockyou’dwant tohold.

GovernmentaccountantsareatleasttryingtobestraightforwardaboutOBSandotheraccounting.Theprivatesectorquicklydiscoveredthatforthoseoflessnoblemien,OBSwasafinancialseptictank.Nominallyanenergyfirm,Enronwas in reality a financial engineering company whose three most senior andculpableleaderswereeventuallyconvictedoffraud(allwereBoomers),whoseparallel sets of books, OBS accounts, and subsidiaries digested any financialinconveniences.Fortune named EnronAmerica’s “most innovative company”sixtimesbetween1996and2001.Themagazinewascorrect,justinthewrongway.

Enron’s collapse in 2001 should have served as a warning about thesepractices. Instead,OBSliabilitiesgrewdramatically,spreadingto thecenterofAmerican finance, now totaling many trillions, though it is impossible tocalculate (which ispartof thepoint).11Ofgreatutility to thepracticewas thecreationofspecialderivatives—includingcollateralizeddebtobligations,swaps,structuredproducts,andsoon—thatpurportedtoallowtheprecisedivisionandreallocationofriskforeverytasteandbudgetbutwhichinactualityallowedforhuge amounts to be wagered against very little capital, through incrediblycomplexmeans,onbalancesheetandoff.

Atmoderatesize,someof theseideashadmerit—it’sfineto insureagainstcreditlossesthroughswapsorhedgenextyear’scropdeliverybysellingfutures.Afterthe1990s,reasonableuseswereeclipsedbyderivatives’utilityinjuicingreturns through speculation; one need not understand themechanics of this toappreciate the consequences. A look at the size of themarket alonemakes itwholly unlikely that any bona fide insurance or hedging was going on. The“notional”sizeofcreditderivativesislargerthanworldGDP,andwhilemostofthesepositionsarenettedagainsteachotherandothersareunlikelytoproducea

total loss, there’s clearly a significantmismatch. If youensure aCamryat thevalueofaRollsRoyce,areyoureallybuyinginsuranceorareyoubettingthatthecargetsstolenbeforeyournextpaymenttoGEICOisdue?IfGEICOwroteyou that policy, would it be an insurance company or something closer to aspeculator?

ThefinancialestablishmentnowdominatedbyBoomershadtopersuadetheaccountingprofession(alsodominatedbyBoomers) toaccept theconsignmentof thesederivativesoffbalancesheet.Accountants,whohadonlyagenerationbefore set the standard for fairness, prudence, and transparency, rolled over.*The collapses ofLehmanBrothers andBearStearnswereboth linked toOBSpracticesandsimilarpracticeswouldhavekilledAIG, thegiant“insurer,”hadthegovernmentnotbaileditout.

Theprivatesector,asitsproponentstrumpet(andinadifferentcontext,I’mafanoftheprivatesector),isanengineforinnovation,thoughundertheBoomersinventiveness slid quickly into fraud, helped in substantial part by a sustainedderegulatory push. Again, warnings abounded. The first wave of financialderegulationinthelate1970shelpedprecipitatethesavingsandloancrisisinthesucceedingyears.TheS&Lcrisiswas not primarily the fault of theBoomers,thoughsomeBoomerswereinvolved,likeNeilBush,thereddwarfintheever-dimmingBushgalaxy.*TheS&Ls,whichhadjustafewyearsearlierbeggedforrelieffromgovernmentoppression,wereforcedtogobacktoDCandpleadforbailouts. The government obliged, and if Boomers did not learn any lessonsaboutunduerisk,theydeeplyappreciatedthegovernment’spotentialtoserveasabackstoptospeculation.

EvenastheS&Ldisasterunfolded,BoomersbegantakingoverWallStreet,andinfinancialengineering theyfoundavocation inwhich theycouldexceedtheirparents,howeverdismally.TheBoomerspioneerednewandriskierwaysof doing business, whose consequences would make the S&L crisis seempositively demure. The previously modest market for junk bonds exploded,substantiallythecreationofBoomerMichaelMilkenofDrexelBurnham.Junkbondsaredebt securities that arenot“investmentgrade,”withgreater risksofdefaultthanconventionaldebt.Theyarespeculativeinstrumentsandhavetheirplace, but their use expanded well beyond those limits, and not surprisingly,many worked out poorly. Milken was subsequently convicted of securitiesviolations andDrexelwent under; repackagedwith themore pleasing label of“high-yielddebt,”junkbondssoldierontodayandinmid-2016wereenjoyingabullrun.

Wall Street relied heavily on junk bonds to finance leveraged buyouts(LBOs), a process inwhich companieswould be bought, slimmed down, andflippedbackladenwithdebttothepublicmarkets.ThegreatearlypractitionerofthiswasKKR,afirmrunbytwoBoomers,HenryKravisandGeorgeRoberts(thefirstK,JeromeKohlberg,whowasnotaBoomer,hadresignedoverKravisand Roberts’s decision to pursue larger, riskier, and more hostile takeovers).Although a target of criticism during the 1980s—one of their LBOs was thesubjectofthebookBarbariansattheGate—KKRhasgenerallydonewellbyitsinvestors;itsnumerousandlessaptimitators,decidedlylessso.

The restructuring of companies became something of a fashion after 1980,helped along by deregulation and a certain amount of fuzzy thinking. Thefashionable doctrine of “synergies,”which essentially promised something fornothing,becameagreatenablerforwavesofconsolidationandrecombination.Synergiesweretheperfectdoctrineforthesociopath,combiningdeceit,avarice,imprudence,andanti-empiricism.Thelumberingconglomeratesofoldfailedtounderstand the right way to combine (true enough); in the new era, synergy-justified mergers would bring only good. Certainly, they could boost overallprofitssolongasenoughcostswerecutandworkersfired—legitimateenough—but cost-cutting rarely satisfied market expectations, given all the debt andtransaction fees involved. With synergies, Boomer financiers explained, newconsolidationswould not only be leaner, theywould be better,more efficient,and(thiscouldonlybewhispered)closertomonopolies.

Itneverquiteworkedoutthatway,asspectacularfailuresliketheacquisitionof venerable TimeWarner by upstart America Online and Hewlett-Packard’sacquisition of Compaq showed. Nevertheless, just as Boomer Donald Trumpparades his business expertise as a political qualification notwithstanding thefinancialcatastrophesathiscasinos,sotoodidthearchitectoftheCompaqdeal,BoomerCarlyFiorina.Brieflyapresidentialcandidate,Fiorinaglossedovertheprice shareholders paid for her bad decisions, perhaps remembering only thehandsome payout she received on being fired. That was not Fiorina’s onlyscandalatHP;therewerealsotheiffysalesofequipmenttoanembargoedIranduringhertenure,thoughperhapsthatcountsasa“foreignpolicycredential.”12

IrregularRegulationThe S&L crisis had been created, in part, by the loosening of regulatorystrictures. Even as the hangover from the S&L crisis lingered until the mid-1990s, the Boomer neoliberal machine and its selective memory were busilyforgettingthefolliesofthepastwhilerememberingthelessonsthatmattered.Bythe 1990s, Congress was firmly in the hands of the Boomers and could becounted on for two things: (1) watering down regulations, and (2) providingbailouts should anything go wrong. If this sounds like the pervertedneoliberalismofChapter6,that’sexactlywhatitwas.

As Boomer power grew, so did the deregulatory spirit, with support fromboth sidesof theaisle.After amodestpauseunderBush (GreatestGenerationedition), deregulatory fever returned with Boomers Gingrich and Clinton. In1994—ayearbefore theS&Lcrisiswas finally resolved—aBoomerCongressenactedtheRiegle-NealInterstateBankingandBranchingEfficiencyAct(RN),essentially abolishing restrictions on bank acquisitions across state lines. RNpassedwithbroadbipartisan support, including from theWhiteHouse,pavingthewayforfinancialindustryconsolidationoverthenexttwentyyears.Now,abank could grow so long as it did not control more than 10 percent of thenation’sdeposits—thatwouldbethethresholdfor“toobigtofail.”13Maybe.

Abstractly, RN was a fine idea; in practice, RN was fraught with moralhazard.Institutionsbelowthe10percentthresholdhadalreadybeenbailedout,likeFirstPennsylvaniaandContinentalIllinois.Thelatterwas,untilthe2000s,oneofthemostspectacularandcontroversialbailouts,andContinentalwasjustababybankcomparedtotoday’smonsters.Continentalcollapsedin1984afteracquiring bad oil and gas loans (just the sort of asset now plaguing severalBoomer-runbanks).14Continental’s salvation taught banks and depositors thatthey would not really face the sort of market discipline that was a coreassumption of the free market theories supposedly driving deregulation. RNcatalyzedtheBoomers’privatizationofgainandsocializationofrisk.

Tomake themost ofRN,other lawshad to bedismantled, like theGlass-SteagallAct (GS). Passed as part of theNewDeal,GS restricted banks fromengaginginriskier(ifpotentiallymorelucrative)activitiesthatwereunrelatedtotheircorebusiness.TheFederalReserveopenedsomequestionableloopholesto

GSinthe1980s,butthelawremainedonthebooks.By1998—aboutfouryearsafter the government wound up the last of the S&Ls—Citicorp merged withTravelers Insurance to form Citigroup. The combination would have violatedwhat remained of GS, and unless that lawwere repealed, Citi would have todivest many assets it had just acquired, making the transaction costly andpointless. However, Citi’s CEO was confident the Boomer neoliberalestablishmentwouldseethelight.Itdid.By1999,thankstointenselobbyingofGingrich, Clinton, et al., the law was officially buried, and the head of Citisportedatrophylaudinghimselfasthe“ShattererofGlass-Steagall”(hopefullynotaconscious invocationofRobertOppenheimerquoting theBhagavadGitaduringthefirstA-bombtests).15

UnderBoomercontrol,bankswerefreetogrowandundertakeincreasinglyspeculative projects unrelated to their banking businesses, though they wereoftenfreetoleverage“safe”moneywhenmakingthesewagers.Bankswerealsoliberated,from2004onward,totakeonincreasingleveragethankstotheSEC’smodificationofthenetcapitalrules.Thechangewasrequestedbybanksmadebiggerandriskierbypreviousderegulation(onesupplicantwasHankPaulson,then at Goldman Sachs and soon to become Treasury secretary, where hearrangedabailoutinthesamebuildingsinwhichthebankshadrecentlybeggedtobefreeofWashington).Whilethemediaignoredthechanges,somebanksdidnot and expanded risk sharply through direct leverage and/or balance-sheetfiddling.16

Meanwhile, in the realmof alternative finance, the hedge fundLongTermCapitalManagement(LTCM)hadcollapsedin1998,thevictimoflarge,leveredderivative transactions. LTCM, in short, wagered toomuch backed up by toolittle,andthewagerwentthewrongway.ItsthreemasterswereBoomers(oneoftheCanadianvariety)andtwohadwontheNobelPrizefor—ofallthings—apricingmodelforderivatives.LTCM’sfailurealmostdestabilized thefinancialsector.Onlythethen-unprecedentedinterventionoftheFedandindustryleaderscontained the fiasco. Undeterred, another Boomer Congress deregulatedderivativesin2000andthemarketfortheseitems,oftenconvenientlykeptOBS,vastlyexpanded.17

Justbeforethe2008crisis,thelargestbankswerealmostallledbyBoomers,like Chuck Prince of Citi, Kerry Killinger and Alan Fishman ofWashingtonMutual (the biggest US bank failure ever), Ken Lewis of Bank of America,JamieDimonatJPMorganChase,andLloydBlankfeinatGoldmanSachs,whobecameCEOafterco-BoomerHankPaulson left for theTreasury in2006.All

expanded their banks, though to what extent and at what risk remained amystery,certainlytotheSEC.SECchairmanChrisCox,havingrelaxedcapitalrules four years earlier, opined as late as 2008 that he had a “good deal ofcomfortaboutthecapitalcushionsatthesefirms,”firmslikeBearStearns,whichcollapseddaysafterCox issuedhissoothing talk.18WasCoxoutofhisdepth,lying,orboth?Wedoknow,ataminimum,thatCoxwasaBoomer.

Itwasn’tasifsomepeopledidn’tsensethepossibilityofthingsgoingsouth—Goldmanbetagainstthehousingmarketwhilepeddlingtheothersideofthetransactionstoitsclients,andChuckPrinceofCitisaidin2007thatthecredit-fueledboommightendbutthat“aslongasthemusicisplaying,you’vegottogetupanddance.We’restilldancing.”19Prince’sadmissioncameevenas thecracks were opening; he was, effectively, drunk at 2:00 a.m. and orderinganother round. Although the situation was clearly fragile, banks’ quarterlyreportschirpedoptimism.

While the deregulatory push from the 1980s to 2008 had grounds in freemarketphilosophy,theBoomerestablishmentthathadpushedneoliberalismwashappytoaskthegovernmentforhelpwhenconvenient.BothRepublicanGeorgeBush II and Democrat Barack Obama oversaw a titanic bailout. CongressauthorizedtheTroubledAssetReliefProgram(TARP),$700billiontomopupthe various toxic assets produced and consumed by the financial sector. Cox,freemarketderegulatorcirca2004,turnedstatistin2008andtemporarilybannedshortsellingof799differentfinancialstocks.20TheSEC’spressreleaseopinedthat short bets against financial stocks contributed to “price declines in thesecuritiesoffinancialinstitutionsunrelatedtotruepricevaluation.”21Ofcourse,thewholelogicoffreemarkettheoryisthatthemarketknowsbestandgetstosetitsownprice.Anyway,thefailuresofimportantfirmsmadeclearthatpricedeclineswerehardly“unrelated”topropervaluations.Takenalone,governmentinterventionmight have been fine. In light of the freemarket parade that hadpreceded,itwasjustanotherexampleoftheheads-I-win-tails-you-losethinkingthathasprevailedoverthepastthreedecades.The2008crisishadanotheroddoutcome:AlthoughthesizeofAIG,Citi,andtheirpeersmadethem“toobigtofail” (and thus the taxpayers’ problems), many surviving banks actually gotbigger in the immediateaftermath, inpartdue tomergers that thegovernmenthelped orchestrate, likeBofA’s acquisition ofMerrill Lynch and JPMorgan’spurchaseofWashingtonMutual(oritsremains,anyway).

Amajor problem during recent crises had been the absence of good data.Even as the need for greater understanding became urgent, the resources

assignedtoregulationandreportingremainedwhollyinsufficient.Thegrowingvolumeoffinancialtransactionsproducednothinglikeacorrespondingincreaseinthebudgetsoftheprimaryregulators,andthatshouldhavebeennosurprise.After all, transparency and data are anathema to sociopathic deception andsubjectivity.

TheCensus,theoldestandmostbasicsystemofnationalreporting,hasbeenperhaps the leastvisibleandmost importantcasualty. In2012,after133 yearsand136volumes, theCensusprivatized themajesticStatisticalAbstractof theUnitedStates,foragrandsavingsof$2.9millionor0.0001percentofthe2012federalbudget.InanerawhereelectronicpublicationmakestheAbstractnearlycostlesstoprovide,citizensmustforkover$179foraprivatecopy.22(It’sstillworth it.)TheCensusstillhappens; its full resultsare justharder toaccess. (Itdoesn’t help that older data are available only in iffy pdfs or that somespreadsheetsarenotcompatiblewithrecentversionsofExcel—whichiswhysomuchoftheresearchforthisbookoccurredonanancientlaptop.)

It’snotevenclearifbudgetshadkeptpacethatmanyagenciesstillpossessedtherequisitewilltocomprehendtheirsubjects.InthemorethaneighteenmonthsbetweenApril2007,whentheSECrelaxedcapitalrequirementsandauthorizedbankstomodeltheirownrisks,andthelatesummerof2008,whenthewheelscame off, the special office assigned to monitor the results of deregulationcompletedzeroinvestigations(italsohadnodirector).23Eventhoughitisclearthat neither government nor firms had adequate insight into systemic risk, thetrendhasbeentolesstransparencyandunderstanding.

The accounting profession’s craven accommodations did not make it anyeasier to understand what was going on. Sometimes the auditors simplycommitted fraud, as happened when Bernie Madoff’s accountants helped hisPonzischeme.Moreusually,ittooktheformofindustryopinionsthatallowedsubstantial and unwise discretion on the part of financial officers. Older andmore conservative standards, like holding assets at book value, gave way tomark-to-market and mark-to-model accounting. The former allowed firms toprice their assets at prevailingmarketprices (fair enough) and received strongsupportfromfinancialfirmswhenthemarketwasperformingwell.Thelatter—well, the industry terminology for mark-to-model was “mark-to-myth.”WhateverCFOs and risk officers needed themodel to produce, the subjectiveadjustmentofvariableswouldallow.*

Asmattersdeterioratedbetween2006and2008,theaccountingprofession’sgoverning body continued opening loopholes. These effectively allowedmany

firmstoavoidorreclassifylossesduringtimesofmarketstress.Incertaincases,includingthehighlypertinentcaseofacrashwherenoorderlymarketexistedtoprice assets, firms could assign whatever value they deemed appropriate.24Giventheriseinprivatetransactionsnotclearedonconventionalexchanges,thepossibilityof“disorderlymarkets”wasnotsmallandneitherwas thepotentialfor accounting abuse.Taken togetherwith the complexityof theoperationsofthebiggest,mostcriticalbanks,thatmeansthesystemremainstothisdayatthemercyofsociopathicsubjectivity.

It did not help that the Boomers’ psychologically formative years cameduring a time of great prosperity and that their professional lives werecharacterized by a long and dubious stock market bubble, allowing criticalfaculties towither.Boomeroptimismallowed forvariables in riskmodelsandaccountingstatementstobeadjustedtotheirmostappealingsettings,aparallelto thecollectiveBoomerdelusion that thestockandhousingmarkets“onlygoup.”Equallyunhelpfulwasthecollisionofattractiveeconomictheorieswithanuglysociologicalreality.Theconsiderablebeautyoffreemarkettheorydoesnotapplywell, evenon itsown terms, to irrationality, improvidence, andcriminaldeception—i.e.,Boomerfinancialbehavior.

Thus the inevitable disasters of the past thirty years,whichbore enormousconsequences,almostallofwhichhave,andwillcontinue,topasstotheyoung.OlderAmericanshadmorestockanddepositsatriskthanyoungerAmericans,so theybenefitedconsiderablymorefromthebailouts.Thosebailoutsrequiredborrowing—yearsoftaxcuts,deficits,andthescartissueoffinancialcrisesleftgovernmentwithnocushion—sothedebtfinancethatsavedolderstockholdersanddepositorswill be a costpassed to theyoung.And this also explainswhyBoomers tolerated bailout culture: bailouts benefit here and now, with costspushedinto thefutureviadebt theyoungmust repay.Returning toautomobileanalogies, the financial systembecamea rental carpaid forunder anassumedname using someone else’s credit card. The national Rent-a-Dent was treatedaccordingly.

Anyonebailout,taxcut,orsimilarwouldhavebeenfine;indeed,orthodox.But it was not “just one”; the crisis was not somuch acute as it is ongoing,beginning with the S&L disaster of the mid-1980s and continuing with theLTCM emergency of 1998, the dot-com crash of 2000, and the housing andfinancialpanicsof2008.Andyet,overyearsofBoomercontroltheresponsehasalwaysbeen the same:morederegulation,more spending, lower taxes, andnoadequatestructuralreformduringthewindowsofopportunitybetweenscandals.

Despite the quickening tempo of crisis, nothing about Boomer financechanged.Liberatedby theconstraintsofprudenceand theevidenceofhistory,the modest deregulation that began under Democrat Jimmy Carter onlyaccelerated.DespitethecautionarytaleofcollapseandbailoutunderRepublicanRonald Reagan, the strategy of risk and deregulation expanded under BillClinton, continued under his fellow Boomer Bush II, and has gone largelyuncorrected underBarackObama. In an act ofmacroeconomic heterodoxy, ineverymajor casewhere laissez-faire consistencymight have discomfitedWallStreet,Washingtonprovidedadecidedlystatistbackstop.Thederegulation,riskseeking, and moral hazard transcended party; it wasn’t so much ideology, asoutlook.Andthatoutlookwassociopathic.

MonetaryManipulationandGenerationalExpropriationStuckin themiddleof thisfreewheelingdisaster is theFederalReserve,whichsetsmonetarypolicyforthenation.Since1977,ithasbeentheunhappydutyoftheFedbothtopromotegrowthandensurepricestability(the“dualmandate”),whilealsoservingasanimportantbankregulator.25Thesegoalsoftenconflict,giventhattheFedcanoverstimulatetheeconomybytoleratinghighinflationorallowinggreaterleverage.Reconcilingthesecontradictionstakeseffort,subtlety,and character. However, as the Boomers took overWashington and the Fed,sociopathic thinking elided any contradictions in the dual (or triple)mandate.Sociopathyrequiredeverythingtogoupandrightnow,whateverthelong-termconsequences.

Despiteitsvastlegalpowers,theFedenjoysunusualimmunityfromcriticalinquiry and comprehensive criticisms tend to be dismissed as fringe theories.Some attacks really are just Gnomes of Zurich nonsense. But some are quiteserious, like the claim that the Fed is unduly secretive. Though the Fed’sindependence is important, the bank has been unduly opaque and resistant tooversight,andwehavenogood insight into theworkingsof thenation’smostimportant financial player. Even the semiotics suggest a closeted world ofconspiracy; e.g., the Fed’s headquarters resemble aMasonic temple. The onetime Ivisited theFed tomeetwithChairmanBenBernanke, thevastbuildingappearedtotallyempty(duringtheheightofthe2008crisis!),andwhilewewerewaiting in the boardroom, the chairman appeared unannounced frombehind ahiddendoor.ItwaslikeavisittoOz.

Indeed,Oz andwizardry are how the establishment tends to view the Fedoverall, and thismay even be how the Fed views itself,which helps nothing.When the Fed does make mistakes, it rarely admits them and only after asuitably sanitizing interlude, as with Bernanke’s public dismay at the bank’sresponse to theGreatDepression, seven decades after the fact.While theFedmight be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, it should never get the sort ofuncritical deference that prevailed from the 1980s to the 2000s, when it wasviewed as some sort of economic magician. (Alan Greenspan, Fed chairmanfrom 1987 to 2006, was called the “Maestro,” first as a joke, then as a

compliment, thensarcastically,andnownotatall.)Moreover,becausetheFedhasamandatetoprotecttheeconomyoverallanditstoolsworkbestintheshortterm,ittendstoprotectthelargestclassesofinterestsextantatanygiventimeatthe expense of the long view. For the past thirty years, that hasmeant a biastowardprotectingthefinancialwell-beingofBoomers.

Some argue that the bank is a perpetual bind, trapped between rapaciousprivate enterprise and a slothful Congress, an apologia that manages to beneithercompellingnorwhollyfactual.TheFedcanbeendlesslyinventivewhenitwants tobe,as its responses to thepermanentemergencyshow:quantitativeeasing and the unprecedented $3.5 trillion expansion of its balance sheet, itsrecent consideration of negative interest rates, and so on.26 Though BoomercandidateSanders,whocrusadedonthesubjectofbankrisk,apparentlyhadnoideahowa“moraleconomy”mightbeachieved,theprocessissimpleenough.27The Fed has long held the tools to restrain the banks, both indirectly, byadjustinginterestrates,anddirectly,throughadjustmentofreserverequirements,restrictiverulemaking,andlimitsonleverage.Andindeed,itmovestheseleversregularly,justnottothebenefitofallpersons,favoringinsteadthecategoryofassetholders,comprisedheavilyofBoomers.

Let’sexaminewhathappenedwhentheFedproperlyexercisedevenoneofits tools,margin requirements.Margin rules limit howmuch a speculator canborrow to fund securities purchases, helping tamp bubbles. Margin-drivenspeculationgot frequentblameas a causeof the1929crash, sobetween1945and1974,theFedadjustedmargineveryfewyears,fromaslowas40percentinearly1945toashighas100percentin1946.28Since1974,marginrequirementshavebeenleftunadjusted,at50percent.29Duringthebubbleof the1990s, theeconomistRobertShillerarguedtheFedshouldrevivemargintools.A“senioreconomistandadviser”fromtheFed’sBostonbankdisagreed,statingthat“thecapacity to borrow against securities has also risen as a result of rising stockprices.Itisnotclearthisexposesthefinancialsystemtomorerisk.”30Suchwasa Fed economist’s view as of September 2000, as the stock market wascollapsing.

A tame economy and stockmarket gave the Fed no good reason to adjustmarginratesbetween1974and1985;sincethen,ithashadplentyofirrationalexuberance tocontendwith, asevenChairmanGreenspanacknowledged.AndthoughthechairhasbeenheldbyaBoomeronlysince2006,BoomerscolonizedtheFed’sotherofficesmuchearlier.Undertheirwatch,anddespitecrashesandbubbles and crashes in 1985–1987, 1998–2000, 2006–2008, and 2012–2016

(moreonthatinaminute),theFedhasstillnotadjustedmarginrates.Themargin requirementmaybeaparticularlywell-tailored tool for stocks,

but it isonlyoneof theFed’smanybubble-fightingweaponsgenerally. If theFedwantstorestrainbanks,itcanadjustreserverequirements,interestrates,etc.Ifitwantstotargetfrothincertainassets,likethehousingbubblethatgrewfrom1998to2006,itcanlimitthevalueitassignstosyndicatedmortgagesandothersimilarassetspostedascollateralwiththebank.GiventheenormousdeferencetheFedenjoys,itcouldprobablypreventordeflateabubbleinanyassetsimplybyannouncingitsintentionofdoingso.

However, it’s far from clear that the Boomer Fed wants restraint. It hasrepeatedly skewed toward a permissivenesswhose prime beneficiaries are theBoomers.Thatisespeciallythecasewiththestockmarket,whichhasbeenonalong, if uneven, tear. Had economic growth driven stock appreciation, thatwould be fine, but much of the growth has been due to an expansion ofvaluationsuntetheredfromgrowth.(Thecompaniesparticipateinthecollectivedelusion by emphasizing pro forma accounting measurements to exclude“unrepresentative”—i.e.,unflattering—results,with thegapbetweenpro formaandGAAPstandardsbeingitswidest inearly2016sincetheominousdatesof2001–2002 and2008.31)Measuredby the cyclically adjustedprice-to-earnings(P/E)ratiothestockmarketseemsoverpriced,risingfromapostwaraverageof~15 to 44.2 by the end of 1999 (higher even than in 1929), and remainingelevated,notwithstanding theGreatRecession,at26.6asof thefallof2016.32Statisticians frequently look for mean reversions, the tendency of extremeconditionstoreturntolong-termaverages,andareversiontopostwaraverageswouldimplyaverysteepdropinprices,allelsebeingequal.Butallelseisnotequalandameanreversionisthelastthingpolicymakersdesire:Realratesareatrockbottomandthishasprovidedatailwindtostockvaluations.Theinstitutionresponsible,ofcourse, is theFed,which isnowaprisonerof itsownpolicies,andperversely, the justificationfor lowratesgetsbetter the longer theprocessdragsout.

Valuation changes have generational consequences. Stocks were relativelycheapintheearly1980s,whenmedianBoomerswerethirty-somethingsbuyingstocks(cyclicallyadjustedP/Eratiosran9to12).Stocksarenowexpensive,asthemedianBoomerturnssixty-fiveandbeginsliquidating.Foreachsuccessfulsellertheremust,ofcourse,beabuyer,anddomestically,thenaturalbuyersaretheyoung.ThegenerationaleffectisthattheBoomersboughtlowandsoldhighthanks to accommodating public and private actors (which they controlled).

Should P/E ratios revert to historical norms, the generational transfer will befully realized. Reversion will make it vastly harder for the young to buildretirementsavings,asanyreturntonormalvaluationswillcreatelossesintheirexisting portfolios, putting young savers even further behind. The young canalwaysinvestinsomethingotherthanstocks,butthelong-termtrendininterestrateslimitstheiroptions.Since2008,ratesonbankdepositshavebeennearzero.The same thing applies to bond yields, with the additional difficulty that ifinterest rates should ever rise, the value of existing bond portfolioswill fall.*Generationally, then,bothsellersandbuyersare forced toparticipate,with thekey difference being that in recent years the transactions have taken place atpricesfarmorebeneficialtotheformer.

A similar dynamic has unfolded in the housingmarket.While the sourceslikeCase-Shiller,theCensus,andtheDallasFedhavetheirownarcanedisputesover the exact levelofhouseprices, theygenerally agreeon thedirection andmagnitudeofhouse-pricechanges:up,andbyalot.Fromthe1980stothemid-1990s,homepricesgrew roughly in linewith the economy.After1997,whenalmost all theBoomerswhowanted to purchase housing had already done so(theyoungestwerebythenthirty-threeandtheoldest,fifty-seven),homepricesrosedramatically.It’snotthatgrowthintheeconomyorpopulationacceleratedsuddenlyorpermanently.Thebetterexplanationwasgovernmentsubsidy.

TheBoomer-controlled government expanded housing subsidies during theBoomers’ prime home-owning years: property tax caps, mortgage interestdeductions,taxexemptionsonsales,andsoonallfavoredexistingandwealthierhomeowners. The government also cultivated the sentimental idea ofhomeownershipasanationalvirtue.Sowhilerentingisoftenabetterfinancialdecision,Clinton,BushII,andsoonextolledthispeculiarAmericandream,andconsumers came to view home ownership not just as a necessity or luxuryconsumable, but as a surefire investment, even a kind of entitlement. Peopleboughtbiggerandmoreexpensivehouses, a consumptionproblemof itsown,whilerentcontrol,propertytaxfreezes,zoningrestrictions,andotherinefficientlimits favored existing residents. And the banks willingly facilitated, oftenreducing down payments from the conventional 20 percent to as low as 3.5percentoreven0percent—i.e.,allowingleveragetoincreasefrom4:1to27.6:1,orinthecaseofzerodown,∞:1.Manybankscompetedontheeaseofapproval,forgoingincomeverificationinfavorofborrowers’self-reporting.

Whenbetsturnedsour,theFedintervened,tothegreatbenefitofBoomers.Thebankpurchasedmortgageassetstoholdthemarkettogether,andby2016,

housinghadalmostentirelyrecoveredthelossesfromtheperiod2007–2012,forreasons againmostly untethered from economic fundamentals.* The Boomerswillsoonbecomeliquidatorsofrealestateattheseconvenientlyrefreshedprices,harvesting substantial cash from credulous new buyers. Worse, the costs ofprevioushomesubsidieswillbebornebytheyoung,intheformofnationaldebtpassedalongduetocostsofhousingtaxsubsidiesandothergoodieshandedoutbytheBoomerstotheBoomers.

TheothergifttotheBoomers—especiallytheoldestBoomers—hasbeenaninterest rate environment helpfully aligned with their life cycle. In the mid-1970s,many real interest rateswere often quite low.33 As theBoomerswereyoungandaccumulatingdebt,thiswasextremelyhelpful;theywereallbutpaidtoborrow.Ratesspikedfrom1980to1982beforeasustaineddeclineduringtheperiodofBoomerdebt accumulation; rateswerehigherbutmovingquickly intherightdirection,andthatwaswhatmattered.34Atthesametime,theeconomywas growing, albeit in historically unspectacular fashion, making it easier tomaintainthatdebt.Interestrateshavefallensince2008;thedifferencethistimeis that the economy is veryweak,meaning new debt is not nearly as easy toservice as it was during the period of rate declines from the 1980s to 1994.(AnotherdifferencebetweenBoomer-thenandMillenial-now: In the transitionfromnetborrowertonetsaver,oldergenerationsbenefitedfrommeaningfulrealintereston theircashdeposits—ahelpfulbonusmanyMillenials,habituated tobanksoffering0.5percentAPYs,haveneverexperienced.)

Ultra-low rates pose challenges for all ages, but they have least effect onthosewithnet savings.Should theUnitedStates tip intooutright deflation, solong as nominal rates are zero or above, the burden of debtwill grow in realterms.At thesametime, thevalueofdepositswouldautomaticallyrise. In thelong term, no one wins, but in the short term terms, savers—i.e., olderAmericans—dothebest.Also,asKeynesnoted,inthelongrunwearealldead,andtheBoomerssoonerthaneveryoneelse.

A final note on monetary policy: In many ways, the Fed’s arsenal ofrecession-combating tools, including its credibility as an institution, representsanasset.Since2008,theFedhasbeenspendingdownthisassettopropuptheeconomy,especiallystocksandhousesownedbyBoomers.TheFedexhaustedits conventional arsenal (interest rate cuts) fairly quickly, forcing it toexperimentfrom2008withquantitativeeasing,purchasingvastamountsofriskassets like mortgage paper for its own account. The risks of inaction werecertainly real, though the benefits, while also meaningful, remain hard to

quantify and really evaluate.Regardless, theFedhasnowused all of its goodtools,leavinglesstofightwhatevercomesnext.(Atthesametime,thebubble-fightingtoolkit,aswehaveseen,wentessentiallyuntouchedduringtheBoomerera.) In the event of another crisis in the medium-term, the next step isaggressive and unprecedented: setting nominal interest rates at less than zero.JapanandpartsofEuropehavebegunthisexperiment,andinitialresultsdonotencourage. So, like the Army, the Fed has been depleted by Boomerimprovidence,leavingfuturegenerationswithoutgoodmeanstocombatthenextandinevitablerecession.Obviously,theworkingyoungwillsufferthemost.TheBoomers, meanwhile, are embarking on the long cruise of a tax-subsidizedretirement.

CHAPTERTWELVE

THEBRIEFTRIUMPHOFLONGRETIREMENT

Whentheendoftheworldcomes,Iwanttobelivinginretirement.

—KarlKraus

A long and pleasant retirement is both a historical curiosity and a financialimprobability.Untilrelativelyrecently,onlytherichcouldretire.Everyoneelsesimplyworked until the arrival of disabling infirmity and thenwaited for thegruesomeend;thatwasit.Lifeofferedtoofewproductiveyearsandeconomiestoolittlegrowthtoprepareforalengthyretirement.Theonlyassetsvouchsafinginfirmitywerenonfinancial:children,whocouldtakecareofparents indotageand disability.Unfortunately, thatmedieval dynamic has become depressinglycurrent. The giant mass of Boomers has just begun to retire and because toomany of them are unprepared for the future, their children will bear theconsequences.

Retirement planners assume clients need about 75 percent of preretirementincometo livecomfortably; it’sprobablymore,given therise inmedicalcostsandthat,fivetosixyearsafterretirement,bothaverageandmedianhouseholdsactuallyspend83tomorethan86percentofpre-retirementincome.1Onacash-

savingsbasis,afifteen-yearretirementafteraforty-yearcareerthereforeentailsannualsavingsofover25percentofincome,almostquadrupletheBoomer-erasavingsrateofroughly6.6percent.2Lowpersonalsavingmustbecompensatedforbyacombinationofgovernment/familysubsidy,andstrongreturnsonnon-cashinvestments.That’sthekerneloftheretirementproblemandsuggeststotheantisocialwhatleverstomanipulate.

From the 1860s to the 1970s, fast growth in economy, population,productivity, and the introduction of public and private programs created thepossibilityofmassmiddle-classretirementforthefirsttime.Butlikeeverythingin life, retirement is contingent. Given how long and expensive old age hasbecome,unlesspeoplearewillingtosavemore,worklonger,orencouragefasterpopulation growth through either bigger families or immigration, massretirement will be difficult to sustain without some uncomfortable trade-offs.The absence of any of these changes in recent yearsmeans thatwhile almosteverything about retirement has changed over the past century, one essentialthing has not: the dependence of the old on the young. It’s just that today,youthful contributions are now heavily intermediated/mandated by state andprivateplans.Ideally,redistributionistpoliciesaslargeasAmerica’spresentold-agebenefits(OABs)programsshouldinvolvesomedegreeofinformedconsentonthepartof thosebearingthecosts.Thishasnothappened,becauseBoomersociopathsdonotwanttoriskanhonestdialogue.

Every year of inaction—and there have now been many—makes theretirementproblemmoreexpensiveanddifficult.Thatmuchisbeyonddispute.It isalsomostlybeyonddisputethattheseprogramswillcontinuemoreorlessintact for another quarter century, as substantial majorities of all importantgroups,youngandold,RepublicansandDemocrats,wanttokeepthesystemasis,anditisfinanciallyplausibletodosofortwomoredecades(just).Sowecandispense with theoretical arguments about whether OAB programs areeconomicallyefficientorinefficient,corruptingorhumanitarian,infavoroftherealitythatOABprogramswillpersistforyears.

How many years? Without reform, no one—not even the trustees of thesystems themselves—believes that scheduled benefits programs can bemaintainedmuchbeyond2034–2037,i.e.,justasthemedianBoomersdieoff.Inthe meantime, older Boomers have begun collecting benefits and the entiregenerationwillbeonthedoleby2028–2034,atwhichpointitwillbeinfeasibletocutBoomers’benefits.TheBoomers’OABmaneuversareaswell-timedasthey aredeliberate.The result is that everygenerationborn after theBoomers

will bear disproportionate costs,whilemost of theBoomers and their parentsharvestdisproportionategains.There is still time to rescue the systemand theUnitedStateshasthemeanstodoit,butweonlyhaveaboutadecadebeforethechoicesbecomeverypainful.

PrivateImprovidenceTheapocalypticfigureoftencitedis thathalfofAmericanshavenoretirementsavings; that’s roughly correct, though these sorts of headline-grabbingcalculationsusuallyexcludeimportantitemslikepensions,SocialSecurity,andthe fact that many households are young and do not yet need to saveaggressively.3Nevertheless,privatesavingsarecrucial,solet’sbeginthere.Thesituation is dismal. Perhaps 30 percent of middle-aged households will havesufficient private resources to retirewithoutmajor lifestyle changes (preciselythe sort of sacrificemanymiddle-class Boomers should, but are unwilling, tomake). The other 70 percent will not, with Boomer improvidence as a chiefexplanation.Sincethe1970s,thenationalsavingsratehasbeenonadownwardtrend, falling even as the very large Boomer generation entered its primeworkingyearsandshouldhavebeenpushingtherateup.4Despiteamodest(andprobably transient) rebound after various crises, savings as a percent ofdisposable incomeran justunder5percentfrom1996to2016,whenBoomerswere 44–64, in their prime working years, and should have been aggressivesavers.5 (It’s difficult to do cohort analysis of savings, but the signs point thesameway.)Contrastthistotheperiod1950–1985,whenAmerica’ssavingsrateapproached 10 percent (even when pensions were in better shape), or toGermanyandSwedentoday,whichhavebothmoregenerouspensionschemesandhighersavingsrates(about9.5percentand15.2percentrespectively).*,6

ModernAmericanshavenotbeenseriousaboutretirementplanning.Peoplespendmoretimeplanningannualholidaysthanplanningthepermanentholidayof retirement.7 If the argument on the free market side has been that privatecitizens will take care of themselves, everything in this chapter is strongevidence to the contrary, at least as it pertains to the Boomers.* FranklinRoosevelt, just before Social Security was enacted, expressed “hop[e]” that“repeated promises of private investment and private initiative [might] relievetheGovernmentintheimmediatefutureofmuchoftheburdenithasassumed”viahiswelfareprograms.8FDRmighthavefearednothingbutfearitself.Thenagain,heneverknewtheBoomers.

Thegovernmenthasintervenedandwillcontinuetodoso.Indeed,evenfreemarketers may concede that the government has an obligation to do so, by

implicitlyauthorizingalowersavingsrateinexchangeforthepromiseofSocialSecurity. (The counterargument is that for years, the savings rate was higherdespite theexistenceofold-ageprograms; theratefellasBoomersentered theworkforce.) In anyevent, thebottomhalf simplycannot retirewithoutoutsideassistance:Thepoorest20percenthaveanegativehouseholdnetworth,andthenext20percentdon’thaveenoughpersonalsavingstolastayearatthepovertyline. Adjusting for age—i.e., looking at the wealth of the cohorts closest toretirement—improvesthepicturesomewhat,butnotnearlyenough.

The number of poor might be surprising, but the parlous condition of themiddleclass iswhat really shocks.Onan incomebasis,wealreadyknow that“middleclass”isnomorethanastatisticalartifact.Thesameistrueonawealthbasis. Median household net worth was just $79,901 in 2013 (essentially nochange from $79,212 in 1992), maybe two to three years of self-fundedretirementspending,ashortfallevenhouseholdsdistantfromretirementcannotreally hope to close.* Subtracting housing wealth makes things even bleaker(retireeshave to live somewhere), slicingoffno less than30percent fromnetworths.†,9 Inotherwords,despitegiantbubbles in stocksandhousing,modesteconomic growth, largely free education, and some historically uniqueadvantages bestowed on the Boomers by their predecessors, sociopathicimprovidence leaves many Boomers in an all-too-familiar position. Like thedelusionalBlancheduBois,legionsofBoomerswilldependonthekindnessofstrangers—indeed,strangerstheyhaveeconomicallyabused.

Nevertheless,manyBoomersdidstockpileill-gottengainsandthewealthofolder households is notably higher than that of younger households (and thushigherthanthemedian),thoughfewofthemhavesavedenoughtoretirewithoutmajor adjustments to living standards. But that is as much a function ofexpectations about how the “golden years” should be lived as it is of actualwealth.Olderhouseholdshavebeengettingwealthierataboutthesamepaceasthetop5percentofAmericansgenerally,aswewillseeinChapter15.Someonehastopay,andtheoldandtherichhavethemosttocontribute,evenifthepriceis a less comfortable retirement. The alternative is heavy and indefiniteborrowing, thegrowingpossibilityof fiscalcrisis,and thecertainexacerbationofgenerationalinequity.

TheFalseFriendofPensionsPensionswill help, and these theBoomers have (mostly) earned, though theyprovide less comfort thanmanymight assume. First, a quick review, becausepensions will be personally unfamiliar to most readers under fifty. Theproportion ofworkers participating in pensions had been falling fromno laterthanthe1970s,andfrom1980to2008declinedfrom38percent to20percentoverall, and is almost certainly lower today; however, Social SecurityAdministration (SSA) models show about half of Boomers, many of whomstartedworkingbeforetheshift,holdingsomeformofclassicpensionbenefits.10“Classicpensions,”toclarify,aredefined-benefitpensions,withpayoutsfixedinadvanced and the provider bearingmost of the financial risk; i.e., they’re realpensions.Many public sector workers like firefighters and teachers still havesuchpensions. In theprivatesector,classicpensionshavegone thewayof thedinosaurs, replacedbydefined-contribution systems,where the employeepaysin a fixed amount and bears most of the risk (e.g., 401(k)s, Employee StockOwnership Plans—query whether these are pensions at all). In either case,pensionseithermandateormotivatesavings,reducingthedirectburdenonthestate(thoughthestatebearsanindirectburdenthroughtaxsubsidy).That’sthetheory. The reality is that so long as society refuses to tolerate gross povertyamongtheelderly,shouldpensionsofanytypefail,societybearsthefinalrisk,paid for by taxes on its wealthier members (of all ages) and on its workingmembers(overwhelminglyyounger).

Unfortunately, because most pension plans have not collected adequatecontributionsfromolderbeneficiaries,theydependonanincreasingflowofnewworkers into the system and very high rates of return on invested assets,assumptionsthathavebeenproblematicforyears.IfpensionsarenotexactlyaPonzi scheme, neither are they well managed. Private pensions are badlyunderfunded—in2012,therewasa$355billionshortfallforjustthecompaniesin the S&P 500.11 Public pensions cover vastly more workers and havecorrespondingly bigger problems. The most optimistic estimates come, notsurprisingly,fromtheassociationofpublicpensionadministrators,whoevenattheacmeofself-serviceadmitabout$1trillioninshortfalls;themostpessimisticacademicestimatespeggedunderfundingat$1–3.74trillion,with$2.66trillion

asaprobableestimate,andthatnumberwill likelygrow.12As it turnsout, theacademicsweretheCassandrasofretirement:Infall2016,itwasrevealedthatCalifornia’spublicpensionsmaintainedtwosetsofbooks,onewiththeofficial,high-return figuresanda secondwithgrimmercalculationsbasedon the samesortsofassumptionsunderlyingtheacademicanalyses.13

Aspensionsfail,theoldestwillalmostcertainlybepaidfirst,leavinglittleornothingleftoverforyoungerbeneficiaries.Givenwhereweare,thatrepresentsanother generational transfer to the Boomers. The Teamsters’ Central StatesPensionFundprovidesanearlyexampleofthesystemiccrisistocome.CentralStateshadbeen(supposedly,only)$8billionintheholein2013anddiscoveredjust two years later that it was actually $52.3 billion short, thanks to acombinationofnewaccountinganda long-overdueencounterwithreality.ForCentral States to have any chance of surviving long term, benefits had to beslashed—math left no other option—and Central States submitted a plan forreducing benefits. Dozens of congressmen, offering the usual incantations of“middleclass”and“seniors,”objected. InMay2016, theTreasury refused theFund’sbenefitsrevisionplanforreasonsbothsensibleandotherwise,andasthepartiesdickeroverhowbesttorearrangethedeckchairsontheTitanic,thecrisisgrows.14Absentanoverhaul,CentralStateswillbeexhaustedaround2026,withBoomer pensioners continuing to collect benefits at patently ridiculous ratesuntilthegrislyend.

Surely, you might protest, society must have insured against suchcatastrophe.Ithas,sortof.Classicpensionshavebeeninsuredsince1974bythePension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). It’s just that PBGC itself ismore a source of liability than comfort, with no less than $60 billion andpossibly more than $230 billion in unfunded future liabilities.15 Those arePBGC’sfiguresperits2015report,andtheyarealmostcertainlytoooptimistic,giventhecrisisinPBGC’sinsuredfunds.(AsPBGCputsit,“Barringchanges,neither [insurance] program will be able to fully satisfy PBGC’s long-termobligations… the risk of multiemployer program insolvency rises rapidly,exceeding50percentin2025andreaching90percentby2032”—therearethosemagicalyearsagain.16)

Tobefair(andcruellyaccurate),it’sunlikelythatPBGCitselfhasanyideawhat the real range of its liabilitiesmight be. Outside auditors concluded theCorporation has “material weaknesses” and “significant deficiencies” in itspractices and internal controls, and this has been the case for some time.17Neitherpoliticalpartyhasaddressedtheproblem,andtheonlymajorreformof

PBGC recently may have made matters worse, allowing for some dubiousaccountingwhilesweepingawayimportantprotections.Again,it’simpossibletoknow—PBGC’sbooksandmanagementareamess.

Still, when the inevitable crisis arrives, it will be through the Host of thePBGC that liabilities are transubstantiated into intergenerationalwelfare.Withtens of millions of (older, Boomerish) Americans enrolled in pensions, it’simprobablethatthegovernmentwillletpensionswhollycollapse,anymorethanit was willing to let major banks fail in 2008. To the extent PBGC does noteffect salvation itself, subsidies will flow automatically through new welfaretransfers, as pension failures push seniors below poverty limits. Because theBoomerswerethelastgenerationtohavesignificantprivatepensions,anyformofsubsidywilltendtooperateasagenerationaltransfer,eventhoughitwastheBoomers, who in their roles as executives and government officials, oversawpension mismanagement in the first place. As the crisis deepens, so will thefavoritism.

AntisocialSecurityAll OAB programs struggle for the simple reason that they never receivedenoughfunding in thefirstplace.FDRmayhavehopedSocialSecuritywouldbeself-sustainingandperhapseventuallyredundant,butthishasnothappened,andnotenoughmoneyhasbeenallocatedtocopewiththatreality.18Therefore,the essential task is to convince younger people to continue supporting theirelders while presenting a subsidy as the earned return of enforced savings.Accordingly,allOABshavebeensubjecttosustainedcampaignsofdeceitandmisinformation,fromallpoliticalcorners—theRight,whichclaimsgovernmentprograms are bankrupt (not true, yet); the Left, which claims programs areequitable (not ingenerational terms);andvarious interestgroupsespousingallmannerofself-interestedfixeslikeprivatization.Theunifyingtheme,however,hasbeentokeepthesystemgoingatminimalpresentcostuntiltheBoomersdie.

Although precise calculations are complex, any numerate person canunderstandhowtheseplansworkgenerally,andwhothewinnersandlosersarein the shell game. All pension-like plans depend on a few key inputs—thelongevityandnumberofparticipants,inflationincostofbenefits,interestratesandtherateofreturnoninvestments,andthenumberofpayers.Thevariabletheactuaries cannot (and in some cases, are forbidden to) forecast are politicalchanges.Inourmodel,whichassumessociopathy,wesimplytwirlthepoliticaldialtomendacity,asettingthatproducesoutputscoincidentwiththeBoomers’interestsandthataresupportedbytheevidence.

Turningtotheinputs,thegoodnewsisthatpeoplearelivinglonger.Whilealotof life-expectancygainshavebeendrivenby lower infantmortality,peoplewhomake it tosixty-fivecanexpect to liveanother19.2years,upfromabout16.8yearsin1982.19Theproblemisnot that theactuariesdidn’tpredict theseimprovements, it’s that citizens didn’t adjust their savings or retirementexpectations. Despite living longer, people now retire slightly earlier. Theaverage retirement age formen has fallen by one year from1970–71 through2011, and combined with increased longevity, the period of retirement hasextendedbyathird,from13.6to18years.*,20Bluntly,that’stoolong.

To maintain living standards, the median household would want about$800,000inprivate,nonhousingassetsonretirement.21Medianhouseholdshave

something like 10 percent or less of that amount, and even though olderhouseholdshavehighernetworths,theytoofacealargegapthateventherosiestassumptionsaboutpensions,welfare transfers,andstockmarketreturnscannotclose. Most studies conclude that about half of households are materiallyunderprepared for retirement, and surveys show that only 17–25 percent ofworkers areveryconfident in their retirementplanningversus35percentwhoaren’tconfident(theresteitherbeing“somewhat”confidentornotknowingorrefusingtoanswer).22

Moreover,anymajorillnesscouldexhaustprivatesavings,andevenforthereasonably healthy, old agewill also be exceedingly expensive, driven by thegenerally rapid rise in health-care prices. Since the period 1982–1984, health-carecostshavemorethanquadrupledingrosstermsandhavebeenrisingfasterthan inflation overall.23Medical inflation has slowed over the past few yearsbecauseof involuntary sequestrationandObamacare’smandatedprices,whichoverthelongtermwillberoughlyaseffectiveasorderingtheearthtostandstill.The Medicare Trustees accordingly believe Obamacare’s price fiats “areuncertain,”will“probablynotbeviableindefinitely,”withtheiractuariesbeingblunter,sayingthepricelimitshavea“strongpossibility”of“notbe[ing]viableinthelongrange,”andthegovernment’soverallauditorsaysthesamething.24Why? Because medicine is in large part a service business, and servicebusinesses arehard tomakemoreproductive, especiallywithout theR&D theBoomers have assiduously defunded.The best one can reasonably hope for isthatinflationinhealthcarefallsintolinewithinflationoverall.Untilthen,healthcarewilltakeaneverlargerfractionofGDP,onanabsolutebasisandpercapitabasis,withgrayingBoomersconsumingthemost.

Two other price-related variables require discussion, the rate of generalinflationandthereturnoninvestments.Forcertainpensionswithfixedpayouts,thehighertherateofinflation,thelowerthe“presentvalue”costofthatstreamof benefits. Many aging economies, including the United States, haveexperiencedextremelylowlevelsofgeneralinflationsince2008.Evenso,manypensions and other benefits programs assumemuch higher levels of inflationthanwehaveseenorcanreasonablyexpect,andthistendstoartificiallydepressthe size of their liabilities.* (Should the United States experience outrightdeflation, liabilitiescould increase in real terms.)At the same time, retirementplansforecaststrongratesofreturnontheirassets.Theassumedreturnsofmanypensions,especiallystatepensions,arequitehigh—ontheorderof7–8percentannually,acombinationof theirhigher inflationexpectations(whichisat least

internally consistent, if factually unreasonable) and, more substantially,unadulteratedfantasy.Intheend,theexactinterplaybetweeninflation,returns,and so on doesn’t matter.What does is this: Are pensions going to get an 8percenttotalreturnornot?

Inpriordecades,pensions’estimateswerenotwildlydifferentfrommarketreturns; but this is not the glorious past, it is the diminished present, and thepotentialforasignificantmismatchbetweenassumedandlikelyreturnshasbeenevident since at least 2000. Given a prudent portfolio and the probableovervaluationof stocks in 2016, expecting7.6–8percent annual returns is toosanguine;indeed,theTreasurysaidthefailingCentralState’s7.5percentreturnassumptions were “unduly rosy.”25 Given the mix of cash (present return:depressed) and stocks, pension plans need their equity portfolios to producesomething over 8–12 percent annual gains which, as Warren Buffett oncepointed out, would imply something truly spectacular about the value of themarkets in the future. Compounding at 10 percent would have the S&P 500around240,000fiftyyearshence.*Youmayrecallthatin1999,justbeforethecrash, abookcalledDow36,000 predicted a golden age for stocks. Itwas, ofcourse, utterlywrong—but far lesswrong than thepensions’ implicit forecast:Dow2,000,000by2066.

Recently, some public pension funds have reduced their expectationssomewhat—by about 0.5 percent gross (i.e., to 7.5 percent or so)—whichconcedes the problem of lower returns without doing anything meaningful.26Nor do they want to, as doing so would trigger immediate lawsuits,receiverships,andaboveall, inconvenientreformthat theostensiblefiduciariesof these funds want to avoid. Nor is much political relief, in the form ofsanctionedbenefitcuts,likely.JustasCentralStatedoes,sootherpensionswill:They will pay Boomers until the money runs out. At that point, no return,howeverastronomical,willmakeadifferenceforyoungerpensionmembers.

GenerationalShifting:SocialSecurityandMedicareBecause so many seniors do not have sufficient private savings to sustainretirement,thetaskfallstothegovernment.ThetwochiefprogramsareSocialSecurity and Medicare, both operating under a permanent cloud ofmisperception and misinformation. Senior entitlements seem dull andcomplicated, but they are too important to ignore and, anyway, it can beunhelpfultofocusovermuchontheoperationaldetails.Ifanything,consideringtheprogramsinthefinancialaggregate—whichisthewaybusylegislatorsmustview them—is the bestway to understand these programs.You don’t have toknowmuchaboutthereimbursementformsforprescriptionstounderstandthattheprescriptiondrugbenefitisexceedinglyexpensiveoverall.

Again, there’s no legal entitlement to entitlements. Interestingly,“entitlement”wasformerlya termofabuse,acomparisontothepsychologicalentitlement conservatives saw in young Boomers. Today, outside of the farRight, “entitlement” has been leached of negative connotations and the publichasbecomeconfused,developingasenseofproprietorshipoverthesebenefits.As the Social Security Administration admits, “There has been a temptationthroughout the program’s history for some people to suppose that their FICApayroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense.”27 That iscollective (perhaps collectivist?) delusion, a fact the Supreme Court madeabundantlyclearwaybackin1960,inFlemingv.Nestor,whenitdeniedSocialSecuritybenefitstoadeportedcommunist.28Still,evenCongressgetsmuddled,sometimessayingthatpeopledohavearighttothesefunds,asitseemstohavein a 2014CRS report.29 The Social SecurityAct itselfmakes things perfectlyclear,though.ItpermitsCongressto“alter,amendorrepealanyprovisionofthisAct.”30 Entitlements can bemodified at any time, and have been—and this isimportant,becausetheywillneedtobeagain.

PayingItBackwardThe confusion over entitlement—i.e., between earned asset versuswelfare/intergenerationalgift—hadlimitedimportbeforethe1970s.Sincethen,thesize,failings,andconsequencesofOABprogramshavegrowndramatically.OABtaxes,meanwhile,havebecomeacrucialpartofthefederaltake;theyaretheonly taxes thatescapedpermanentcuts. Ithelps thatmanypayerschose tobelieve that OAB contributions are not really “taxes” so much as a sort ofdepositintoapersonalaccounttoberefundedwithinterest.Thegovernmenthasreconciled itself to thismisapprehension, as it usefully pacifies taxpayers intonot asking too many questions about where FICA taxes are going or who ispaying for what. The success of this policy of confusion can be seen in thestatistic showingmore than40percentofAmericans receivingSocialSecurityand/orMedicarebenefits in2008 (i.e., theBoomersandolder)didnotbelievethey had used a “government social program”; presumably they think theseOABs are somehow private property.31 Even the Right, whose collectiveantennae are normally sensitive to the workings of big government, seemconfused:ManyTeaPartiersbelieveentitlementsareakindofearnedright,oratleast that they are “deserving” of them.32Aswe’ll see, except for the richest,entitlementsarewelfare,bothfactuallyandlegally.

Asanaccountingmatter,entitlementsmustbewelfareforthesimplereasonthatmostolderAmericansextractmoremoneyfromthesystemthantheypaidin.Theoverage isnotanentitlement; it isahandout,paidformostlybyothergenerations.Per theUrban Institute,amedium-income two-earnercouplebornin1955takingretirement in2020couldexpect$1.15million inbenefitsoffsetby just $728,000 inpayroll taxes (in realdollar terms), apayoutof1.53:1.*,33Obviously,theextramoneyhastocomefromsomewhere,andit’seasyenoughto trace. Any excess return can only be interest or a gift; as it turns out, it’sinterestas a gift. The reason is that interest (the .53 of 1.53:1) is paid out ofgeneralrevenues,andgeneralrevenuesderivedisproportionatelyfromtaxesonthe rich: The top tier subsidizes the retirement of everyone else, especiallymedical care. Were it the case that people understood that dynamic and hadknowinglyvotedforit,thatwouldbeonething.Butclearly,thewholetheatreofthe doughty middle-class taxpayer making prudential deposits into Social

SecurityandMedicarerendersthatideaabsurd.Increasingly, subsidieswill flownot just from the rich to the less rich, but

fromtheyoungto theold.Wecansee this inshiftingpayoutsforpeoplebornafter theBoom. In theory, a sixty-five-year-old couple retiring in the 2030s—i.e., the first of the post-Boomer cohorts—will receive Social Security andMedicare (SSM)benefitsata ratioof1.62:1,basically thesamepayoutas themiddle Boomers. However, that’s onlywhile the Trust Funds have a positivebalance,whichofcourse,thevariousTrusteesadmittheywillnotbythe2030s.WhentheFundsrunout,SocialSecuritybenefitswillautomaticallyfall16–27percent; it’s also possible for Medicare to experience a version of this.34Automaticreductionswouldreducethepayout1.25:1orso.Foraverageworkersbornafter1975,theratiowillprobablybesignificantlyworsethanthat.Benefitswill be cut and payroll taxes increased, driving realistic payout ratios downtoward1:1orless.TheSSAviewsthesechangesasinevitableandmodelsthemfor years after the Trust Funds run out.While SSA still calculates a positivereturnforyoungerworkers,itsprojectionsarelow,enoughtoquestionwhetherreturnswillbetrulypositiveatallforpost-Boomers, ifpoliticiansdelayaction(astheyhaveforthirty-plusyears).35Eitherway,theneteffectwillprobablybeagreatersubsidyfromtheyoungtotheold.

Even before the Trust Funds expire, the OAB system effects transfersbetweengroups.High-earningsinglemaleswhoretire todayhavealreadypaidmoreintaxesthantheycanexpecttocollectinbenefits.Ifrich,oldmendon’tseem sympathetic, consider also that men generally, along with AfricanAmericansandtheplainunlucky,alsoimplicitlysubsidizeothermembersofthesystem.These groups tend to live long enough to pay into the systembut dierelativelysoonintothecollectionphase,notablysoonerthan,e.g.,whitewomen,so there is already redistribution. As life expectancies between men, women,blacks,andwhitesconverge,subsidieswillthenflowoverwhelminglytotheold,fromtherichandfromtheyoung.

We do not have towait until the Trust Funds fail before intergenerationaldynamics become important. In 2010, Social Security tipped into “cash flowdeficit,” as the first wave of Boomers began retiring en masse; the recessiondidn’thelp,either.Theshortfallsweremadeupbynonpayrolltaxes(intheformofinterestpayments),notmanyofwhicharepaidbySocialSecurityrecipientswho are, for obvious reasons, basically retired.* So far, the redemptions havebeensmall,butovertimetheywillbecomeexceedinglylarge.Ifitcontinuesinpresent form,SocialSecuritywill in the2030s look likeMedicaredoes today,

receiving heavy subsidies fromgeneral revenues (instead of from the notionalTrustFund).36 Income taxeswill thereforebe increasinglyspent,noton roads,schools,andscience(allunderfundedasitis),butsimplytokeepOABbenefitsflowingtoBoomers.

Welfare:GoodfortheGeezers,BadfortheGanderBeforewe take up potential fixes, it’s worth looking at conventional welfare,i.e., welfare for the nonelderly poor. Even as the Boomers were preservingwelfare forseniors, theywereerodingwelfare foreveryoneelse.ThisBoomerstratagem is especially rich, given that welfare was itself largely created bySocial Security, which is not just a program for the old. Social Security alsodeliverssubstantialassistancetothedisabledandtochildren,ifaworkingparentsuffers disability or death. These programs are less fraught than programs forseniorsandwecanleavethemtothespecialists.Onlyonefactneeddetainus.In1992, Bill Clinton campaigned to “end welfare as we know it.” Doing sorequiredguttingAidtoFamilieswithDependentChildren(AFDC),acreationoftheSocial Security laws. In 1996,Clinton succeeded in replacingAFDCwithsomething much less generous. (Therefore, when Boomers argue that SocialSecurity is “untouchable” and an inviolable social bond, they forget their ownrecord.)NeoliberalmagicpromisedClinton’sreformwould induce theslothfulmassestogetjobs—thoughofcoursemanyweregenuinelyunableforreasonsofdisability, lackofeducation,and,after2001and2008,poor jobmarkets.Twosenior Clinton officials resigned in protest. A major gutting of benefits,therefore,happenedunderthefirstBoomerpresident,aDemocrat.

The campaign against welfare had been long underway, especially afterRonald Reagan fixated on the case of Linda Taylor, a fur-wearing, Cadillac-drivingconvictedcriminalwhosebizarrelifecertainlyincludedmultiplewelfarefrauds and possibly stretched to murder, kidnapping, and bigamy.37 Taylorbecame in the popular imagination a “welfare queen,” a slothful sovereignsuckling at the welfare teat and eventually, a synecdoche for all (nonsenior)welfare recipients.Of course, Social Security has had its own share of seniorfraudandabuse:double-dippingschemes,deadspousescollectingchecks,etc.,buteverypresidentafterReaganhasexpressedanundyingaffectionforseniorbenefitsevenasRepublicansandDemocratshavecutwelfare toothergroups.Theaxwasswungattheyoungandthepoor,notBoomers.

SocialSecurityFixesThisisnotAmerica’sfirstentitlementscrisis.In1983,variousfactorscombinedto nearly exhaust the Social Security Trust Fund. Benefits were subsequentlyreined in through adjustments to inflation-indexing and by taxing benefits tohigherearners.In1983,whennoBoomerwasasenior,itwasfinetocutseniorbenefits.However,itwasclearin1983thatbenefitsadjustmentswouldhavetobeaccompaniedbychanges to the retirementage.Because thisdid impact theBoomers, adjustments to retirement age were carefully tailored to engage ingenerationalfavoritism.Forworkersbornbefore1938,theageoffulleligibilitywouldremainatsixty-five.Fairenough;theseworkerswerealreadygettingon.ForthecoreBoomers,itwouldrisebyjustoneyear—muchlessreasonable,astheyhaddecadestoadjust.ForonlytheveryyoungestBoomers,andallofeverysubsequent generation, retirement age would rise to sixty-seven. Meanwhile,payrolltaxeswentup,butonlyenoughtohelpBoomersandtheirparents(abuy-off,butsomethingofamoraloffset).

Whennewreformscome,theywillnotlooklikethoseof1983.Boomerswillresist any changes to their benefits. They can, and will, endorse changes toretirement age and FICA taxes—after all, these will fall almost entirely onyoungergroupsandwillbeofnoconsequence to theBoomers themselves.Sothegenerationalinequities,alreadysignificant,willdeepen.

As I wrote this chapter, the 2015 bookGetWhat’s Yours: The Secrets toMaxingOutYourSocialSecurityhadbeenasubstantialbest-seller. Imagine ifthetopicwerenotthesacredheiferoftheseniorset,buttipsformaxingoutfoodstampsortaxshelters.Allthreearewelfare,butanybest-sellertreatingthelattertwowouldhaveseniorsburningdownthenearestpublichousingprojectbeforetrundling downtown, on Medicare-funded scooters, to blow up GoldmanSachs.38Undauntedbyhypocrisyorfact,GetWhat’sYoursblithelyarguesthatSocialSecurity is for “nearly everyoneof youwho’s ever earned apaycheckand wants every Social Security benefit dollar to which you are entitled—entitledbecauseyoupaidfor it.You’veearnedit.”39Notatall,butshamehasbeenexcised fromtheBoomerdictionary,which iswhatallows theauthorsofGetWhat’s Yours to maintain that benefits “can even be yours if you nevercontributedapennytothesystembuthaveorhadaspouse,livingordead,who

did.”40 That’s true and not entirely unfair, but the book devolves, going from“you’ve earned it” to “get what you can.” The latter category even includes“playing Social Security’smarital status game.”41 It’s not clear if the book issomekindofmetajoke.Whateveritis,thebookdoesacknowledgethelong-termfundingcrisisandblithelyconsignstheseproblemstotheyoung.Thebackcovershrugsitsshoulders,saying,“HoweverSocialSecurity’slong-termfinancesareaddressed,youdeservetogetwhatyoupaidfor.”42The“andmore”isimplied;the“you,”obvious.

Ina societywhereGetWhat’sYours is ahit, it seemsdeeplyunlikely thatBoomerseniorswillacceptarepeatof1983’sreforms.TheTrustFundwilljustdeplete, after which benefits will be cut automatically, and for the Boomers,that’s fine. By 2034, the median Boomer will be eighty-two and, per theactuaries, dead. Therefore, cuts will fall purely on people born after 1952.However, by 2034, every single Boomer will already be collecting, and it’sdoubtfulthatCongresswillallowcutstothosealreadyontherolls.Sothelikelycourse is no meaningful change to Boomer benefits, larger cuts for everyoneyounger,with the additional insult that taxes for theworking youngwill rise,evenas theirwages remain flat. (At thatpoint,SocialSecuritywillbeCentralStates recapitulated at national scale.) Yet young people, despite having lowconfidence that they will receive OABs, overwhelmingly support theseprograms, in empathetic counterpoint to their elders, who view benefits withunjustifiedproprietorshipandself-interest.

TheGenerationalBurden

What’sgoingonhere?Thischartcomparesthenumberofworkerspayingintotheentitlementssystemasamultipleofthosepeopletakingmoneyoutofit.Figuresafter2015arebasedontheSSA’s“intermediate”estimates.AstheBoomersageandlowerfertilityandotherfactorsreducegrowthinthepoolofyoungerworkers, theburden theoldplaceon theyoungwill grow—andyoucanalready see the inflectionpointaround 2008–2010, as the Great Recession began and as waves of Boomers started collecting SocialSecurity. Unless the economy and youth incomes grow rapidly, transfers to old peoplewill represent a

muchlargerfractionoftaxespaidbythepost-BoomersthantheyeverdidfortheBoomers.43

Leaving aside the political challenge, fixing Social Security requires onlymodestfiscaladjustments.Let’sdispense,however,with theneoliberalfantasyof privatization. It’s conceptually attractive, but the citizenry shows noinclination to save enough on its own and—knowing the government will bethere in the end—workerswill feel free to take undue riskswith their privatesavings. Privatization works only if we are willing to let seniors suffer theconsequences of their improvidence; we don’t seem to be. Instead, there ismerely a theatre of reform. Themost newsworthy reform in recent yearswasforbiddingbenefitstoex-Nazisin2014;wellandgood,butoflimitedbudgetaryeffect.44

Whatwouldworknow iswhatworked in1983:acombinationofcutsandtaxes.Reducingthegenerosityofinflationindexingwouldsolveatleasthalftheproblem.Tackingonanadditional~3–4percentgrosstothe15.3percentpayrolltaxwould,by itself, solve thewholeproblem—ifdone today. (Raising the taxcapwouldalsohelp.)Anextra3–4percent isnot,as someon theLeft like topresent it, all that small—as the Right reminds us, it’s a 20+ percent relativeincreaseinpayrolltaxes.Butit’sfarfromcatastrophic.Thelongerwewait,thehigherthefiguresbecome,notleastbecausethefuturetaxpayerbasewillshrink.Theratioofworkerstoretireeshasalreadyshrunkfrom3.4:1in2000to2.8:1in2014;by2030,itwillbe2.2:1.*,45

MedicareMaybesIfSocialSecurityhasrelativelyeasyfixes,Medicaredoesnot.Medicareistodaywhere Social Security will be in the 2030s; Medicare’s Trust Funds areexceedinglysmall,leavingtheprogramdependentongeneralrevenues.MostofMedicare’sproblemsarethesameasSocialSecurity’s,withtwoadditions.Thefirst is that the cost of medical care has generally outstripped the pace ofinflation,andsoconsumesanever largerfractionof theeconomy.Thesecondsetisthatoldpeople,likeoldcars,getmoreexpensivetomaintainevenastheirproductivelivesdiminish,andseniorsremaincommittedtoconsumingasmuchhealthcareastheywant.

After the early 1970s, therewere few comprehensive changes toMedicarecoverage.However, in 2003, the firstRight-leaninggovernment since1955 toconcurrentlycontrol thePresidency, theHouse,andtheSenatesuddenlyaddedprescriptiondrugcoveragetoMedicare,justintimefortheBoomerstobenefit.Medicare PartDwas the largest newprogram sinceMedicare’s establishmentand came from a deeply unlikely source. This alone should raise suspicionsabout what was buying off whom. Seniors, a group now including the olderBoomers,startedcollectingdrugbenefitswithouthavingpaidinforit,soalmosttheentirecostofMedicarePartDwillbebornebyyoungergenerations.Westillneedmoretimetoassesstheprogram—thelongcrisispost-2008skewsthedata—but costswere originally estimated at “$407billion for fiscal years 2004 to2013”(itendedupbeing$474.6billion),estimatedtorisetoover$100billionannuallyby2017,or roughlydoubling theprevious run rate,and thenanotherrough doubling from there by 2024.46 The fact that the government, themostpowerfulbuyerofmedicationsintheworld,wasforbiddenunderthelegislationfromnegotiatingdiscountswithdrugmakersdoesn’thelp.Already,we’veseenpricespikesasnewdrugsareintroduced;thestickerpriceforGilead’shepatitisCtherapyis$94,500.47

Hep-C provides an interesting case study. In 2014, 75 percent of thoseinfectedintheUnitedStateswerebornbetween1945and1965(i.e.,Boomers).NewYork’sactinghealthcommissionerurged theBoomers specifically togettested,entirelyunderstandableinlightofthepungentglossofferedbyNewYorkPresbyterian’sheadof liver transplants: “The typicalpatient is ababyboomer

bornbetween1945and1965whomayhaveexperimentedwithdrugswhentheywereincollegeyearsago.”48

So,expensivetreatment,andmostlyfor theBoomers.Gileaddoesoffer thegovernmentadiscount;notalldrugmakersdoorhaveto.Discountornot,hep-Ctreatment is so expensive and pervasive that theMedicare Trustees attributedbudgetoverrunsin2014tothetherapy,onewhoseprimarybeneficiariesappearto be Boomers who partied too hard in their youths.49 Medicare covers anynumberofexpensivemedicationsconsumedbyBoomers,and,inthecaseoftax-advantaged plans, can even end up subsidizing Viagra. There is somethingdecidedlyoff-puttingaboutindebtingGenXerstopayfortheirfathers’erections.

Whetherornotpublicmedicalcostsaredrivenbyprivateimprovidence,anyattempttointerposereasongetsugly.Boomersofallpartiesmeltdownoverthesame basic issue—rationing—whether costumed as “death panels,” inequity,whatever.Ofcourse, inafiniteworldall resourcesarerationed.Perhapsif theBoomers had subsidizedmedical education, therewould bemore and cheapergerontologists; if theyhadgenerouslyfunded theNational InstitutesofHealth,better medicines; if their neoliberal doctrine had permitted negotiations withdrugcompanies,cheapertherapies.Buttheydidnot.Anyway,Medicareitselfisrationing,onethatdiscriminatesbasedonage—oversixty-five,thegovernmentwillhelp,undersixty-fiveandnondisabled,yourrationisusuallyzero.50

Whatkindofmedicalcareshould thepublicprovide toseniorsandothers?Already,5percentofhealth-careusersconsumealmost50percentofhealth-careresources, and a plurality of these are poor or elderly—i.e., beneficiaries ofpublicprograms.51Thepublicisentitledtoaskwhether(a)itwantstospendthismoney,or(b) themoneycanbebetterspent improvingthewelfareofavastlybroader and more productive population. But a tedious combination ofsentimentalism, anti-empiricism, and self-interest prevents this dialogue. Thestandard diatribe is that government is killingGrandma.Actually,God and/ornaturearekillingGrandma,asare someofher lifechoices.So let’s startwiththat.*

Other major nations more explicitly ration care, as in Britain. AmericacertainlydoesnotwanttoreproducetheNationalHealthServicewholesale,justadopt someof itsbetter cost-managementpractices.Thanks toNHS rationing,Britain’s medical costs are notably lower than America’s. It also helps thatBritons, Germans, Australians, etc. are in better shape than their Americancounterparts (as were prior generations of Americans).52 And we are, in anyevent, on thevergeof expanding the rationing that alreadyexists.Clinton-and

Obama-erapoliciesdepressedphysicianreimbursements,predictablyleadingtoan ever-growing body of doctors who refuse to takeMedicare. Having fewerMedicaredoctorsautomaticallyrationscarebymakingitlessavailable.

Therearemanyworthwhileproposalsforreform,butthesizeoftheproblemdefies incrementalsolutions. Itwouldbeconvenient ifcurbingMedicare fraudand abuse were enough and, given the sociopathic nature of the cohorts nowenteringMedicare’sembrace,itwillbecomeamoreurgenttask.Thismightsave10percentof thebudget,atmost.Thelargerquestionsareaboutwaste(whichincludes a serious conversation about rationing) and funding (which entailshigherpayroll taxes).Thereare,ofcourse,someprinciples toaddress,suchaswhetherwehaveagenuinecommitmenttopublichealth.Wemaydiscoverwedon’t. Once upon a time, even the American Medical Association opposedpublicmedicalcare.53

Just how expensive will Medicare become? The average beneficiary’smedical costs were $12,432 in 2015 against median income for seniors of$22,887 for individuals and$38,515 for headsof households.54Given incomeand effective tax rates, for the average recipient all ofMedicare is a gift on acurrentbasis;everythingelse,roads,army,EPA,etc.,arelagniappes.By2024,$12,432 will bloat to at least $18,822.55 As for the total cost, no one reallyknows, and thegovernment itself isnotwhollyhonest about these issues.Theunfunded liabilities of the hospital insurance portion ofMedicare alone are atleast$3trillion.56Ifthatamountweredepositedtoday—asumnotfarfromtheentire federal tax take in 2014 and one that the Medicare Trustees ratherdemurely term “sizable”—the program might be in long-term “financialbalance.”57

Nevertheless, existing estimates of a multi-trillion shortfall across allMedicareprogramsdepend inpartonanunlikelydeceleration incosts;highertaxes, lowerbenefits,orcoverageshortfalls seeminevitable.Both theTrusteesand the actuaries assigned to review their reports harbor skepticism that theslowdownincostgrowthfrom2010to2014canbesustainedorthatphysicianreimbursements will be sufficient to attract doctors to provide services. Overtime, the gap between what Medicare pays physicians and what privateinsurance pays may widen from 30 percent to 60+ percent, at which time amajority ofMedicare providerswould incur huge losses onMedicare patientsandwill,presumably,stoptakingthem.58Rationingexists,anditwillgrow.

Here’s where some trickery creeps in. While it is “conceivable” that themedical industry can improve enough to keep costs at Medicare’s baseline

assumptions, doing so would be “unprecedented” and “very challenging anduncertain” (Medicare’s own words).59 In other words, it won’t happen. TheMedicareoverlordsassumed in their2014baselinescenario thatCongresswillhave tooverridecurrent cost controls.Analternativeprojectioncommissionedby the Trustees agrees that projections under current law are “clearlyunrealistic.”60Underalternativeassumptions,ifMedicareprovidersdonobetterthanprovidersoverall,costswillgrow30–50percenthigheroverthelongterm.Themorerealisticalternativescenariostartsshowingmajordivergencearound—andthisshouldcomeasnosurprise—2030andgettingworseafterthat.TheTrusteesdon’tbelieveCongress,theindependentpaneldoesn’tentirelybelievethe Trustees, the comptroller general doesn’t believe anyone and throws itshands up in despair, with the only consensus being that the whole system isprojectedtostartfallingapartrightastheBabyBoomerspassfromthescene.

Think tanks regularly produce any number of dire statistics—the dramaticreduction in thenumberofyoungworkerssupportingretirees,OABs’shareoftheeconomy(doublingormoreovertime),thefactthatuncorrectedentitlementswill eventually consume the bulk of the federal budget. Just as these figurescontain a kernel of truth, they also contain a certain disingenuousness. Yes,MedicarewillprobablyconsumealmostatenthofGDPinfiftyyears,butGDPwill hopefully be larger and the number of old people larger, too—that’s thenaturalprogressionofthings.Nolossesinqualityoflifeareimpliedifeconomicgrowthisrapidenough.

Evenifgrowthcontinuestobeslow,theUnitedStatescanaffordtosubsidizebasic OAB benefits indefinitely if it chooses, though at major cost to otherpriorities. The question is whether doing so is fair. Voters have not beenpresentedwithclearandhonestdataaboutthecosts,andthebeneficiariesofthisobfuscationarethosewhowillbecollectinguntilthecrisiscannolongerbekepthidden.ThosepeoplearetheBoomersandtheirparents.OABsarenotenshrinedin the Constitution; they can be changed, but we have not had the dialogueappropriatetoprogramsonwhichahugeportionofthepopulationdependsandthatconsumesanever-growingfractionofthebudget.Thisisnot1935oreven1965. The Boomers had every possible advantage, while contributingconsiderably less than theycouldhave toaretirement theyviewas their right.WhetherwecontinuetoprovideBoomerswithbenefitsdependsonwhetherwebelievetheydeservethem,andthisisafarmoreurgentdiscussionthantheusualparadeofdistractionsofferedduringelectionseasons.

TheCenter forRetirementResearchatBostonCollegeestimates thatabout

half of working Americans risk material reductions in quality of life duringretirement, a figure rising “substantially” from 1992’s modest numbers totoday’s alarming ones, for Americans fifty-one to sixty-one (i.e., for theBoomers).61 The Center’s estimates do not fully account for any of thecatastrophes lurking in the pension system, stock and housingmarkets, or theother crises that have accumulated during Boomer tenure, and the“conventional” (i.e., sunny) scenarios the Center presents can depend, ratherdarkly, on seniors taking out reversemortgages to subsidize their retirements.And still, despite the forced smile, the Center still shows huge swaths ofAmerica in the hole. The problem has not been economic growth, becausethoughtheeconomyhasfailedtoliveuptoitspotential, ithasgrown,andthevalueofhousingandstockshasrisenevenfaster.TheBoomershadmorethanenoughtailwindandtimetoprepareforretirement.Theychosenotto,andtheyhavenotbeenhonestwiththemselvesorwiththepopulationtheygovern.WhileBoomersretainpower,theywilldotheirutmosttoensurethattheconsequencesof their improvidencearebornebyanyoneother than those really responsible.AndsotheBoomerswillleaveuswithatitanicentitlementscrisis.ItisnottheonlyexistentialcrisistounfoldundertheBoomers.

CHAPTERTHIRTEEN

PREPARINGFORTHEFUTURE

Decisionsaremadeonthespurofthemoment,withoutforethoughtandwithoutconsideration

fortheconsequencestoselforothers.

Afailuretoplanahead.…—DSM-V1

For350years,fromthetimecolonistsarrivedontheEastCoastuntilthemid-1970s,Americaprepared for a grand future.HowwouldNewYorkbetter theoriginalYork,NewEnglandexceedanagingAlbion,theNewWorldsurpasstheetiolated Old? Aboard the Puritan shipArabella, JohnWinthrop exhorted hisflocktobuildashining“cityuponahill,”areferencetotheGospelsofLukeandJohn(andmuchquotedbypoliticians).ThisNewJerusalem,Winthroppreached,wouldrequireofhisshipmatessacrifice,saving,andmutualassistance(detailspoliticiansnowomit).2Iffreedomrequiredrevolution,prosperitydemandedlandgrant colleges, and liberty necessitated civilwar, thesewould be done.At theAmericanbeginning,allprojectswerelong-termprojects.Ifsomepresentprofitcameofit,wellandgood.Buttherealrewardsalwayslayahead,salvationinthenextlifeandprosperityforfuturegenerations.

America largely fulfilledWinthrop’swish, at least until Boomers installedthemselvesastheHerodsoftheNewJerusalem.Thecityonthehillhas,undertheBoomers,pickeduphintsofthefavela;theenddateforsalvationsetnotateternity, but the 2030s.Any investment that cannot be fully recoupedby thenmustbeforgone.Unfortunately, thenationfacesanumberofchallenges,somepotentiallyexistential,notamenabletotheantisocialmentalityanditstimeline.But posterity is not in charge, the Boomers are, and inaction prevails on thelong-term projects of environment, technological progress, and education.America has slipped from visionary leadership to indifference and occasionalobstructionism,withcoststobe,inevitably,passedalong.

It’sNotEasyBeingGreenIt’salmost impossibleforanyoneunder thirty-five to imaginea timewhentheUnitedStateswas an international leaderon environmentalmatters,much lessthat it achieved this status under Republican administrations, even wheneconomic and political costswere significant.Nevertheless, thatwas the case,once upon a time. In the past, environmentalism was sometimes forwardthinking, and at other times, a response to imminent catastrophe. Overall,motivationsweregenerallygoodandsoweretheresults.

It was only during Boomer hegemony that American policy becamerecklessly indifferent to threats that are simultaneously more dangerous and,paradoxically, that we have vastly greater resources to confront. Those whoargue that climate change, themajor existential threat of our time, cannot betackledbyanationalsystempronetopartisanship,indifference,andinabilitytowranglemultilateralsolutionsignorealongandsuccessfulhistoryofAmericanenvironmentalleadershipinequallydifficultcircumstances.

Environmentalism became a national concern during the IndustrialRevolution, when aesthetic and other considerations drove Americans topreserve some of the natural grandeur on which civilization was rapidlyencroaching.By1872,theGrantadministrationhaddesignatedYellowstonethenation’sfirstnationalpark.IttookCanadathirteenyearstofollow,andEuropeaboutthirtymore;thesituationshavereversed,andtheAmericangovernmentisnowusuallyintherearguard.

Neoliberal fantasy notwithstanding, environmental protection has alwaysbeen and always will be a mostly government project. Private citizens makenecessarycontributions,butenvironmentisapublicgoodthatonlystatepowercaneffectivelypreserve,andthestatewasformerlyvigorousaboutthis.Grant’sfellow Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, expanded the National Forest system,eventuallyprotectingsome230millionacresintotal(themodernUnitedStatescoversabout2.3billionacres).3DemocratWoodrowWilsonsigned legislationformalizing the National Park system. These were positive, inventive, andinternational examples and even in a vast and thinly populated country, theyrepresentedasacrificeforanationobsessedwithindustrializationandexpandingfrontiers.

Asenvironmentalproblemschanged—parkswerenotgoingtobeenough—the modern environmental movement took shape. In 1948, Donora,Pennsylvania,wasafflictedbya toxic smog,andcitizensdemandedaction. Inthe 1950s, Congress passed the PollutionControlAct to begin study of theseproblems, with regulation delegated to the states. Devolution didn’t work(thoughneoliberalsandtheirallied“federalists”remaincommittedtothatfailedexperiment) and in 1963,Washington largely federalized the issue by passingtheCleanAirAct(CAA),whichwassubstantiallyexpandedandsupplementedin 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990.4 A companion bill to the 1970 amendmentcreated the Environmental Protection Agency—its original patron was noneother than Richard Nixon, and its first and arguably most successfuladministrator, the establishment Republican William Ruckelshaus (b. 1932).Before1991,environmentalbillsweregenerallypassedwithbipartisansupportandweresignedintolawbypresidentsasideologicallydiverseasEisenhower,Johnson,Nixon,Carter,andBushI.Businessespredictablyfoamedatthemouthbeforefallingintoline,sometimesevenlobbyingforfederallegislation,ifonlytoavoidawelterofcompetingstate laws that led toconflictingregulationandcompliancenightmares.

However, as Boomer power grew, bipartisan environmental consensus hasbecomeoneofthefewendangeredspeciesthatcouldnotbebroughtbackfromthebrink.As theBoomersbecameWashington’smost lethal invasive species,environmentalism waned. The CAA has not been meaningfully amended intwenty-seven years.5 That has made it ever more important to expand theeffective remit of existing agencies to cover new threats. A unanimous pre-BoomerSupremeCourthaddonejustthat,requiringbroaddeferencetotheEPAandotheragenciesintheirenforcementandinterpretationofexistinglaws—so-calledChevrondeference,aftertherelevantcaseChevronUSAv.NRDC;Auerv. Robbins is another famous and related case for the legally inclined.6Deference was not, of course, congruent with Boomer anti-elitism, anti-empiricism,orantisocialpersonalitydisorder,andBoomerlitigantsandJusticeshave been trying to undermine Chevron and Auer, removing environmentalissuesfromtherealmofbureaucraticexpertisetothatofpoliticalexpedience.*,7

Whataccountedforearlierachievements?Certainly,theabsenceofBoomerpowerhelped,but formersuccessdidnotcomesimplybecause itwaseasy. Inthe early years of the environmental movement, the United States was moredependentonheavyindustrythanitisnow.AndtheUnitedStatesof1960wasneitherasrichnor technologicallyadvancedas it is today,makingthecostsof

environmental regulation proportionately higher. It is true that conventionalpollution then was more tangible to voters than invisible and incrementalwarmingisnow.TheCuyahogaRiverinOhiorepeatedlyburstintoflamesduetoindustrialpollution,forexample,whichprovedhardtoignore.Nevertheless,theCAA regulatedbothvisible and invisiblepollution, at considerable cost toliving taxpayers (having been passed before the era of unrestrainedintergenerational reshuffling via debt). The older generations paid up andcleanedup, evenwhen legislationmight neverhavedirect or obviousbenefitsfor those footing the bill. For example, the Endangered Species Act of 1973(ESA) protected wildlife most Americans had never seen and—even whenspeciesarereturnedtohealthierlevels(aswiththeCaliforniacondor)—remainunlikelytosee.

All that changed in the 1970s, as Boomers began arriving on theenvironmental scene, led by Al Gore, Jr.—not in Gore’s later role as enviro-evangelist,butinhisoriginalformaspork-barrelingscenerywrecker.ThestagewastheTellicoDamandthedramatispices,thesnaildarter,afishprotectedbythenewESA.Thedamwouldbegoodpolitics,butitrequiredspecialexemptionfrom the ESA. Maneuvering around a displeased, pre-Boomer Court,Congressman Gore stepped in and saved the dam (plus another questionabledam, and a breeder reactor).*,8 Should one have expected different from aBoomer whose father engaged in a complicated three-way transaction thatultimately left land (acquired from a church) in the hands of Gore Jr., withextractionroyaltiespaidtoGoreJr.atasuspiciouslyfavorablepricebyoilmanArmandHammer(whohadprovidedslushmoneytoNixonandcampaignfundstoGore)?9OrthatBoomerGorederivedincomefromtransactionswhoseoriginswerelinkedtoHammer’scarbon-spewingcoalandgasempireandalsoreceivedroyalties from some environmentally questionable zinc mining?10 Gore Jr.’slegacy embodies the environmental policy of the Boomers—expedience andhypocrisy—evenashenowcrusades(viainefficientprivatejettoandfromhismassive,energy-suckingmansion,greenedupafter2007withsomesolarpanelsandefficient lightbulbs)againstclimatechange,whichGorehelpfully remindsusisthegreatchallengeofourtime.11

Gore is correct that global warming is a serious challenge. It is also aproblem compounded by Boomers like Gore. America’s failure to confrontwarming is a product of unrestrained consumerism, the anti-empirical andhysterical rhetoric of the Boomer Right, and the unreconstructed,antitechnological Boomer Left, and endlessly confounded by a bipartisan

machinethatresistssacrifice—namely,Boomersociopathy.Whethertheyoung,especially those in developing countries, live somewhat better or dramaticallyworselivesdependsinsubstantialpartonwhetherAmericaevertakestheleadonglobalwarming.

First, a word on the science, for it is controversial, and much of thecontroversyderivesfromtheBoomers’curioushabitsofmind.Let’squicklylayto rest thebasics—humans can anddo contribute todangerouswarming.Yes,theworld’s climate has always fluctuated and indeed, some scientists (thoughnot the majority, as some on the Right have implied) actually worried aboutglobalcoolinginthemid-1970s.Nevertheless,ithadbeenunderstoodsincethenineteenth century, thanks to Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, and SvanteArrhenius, that humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels could eventually warm theenvironment. (They even showed that without existing greenhouse gases, theSunwouldn’t provide enough energy to keep theEarth above freezing.)Whattheycouldnotagreeonweretheconsequencesoffurtheremissions.Arrheniusthought more warmth might be good (as Elizabeth Kolbert pointed out,ArrheniuslivedinSweden,whichmightaccountforhisenthusiasmforwarmth).Others harbored reservations; Alexander Graham Bell worried about an“unchecked greenhouse effect” as early as 1917. Still, even as the Westindustrialized, humanity’s effects remained modest—per capita energyconsumptionwaslowandworldpopulationaboutaquarterofwhatitistoday.The rigorous science also lay ahead. Environmentalists cite Arrhenius’sremarkably accurate predictions of temperature change, but therewas nothinglikeascientificconsensusinthenineteenthcentury,andthealternativestofossilfuels remained highly limited. Less coal-fired industrialization in 1900meantmasspoverty, disease, anda shocking levelofbackwardness,weighedagainstthe (then) modest and speculative consequences of warming. The basicprinciples, however, remained, and all that was required was continuedemissionsbeforeclimatebecamearealandquantifiableissue.

Bythe1970s,threeswitchesflipped.First,totalenergyusegreatlyincreased,per capita and in total (two billion people having been added to the worldpopulation).Second,viablealternativestofossilfuelshademerged.Finally,theproblemitselfhadbecomeclear.Thefirst internationalbodytostudywarmingwas not the famous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),established in1988.Thefirstwas the1979WorldClimateProgram,convenedpartly at the behest of the Carter administration; Congress had also begunlooking into the issue around the same time.12 It took seven years from the

establishmentofthecleanairresearchpanelin1955untilthepassageofthefirstmajorairqualitylegislation,soonemighthavehopedforclimateactionby,say1986—a datewhich unfortunately coincidedwith a surge in Boomer politicalpower.NothingassignificantasCAAwasundertakenin1986,thoughCAAwasoccasionally revised until the Boomers completely controlled government.Inactionprevailedevenasthescientificconsensusbecamenearlyuniversalandincreasingly dire: Humans do affect climate, with consequences includingwarming,famine,flooding,risingandacidifyingoceans,andsoon.13Inessence,theconsequencesareserious,andwewillshortlyapproachthepointofnoreturnifrealeffortsaren’tmade.Unfortunately,thepointofnoreturnistowardtheendofBoomer lifetimesand theconsequenceswillstartarriving—youcanalreadyguess thedates—between the2030s and the2050s.*,14Millennialswill not beeagertoretiretoFlorida.15

OfthemanyimpedimentstoclimatereformintheUnitedStates, twostandout.First,manyBoomersdonotbelievethatglobalwarmingexistsor,evenifitdoes, that it poses a real problem, another example of the generation’s anti-empiricalbiasexploredinChapter5. In2014–2015, less thanhalfofBoomersbelieved that humans were causing the planet to warm—48 percent amongyounger Boomers, 31 percent among older Boomers and the shrinking set oftheirelders.16Bycontrast,60percentofthoseeighteentotwenty-ninebelievedin anthropogenic climate change, amajor difference, though still depressinglyshortofthe82–97+percentofscientistswhoholdthatview.17Consistentwiththeir (self-serving) climate beliefs, Boomers and their elders have morefavorableviewsabout fossil fuels thanyoungerAmericans.18The influenceofthe Boomer+ cohort means that overall, the United States is roughly split onclimate change, and given the bias toward the status quo, little action can beexpectedinthenearterm.19

Thisleadstothesecondproblem:Toavoidproblemsinthefuture,expenseswill have to be borne today. Only 21 percent of people over fifty (largelyBoomers)are“veryconcerned”thatclimatechangewillaffectthem,andinthis,theyarelargelycorrect.20Bycontrast,thereisa100percentchancethatreformstodaywillhavecoststhataffectBoomers.Forsociopaths,thetimingmismatchmakesclimate reformanonstarter.Boomerviewsabout thescienceofclimatechangemaybedivorcedfromreality,buttheirotherviewsarenarrowlyrationalandconsistent.Theyarejustnotempatheticorforwardthinking.

Unsurprisingly, there has been no major progress on climate change. US

emissions rose throughout the Boomer years until the recession of 2008, andafteramodestdecline,theyhavebegunrisingagain.Whileemissionsarestill,asof thiswriting, lower than theywere in2008, they are also still unsustainablyhigh. That the only absolute reduction ofUS emissions came as a result of amajorrecessionhardlyconstitutesprogress.21

Bad as the emissions statistics are, they somewhat understate Americanclimateimpact.WhileemissionsgrowthfromUStailpipesandsmokestackshasdecelerated (thoughnotnearlyenough), theUnitedStatesemits inotherways,chieflyby importinggoods fromnations thatemitquiteabit toproduce thoseconsumer necessities. Emissions by America’s Asian suppliers have grownrapidly, with the net result that America imports cars and smartphones andeffectively exports pollution. Adding the “embodied carbon” of imports addsmeaningfully to American emissions, on the order of at least 9 percent andpossibly substantially higher—it may seem modest, but against plans to cutemissions26to38percent,itisarelativelylargetarget.22

ItalsodoesnothelpthattheUnitedStateshasagainbecomesomethingofapetrostate.Decadesago,theUSwasthelargestproducerofoilintheworld,thenthe Saudis temporarily took that title, and now, thanks to fracking and otherdevelopments,theUSisagainthelargestproducerofoilandequivalents(e.g.,naturalgas,coal-derivedsynthetics).23Includingnonconventionalproduction,asof2014,America’sdailyextractionpaceexceededSaudiArabiaby20.6percent,andthenationproducedmorethanIran,Iraq,Kuwait,theUnitedArabEmirates,andOmancombined.24TheUShaslongsenthugeamountsofcoalabroad,andthanks to recent laws—signed by none other than President Obama—oilproducerscanexportotherfossilfuels; thefirst tankerssailedin2015.*,25Oneshould be careful not to double-count embedded carbon and exported fossilfuels, but the precise accounting is less important than the general dynamic,whichisthattheUnitedStatesisbothaprofligateconsumerandproducer,andthathasbeenachoice.

Thesinsoftheoilindustryareeasyenoughtoappreciate,buttheyhavebeenabetted by the mistakes of the environmentalist movement, led by the oldestBoomers and their immediate seniors. In the 1960s and 1970s, parts of themovement cried wolf about the world’s ability to feed itself, the dangers ofnuclear power, and resource scarcity generally. None of these arguments hadmuch scientific credibility, and essentially all of them have proved wrong.(Whole Earth Catalog founder Stewart Brand, once a prominent antinuclearactivist, has now reversed his stand; too little, too late.) The enviro–Chicken

Littleismofthe1960shasbeendredgedupbywarmingdeniersasevidencethatscientists and environmentalists cannot be trusted. That is, of course, untrue.Real scientists can be trusted; Boomer ideologues of the 1970s and 2010scannot.Suchisthepriceoframpantanti-empiricism.

The Boomer machine has not even bothered to extend fairly painlessprogramspreviouslyenacted.During the1970soil crises,Washingtonquicklyimposed car efficiency legislation. The CAFE standards became effective in1978,requiring18mpgforpassengercars;by1983,justasBoomerstookoverthe electorate, CAFE demanded improvements of 44.4 percent, to 26 mpg,peaking at 27.5mpg in 1985.26 Though CAFE had its origins in self-servingimmediacy,itcontinueddemandingimprovementsevenasgaspricesfell.CAFEworked, and it could have continued. But between 1986 and 2010, the primeyears of Boomer hegemony, which included Al Gore’s notionallyenvironmentalisttenureasVP,CAFEstandardsdidnotimproveon1985.Onlyin 2011 did standards rise, by a paltry 9.8 percent, to 30.2mpg (i.e., nothingcompared to the giant gains ofCAFE’s early years,making theReagan yearsseemaveritableecotopiainthisregard).27FuturegoalssetinObama’ssecondterm aremore ambitious, and it certainly helped that young people caremorewhileolderpeopleapproachingretirementcareless,butnewCAFEstandardsdonothing thatwould compensate for a quarter century of lost opportunity—hadCAFEkeptup,Americawouldbedemanding64–120mpgtoday,considerablybetterthana2016Priusgets.28

It also does not help that consumers blithely purchase “Zero EmissionVehicles,” which any thinking person should quickly realize means nothingmore than “zero emission at tailpipe,” since the energy has to come fromsomewhere. Although power plants, especially gas and nuclear facilities, aregreener thangasolineengines, there isno such thingasa trulyzeroemissionsvehicle—they just outsource pollution to a plant, just as the United StatesoutsourcesfactoryemissionstoChina.

So theBoomers leave us a challenge. To avoid a temperature rise of 2°C,abovewhichscientistsvoiceconcernsabout severeconsequences,humanscanemitatmost~1,000gigatonsofCO2equivalent; this is the“carbonbudget.”29

Budgets,aswesawinthechaptersondeficitandretirement,arenotaBoomerforte.Morethanhalfthecarbonbudgethasbeenspent,andwithoutchange,therestwillbeexhaustedoverthenextthreedecades(i.e.,roughlycoincidentwithBoomerdisappearance).Whathappensthenisupfordebate;itwillrangefromsomewhatbadtooutrightterrible.Thedefensecommunityalreadyranksclimate

changeandtheconflictsitwillprovokeasan“urgentandgrowingthreattoournationalsecurity,”a“presentsecuritythreat,notstrictlyalong-termrisk,”tobemanaged by the Boomer-depleted military.30 It is not only chaos abroad thatconcerns;Americannavalbasesarealreadyatsignificantriskofflooding.

Pessimistsarguewecanachievenothingwithoutthehelpofthedevelopingeconomies and Boomer politicians have used this as an excuse for inaction.ChinasurpassedtheUnitedStatesasthelargestgreenhousegasemitteraround2007.31 India and the rest of the developed world are also heavy polluters.China’snumberonerankisbasedontotalemissionsfromits1.3billionpeople;Chinaemitsfairlylittlepercapita.ThedevelopingworldhasalongwaytogotomatchAmerican per capita emissions, and that is part of the problem. Risingemissions in the developing world have long been a challenge, but had theUnited States acted vigorously, emissions might not have been as bad. TheUnited States had the power, after all—it was buying so many of the goodsproducedbyChina’ssmokyindustries.Americahasexercisedtradeleverstogetwhat it wants in other areas; could Boomers not have done the same withemissions?

For decades, the United States has made no serious efforts to wrangle acompromise. In 1998, the Clinton administration signed the Kyoto Protocol,which bound parties to curb emissions, but it was an empty, costless gesture(likeGore’senvironmentalism)becausetheSenate,whichhastreatyratificationpowers, had voted 95–0 against Kyoto the year before.32 The ostensiblejustification:potentialharmtotheUSeconomy,potentialbenefitstodevelopingnations. Europe, which did sign, did not plunge into a recession because ofKyoto, so the harm argument was, while not implausible, still shaky; it alsowasn’t as if the Clinton administration could not have wrangled somemultilateral compromise by early 1998. After that, of course, Clinton’sinfidelitiesmadehimalameduck.

As it happens, the defense community,which has been busilywringing itshandsoverthesecurityimplicationsofclimatechangefromthemid-2000s,hasrecently been overseen byBoomerChuckHagel,who in his prior Senate lifecosponsored the bill scotching Kyoto. Hagel became a keen if ineffectiveadvocateformoredefensespending,partofwhichwilldoubtlessgotodealingwith problems deriving from Hagel’s own actions in 1997.33 And what timeframedonationalsecurityexpertsusetoassessclimatechange?Why,nowuntil2030—the end of Boomer history. Until 2030, impacts are estimated to bemodest;after,whoknowsandwhocares?34

WhileChina,India,andotherspresentproblems,theUnitedStateshasbeenabletoforcemultilateralsolutionswhenitcaresto,eveninperiodsofBoomerinfluence(thoughnotinperiodswhereBoomerswereincompletecontrol).Thatwasthecasewithozone-depletingchemicals,restrictedbytheMontrealProtocolin 1989, the acid-rain regulations in the 1980s (negotiated under Republicanadministrations),andinsomeways,eventheCAFEstandards,whichappliedtodomestic and imported cars. Each required corralling various nations, interestgroups, and businesses; each happened reasonably quickly after the problemswere identified as serious; eachhasbeen a substantial success.What accountsfor the difference? Smog, scenic despoliation, and skin cancer—theconsequencesofinactiononacidrain,ozone,etc.—wouldbeborneimmediatelybytheBoomers.Andsignificantly,until1992,non-BoomersstillhadtheWhiteHouseandsomeinfluenceinCongress.BushI,anexemplarofself-sacrificingdecency(aconceptnowasdeadasthedodo),corralledtheSenateintoratifyinghissignatureoftheRioaccord,apredecessortoKyoto—itwasnotmuchofanagreement, but the best the United States managed for a quarter centuryafterward.35CouldnotthevastlypopularClintonhavedonethesame,atatimewhentheeconomywasdoingbetterandthethreatmoreobvious?Couldhenothave drummed up a single vote? By 1998, of course, the old guard had longsincebeensweptaway,andBoomersdidnothing.

PathsForwardAlthough the time to avoid some kind ofman-made climate change—and thepotentially enormous financial and human consequences of it—has probablypassed (as will the costs, to future generations, naturally), the worst can bemitigated.Wealreadyhavethemodels,includingcap-and-tradepioneeredundertheMontrealProtocol,andoutrightrestrictions,practicedintheUnitedStatesonsomeairbornepollutionandinEuropeformanychemicals.Certainly,ChinaandIndiamust be included, andhave somewillingness to participate, as the 2015talksatCopenhagenshowed,thoughasanagreementwithoutmuchlegalforce,Copenhagen is no better than the Rio accords. Late in his final year, Obamareached an accordwithChina on the Paris protocols, but its demands are toomodestandmostlyunenforceable,andtheycanbeundonebyafuturepresidentbecauseObamadidnotsendtheagreementtotheSenateforratification,optinginsteadforreversibleexecutiveactionandcreatingthepossibilityforprotractedlitigation.AtleasttheParistalksopenedthedoor,andtheUnitedStateshasthemeans to truly force itself and other nations through it, though it should havedonesoyearsago.*Giventherecentelection,thisisunlikely.

In the meantime, the United States should resume its work on alternativesources of energy, including the nuclear effort so badly stymied by 1970sBoomer hysteria over the perceived dangers of nuclear power. There is nodenying that therewasanaccidentatThreeMileIsland(TMI) in1979.Itwasbad, but not that bad—less costly in lives and treasure than the Valdez andDeepwaterHorizon accidents. TheUnited States has never seen anything likeTMIinthealmostfortyyearssince,despiteoperatingdozensofnuclearplants.36AndwhilepeopledebatewhetherTMIcaused any excess cancerdeaths,whatcannot be debated is that the numberswere so small that they remain hard todetect.Comparethattothousandsofpeoplewhocollectivelydieinmininganddrilling accidents, and from black lung and the by-products of conventionalpower, numbers both considerable and undeniable. Unfortunately, TMIcoincided with the release of the disaster flick TheChina Syndrome, and thetelevisualBoomersconflatedmoviewithreality,withtheresult thatwehaveaChinaSyndromeofanentirelydifferenttype:AsianfactoriesbelchingpollutiontoproducewaresforSam’sClub.

After TMI, sentimentalism largely halted new nuclear undertakings. Thepotentialofnuclearisevidentinthefactthat,constructionhaltsnotwithstanding,American nuclear facilities produce about a fifth of the nation’s electricity, atfunctionallyzeroongoingcarboncost.*Wecoulddomuchmore.Francederives76.3percentofitselectricityfromnuclearstationsatvirtuallyzerocarboncost,forexample,andwhileithasplanstoreduceitsdependenceonnuclear,itwillstill generate vast amounts of near-emissionless power.37 And nucleartechnology and management have gotten much better since TMI and can getbetter still. Should we achieve breakthrough reactor designs, they can beaggressively licensed to China and India—these will not meaningfully assistthosecountries’extantnuclearweaponsprograms,andanycompetitivebenefitswillbemorethanoffsetbydollarsAmericadoesnothavetospendcombatingclimatechange.

Sentimentcannottrumpphysics,whatevertheBoomerswanttobelieve.Thebiodiesel Mercedes that formerly trundled around Boomer Berkeley were afarce,andsoweremanyequivalentspeddledbyadimorcynicalestablishment(e.g., fuel cells—remember those? switchgrass? ethanol?) Many of these areeither giveaways to rackets like the corn lobby or merely perverse, energy-intensive means of converting solid fuel to liquid and public dollars intoagriculturalsubsidy.

As for the most popular alternatives, many are good, but can never besufficient on their own. Solar and wind have inherent limitations. There justaren’t enough consistently sunny or persistently windy places, which meansusing storage technologies like batteries that bear their own poisonouscompromises. Batteries themselves have not improved nearly as fast as othertechnologiesandrepresentalimitingfactor.Mostbatteriesalsousehighlytoxicmaterials,someofwhicharerare,expensive,andpresentlyproducedinregionswhoseattitudestotheUnitedStatesandoverallstabilityrangefromambiguous(China) to simply bad (Bolivia, West Africa). Absent genetically modifiedbreakthrough sources, biofuels are also inefficient, as the crops frequentlyconsume more energy to grow than they ultimately provide. Governmentintervention is fine—polluters can and should be charged for the externalitiestheyproduce,andMontreal’scap-and-tradeproves that therearemarket-basedremedies that suit both public and private needs. But subsidies to inherentlyunworthyenergyprojectswastemoney;weneedgenuinealternatives,notfakeones.

WeirdScienceAmerica could have had a much larger technological arsenal to confront itsproblems,andnotjustinmattersofenergyandclimate.Unfortunately,Boomersentimentality has stymied progress by failing to allocate appropriate fundswhileraisingbizarreandunhelpfulbarriers.WhetherpresentinginitsreligiousformontheRightorasthesentimentaltechnopessimismoftheunreconstructedLeft—two fruitlessbranches stemming from the sameanti-empirical root—theresulthasbeenlessinnovation.

For many on the Boomer Right, there is nothing to like about the phrase“government-funded science” and research suffers accordingly. This isespecially the case for research that might call into question any preexistingbeliefs, violate Norquist’s tax pledge, or disturb the evangelical or businesssensibilities of core constituencies,which is to say,most research. TheHiggsbosonmay be the “god particle,” but it is not God, and definitely costly, so:super-colliderscanceled.Alternativeenergybeing“alternative”toconventionalenergy: out. And so on. The Boomer Right ruled out areas of research as amatterofprejudiceandconvenience,whichisnowaytocreateafuture.

However, the dogmatic Right does occasionally participate in a sort ofscientificprocess, ifonlybyaccident,asinthecaseofstemcells.Researchersdiscoveredthetherapeuticpotentialoftheseentitiesbutwereforced,earlyon,torelyonfetaltissueasaprimesourceofmaterial.TheRightsensedachancetoscorepointswiththedogmatists,whateverthelostopportunitiesforwellness.Itspun up the whole apparatus of the pro-life movement, and the Bush IIadministration limited federal funding forembryonic stemcell research.Thesebars were ultimately lifted in part by the Obama administration, which helps(though a new, if limply supported, witch hunt by Boomer CongresswomanMarshaBlackburndoesnot),asdidthedevelopmentofnonembryonicsources.38Whilestemcellresearchisnowproceedingwell,yearswerelost—thoughnotbyeveryone. Even as some states were banning stem cell research, others (e.g.,California and New York) saw beyond the nonsense and promoted stem cellresearchattheirownexpense,andthisiswhatgivestheRightitswalk-onroleinsciencehistory.Overthecomingyears,wewillseetheresultsofacertainroughexperiment,comparingNewYork’sandCalifornia’sachievementsinbiologyto

whatever is going on in the various places that restrict such research.* Itmayseemoddtomentionthearcaneworldofstemcellsinachapteraboutexistentialissues, but stem cells are existential, at least for individuals. If the therapieswork,peoplelivelonger;iftheydon’texist,peopledie.Andstemcellsarebutoneexampleofpotentialandseriouslossesduetounderfundedscience.

TheBoomerLefthasamuchhealthierattitude towardR&D, though ithasmade itsowndogmaticmistakesand in itsearlyyearswasmuch tooskepticalabout thenetbenefitsof research.Forexample,manyyoungBoomers leaptattheneo-Malthusiannonsensepeddledinthe1960sand1970sbyaslightlyoldergenerationofwriters,whichpromptedabaselessconversationaboutscarcityandtheself-defeatingnatureoftechnologicalimprovements.Aparadeofbooks,likePaulEhrlich’sPopulationBomb(1968)andthePaddockbrothers’Famine1975!(1967), predicted a world of toomany people and not enough resources, andadvocating involuntary culling (Ehrlich) or even the abandonment of starvingstates (the Paddocks re: India). There were speeches about man’s hubris andtechnologicalfutility,andtheseleftanimprintoncertainminds.

In the event, therewas no famine and no culling. Science and technologycame to the rescue, just as science and technology made nonsense of theprediction thatwewould run out of certain essential resources in short order.TheStoneAge,ashasbeenfamouslynoted,didnotendbecausehumanityranoutofstones; itendedbecausewediscoveredbronze, iron,andsteel.Withthepossibleandtemporaryexceptionofrareearthminerals, technologyassuresusofplentyofindustrialresources; thefirstprivateefforts tomineasteroidshavejustbegun.Therecanbe,asFuturamaputit,a“worldofplenty”ifwechoosetoinvestinone.

Ehrlichetal.wouldhavebeenaSixtiessideshowbutfortworeasons.First,certain strainsofpessimismstill infect theLeft, and the resultscanbe seen inanything involving genetic engineering. Second, neo-Malthusian argumentswererecycledbyacynicalRightasproofthatLeftishpredictionsofapocalypsewerealwaysoffbase, aprocessnowrepeatingwithclimatechange. Itdidnothelp that even afterEhrlichwas discredited, someon theLeft kept presentingtechnologynotasavehiclefornetimprovement,butasanaddiction—inDavidFosterWallace’sterms,aproblemthatpresentsitselfasitsownsolution,andistherefore unworthy of investment. This is only true in the weakest of ways:Globalwarming certainly is the product of industrialization andwill probablykillmany people, andwewill need new technologies to cope, but technologyandindustryalsoallowedforthebirthofbillionsofpeopleandthepreventionof

billionsofearlydeaths.Measuredinlivesandtheirquality,thedangerisalmostcertainly not from too much technology but not enough. We have plenty ofproblemsthatonlytechnologycansolve.

Noneof thedogmaof thestrangerversionsof theRightorLeftprovidedahelpfulcontextforR&D,thoughintheend,theywereprobablyjustsetdressingfor an argument that was really about money. In the zero-sum world ofBoomerism, therewereonly twooptions:energetic investment (foreveryone’seventual enrichment) or maximal consumption (for immediate personalenrichment).WeknowwhichoptionBoomerschose.

Winthropneverwouldhaveforeseenhiscityonahillbuzzingwithdrones,slopesplantedwithGMOtomatoes,peopledbyseniorsplayingtennisaidedbyreplacement parts grown in a vat. He would have seen many specifics asdownrightungodly,buthewouldhaverecognized thegeneralmotivations thatcouldproducesuchweirdgreatness;theywere,afterall,hisown.

ThinkingMachinesandUnthinkableConsequencesThe only technology, besides nuclear weapons, that could potentially kill themajorityofhumanityisnottheemissionofgreenhousegases(thatwillendangeronlyabillionor so),but thecreationofartificial intelligence.*This is anareawherephilosophy,politics,economics,andscienceheavilyoverlap,eachabletomakevaluablecontributions.Regrettably,theBoomersdonottakeAIseriously,in part because many of them do not understand technology well enough tounderstandthethreatitposes.Andbecausethefirsttrulyhuman-equivalentAIsarestillafewdecadesaway,theBoomersfeeltheycansafelyignoretheissue.

Nevertheless,thedaywillarrive,probablywithinthelifetimeofthisbook’syoungerreaders,whenAIsbegintoreplacehumansinmanyorevenmosttasks.Theywill becomeourhelpers, thenpossiblyour competitors, andwehavenorealplan.Inthe1990s,thethreatdidnotseemcredible,andinactionthenmighthavebeenexcusable.ButAI,whichhadbeenajokeforyears,constantlyfailingtoliveuptoitspromises,hasbeguntoexceedevenmoreoptimisticforecasts.In2016, DeepMind’s AlphaGo program beat a human master at Go 4–1, anachievement many thought unlikely to occur before 2025. Because of theflexiblewayAlphaGo learns, and the enormous difficulty of the game it wasplaying(Goistochesswhatchessistocheckers),anAIthatcanwinatGoissomethingweneedtotakeseriously.Thegovernmenthasessentiallyshruggeditsshoulders,andbydefault,AIhasbeenconsignedtoprivatehands,toprivateends, and private gains.* It is no coincidence thatAI,which is comparativelycheaptodevelopandhasreceivedsustainedattentionfromprivateinstitutions,isa bright spot in the R&D landscape. Again, private, unregulated masters canshapeAIstotheirownpurposes,astheycanwithgeneticengineeringandspacecolonization(allareunderway).That’sfineformeandmySiliconValleyset—as for the other 320-odd million Americans, the Boomer government doesn’tseemtocare.

AI is not, by theway, an aside to the central issues of this book. AIwilldirectly impact problems like the slowdown in growth, stagnating livingstandards, and rising inequality—though whether it exacerbates or alleviatessomeoftheseproblemsisasmuchamatterofpolicyastechnology.Thepointwhere AI starts to have a substantial impact is near: Baumol may have been

correctthatittakesthesamefourplayerstoperformastringquartetasitdidin1800,buttechnologyhasalreadyprovideduswithrecordedmusicandwillsoonfurnishroboticplayers.Whatdoessocietydowithitscellists?(EhrlichandthePaddockswouldsay:Cullthem.TheAIsmayagree.)

Yo-YoMaissafefornow,butlow-endlaborisnot.Machinesalreadystockwarehouses(Amazonhasafleetofrobotsthathavereplacedmanuallabor),androbotizationisunderwaywithlongshoremenandothertraditionallywell-payingblue-collar jobs.39 Some waiters have already been replaced by iPad menus;computersrenderpilotsincreasinglysuperfluousandwillsoondothesamefordrivers.It isafuturewherehumansare increasinglyliberatedfromlessskilledlaborand,byimplication,nolongerneededforabroadrangeofjobs.Nationalplanning that doesnot consider the challenges andopportunitiesofAIwill benecessarily incomplete and ineffective. AIs can free humans to do whatmachinescannot,andiftheymakecashiersredundant,perhapstheycanalsofreecashiers to be artists or philosophers. Or perhaps not—really robust AIs mayrenderalmostallworkersredundant,andweoughttothinkaboutwhatthatsortofsocietymightlooklike,includinghowgainsmightbetransferredtodisplacedlaborersandhowthoselaborersmayfitintoaworldthatdoesnotneedthemasworkers.

And this brings us to the other greatmatter of the future: education.Whatsortofschools,producingwhatsortofgraduates,willwerequireinafuturethatnolongerhasmuchplaceforsemiskilledlabor?ItisnotaquestiontheBoomerscaretoask,muchlessanswer.

CHAPTERFOURTEEN

DETENTION,AFTER-SCHOOLANDOTHERWISE

Hewhoopensaschooldoor,closesaprison.—VictorHugo1

HadVictorHugowitnessedBoomer educational and penal policy, hemighthavereconsidered the truthof theforegoing, thrownuphishandsand invertedthewholesentiment,addedastreamofqualifiers,orjustparrotedÉmileZolainaheartyJ’accuse.UnderBoomercontrolschoolsandjailshaveintertwined,thedegrading former providing sustenance for the swollen latter.Boomer schoolsand jails are no longer systems of uplift and remediation; they have becomemechanismsofmasscontainmentanddeferredliability.

Educational erosion began when the Boomers were themselves in school,wastingtheopportunitiestheirparentsgranted,acasualdisregardofschoolthatcontinued in more virulent form when Boomers took power. Despite ritualgenuflectionsbeforethealtarofexcellence,Boomersrevealedtheirfundamentalunseriousness in education policies that ranged from negligent to ludicrous.After decades of promises made and broken, the United States continues tounderperform against its peers. What improvements have been achieved areoftenmisleading, theproductof loweredbars, statisticalmanipulations, and in

somecases,outrightfraud.AseconomyandeducationfalteredundertheBoomers,aparallelsystemrose

to contain the factory seconds, kept company bywhatever portions of societyBoomersfounditexpedienttoimpound.Thatparallelsystemishistory’slargestpenal regime, and it extends well beyond the needs of deterrence andcontainment. Erected at enormous cost to the fisc (as usual, mostly debtfinanced), the corrections systemhasbecomea statewithin a state; indeed, in2014, it was America’s thirty-sixth most populous state, larger than NewMexico,andifthoseinprobationaryregimesareincluded,itsfourteenthlargest,justaheadofMassachusetts.2ManyofitschargescouldhavebeensavedbytheschoolstheBoomersfailed,bysocialprogramstheBoomersletdecay,orbytheexerciseofempatheticclemencyinsteadofautomaticpunishmentsthatappealedtotheBoomers’crudestOldTestamentinstincts.Instead,Boomerpolicycreatedaconveyorbeltthatleadsfromschooldetentiontoitslifetimeequivalent.

BoomersasStudentsTheeducationalcrisisbeganintheearly1960s,theBoomers’ownschoolyears,whenAmericanscholasticperformancebeganadownwardslide.Atleastforthewhite,middle-classmajority, itwasasmuch thestudents failing thesystemasvice versa. By the time America realized Boomer test scores constituted anational embarrassment, the Boomers themselves were taking over theinstruments of school policy. It was therefore society’s great misfortune thatdemographics and timing consigned responsibility for any educationalrenaissance to the hands of the generation whose underperformance hadpromptedcallsforreforminthefirstplace.

Aside from crude measures like literacy, the longest continuous data onAmerican educational achievement are SAT scores, and what they show is adecline that overlapped almost perfectly with the period Boomers took thosetests. After a period of stability from 1952 to 1963, scores fell nearlycontinuouslyfortwodecades,aslidethatbeganjustafterthefirstBoomerssatfor the SAT (usingmy date of 1940 for the start of the Boom, or, using theconventionaldefinitionof1946,exactlywhenBoomers started taking the test)andendedin1982–1983,preciselywhenthelastBoomerslefthighschool.3 Ifone wanted to define the Boom by other than mere fertility statistics, thedownwardcurveofSATscoreswouldidentifyessentiallythesamepopulation.

Whiletheslidewasalarming,observerscorrectlydetectedapartial triumphhiddenwithin the embarrassment of overall scores. Thanks to integration andgreatergenderequality,thepoolofSATtakershadbecomemoreinclusivefromthe1950sonward.Becausethesenewkindsoftakerstraditionallyscoredlower(womenonmath,minorities onmath and verbal, a discrepancy due in part tohistoricaldiscrimination),theirscorestemporarilydepressedresultsoverall.*Butthatwas only part of the story. Per theCollegeBoard,which administers theSAT, “compositional changes” of these kinds explained between 66 and 75percentpercentofthedeclinefrom1963to1970and“onlyaboutaquarter”ofthe even steeper decline after 1970 (inwhich year themedianBoomerwouldhavebeen seventeenor eighteenandofprime test-takingage).4Declines after1970 affected “virtually all categories of SAT takers,” top students,mediocrestudents, blacks, whites, almost any way you sliced it.5 The SAT slide was

paralleledinACTscores.6GREscores,inlinewithBoomerprogressionthroughthe education system, began declining somewhat later, with “almost half thedrop concentrated in 1969–1970,” as olderBoomerswouldhavebegun sittingfor those tests.7CollegeBoard analysts tried correction for any variables theycould,evensubjectingstudentstoboththe1963and1973testsasacontrol,andif anything thatmademattersworse—the 1973 test appeared to give a lift ofeight to twelve points versus the 1963 test (itwas, effectively,more generouswith points).8 In the end, much of the decline was attributed to “pervasive”factorsthat theEducationalTestingServicedancedaround,butcanreallyonlybereadas:Boomers.9

ScholasticInaptitude

What’sgoingonhere?ThefirstBoomersstartingtakingtheSATsaround1957–1959andthelastaround1981–1983.Thedeclines inSAT scores definedBoomers in their ownway; once theBoomerswerenolongeroftraditionaltest-takingage,scoresimproved(modestly).TheSATsubsequentlytinkeredwithitsscoringformulas,butduringtheperiodpresented,themethodologywasconsistent—i.e.,thechangeswere

drivennotbythetest,butbythetesttakers.10

TheBoomers’poorSATscoresweresomewhatsurprising,giventhecontext.Americawasaffluentandschoolsreasonablyprovisioned.Gettingintocollege,for which SATs served as a gateway, had become widely important: Collegeprovidedanexemption to thedraft (ifonewere so inclined—andasweknowfrom Chapter 3, millions were) and the growing wage premium for college

degreesofferedtheeasiestpathtohigherincomesintheeraofstagflation.Wasitperhapssomethingaboutthetesttakersthemselves,televisual,self-interested,permissively raised, bottle-fed, and politically distracted? The correspondencebetween Boomer test-taking and falling scores is suggestive, as it is whathappenednext.

As soon as the Boomers left high school, SAT scores rose—i.e., mattersimproved before the tentative reforms of the late 1970s could work any realmagic.Andwhilescorescontinuedimprovingover thenextdecades, thegainsshouldnotbeseenassomeunqualifiedsuccessforBoomereducationalpolicy.Absolute scores remain unimpressive overall and flatter only relative to theBoomer-era fiasco. The failure to achieve real excellence represents a coredisasterofBoomerpolicyand thewasteofhugeamountsof time,money,andopportunity.

BoomersasPolicyMakersIn 1979, the SAT embarrassment and other schooling fiascos forced JimmyCarter toact.Hegaveeducation(formerlyamodestpartof theDepartmentofHealth, Education, andWelfare) its ownCabinet-level agency, elevatingwhathad once been an almost purely localmatter into one of national importance.Given the success of prior efforts like compulsory primary and secondaryeducation, the establishment of land grant colleges, and the progression ofAmerican research universities from second-rate status to internationalleadership, national optimism in 1979 was wholly understandable. WhatAmerica had done before, could it not do again? Critics worried that Reaganwould derail the project, as Reagan’s first campaign had a plank calling forabolitionofCarter’snewdepartment.Reaganneverdid—infact,hecharteredabipartisanNationalCommissiononExcellenceinEducationinhisfirstyearaspresident.11

In1983,theCommissionproducedANationatRisk,aremarkabledocumentthatofferedacandidassessmentofAmericansecondaryeducationandprovidedwholly sensible ideas for reform. Quite a bit of ANAR remains depressinglycurrent—ifyoustripoutthedates,partscouldhavebeenwrittenyesterday.ThatisthecoreofANAR’spresentrelevance:morethanthreedecadeslater,mostofitaperiodofalmostcompleteBoomerpower,theproblemsremainthesamewhilemanyofANAR’srecommendationslanguishignoredanduntried.ItwasnotthatBoomersdidnotknowwhattodo,itwasthattheydidnotdoit.

The report found that much of the American high school curriculum wasmediocreandthatnonacademicclasseslike“bachelorliving”could,ifastudentwished, account for a substantial portionof graduation credits.12Thepreviousgenerationshouldhavekept thesenonclassesoff themenu,butnevertheless, itwastheBoomerswhochosetotakethem.ANationatRiskalsobemoanedtheimposition of “minimum competency” standards, which fell “short of what isneeded, as the ‘minimum’ tends to become the ‘maximum,’ thus loweringeducationalstandardsforall.”13ThereportalsoworriedaboutAmerica’sshortschoolyear (almost40percent fewerhours thansome internationalpeers), thepaucity of homework, persistent grade inflation, and the automatic shufflingalong of children to the next grade (as theCollegeBoard noted, rather aptly,

automaticadvancementwasperceivedasan“entitlement,ratherthansomethingtobeearned—ordenied,”andweknowhowBoomersfeelaboutentitlements).14Someof theseproblemswerenot the fault ofBoomerpolicymakers, but onceANARmadetheproblemsclear,theybecametheBoomers’responsibility.CouldtheUnitedStatesreturntoitsformerpositionofeminenceininternationalleaguetables?Well, thatdependedonwhowas incharge,andfromthe1980s, itwasincreasinglytheBoomers.

The Boomers—beginning to rear children of their own—clamored forreform,oratleastitsKabukiequivalent.Ofcourse,aswehaveseen,theywereunwillingtotaxthemselvestofurnishnecessaryfunds,forschoolsoranythingelse.NorwouldBoomers of any political stripe engagewith the substance ofeducation itself, as that would require money, effort, compromise, and otherirksomeundertakings.ForDemocrats,ANAR’s demand for longer school daysand teacher accountability would require confronting the teachers’ unions, aprospectfromwhichDemocratsrecoiled.ForRepublicans,moreteachingdayswould inevitably require higher pay, and that would mean higher taxes,anathematotheRepublicansand,overtime,resistedtoobyBoomerDemocrats.Thesociopathicsolutionwouldbe theatrewithoutsacrifice(orresults)and theconstant shuffling of responsibility between federal and local governments, toensureminimumaccountability.

Much as Boomer economic neoliberalism provided a nothing-for-nothing“thirdway,” so educationalneoliberalismwouldprovide itsown thirdway, tosimilareffect.ThechargewasledbyBillBennett,thenation’sthirdsecretaryofeducation, appointed two years after ANAR came out. Rather than pursueANAR’s recommendations, Bennett (a Boomer, naturally) and his successorsheldthatthemarketwouldimproveeducation, intheformofvouchers,schoolchoice, charter schools, the federalist laboratory of the states in edifyingcompetitionwitheachother,andalltheotherneoliberalnostrumsmanufacturedfrom the 1980s on and embraced by both parties. Itwas a risky bet, but thenagain,BillBennett,erstwhileeducatorandmoralcrusader,wasnothingifnotarisktaker,ashis$8millioningamblinglosseswouldsubsequentlyreveal.15

HoweverconvenientitwouldbetodismissBennettasaReaganiteanomaly,the neoliberal experiment accelerated as Boomers gained power, underDemocratsandRepublicans,instates,blue,red,purple,andalltheotherdismalcolorsof theBoomerpolitical rainbow, startingwithcharter school initiatives,passed in many cases by direct referendum—and thus not attributable topoliticians alone. Minnesota and California granted the first state charters in

1991–1992; as of 2016, forty-three states and the District of Columbia havethem, a period that coincidedwith near-total Boomer control of state politics.Charter schools have records that are, at best, mixed. Some are effectiveinstitutions,othersachieveafacsimileofsuccessbysiphoningoffthenaturallytalentedandjettisoningthelessapt,andmanyaresimplyterrible.Overall,theirperformance is not radically different from that of public schools.16 Variousother initiatives with merit pay and tenure reform produced equally mixedresults.17 Some of these projectswereworth trying, but after decadeswithoutsatisfyingresults, it’sdifficult toapplaudpolicymakersforrepeatingthesameexperimentsandexpectingbetteroutcomes.

The experiments Boomers did not want, or bother, to run were thesubstantivereformsoutlinedinANAR.Levelsofhomework,lengthandnumberofschooldays, teachercompensation,andcurriculaarenotsubstantiallybetterthan they were decades ago—the school year remains the same, teachercompensation remains moderate relative to better-performing nations (in partbecauseAmericanteachersworkless—Leftiststendtooverlookthispoint),andhoursofhomeworkhavenotbudged.18As forcurricula, a2016surveyby theEducationTrust found that “students aremeandering towardgraduation,”withhigh schools “prioritizing credit accrual” instead of “access to a cohesivecurriculumthatalignshighschoolcourseworkandstudents’futuregoals.”19Thesurveyconcludedthat47percentofstudentshadno“cohesivecurriculum”andatmost,39percenthadacollege-readycurriculum.20Ifthissoundsfamiliar,it’sbecauseANARsaidthesamethingdecadesago.

Someproblemsidentifiedinthe1980sactuallygotworse,particularlygradeinflation. InBoomer culture, all children are “special,” bound for college andgreatness. Therefore no child could receive any grade to the contrary. UCBerkeley, for instance, is a good school but hardly the most selective in thecountry,yetits2015freshmenhadgrossaveragehighschoolGPAsof3.91and4.41 on a “weighted” basis—in other words, the nation’s twentieth-bestuniversityhadfreshmenwhosetranscriptswereessentiallyperfect,andonsomemetrics, beyond perfect.21 This is why focusing on test scores rather thantranscriptshasbecomesoimportant:Notonlyarecurriculapoor,gradesreflectnoobjectivereality.

As for the schools themselves, budget limits consigned them to physicaldecay, which could not have helped the learning process. Returning to theInfrastructureReportCard,thephysicalplantofschoolshastraveledfromaDin1988toanFin1998,andthenhoveredaroundDsince,thoughASCEdoesn’t

quiteknow,becausenotenoughdataareavailable.22ItwasatadungratefuloftheBoomers—forwhomabouthalfofexistingschoolcapacitywasbuilt—tolettheirformerschoolhouseslanguishinsqualor.*,23

Againstinternationalpeers,theUnitedStateshasnotfulfilledanyeducationsecretary’sgoalofexcellence.NotonlyhaveSATscoresfailedtosurpasstheir1950s peaks (no surprise given the lingering curricular issues), but oninternational scales, the United States remains middling at best. The latestinternational comparisons are the Programme for International StudentAssessment(PISA)tests,andfrom2000to2012,theyearsforwhichPISAdataareavailable,theyshowedthattheUnitedStatesachieved“nosignificantchangein [US] performances over time” despite endless state and federal initiatives,with reading scores average andmath performance “below average” (PISA isbeingpolite:TheUnitedStateswastwenty-seventhoutofthirty-fourdevelopednations).24

Itcouldcomeasnosurprisethatin2010,EducationSecretaryArneDuncanfound himself in the position of repeating the same vows as all of hispredecessors. Duncan promised that the United States would (somehow, oneday) “lead theworld in educational attainment,” as “nothing, nothing, ismoreimportant in the long-run toAmerican prosperity than boosting the skills andattainmentof thenation’sstudents.”25True,butmeasuredbyaction, “nothing,nothing” ismore important to Boomers than low taxes, entitlement spending,anddebt-fueledconsumption.*,26

Therehavebeenonlythree,highlydubious,areasofimprovement:classsize,certain nominal test scores, and gross graduation rates.Class size has becomesomethingofafetish,andtheoverallpupil/teacherratiohasdeclinedataslowrate since the 1970s. It’s now—with enormous variation between grades,schools,andgeographies—about20:1.27However,it’snotclearhowimportantthismetricis.ANationAtRiskdidn’t trouble itselfoverclasssize—it focusedonteacherquality;anyway,duringAmerica’sscholasticheyday,classsizesweremuch larger in both public and private schools, 26:1 and 31:1 in 1960.28Theproblemin1983isstill theproblemnow; teachersarenotionallycompetent inmethodsofpedagogy,butnotnecessarilythesubstanceoftheclasstheyteach—andthereforeitdoesn’tmatterwhethertherearetwentystudentsintheroomorforty.

As for test scores, thirty-oddyearsof reformproduceda far fromenviablerecord.Amongyoungerstudents,readingandmathscoreshavedriftedupward,

but by age seventeen—the age that really matters as it roughly mirrors theconclusion ofK–12 education—progress has been slight to nonexistent.29 Theonemajorimprovementhasbeenanarrowingofthewhite-minorityachievementgap, though it’s convergence of the wrong type, with white groups treadingwaterandmostminoritygroupsconvergingonmajoritarianmediocrity.30

At least the race gap has converged in its own unsatisfactory way; gapsbetweenrichandthenot-richhavewidened.Aseconomicinequalityhasvastlyincreasedunder theBoomers,andasyoungercouples increasingly tendtopairwithmates of comparable educational and economic attainments (both strongpredictors of a child’s success), we can only expect these gaps to grow.Encouraging statistics do pop up from time to time, though few withstandinvestigation. For example, graduation rates have improved. As high schoolseniors do not possess the full benefit of a proper education, those resultsprovide only limited consolation.All in all, the picture is disheartening: someimprovement in math, no improvement in reading, a narrowing minorityperformance gap (albeit to the wrong levels), a widening socioeconomic gappoisedtogrowwiderstill,andgraduationratesleachedofmeaning—afterthirty-oddyearsof“reform.”

Asfailuresmounted,promisesgrew.InJanuary1989,BushIassumedofficeasthe“educationpresident”andencouragedgovernorstoendorsegoalswhere,bytheyear2000,Americanchildrenwouldleadtheworldinmathandscienceachievement, all childrenwould be prepared for “challenging subjectmatter,”high school graduation rates would reach 90 percent, and so on.31 How thiswould be achievedwas left badly unaddressed and, of course, Bush I’s goalswentunfulfilled(math,thirty-fifth;science,twenty-seventh;graduationrates81percent and of dubious meaning anyway; children prepared for challengingmaterial, far fromall,aswewillsee).32Thegoalofprepping“all”children tohigh levels,by theway,didnot revealseriousnessofpurpose,but itsabsence.The goals were unachievable and would grow only more absurd as Boomerscolonizededucationdepartments.That’snottosaythatrealimprovementcouldnot be achieved, only that the targets setwerewrong and the results achievedfailedtoimpress.

Thus, while 2000 brought no computerized reckoning (being a matter ofprofits, Y2K was taken seriously), that year did reveal Bush I’s promises asunfulfilled.Theproblemswerethereforeconsignedtothehandsof…BushII.In2001, thenewBushginnedup theNoChildLeftBehindAct,offeringequallyoutlandish promises: that “all” students would be “proficient” by graduation,

instructed by “highly qualified” teachers (or “distinguished” ones, querywhatdistinguished them).33 It passed with overwhelming, bipartisan support. Thefederalgovernmentwouldsetthestandards,thestateswouldfigureouthowtoachievethem,andWashingtonwouldapplyvariouscarrotsandsticksalongtheway. Itwas theperfectcombinationofBoomerfoibles—anti-empirical fantasyand/orcynicism(nosocietycanmake“all”ofagroup“proficient”),neoliberalfederalistmagic(incentives!states’rights!),and,ofcourse,deminimisdiversionoftaxreceiptsawayfromtheentitlementsprogramsthatwerebecomingmattersof urgency for undersaved Boomers. Echoing the fantasy-by-fiat of Sovietplanning,NoChilddemandedtriumphby2014.

ThesuccessoftheNoChildactmaybeinferredfromitsuncontestedrepealandreplacementin2015.ItwasreincarnatedastheEveryChildSucceedsAct,another title of utterly fraudulent Boomer promise, passed (again) withbipartisansupportandsignedbyPresidentObama.Thenewactretainedtestingbut removed certain penalties for poorly performing schools, forbade federalimposition of curricula, and devolvedmany powers to the states (again, triedbefore, failedbefore).34Thestates remainmired in theprocessof figuringoutwhat to do, because Every Child Succeeds does not provide adequate funds,guidance, or accountability. The one thing that is certain is that “every” childwillnot“succeed.”

In any event, the definition of educational “success” in Boomer educationpolicy is roughly thesameasBushII’s“missionaccomplished”was in Iraq—sometransientbareminimum,definedaswhatevertheconditionsonthegroundalready were or could be made out to be, after which matters can be left todevolveontheirown.BecauseWashington(likeMoscow)wouldimposesomepenalties for failure, the Boomer educational machine relied on the samestrategiesastheBoomerfinancialmachine:Takewhatnumbersyouhave,castthemasvictoryifremotelyplausible,andadjustthemtothedesiredlevelifnot,i.e.,fraud.Aparadeofscandalsensued,withteachersfocusingoverwhelminglyonhowtotake testsinsteadofthesubstancetested,aparallel toteachers’owntraininginmethodsofteaching,ratherthanachievingmasteryofthesubjecttobe taught. If that cynical ploy failed, higher scores could be realized throughblatant cheating, like leavinganswer sheetsout for students to copyor simplyfabricating scores (in Atlanta, the results were numerous indictments, pleas,sentencing,etc.).35 Evenwith cheating—some schools inflating their scores inutterly implausibleways in justa fewquarters, tactics thatmighthaveshamedEnron—schools did notmeetBush I or II’s promises, and theywill notmeet

Obama’s,either.The murky, misguided, sentimental, and fraudulent nature of Boomer

educationalgoalsmoreorlessguaranteebizarreoutcomes.Now,notonlymustnochildbeleftbehind(didn’thappen)andeverychildsucceed(nothappeningnow), every child must go to college (will never happen). Universal collegeeducationhas become the last uncontroversial virtueunder theBoomers, eventhough it is not achievable for reasons of logistics, attitude, aptitude, andpersonal and national economics.Other nations know this and divide studentsearlyonintovocationalandothertrackssuitedtochildren’sabilitiesandneeds,as Germany does with its Realschulen, Hauptschulen, Gymnasien, andvocational training in theDualeAusbildung. These systems aremore efficientandeffective, thoughtheirrealismoffendsBoomersentimentality.Boomer-runschoolscannotbecomplicitinconfirmingdispleasingrealities,likethefactthatnotallchildrencan,want,orshouldgotocollege.Anyway,themarketplacecanbereliedupontosupplyitsownbrutalcurriculumsoonenough.

Thecollegefetishisananomaly,asonlyoverthepastfewdecadeshastheostensible purpose of K–12 education become the production of a nation ofcollege graduates—or more precisely, those touched by college, howeverslightly.In2009,PresidentObamacalleduponeveryAmericannottograduatefromagoodcollege,butsimplytogo“oneyearormore”beyondhighschool.36While the president offered career training as an option, anAmerican cultureextollingeverychild’sspecialnessmusthaveunderstoodthepresidenttomeanayearatcollege.

Obama justified his objective on the grounds that “this country needs andvalues the talents of every American,” a statement that can be described asnaїvely aspirational at best and totally disingenuous atworst.37 Leaving asidenormativeissues,compensationdatashowthatwhileAmericavaluesthetalentsofcollegegraduatesgenerally,itdoesnotparticularlyvaluetheservicesofthosewhohavenotfinishedcollege.Since1980,wageshavefallenforgroupswithouta college degree, and that includes declines for those with only “somecollege.”38 In virtually every case, Obama’s one year of collegewill producedebt,probablyaddlittletoknowledgethatcouldandshouldhavebeenacquiredduring high school, and is unlikely to produce wage gains: Therefore, it issentimentalitywithaprice.

Evenassumingstudentsdocompletecollege,whatcollege,whatmajor,andhowfinancedmatterasmuchasormorethansimplycollectingacredentialfromarandominstitution.Onapureincomebasis,notallcollegesormajorsjustify

theirexpense,intermsofdirectandopportunitycosts.AnEnglishdegreefromasecond-tierliberalartscollegeisgenerallyaconsumptiongood,whichisfinebyitself, but cannot be justified on policy grounds, and possibly not even socialones.

TheworstoffendersarenottheEnglishdepartmentsatBenningtonandBard;the cardinal sinners are for-profit colleges. Because theUnited States has notadequately invested in conventional nonprofit institutions like communitycolleges,for-profitcollegeshavebeenabsorbingtheexcesssupplyofthecollegebound.Between1998and2008,postsecondaryenrollmentincreased32percentgenerally, but 270 percent at for-profit colleges.39 By 2010, almost a tenth ofcollegestudentsenrolledinfor-profitinstitutions.40Theseneoliberalconfectionstransform vast amounts of public dollars into private gain, little of which isrealized by the studentsmuch less the public. Part of the reason is that theseinstitutions provide very little education at considerable cost. Per a Senatecommittee,“evidencesuggeststhatfor-profitschoolschargehighertuitionthancomparable public schools, spend a large share of revenues on expensesunrelatedtoteaching,experiencehighdropoutrates,and,insomecases,employabusiverecruitinganddebt-managementpractices.”41Halfofstudentborrowerswho entered repayment in 2007 and had defaulted by 2009 had attended for-profitinstitutions(despitebeingjustunder10percentofthestudentpopulation)and for-profit colleges, and by the latter year, for-profit institutions wereconsumingalmostaquarteroffederalloansandgrants.*,42

Many for-profit colleges are either nonaccredited, or functionally so, andworsethanuseless.Whenoneofthelargestproviders,CorinthianColleges,wentbustitleftitsstudentsindebtedandtaxpayersholdingaverylargebag.(Alongtheway, this showed that these institutions,whicharenot “colleges,” are alsooftennot,except for theirexecutives,“forprofit”).NorcouldstudentspickupwhereCorinthianleftoff,asthatinstitution’slooseacademicstandardsmadeitscourseworkdifficulttotransferandfunctionallyvalueless.43Althoughfor-profitcolleges have existed for some time, their arrival as a significant part of theeducational landscape is pure Boomer.44 If the government investigations,privatelawsuits,andotheractionshaveanymeritatall,theBoomers’for-profitinnovationsrangefromtheincompetenttothefraudulent.

The flip sideof the terrible for-profitcollegesare the indignitiesvisitedontraditional public institutions and their students. In the 1960s, when Boomerswereoncampus,publiccollegeschargednominal,andoftenzero,annualtuition;today,in-statetuitionrunsaround$13,500.Theexistenceoftuitionitselfisnot

necessarilybad,thoughitishardtoreconcilewiththerhetoricaboutauniversalcollegeexperience.Itisalsonosubstituteforpublicinvestment,especiallywhenitcomestoaddingentirelynewschools,whichtakebillionsofdollarstocreate(for tuition alone to support that expense, studentswould need to pay severalhundredthousanddollarsannually).Inthetwomostsignificantpublicuniversitysystems, thoseofCaliforniaandTexas, lowfundinghaspermittedthecreationofonlyonegenuinelynewcampusduringBoomerreign, thehighlydispiritingUC Merced.* (Compare this to the list of University of California campusesopened between 1900 and 1965: UCLA, UCSB, UC Riverside, UC Davis,UCSD,UC Irvine, andUCSC.)Deposited in a dusty hellhole, opened almosttwodecadesafterauthorized,accreditedsixyearsafterinauguration,andwithadecidedlyunselective2015admissionsrateof64.6percent,vs.about17percentforUCBerkeleyandUCLA,Mercedisessentiallydoomedtofailure.45Evenasthe populations of California and Texas dramatically increased—the latterroughlydoubledfrom1980to2015—systemshavenotkeptup.

While conventional public collegesmay be overcrowded and underfunded,theydovastlybetterthantheirfor-profitequivalents.Unfortunately,hereagain,thedoctrineofcollege-for-allrevealsaseedyBoomerism.MuchofthatoneyearofpostsecondaryworkObamacalledforwillberemedial,forthesimplereasonthatK–12educationhasnotbeendoingitsjob,norhasitdonesoforsometime.Atleast20percentofstudentsatcollegesarriveunprepared,wastingspaceandmoney.46 The job of topping up high school education often falls to (usuallyunderpaid) adjuncts and part-timers, an old practice that reached new andastonishing scale under Boomer administrators. Adjuncts have been hired indroves,nowrepresentingsomethinglike40–50percentofinstructionalfaculty,dependingonthesurveyandtheinstitutions.47

Because the vast majority of new appointments are no longer forconventional, tenure-track positions, the proportion of adjuncts—precisely thetypeofinstructorusuallyassignedtoteachObama’smagicalfirstyearofcollege—will continue rising.Thepresenceof adjunct facultydoesnotbodewell forstudents,asfreshmentaughtbyadjunctshavealesserpropensitytocontinuetoasophomore year, though this is not necessarily the fault of the adjuncts.However, there has been one major expansion in permanent staff growth, innoninstructional personnel, comprised of various administrative positionscreated,andsubsequentlyoccupied,byBoomerstooverseethegrowingfractionofcampuslifethatdoesnotinvolveactualteaching.

Presidingovertheadjunctbazaarsare,ofcourse, theBoomersincapacities

administrative and otherwise. To create the adjunct market, there must bedemand and supply. Demand is provided by things like Obama’s sentimentalinjunction to get that “one year” of college and by for-profit universities thatneedcheap labor. It is furtherstokedby traditionaluniversities,whichconsignmany introductory undergraduate classes (beneath the dignity of Boomerprofessors)tolow-paidadjuncts.TheBoomerprofessorate,meanwhile,focusesonproducingthesupplyofgraduatestudentsrequiredtoserveasadjuncts,fewof whom are likely to get tenure themselves, since Boomer professors seemdetermined to die in their endowed chairs.48 That many older professors areexpensive,unproductiveand,infieldslikemathematics,decadespasttheirprimedisturbsnotonewhitabloatedadministrativeapparatus.

StudentDebtWhatis thenetresult?Toomanybadlyequippedstudentsandanexplosionofdebt.WesawthebillinChapter7;nowweknowthereason.The$1.3+trillionineducationaldebtinthefirstquarterof2016,whichhasovertakencreditcarddebtoverthepastdecade,burdensbothstudentsandsociety—thoughBoomers+leastofall.49

Defaults have already begun, because the education funded by those loanshas been so dubious and the Boomer economy so inadequate to the task ofprovidinggoodjobs.Potentiallossesrunintothehundredsofbillions,andwhilethese liabilities will be amortized over time, the burden will hit youngertaxpayersthemost.Meanwhile,thegainshavebeentransferredtotheBoomer-dominatededucationalbureaucracyandleadershipoffor-profitinstitutions.

AforeignobservermaythinkAmericanpolicyhadbeenrunbypeoplewhohad no experience in education or simply hated it. That observer would bewrong. TheWhite House has been occupied by an endless parade of formereducators. Since 1952, educators-in-chief included: Dwight Eisenhower(president of Columbia University); Lyndon Johnson (high school teacher);GeorgeH.W.Bush(brieflyabusinessschoollecturer);BillClinton(lawschoolprofessor); Barack Obama (same). So, for about half of the time sinceEisenhower’s inauguration, the White House has been occupied by a formerteacherofsomekindorother.BushIIwasnotaneducator,butwasmarriedtoone, so if you include Laura, you could argue educators have resided in theWhiteHouse for about two-thirds of the period between 1952 and 2016.Andthat’s leaving aside the degraded future, the contest of 2016 having beenbetween various ersatz educators, Hillary Clinton (who, notwithstanding herfailureoftheDCbarexam,taughtlawinArkansas,whoselessdemandingtestshe did pass) and Donald Trump (of the distinctly Boomerish Trump“University”), who fended off challenges from yetmore ex-teachers like TedCruz(adjunctlawprofessor),andBernieSanders(brieflyacollegelecturer).

TheChangingShapeofConsumerCredit

What’s going on here? Sadly, this chart needs little explanation: student debt, formerly so minor thegovernmentbarelykeptstatisticsatall,hasbecomethankstoBoomerpoliciesagiantfeatureof thedebt

landscape.50

Not all presidents or candidateswere great educators; then again, statisticsshow that many full-time educators aren’t great educators, either. The onlymodern presidents to really succeed in education (in limited ways) wereEisenhower and Johnson; the former, because he had very specific needs andcurricular goals inmind (the disciplines necessary towin theSpaceRace andCold War) and the latter because he helped alleviate the discrimination andpovertythathadmadeitimpossibleformanystudentstolearnatall—andboth,becausetheyspentrealmoneytoachievemeaningfulandspecificoutcomes.Allthe other educator-leaders either had Boomer students to contend with(eventually,aninsurmountabletask)orwereBoomersthemselves,whopursuedrhetoricoverresults.

AReturntoANationatRiskWhatcanbedone?Intheory,educationisstillmostlyastatematter.Werethefederal government not on the hook, via welfare and other programs, for thevarious failures churned out by the states’ “laboratories of democracy,” thatwouldbeonething.Suchisnotthecase.ItistimeforWashingtontointerveneor set adrift states that refuse to take education seriously.Washington has thepower.Unlikethestates,thefederalgovernmentcanborrowasmuchasitlikes,andhaslongprovidedthemarginaldollar,meaningthat itcansetpoliciesif itchooses. If it could change state drinking ages by threatening to withholdhighwaydollars,itcanandshoulddothesamewithstateschools.

WhatWashingtoncannoteasilychangeisthecultureitself—specificallytheculture created by theBoomers.Until that happens, the parade ofmediocrity,underfunding, and social failure will continue, thirty-five years of wastedopportunitieswhosemoralandfinancialdebtswillbehandedofftotheyoung.

ServingNoOnebyServingTimeInsteadofprovidingeducationandopportunity,Boomersfocusedtheirenergiesonthecreationofanunforgivingpenalstate,furnishedwithintolerantlawsandpanoptic enforcers to supply the inmates.Formany, school is just thewaitingroombeforeformalincarceration.Perhapsmassdetentionwouldbeacceptableifprisonservedasaneffectivedeterrentorsocietylackedalternatives;neitherisorwas true.While society had better options, the Boomers favored ever-stricterlawsandprocessedevermorepeopleintotheprisonsystem,thespectacleoflawandorderalwaysbeingmoresatisfyingtoBoomerpsychologythananyrealityof justice or efficacy. While Reagan often gets the blame for the rise ofimprisonment,itwasBoomerswho(frequentlyinbipartisanaccord)passedthemost odious laws and Boomer administrations that presided over the mostspectacularandfruitlessphasesofmassincarceration.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the argument for expanding incarceration had acertain reasonable dimension, because the United States had problems withcrime—youngpeoplehaveahigherpropensitytocommitcrime,asdoantisocialpeople,andtheUnitedStateswaswellsuppliedwithboth:Boomers.Crimeroseuntil1991,afterwhichBoomershadbeguntoageoutofthebracketsmostliableto commit crimes. (Notably, the largeMillennial generation does not seem asdisposedtocrimeas itsforbears.)AndhadBoomersmaintainedfasteconomicgrowth,crimemighthavefallenwithouttheneedforapenalstate,aseconomicgrowthtendstodepresscrime,allelsebeingdemographicallyequal.51

Evenwiththesefailures,theprisonpopulationshouldhaveleveledoffinthe1990s,insteadofgrowing.Thetraditionaljustificationformassimprisonmentisdeterrence, but on that basis the prison population had reached some efficientpeak no later than the early 1990s—subsequent prison growthwas costly andineffective. A survey by the Brennan Center found that prison growth in the1990shad“relatively little todowith thecrimedecline,”concluding“that thedramatic increases in incarceration have had a limited, diminishing effect oncrime.”52(Anagingpopulationdid,however,seemtohelpfrom1990to1999;therewasnoevidenceofaging’seffectsafter2000,notably.53)

Theanti-empiricalBoomers,ofcourse,hadnopatienceforanalysis:Goingforward,itwouldbe“threestrikes,you’reout.”Itwasaperfectsystemfor the

nation’s chief judicial officer,Boomer JohnRoberts,who during his SupremeCourtconfirmationhearingscompared theroleofa judge to thatofanumpirecounting balls and strikes.Given theBoomers’ test scores, it’s helpful strikeswere limited to three.Americawasat least spared thevistaofBoomer judgesdiscalcing themselves to add past ten or,God forbid, disrobing entirely to getpasttwenty.

The51stState

What’sgoingonhere?ThischartshowsthetotalnumberofAmericanseitherinphysicalcustodyorundercorrectionalsupervision(probation,parole).TheriseincorrectionsbeganbeforetheBoomerstookpower,buttherewas,atthetime,aseriousproblemwithcrime(oftenperpetratedbythen-youthfulBoomers).Bythe early 1990s, crime had already plateaued, but thanks to punitive, bipartisan laws, the correctionalpopulationjustkeptgrowing,atundeniablefinancialandhumancostandwithoutanystrongevidenceofadeterrentaspect.Onlyrecentlyhasthefractiondeclinedmodestly,andquiteabitofthathasbeendrivenbya few states like California releasing masses of prisoners, in some instances because prisons were soovercrowdedthat theyviolatedConstitutionalrequirementsfordecent treatment,whichcountsasafairlymeager improvement. Even correcting for overall population growth, the prison explosion remains—the

totalcorrectionalpopulationrosefrom0.81percentofthepopulationin1980to2.46percentin2007.54

Itwasthearrivaloflawslikethree-strikesthatdrovesomuchimprisonmentduring the 1990s and 2000s. Even if the need for deterrence had waned, thedesireforLeviticaljusticewaxed.TheBoomerswerefedupwithcrime,whichtheirowngenerationhadhelpeddrivetohighlevels,andratherthanengageinself-reflectionoradetailedstudyofhumanealternatives,optedasusualforthe

mostexpedientresponse—crudeandoftenindiscriminatepunishment.Historicaldiscretionforclemencywouldbeprogressivelyremovedfromthemid-1980sbymandatory sentencing guidelines, the better to ensure that pre-Boomer judges(another detestable elite) would not allow legal knowledge, intimacywith thefacts, or human compassion to interfere with the punitive task at hand.DiscretionandmercywerefurthercircumscribedwhenWashingtonStateheldareferendum that approved the firstmodern three-strikes law in 1993, followedover the next two years by twenty-three other states as diverse as California,Louisiana, and Vermont, a situation that proves that even red and blue statescouldfindsometoxiccommongroundunderBoomerleadership.Therehasbeensomerelaxationoftheselawssince,butnotnearlyenough.

The relentless prosecution of nonviolent drug and property crimes alsopaddednumbers.Nixonappointedthefirstdrugczar,butthewaronsubstancesenteredanewphasewith theBoomers.Oneof the firstBoomerdrugwarriorswas, appropriately enough, Bill Bennett (Reagan’s second secretary ofeducation), who transitioned along with his students from the school to thejustice system, the instantiation in a single person of theBoomers’ school-to-prison pipeline. Didn’t-inhale Bill Clinton also participated, appointing drugczars with a remit to do everything from hunting down doctors advising onmedicalmarijuanatofundingaerialdispersalsofherbicidestokillcocaplantsinColombia, a strategy that recalled the whole scandal over Agent Orange inVietnamandprovedaboutaseffective.55(Clintonalsosupported,forsometime,abanonfundingneedleexchangesaspartofthelaw-and-orderspectacle.)Thelist goes on, including the zero-tolerance policies and “Broken Windows”policing endorsed by New York City’s (Boomer) mayor Rudy Giuliani andpracticedbyhiscogenerationallieutenantattheNYPD,BillBratton.

EvenasBoomerpoliceforcesgrewandweregiveneverstrictermandatestopursueeventhemostminorcrimes(liketurnstilejumping,anoriginalobjectoftheNYPD’szero-tolerancepolicy),theofficesofpublicdefenderswereslowlystarved of funds. The public defense system, neverwell funded, needed to atleast keep up with the human inventory stockpiled by newly vigorous policedepartments.Becausecompensatingdefensefundswerenotforthcoming,whenprisonpopulationsreachedapeakin2007thenationhadthefull-timeequivalentof just 15,000 conventional public defenders against a caseload of 5.6million.*,56Howthismathallowedthejusticesystemtofulfillitsconstitutionalduty to provide defendants with adequate counsel went unpondered by theBoomers.57

Afterthe2008crash,prisonpopulationsdeclinedsomewhat,theproductofaminortransitiontoleniency,acertainlackoffundingafterthe2008crash,andinsome cases, court-ordered release of prisoners held in institutions soovercrowded as to violate the EighthAmendment’s ban on cruel and unusualpunishment.Itistoosoontotellifthepatternwillpersist.Certainly,theagingofthe Boomer blue-collar criminal class helps, as does the absence of massdetentionforwhite-collarcrimesassociatedwithrecentstockmarketcrashes.†,58

Regardlessoftherecentandminordipinprisoners,theUnitedStatesstillhasthelargestprisonpopulationintheworldonanabsolutebasis(despitebeingadistantthirdinpopulation;ChinaandIndiaareeachfourtimeslarger).Aquarteroftheworld’sprisonersresideinUSprisons,althoughlessthan5percentoftheworld’spopulationisAmerican.59Ofallmajorcountries,saveperhapsRussia,theUnitedStateshasbyfarthelargestprisonpopulationpercapita—around0.7percent of Americans are in detention (1 in 143) and 2.1 percent in thecorrectionalsystemintotal(includingsupervisedparolees,or1in47).60Thesenumbersaredownfromtheirpeakin2007,almostentirelyduetothedecreaseinprobationers, rather than prisoners, and even Obama’s worthy grants ofclemencyinhisfinalyeararearoundingerror.61Manyprisonersdeservetobewhere theyare,butmanyotherscouldhaveendedupsomewhereelsehad theBoomersystemnotfailed them.Instead, theyreside inprisonsfull tobursting,which is less hyperbole than numerical fact. In 2014 federal facilitieswere at128percentofratedcapacity,withstatesrangingfromalowof50percent(NewMexico) toahighof150percent (Illinois),andcombinedpopulationaveragesalmost 112 percent of maximum ratings—in other words, the prisons arestuffed.62

Beyond normative issues, this massive prison population is an economicliability. Prisoners produce almost no economic value and are expensive tohouse (though private prisons have partly offset costs by monetizing inmatelabor, a situation uncomfortably close to slavery). A survey of forty statesshowed each additional prisoner had an official real cost of $31,286.63 InCalifornia, the government estimates it cost $47,102 annually to incarcerate apersonasof2009,apricethatroseby$19,500inlessthanadecade;thistrendwill continue.64 California is an expensive state for anything, but the federalgovernment,evenwiththedubiousbenefitofeconomiesofscaleandfacilitiesincheaperstates,hasanaverageinmatecostof$30,620peryear.65Wecandebatewhatan“average”taxpayeris,butgiveneffectivetaxratesandrangesitwould

taketheentiretaxrevenueofatleastfouranduptoadozenmiddlingtaxpayersto support a single prisoner—or, to use state analogies again, itwouldbe liketaxingVirginia to imprisonNebraska.* Depending on assumptions and tastes,different statescouldbechosen,but thepoint is simply that there’s somethingoffaboutasocietythatspendssomuchtoachievesolittle.

Naturally,theneoliberalmachinehasoffereditsservices(privateprisons)tosiphon off public funds to be transferred to their shareholders and Boomerexecutives.The largestof theseprivateprisons areCorrectionsCorporationofAmericaandGEO—thefirstfoundedbyBoomersandthesecondbyaBoomer-age immigrantraised inAmericaandwell immersed inBoomerculture.Thesecompletedtheneoliberalcustodialtrinity:charterschools,for-profituniversities,andnowtheirbarbed-wireequivalents,privatizedprisons.Thereareindicationsthatthisexperimentmaybefaltering,butwithpublicprisonsfull,therewillbeprivateprisonsforsometime.

The total costs of the prison state are necessarily large: about $86 billionacross federal, state, and local prisons.66 (For context,California’s correctionsbudgetconsiderablyexceedsthatstate’sgrantstotheentireUCsystem.67)Onlypartof the costs arepaidoutof current receipts, given the federaldeficit, andstates’relianceonlong-termdebttopayforprisonconstruction;therefore,manyofthesecostswillbepasseddown.Thebiggestcost,perhaps,willarrivewhenprisoners fulfill their sentences and return to the general population, a processonly just beginning. These future parolees include huge subpopulations of theold,thementallyill,andthebadlyeducated,whoseinfirmitiesandconvictionsprecludethemfrommanyjobs.Theywillthereforebetransferredfromoneformofstate-subsidizedlivingtoanother:welfare,Medicaid,etc.68

TheAmericanjusticesystemhasalwayshaditsbiases,againstminoritiesandthe poor, and these are not the Boomers’ creations. What Boomers areresponsible for is the explosion in the prison population, vastly increasing thenumbersofthoseexposedtoinstitutionalinjusticewhileprovidingnorealpathfor these prisoners to become self-sufficient on release. As ex-convicts bleedinto the probation system and then the general public, the costs will bedisproportionatelybornebycurrentandfuturetaxpayers,nottheBoomerswhopresidedovermassincarcerationinthefirstplace.

OnenotableperversityofBoomerjusticeisthecreationofapolicestatebyLeftists of the very same generation so heavily associatedwith protesting the“pigs” during theVietnamWar, the 1968DemocraticConvention, and so on,their supposedly libertarian cogenerationalists, and even small-state Rightists.

Ideological consistency proved no restraint, and the Boomers sanctioned thepolice to be the sword and arm of newly discovered middle-class moralism.What changed?Now, itwas not peace symbols being spray-painted on publicbuildings,butcrimesagainstBoomerproperties.Thejunkieswerenolongerthe(whitish) denizens of 1967’s Love Fest, but people of discomfiting huesdespoilingdogparksandother conveniences requiredby theBoomers.Blacksfor whom the Boomers had supposedly rallied in the 1960s were swept intoprisonatratesvastlygreater thanthewhites,withblackmen3.8 to10.5 timesmorelikelytobeservingayearormorethancomparablewhites,dependingonage.69

TheBrennanCenternotedthatan“agingpopulation”contributedsomewhatto thedecline incrime.Youngpeoplehistoricallyhaveagreaterpropensity tocommitcrime,but thearrivalof theverylargeMillennialgenerationpromptedno crime wave, nor was there anything comparable before the 1960s. TheBoomers may be more entangled than anyone realized. After all, somethingchangedfrom1967to1991,andwewillpaythepricefordecadestocome.Alas,the Boomer decades have left the country ill equipped to pay for anything,includingaspectacularlyill-advisedprisonstate.

CHAPTERFIFTEEN

THEWAGESOFSIN

From1989until2007,medianwealthincreasedforfamilies

headedbysomeoneoverage50,rosesomewhatforfamilies

headedbysomeonebetween35–49,andstayedmuchthe

sameforyoungerfamilies…Marketablewealth—themeasure

usedinthisanalysis—significantlyunderstatestheresources

ofafamilythatexpectsmuchofitsretirementincometocomefromSocialSecurityordefinedbenefitpension

plans.—CongressionalBudgetOffice(2016)1

OneofthemorecuriousartifactsoftheBoomerdecadesisluxuryvoyeurism,aphenomenonthatbeganin1984withtheLifestylesoftheRichandFamousandcontinuedthroughthevariousRealHousewivesseriesandDowntonAbbey.Thelast is at least nakedly fictional, though no less bizarre for it: an antimodernmelodramaofentitledtoffs,statelyhomes,anddubious-though-usually-deferent

staff, and generally celebrates the very system of antidemocratic immobilityagainstwhichAmericahadoriginallyrebelled.Downtonmanagestoaffrontboththenation’sliberaloriginsand,givenitsthemeandstatesponsorship(PBS),alsoruns counter to the muddled anti-elite, anti-government populism of theRepublicanproletariat. It succeedednonetheless.There is somethingdecidedlyoddaboutanationostensiblytiedinknotsoverincomeinequalitydroolingover,as the critic Robert Hughes remarked in another context, “the spectacle ofprivilege enjoying its own toilette.”2 Maybe America is okay with inequalityafter all.Ormaybe theBoomers are.OrmaybeTVhas simplynarcotized thepopulationintoacceptingafaitaccompli.

TV, America’s defining leisure/cultural activity and thus of immensesociological importance, no longer offers the relatively realist middle-class ofLeaveIttoBeaver(c.1960),theblue-collargritofAllintheFamily(c.1970s),ortheaspirationalmovin’-on-up-ismofTheJeffersons(c.1975),tosaynothingof the edifying splendor showcased inKennethClark’sCivilization (c. 1969),oneofthelastshowstoassumeviewers’abilityfor,andpredispositionto,beinguplifted. The great pacifier in an age of inequality, TV since the 1980s hashelpedinoculateagainstresentmentsolongasparticipantshavetherightaccent—British,forclass;suburbantrash,foraccessibilityorderision,astheaudiencerequires.*Inthe1950s,richAmericansknewbetterthantoflauntwealth.Now,as long as display is leavened with degrading, preferably televisual,exhibitionism,itcanbetolerated,enjoyed,orundertheBoomers,evenusedasthebasisforcandidacy,e.g.,FredThompson,JesseVentura,AlFranken,SonnyBono, Donald Trump, and so on. And TV’s window into the 1 percent hasbecomeincreasinglyimportant,asamoderatelypricedflatscreenhasbecometheonly aperture throughwhichmostAmericans can reasonably expect to inhabitthe moneyed world. When George Jefferson, after amassing a dry-cleaningfortune in the outer boroughs,moved to his “deluxe apartment in the sky” in1975,justbeforemiddle-classwagesstartedtheirlongstagnation,hewasnotinthevanguardofmobility,butafinalstraggler.Jeffersonswatcherswitnessedafuneral,notafuture.

The reason for that, of course, is that the Boomers’ sociopathic strain ofgovernancehasnotliveduptoitspromises,asthemediocreeconomyhasmadeabundantlyclear.Onceuponatime,slowgrowthmighthavebeenchalkeduptoan“outputgap,”thedifferencebetweentheeconomy’sactualperformanceandtruepotential.Becausesystematicunderinvestmentandbadpolicyhavereducedpotential,there’snotsomuchagapasconvergencetowardanewanddepressing

normal, a “secular stagnation.”After 2007–2008, the Fed regularly revised itsestimates of potential downward, from2.8 percent to 2.5 percent, 2.4 percent,2.2 percent, and then 2.0 percent in 2016, at which point one Fed governorgamelytriedtoputafloorunderthings,sayingthatitwouldbe“hard”tomakethe case for 1.0–1.5 percent growth.3 Hard, perhaps, but not impossible; Fedgovernorsmoreorlesssaidthesamethingabout2.0percentgrowthbackwhentheywere predicting 2.8 percent. In the first quarter of 2016, annualized realgrowth dropped to 0.8 percent before rebounding somewhat the followingquarterto1.4percent,soitwasnotonlynot“hard”tomakethecaseforsub-1.5growth,itiswhatactuallyhappened.4Atsomepoint,onemustbowtoyearsoflackluster numbers and admit that there is little gap, “output” or otherwise,betweenwhatishappeningandwhatcouldbehappening.

WhileAmericans regularly rank theeconomyasa topconcern,manyhavelittle idea what secular stagnation entails, a situation politicians have beencarefultoencourage.JudgedbytheClintons’exhalations,the1990swereaneraofuninterruptedprosperityrudelycurtailedbyIncuriousGeorge.(Skipover,asyouaremeantto,thefactthatmanyoftheproblemsGeorgemadeworsewereoriginallycreatedbyBill.)Meanwhile,pertheObamaadministration’srhetoric,theeconomicrepairjobhadbeenmostlycompletedasObamaleftoffice—onemorecoatofpaint,andtheeconomichousewouldbeasgoodasnew.Noneofthesestoriesare true:Whatwehavenowisaveryfragilenewnormalofverylow growth, hollow employment, mounting inequality and, on the presentcourse,fartoolittletolookforwardto.

Income,Growth,andIntergenerationalTransfersGDPgrowthhasbeendeceleratingundertheBoomers,asthenextchartshows.Fortheperiod2000–2015,theeconomymanagedrealannualaveragegrowthof1.9percentversusover2.9percentinyearsbetween1970and1980(whichwereviewedatthetimeassomethingofaneconomichorrorshow).Theeconomyofthe1980sand1990sperformedsomewhatbetterthanthe1970s,thoughnotbyas much as commonly believed—and the ’90s, presently felt to be an era ofprosperity,underperformedmostofthepostwar/pre-Boomerperiod.Therelativemediocrityofthe1990swasalossmadeworsebythedesperateandshortsightedmanner in which it was achieved. As we’ve seen, quite a lot of Boomer-eragrowth was debt financed and consumption driven rather than a product ofstrong fundamentals.Muchof thenear stagnation after 2000was the result ofchoicesmadeinthelate1980sand1990s,andtheworstofthebillswillcomedue in the next decades. The capital gains cuts, bubbles, deregulation,disinvestment,andsoonoftheBillClintonyearscannotbedetachedfromtheinequality, crashes, bank consolidations, and slow growth that immediatelyfollowed,howevermuchHillaryClintonwouldhavehaditotherwise.

TheEraofSlowlyDiminishingExpectations

What’s going onhere? Economic growth overall and per person grew faster in the pre-Boomer years.Even the 1990s, a “success story,” appears to be nothing spectacular in context. By the 2000s, growthslowedconsiderablyasthefullweightofBoomerpoliciesmanifested.Decadesarearbitrarydivisions,but

thedistinctionsbetweengrowth,beforeBoomerpowerandduring,arenotarbitraryandnotsmall.5

As the unusual anger of the past few elections demonstrates, America’sconcernswerenotlimitedtoslowergrowthoverall,butalsothedistributionofwealthwithinafalteringeconomy.Medianincomehasbeenessentiallyflatformanyyears,asidefromanoutlying(andperhapsanomalous)blipin2015whichdidnotchangethegeneralshapeofthings.Gainsinaverageincomehavebeenalmostentirelydrivenbygainsatthetopofthedistribution.Withoutbelaboringthespecificsofaproblemwelltreatedelsewhere,economicinequalityhasvastlyexpanded since the1980s,withmoney flowing to the top segment andalmostnowhere else. It is, in substantial part, a Boomer phenomenon, becausewhileinequality has risen in other countries, in no other advanced economy has theshift been quite as pronounced as in the United States, with the limitedexceptionsofourculturalcousinsinCanadaandBritain.ThetaxandmonetarypoliciesthatledtothiswerealreadycoveredinChapters7and11.

Whilehelpfulincallingattentiontotheissuesofinequality,someofthepost-2008 jeremiads about the 1 percent were too facile, ignoring as they did thatevenfairlylargedegreesofinequalityhaveacertaininevitability.Inequalityisaconsequenceofacapitalistsystemforwhichthereisnoreplacement,astheutterfailuresofNorthKorea,Cuba,Venezuela,Bolivia,andtheSovietUnionshowed(manyofwhichprovedthat“communist”regimesalsohadextremeinequality).DengXiaoping,himselftheleaderofathensocialiststate,realizedthisdecadesyears ago and loosened the communitarian leashonChinese entrepreneurship.WhetherDeng actually said “to get rich is glorious” or openly acknowledgedthat some people would “get rich first,” that’s been the People’s Republic’smodus vivendi ever since, and successful (so far).6 That’s the nature ofcapitalism everywhere, even “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”7Capitalismis,ifnotaperfectmachineforgeneratinggeneralprosperity,thenthebest one yet devised and the only one conceivable in America. One of itsoutcomes is some very rich people—indeed, the enticement of extraordinarywealthispartofwhatmakesthesystemwork.Thecritical issuesarewhogetsrichandhow;societyhasneverbeenagnosticaboutthesematters.

If Boomer-era inequality had simply been the product of fast growth andinnovation,withrisingtidesliftingallboatsandafewyachtsbesides,thatwouldhave been fine. That was not the case. Inequality has been driven by debt,speculation, lower taxes, lowersocial investment, redoundingin theshort termto the benefit of the rich—but those rich people are notmerely rich, they areoverwhelmingly old (which is why they tolerate the short-term aspect).WealthierhouseholdstiltBoomerish,withthebalancesheetinflatednotsomuchbyrealgrowthandinvestment—thesluggishGDPfiguresimplyasmuch—butby the transfer of wealth from other generations to themselves. The onlyhouseholdstoexperiencegainsinmedianfamilywealthfrom1989to2013werethoseheadedbypeopleagesixty-fiveorolder,sotheoldesthouseholdsin2013werewealthier than theirpeersof1989.TheyoungerBoomers alsogot richerfrom1989to2007,andwhilethecrashproducedsomelosses,theyweremuchless affected than non-Boomers. Although older households are usuallywealthierthanyoungeronesforobviousreasons,thegapsbetweenyoungerandolder, Boomers and non-Boomers, grew. In 1989, fifty-to sixty-four-year-olds(non-Boomers)were~1.7timeswealthierthanthirty-five-toforty-nine-year-olds(Boomers). By 2013, Boomerswere the fifty-to sixty-five-year-olds, and theywere~2.5timeswealthierthanthenewsetofthirty-five-toforty-nine-year-olds(almost all ofwhomwere non-Boomers).And that calculation ofwealth doesnotincludeSocialSecurityorpensions,whichprobablydragtheentireBoomercohortintopositiveterritory;everyoneelsedidandprobablywilldoworse.8

TheBoomers’extractionofwealthfromothergenerationshelpsexplainwhytheOrganisation forEconomicCooperation andDevelopment (OECD) rankedtheUnitedStatesdeadlastamongpeers ina2013surveyof“intergenerationalequity.”9 The United States, an “outlier” among developed nations, had an“exceedingly high” rate of child poverty (21 percent), compared to NorthernEurope(4–7percent).Achievinglowerratesofseniorpovertyattheexpenseoftheyoung,presentandfuture,hasbeenachoice.PertheOECD,USspendingontheoldoutpacesspendingon theyoungbyalmost5:1.The ratiowillonlygetworseasmoreBoomersretireandabsorbbenefits,aprocessthatwillcontinueasBoomers joinentitlements rolls and remain thereuntil the lastBoomersdieout after 2050. On intergenerational terms, America is not doing well. OnlyJapan,Austria,andafewothercountrieswithmucholderpopulations(manyofwhich are, for reasons related and not, perpetual basket cases like Italy andGreece)haveaworseskewwhenitcomestospendingontheelderlyversusthenonelderly.

International comparisons are illustrative, not definitive, because eachcountry has its own quirks and accounting.Regardless, theOECDhas almostcertainlybeentoo lenientwith theUnitedStateson threecritical inputs—debt,seniorspending,andecology.Aswe’veseeninpriorchapters,onecannottakethevariousnumbersthatserveasOECD’sinputsatfacevalue,startingwiththedebt.AnddespiteOECD’s forgivingcalculation, theUnitedStates is still last.It’salsonotablethatAmerica’sclosestculturalparallel,Canada(whosecitizenswill doubtless detest the comparison), also languishes near the bottom. It hasbeen subject to its own, if less odious, generation of Boomers, like StephenHarper (b. 1959),Canada’s answer toBush II and its first realBoomer primeminister.*

Thepovertyyoungpeoplecurrentlyexperiencewillreappearinoldage.Theheavytilttowardseniorspendinghasreduced(fornow)povertyamongcurrentseniors. Senior poverty rates are now lower than poverty rates for the generalpopulationandlessthanhalfyouthpovertyrates.10That’sfinefortheBoomers,butwhentheSocialSecurityTrustFundisexhausted,benefitswillautomaticallybecutabsentdrasticpoliticalaction.Therefore,morefutureseniors(GenXandyounger) will revert to the conditions Boomers have already imposed on theyoung:alotofpoverty.Theratesofseniorpoverty,drivendownto10percentby2014,willafter2034–2037resembleorexceedtoday’syouthpovertyratesof21percent.11Theyoungwillnotremainyouthful,butmanywillremainpoor.

Theenrichmentoftheoldattheexpenseoftheyoungshowsthefundamentalabsurdityaboutcrudefixationsonthe1percent.The1percentcannotcontrolademocracyontheirown.AgiantpopulationofagingBoomerscanandhas.Itisnosurprise that therichareold,or that thepatternsofwealthaccumulationofthetwogroupsovertheBoomerdecadeslooksosimilar.

Richvs.PoororOldvs.Young?

What’sgoingonhere?Theconventionalnarrative is that the richestAmericanshavebeengettingveryrich,veryquickly,andthatismostlytrue,withthetophalfofonepercentdoingbyfarthebestandtheveryrichtop5to10percentdoingquitewell.Thedoublelineshowsthemultipleofworthofafamilyricherthan94.99percentofotherAmericansvs.themedianfamilyasaproxyofthevery,butnotbillionairelevel,rich. The other lines show the same dynamic, except with households grouped by age vs. householdsheadedbypeopleunder thirty-five.Thegapsbetweenrichandmiddle-classand thegapbetweentheoldandyounghavebeengrowinginthesameway.Peopleexercisedabouttrendsinwealthinequalityshouldalsobeworriedaboutageinequality.Theexceptiontothetrendisforthelate-middle-aged,whosehousingwealthwashardhitbytheGreatRecession.Oncepost-2013dataisin,eventhisgroupshouldbeinbettershape, as unprecedented intervention has rescued many Boomer homeowners. Part of this is natural:Households should bewealthier as they get older, but the striking thing is how the dynamics of old vs.

youngmirrorthemuchmorepoliticallyprominentdynamicofrichvs.middleclass.12

TheManyFlavorsofUnemploymentTherecoverysince2008hasbeenoneoftheweakestandslowestrecorded,sofragileandwithsomuchriskofreversal that ithardlyseemsarecoveryatall,notwithstanding the perky jobs reports the Obama administration routinelyissued. We have already seen that the official unemployment rate, whichhovered around 5 percent in Obama’s last year, has been driven in part bydeclininglaborforceparticipation.Theofficialunemploymentrateiscalled“U-3,”andmeasurestotalunemployed,butcountsonlythosewithoutjobswhoarestilllookingforwork—notthepermanentlydiscouragedortheunderemployed,twocategoriesofincreasingimportanceintherecentandiffyrecovery.*,13

Broadermeasuresofunemploymentofferalesshearteningpicture,onethatsquaresmore easilywith the rage of certain populists (theTrumpenproletariatand unreconstructedBernie fanatics, e.g.). If unemploymentwere really just 5percent, the Republican and Democratic primaries would have been withouttheir stranger fauna—creatures that were, like many exotic consumables,imported.Trumpisabillionaire,probably;acipher,certainly;andaRepublican,absolutely not. Sanders is not a Democrat, though registered as such for theprimary,andasofearly2016,hisSenatehomepagemadeclearwhathewasandreallyis:the“longestservingindependentmemberofCongress.”14Sandersisapermanent creature of government, albeit of an odd socialist hue, but not an“outsider”(perChapter5),aDemocrat,orevenacogentthinkeronhiskeyissueof financial reform (for that, one must turn to Elizabeth Warren, one thecomparativelyrareexamplesofthoughtfulBoomerlegislatorsdespiteherrecentinflammatory tack). Market-based democracies with true 5 percentunemployment just do not produce these sorts of oddities, or produce as theironetime front-runner the wildly unpopular and protean mystery that is Mrs.Clinton, ex–Goldwater Girl and present Democrat, alternately for and againstfreetradedependingonthemoment,andsoon,hercompasspointingnottoanideological pole but its political homonym, much less ditch her for the evenstrangerTrump.

Morerealisticmetricsthanconventionalunemploymentfiguresexplaintheseoddities.TheBureauofLaborStatistics’broadestmeasureisU-6,whichdippedbelow10percentonlysixyearsafter theGreatRecessionofficially“ended.”15

U-6 includes the conventionally unemployed, plus the underemployed, andothers“marginallyattached”tothelaborforce.Combinedwiththosewhohavetotallygivenup,U-6offersalesshearteningpicture;10percentisnotgreat,andit’sreasonablypossibletocalculatebleakernumbers(butnothingquiteashighaswhat somepoliticians haveoffered—e.g., it’s not 25percent). In economicterms,Obamaspentbothofhistermsgettingthecountryfrompanictoaplacethat is at best disappointing, though this is not primarily his fault.These factsexplainsomeofthepopularrage.

Unemployment:Larger,Longer,andWorse

What’sgoingonhere?Thesimplestwaytolookatthischartiswhetherthesquigglylinesareaboveorbelowthehorizontallines—abovemeanstheeconomyisdoingworsefortheunemployedthaninthepre-Boomeryears.DuringthecourseofBoomerpower,thingshavetendedtodriftdistinctlyabovethelines.SixyearsaftertheGreatRecession,officialunemploymentfinallydroppedbelowitspre-Boomeraverage(the double horizontal line). However, looking at other measures, unemployment remains a problem:broader measures of unemployment remain elevated and the duration of unemployment (the bar field)remainsverylong,especiallyrelativetothepre-Boomeraverages(thesolidblackhorizontalline).Peopleoutofworkforlongperiodstendtobelesssuccessfulatevergettinggoodreplacementjobs,sothisisin

somesenseapredictoroffuturetroubles.16

That theObamaadministrationhasemphasized thenarrowerU-3 fallswell

shortofsociopathicdeceit,giventhelonghistoryofU-3.Nevertheless,focusingonU-3 does not acknowledge fundamental shifts in the economy; it’s akin tofixating on America’s lead in the production of Necco wafers—i.e.,simultaneouslytrueandsomewhatbesidethepoint.Jobshavebeencreated,butnotalljobsarecreatedequal,andquiteafewdonotprovidetheopportunitytoworkasmanyhoursaspeoplewouldlikeorneed.Adecliningfractionofjobsofferfullbenefitsandadegreeofsecurity;manyothersoffer(atmost)flexibilityinsteadofhealthcareandemploymentguarantees.Thelatterkindofjobfeaturesprominentlyinthe“gig”economy.*Whatevertheirothermerits,gigsandtempjobsdonotofferthestabilityandbenefitsofconventionalemployment,andonlysomeparticipantsreallypreferthesesortsofjobs.

Thegig economyandother “alternativework arrangements” accounted forquitealotofrecentjobgrowth,probablyatleastathirdofalljobscreated,andper preliminary findings by Harvard’s Lawrence Katz and Princeton’s AlanKrueger,perhaps“allof thenetemploymentgrowth in theU.S.economy from2005–2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements”(emphasis original; in a recent update, the authors revised “all” to a no-less-unsettling“94percent”).17AndthisreturnsustoDowntonAbbey—beforeWorldWar I, huge numbers ofEnglishwere employed “in service,” thanks to socialinertia,inequality,andtechnologicalchange.Withgigs,thisishappeningagain,only now the chauffeur comes in the livery of Lyft’s pink moustache, notDownton’s white tails. And this time, there will be no intermarriage betweenpassengeranddriveràlaLadySybilandTom,especiallyinthecomingdecadeswhen the driver becomes a robot. The Dowager Countess of Grantham hasbecomeLadyBrendaof theColonies, residing inSunCity,Arizona,courieredfrom aquarobics to gerontologist by rideshare and nursed by a contractorworkforce, often composed of the immigrants her ex-governor Jan Brewer sodetested.18Atleast,however,there’sstillstaff;indeed,LadyBrendacanexpectmore,albeityounger,browner,poorer,andoccasionallyinanimate.

Thequestionofjobsandwhofillsthemopensmessyquestionsoftradeandimmigration,twofixturesofAmericanpolicythathaverecentlyreturnedtotheforefrontofdebate.Intheory,tradeandimmigrationbringnetbenefits,butforwhom? Over the very long term, everybody wins, but no voter or politicianoperatesongeologictimescales.Intheshortrun,freetradeandimmigrationtendtobenefitconsumers inhigher-incomecountriesandworkers in,oremigratingfrom, lower-incomecountries.Over themedium term,beneficiaries tend tobethoseinsulatedfromdisplacementeitherbyseniority,skill,ormoney(whether

previously earned or currently doled out courtesy of the government ormonopolypower),categoriesinhabitedbyolderpersons.

Overasingle(sociopathic)individual’slifespan,anoptimumstrategymightbetoopposeimmigrationandtradewhileyoungandvulnerabletodisplacement,fliptosupportinmiddleageonceunionrules,tenure,andcapitalprovidedsomebuffer,atthatpointrelyingonthegovernmenttoensureagainstthediminishingperiodof riskbetween tariff-freebingesatCostcoand thecollectionofSocialSecurity. For someone born circa 1950, the 1980s might have therefore beenpremature for unrestrained free trade; perhaps better to “BuyAmerican!” andsupport aRepublicanwaging a trade campaign against Japan (asReagandid).Thearrivalofthe1990sandmiddle-agedsecuritymighthavebeenachancetoreversethosepositionsinfavorofmaximumconsumptionwithoutanyworryofpersonalreplacement(andindeed,thiswaswhenNAFTApassedwithbipartisansupportandwhenamajorwaveofillegalimmigrationoccurred).By2016,withSocial Security kicking in and a transfer of spending from foreign goods todomestic services (provided for by millions of illegal immigrants alreadyemplaced),onemighthavebeenfree to indulgeinwhateverviewalignedwiththeprejudicesofthemoment.Andthiswas,ofcourse,basicallywhathappened:heavy-handed statism under Reagan, liberalization starting with Clinton andperhapsendingafterObama,andacertainrenewedtoleranceamongthoseolder,on the dole, or in possession of large portfolios, of nativism and monopolypower(moreonthelastinamoment).

Thedetailsandemotionsaroundtradeandimmigrationarecomplicatedandvariable,butonethinghasalwaysbeenclear:Tradewouldproducedislocations(the polite term for layoffs) and worked best if there were mechanisms foradjustment,beitwelfare,jobtraining,R&Dtosupportnewindustries,orallofthatandmore.Obviously,nothingquite so thoughtfulorextensive tookplace.Instead, there were purely geographic relocations. Some existing and manypotentialjobsfromtheRustBeltwereshuffledofftoMexicanmaquiladorasorsent to thenearest thingAmericahad toThirdWorld laborandenvironmentalconditions and biddable politicians, i.e., the Southeast. Detroit aggressivelyexpandedsouthoftheborderpost-NAFTA,whileBMWopenedaplantinSouthCarolina, a state refreshingly lightofunion laws and pollution constraints andalways open to tax and regulatory concessions.19 While trade did causereshufflingof incomes,somelosseswerepartlyoffsetby increasedpurchasingpower.PricesforconsumablesfromAsiaandMexicofell,andthatwasfineformiddle-agedconsumers.Eventually,ofcourse,tradeandimmigrationmeantthat

thepricesofservices(wages)wouldfollowthepriceofgoods;again,fine,withSocialSecurityontheway.Thecoursesoftradeandimmigrationhavenotbeenirrationalorunintended.Theyhavebeensociopathicallyperfectasastrategy.

OneotheritemabouttradeandtheBoomers:OfthemanyreasonstoexplainAmerica’sboomingpost–WWIIeconomyanditssubsequentfaltering,perhapsthemostlaboredandBoomerishexcuseisthatwiththerestoftheworldflatonits back from 1940 to 1970, America had it easy. The facts show thatunderperformance cannot be excused on that basis. Though physicallyundamaged, America had its own, if less onerous, war debts and a huge,displacedlaborforceofsoldiersandciviliansuppliers.Nothingabout1946waseasy, at home or abroad, though the young Boomers didn’t realize this. Still,America managed to pay down debts and retrain workers, achievements thatcouldhavebeenmodels forhandling themuchsmallerdislocationscreatedbyfreetrade.IfmillionsofsoldierscouldbetransitionedviatheGIBill,couldnotsomethingsimilarhavehappenedpost-NAFTA?

Moreover, America prospered even as Europe and Japan recovered andbecame more competitive. America even pursued a policy to its short-termdisadvantage, heavily subsidizingmany former enemies and allies alike in theform of defense, foreign aid, and open markets; America made itself lesscompetitive after thewar than it couldhavebeen.Themidcenturywasnot aneconomic cakewalk. It was the product of prudential policies at home andabroad. It was not in the 1950s, when Europe and Japan were in ruins, thatAmerica stalled, butmuch later, even as competitors’wages, regulations, andcurrenciesconvergedtoAmericanlevels.ThatcounterstheconvenientnarrativeofAmericaskinnedalivebythecunningmanufacturersofNagoyaandMunich,protectedbycurrencymanipulatorsinTokyoandBonn.(NorhaveEuropeandJapan’s demographically driven slowdowns resulted in any sudden uptick inAmerican growth, showing again thatAmerica does bestwhen everyone doeswell.)Finally,thereissomethingnotmerelyuntrue,butwhollydepressing,evenun-American,abouttheideathat thenationcanonlycompetewhentherestoftheworldisinruins.

TheFifthWallAmerica did enjoy one immediate benefit of European chaos: the massimmigration of highly talented Europeans to the safety of the States.Immigrationcontinuedrisingingrosstermsfordecades,thoughmuchofitwasillegal,andhappenedundertheBoomers.Whetherimmigrationhasbeengood,bad, or indifferent overall is largely beyond the scope of this book, thoughofcourse to the extent untrainedmigrants are an initial drain, the remediation ofgood schooling might help. Of course, that has not been provided even toAmericansofunquestionablynativeparentage.

Whatisgermaneistheutterstrangenessofpresentimmigrationpolicy.Youmay expect that well-educated, motivated immigrants would be precisely thesortofpeoplepreferredbythesystem.Theirimprovement,afterall,waspaidforbysomeothercountry’staxdollarsandrepresentsanoutrighttransferofvaluetotheUnitedStates.TheserealitiesmotivatedOperationPaperclip,whichheldthe national nose and vacuumed upGerman scientists after thewar.And yet,visasliketheH-1Bforskilledimmigrants(nowunburdenedbyNazipasts)arenotoriouslydifficulttoget,cappedat85,000(65,000standard,20,000relatedtomaster’sdegrees),thoughvariousadministrativequirksmanagetoaccommodateabout130,000suchpersonsannually.*,20Theseindividuals—aswellasthoseonstudentvisas—receive trainingat thepartialexpenseofAmericancorporationsanduniversities.Inamoveofstunningperversity,manyarethenshuffledback,ladenwithAmericanintellectualpropertyandskills,totheirplacesoforigin.

WhilethetalentedmustpassthroughtheeyeoftheH-1Bneedle,widedoorsremain for others courtesy of the talent-agnostic mechanisms of kinship andplainillegality,slipwaysnotcarefullytargetedtoAmerica’slong-termeconomicadvantage.The formermight be an areawhere theBoomers have displayed aredemptiveempathy,oratleast,nonsociopathicinertia.ThelatterhasjustbeenapolicyfailureandoneabettedbyBoomeremployers,whocontentedthemselvestolookawayorprofit—acategorythat(twice)cameveryclosetoincludingthenation’stoplawenforcementofficer.HencethespectacleofBillClinton’sfirsttwo nominees for attorney general being scuttled over their employment ofundocumentednannies.Clintonblithelyproceededwith the firstnomineeevenaftershedisclosedherknowing impropriety;bothClintonandJoeBiden, then

ontheJudiciaryCommittee,seemedtobeoftheviewthat“everybodydoesit,”until scandal forced them to proclaim that everybody does not do it.21 Bothnominees were (inevitably) Boomers.* Their nominations failed as nativistsexpressedoutrage.Ofcourse,manyofthosemakingpilgrimagestoCapitolHilltoventtheirspleensreturnedtoMcMansionstendedbytheirownstaffofillegalgardeners, contractors, andnannies.Whateverpartisans said,BoomerAmericawantedtheseimmigrantsandthecheaplabortheyprovided,justastheywantedcheap foreign goods. As drug cartels know, where there is demand, there issupply, so immigrants arehere, legally andotherwise. It’s incumbentonus tofindadecentsolutiontothisBoomermess,perhapsamodifiedBraceroproject(a migrant worker program that ran from the 1940s to the 1960s) or modestenforcementoftaxIDlaws.AlthoughObamamadesomedecentefforts,hewasstymiedby theBoomerpoliticalconsensus,whosemostenergeticpropositionsboildowntotheinfeasibleandindefensible:wallsandlook-the-other-way.

MonopolyMoneyThere is, finally, the issueof risingmonopolypower, a sociopathicproductofneoliberalismcoupledwithadistasteforthehardworkoflong-terminvestment.Monopoliescanprovideshort-termprofitsatlowcost,withnothingmorethanaquick change to the law, benefits redounding to the (Boomer) capital class.Monopoliesareinextricablylinkedtojobs,inequality,andproductivity,becauseabusive monopolies can maintain profitability while firing staff, outsourcingcustomerservice,andunderinvestingintheirbusinesses.Theyareprotectedbytheirmarketpower,whethersanctionedbypatentlaw(acceptable)orregulatorsbeingforcedbyCongresstolooktheotherway(lessso).MonopoliesrelatetotradebecausemanyjustifytheirexistenceonthebasisthatAmericaneedslargenationalchampionstocompeteinthebrutalworldoffreetrade.Perhapsso,butthislogicmoreorlessguaranteedthattheoneplacemonopolyprofitswouldnotflowwastoemployees.Afterall,partofthejustificationforsizewastocompeteagainst cunning foreigners. As the wages of overseas labor are alleged to beunduly low, thanks to backwardness and currency manipulation (though ofcourse, it’s not as ifGeneralMotors and Ford sputtered becauseMercedes orHondapayslavewages),theonethingmonopolistscan’tanddon’twanttodoisraisewages.Thatwouldcontradict thewholecompetitiveargument in thefirstplace. If any benefits were realized, they would flow to the menagerie ofBoomershareholdersandexecutives.

Monopolies and oligopolies grew under the Boomers, a product of thecorrespondingdeclineinantitrustregulation.Theinitialderegulatorypushbeganin the twilight of the 1970s and gathered steam under Reagan, though if theoriginal impulsecanbe set at the feetof adifferentgeneration,deregulation’slongcontinuationandgrowingconsequencesareessentiallyBoomer.Both lawand economics recognize that monopolies are not always bad. “Natural”monopoliescanproducenetsocialgood;multiplecompetitorsinsomesituationsmightbeinefficient.Thestateanalogyisthepublicgood/naturalmonopoly.It’shelpfulthatthere’sonlyonefiredepartment,andprobablyjustaswellthatit’srunbythegovernment.Ontheprivateside,Facebook,atleastinAmerica,isaneconomically acceptable natural monopoly—it’s a product that gets better asmorepeopleuseit(a“networkeffect”),it’sdifficultforcompetitorstore-createanddoubtfulconsumerswantasubstitute,andtherehavebeennorealcharges

thatMarkZuckerberghasabusedhispositiontodispatchcompetitors.Still,notallmonopoliesarenatural, and therehasbeenanalarming rise in

the market power of megafirms. That is not to say that size automaticallyguarantees abuse,only that it creates itspotential and,given theoccupancyofcorner offices by Boomers, should alarm.While we have not returned to thedays of Standard Oil by any stretch, many companies do possess significantmarketpowerandseemtoextractmonopolyprofits,returnedtotheirownersandexecutives,notworkers,consumers,orR&Ddepartments.22CorporategiantsdonotremitovermuchoftheserentstotheTreasury,giventhedeclineincorporatetaxation and the creation ofmegafirms to avoid taxes through inversions.Theriseoffirmswithmonopolypowerandtheirability togenerateprofitswithoutthe usual sorts of investments may also explain why the S&P 500 hasexperiencedbetterprofitgrowththanrevenuegrowthoverlongperiods(notably,after 2008). It’s not that these firms are growing somuch as they aremakingeasy profits, cutting costs, and buying back stock with the proceeds (whichboosts earnings per share without increasing the intrinsic value of thebusiness).23 Market power permits these easier options instead of the harderworkofinnovation.

Some of themore abusive participants, as anyonewho has interactedwiththeir local (and probably only) cable provider knows, are telecom companies,though high degrees of questionable power now exist in agriculture,pharmaceuticals, retail,beer,andelsewhere. In the landofendlesschoice,youmayselectfrommanydifferentbrews,butnotmanydifferentbrewers.YoucanjourneytotheoligopolistWal-Mart,withinfifteenminutes’reachof90percentofAmericans, toselect frommanydifferentbeers,almost80percentofwhicharelikelytohavebeenproducedbyonlytwocompanies,Anheuser-BuschInBevandMillerCoors (regulatorsapproved thesale,subject tosomedivestments,ofthelatter’sparentcompanytotheformerwhileIwaseditingthisbook,creatingtheworld’s largest beer company).24 For the temperanceminded, online giantAmazoncanshipyouasodaproducedbyduopolistsCokeorPepsi,madewithhigh-fructose syrups derived from corn seeds provided by oligopolists likeMonsanto (the subject, in 2016, of an acquisition offer by fellow agriculturaloligopolist Bayer), along with snacks from Frito-Lay (a Pepsi subsidiary),deliveredbyAmazon’soligopolistpartnersUPSandFedEx,thebettertoenjoystreamed shows traveling over your local telecom monopolist’s fiber, whosebillswillbepaidviacardsissuedbyoligopolistsVisa,MasterCardandAmex,orby debiting an account held at one of the giant banks.Whether any of this is

goodorbadishardforindividualstoresolve;it’stheprovinceoftheregulators.What is clear is that the riseofmegafirmshas takenplace substantiallyunderBoomerwatch.

Antitrustregulatorsreport,ofcourse,totheirsociopathicpoliticalmasters,sowecanexpectconcentratedmarketpowerforsometime,andthismayactuallybethebestpossibleoutcomeuntiltheeraofsociopathicgovernanceconcludes.Addressing potential monopoly problems requires a sense of justice and amasteryofdata thathasbeennotablyabsent in thesepastsociopathicdecades.TheprospectofBernieSandersbreakingupthebankswastrulyalarminggiventhe near-total ignorance he revealed in aNewYorkDaily News interview—itwouldhavebeenaBoomerbullinthechinashop.*,25

Ofcourse,Sanderswillnevergetthatchance,buttheinterventionsthathaveoccurred do not hearten. Sanders was correct that the most urgent sector forreforminthepasttwodecadeshasbeenfinance.Thegovernment’ssolutionwasmore consolidation, not less,whileprovidingbackstops tobanksof all shapesandsizes.Thesamehasbeen true inagriculture,an industrynecessaryfor lifeitselfandalwaysasubjectforshowboating,ifnoteffectiveaction.(MustIowahaveitsprimaryfirst?)Asforthosecherishedfarms,inputcostshaverisenfasterthancropprices,whichmeans the fewremaining independent farmersexistasexpedient middlemen who funnel subsidies upward to the four firms that by2009controlled50+percentofthemarketsforseeds,pesticides,equipment,andsoon(upfrom~20–30percentin1994).26Withourfoodsupplyconcentratedinsofewhands,thespectacleoffecklesssociopathsbreakingupseedsuppliersforthesakeofpoliticaltheatreistrulyalarming.Forbetterandworse,nothingwillhappen.

TheBoomereconomyhasbeendisappointing,buttorepeat,theUnitedStatesisnot poor, nor has it stopped growing.What has happened is that growth hasslowed and will slow further still, and the nation’s balance sheet has eroded.Wealth has been redistributed from the young to the old, paralleled by theconcentration of power in ever fewer corporations, who in the absence ofcompetitionprovidelessinnovationandfewerjobs.Theresulthasbeenfarfromaresoundingsuccess.

Certainly, given America’s commanding lead right through the 1970s inalmost all critical areas, the job market’s successful absorption of returning

soldiersinthe1940sandthevastlegionsofBoomersinthe1970s,andthepeacedividendaftertheColdWar,thestoryofAmericaneconomicscouldhavebeenoneofwidespreadprosperityinsteadofthemixedpicturewedohave.Coupledwiththeastoundingburdensvisitedupontheyoung,includingmediocreschoolsand a giant prison-industrial complex, and the sheer insanity of the Boomerpolitical class that reached its acme in the 2016 contest, is there anything towhichtheBoomerscanpointintheirdefense?

CHAPTERSIXTEEN

THEMYTHOFBOOMERGOODNESS

Weweretaughtinthesixtiestoawardourselvesmeritformembershipinasuperiorgroup—irrespectiveof

ourorthegroup’saccomplishments.Wecontinuetodoso,irrespectiveofaccomplishments,havingtoldeachotherwewerespecial.Welearnedthatalloneneeddo

isrefrainfromtrustinganyoneoverthirty…weweretheculminationofhistory,superiortoallthosemisguidedwhohadcomebefore,whichistosayallhumanity.

—DavidMamet(b.1947,in2011).1

It would be gratifying if the Boomers admitted theirmistakes wholesale andcededpowertoothergroups.Alittlecontritionmightrecommendsympathytoagenerationsorelyinneedofsome,whilenewmanagementmightfinallybegintoaddresstheaccumulatedproblemsoftheBoomeryears.ButcontritionrequiresaguilttheBoomersdon’tfeel,andnewmanagementmaydemandreparationstheBoomers don’t want to pay. Anyway, what the disgruntled multitude fails tograsp is that theBoomers areGoodPeople, andGood People do not need to

apologizefororexplain,muchlessrepay,anything.Boomershavealwaystakenthisview,believingthattheyaremoremoral,just,freedomloving,andgenerallydeserving thanothergenerations—“special,” touseMamet’s term,andworthyofspecialtreatment.RealityhasforcedafewBoomerstoexpressretrospectivedoubts about their generation’s actual virtue (notablyMamet and Erica Jong,fromdifferentangles).Theseturncoatsareexceptionalcases,andmostBoomersretainanunshakablefaithintheirmoralcredentials,credentialsthatcancelanyobligation to atone. Rising debt, melting ice sheets, crumbling freeways, andfalteringschoolsarejustsmall-mindedentriesinaspreadsheetwithnocelllargeenoughtocontainBoomergoodness.

Ifanything,thesociopathsbelieveitiswewhoshouldbethankingthem,ourbetters, without the ungrateful backtalk. In 2016, when young Black LivesMatter protestors dared to question Bill Clinton about his 1994 crime bill,legislationwhose carnagewas covered inChapter14,Clinton lashed out.Notonlyweretheprotestorswrong,Clintonargued,theywere“defendingthepeoplewhokilledthelivesyousaymatter.”2InClinton’sview,hewasthesavior,andthe protestors just confused apologists for the sort of scum Hillary Clintonreferred to in1996as“super-predators.”Clintonseemedsurprised thatanyonemight question hiswife’s use of “super-predators”; how elsewould protestorsdescribe“gang-leaderswhogot13-year-oldshoppeduponcrack,andsentthemoutinthestreetstomurderotherAfrican-Americanchildren”?3PerBillClinton,“maybeyou”—you,thethanklessmultitude—“thoughttheyweregoodcitizens,[Hillary] didn’t.”4 Well, no one did or does. The debate wasn’t over theimprisonmentofarelativelysmallnumberofviolentgangleaders, itwasoverthe legions of petty drug criminals locked away for years by indiscriminatesentencinglaws.InClinton’sBoomerishmind, though, ifyouwereagainst thecrime bill (ormore pertinently, againstClinton) then youwere clearly for thecriminals.

This same Manicheanism stretched beyond the admittedly strangeClintonverse. When libertarians raised questions about the excesses of thePatriotAct,theBushIIadministrationknewwhattodo.Itwas“withusorwiththeterrorists,”andanyquestionsinvariablylandedyouonthewrongside;don’taskwhat intelligence fiascoesabetted9/11,becausequestionsmerelyestablishyou as an ungrateful partisan on the wrong side. Bush II, of course, derivedenormoussupportfromtheevangelicalRight,itselfaBoomercreation(Chapter5)andconvincedenoughofitsmoralbonafidesthatitimplicitlysanctionedthemurder of abortion providers and embraced, until 2000, a ban on interracial

dating at its flagship, Bob Jones University. The administrators of realuniversities, not to be outdone in repressive goodness, nurtured a culture ofpoliticalcorrectnesssosanctimoniousandrestrictiveastonegatetheprinciplesofinquiryandopendebatetheirinstitutionshadfoughtforcenturiestoachieve.Naturally,allthiswaspaintedasprotectionofhelplessinnocentswhowouldonedaygrowupand thank theBoomers for theirkindnesses,and if thegolemsofgoodnessoccasionallywentberserk,thatwastheirfault,nottheircreators’.Thewholefaux-morallexiconofBoomerspeak,whateveritssources,isthelanguageoftyranny,notvirtue.*

If the idea of Boomer sociopathy is valid, the whole idea of Boomers asGood People is absurd, and it may seem like an unnecessary frustration toexplore Boomer morality. Nevertheless, the notion of Boomer goodnesswarrants a thorough factual debunking. First, the Boomer propagandadepartment has so assiduously promoted Good People branding that manypeople accept it (once, even I believed it).† Crediting the myth of BoomergoodnessmaydetervotersfromtheimportanttaskofaskingtheBoomerstopaytheir fair share. For example, the peace-and-love narrative about VietnamcollapsesinthefaceofthefactsdescribedinChapter3,justasthewholeI-feel-your-painmotif ofBill Clinton’s presidencywas belied by the various crime,welfare,andotherpolicies thenpursued, to saynothingof the“compassionateconservatism”practicedby theGOPin the2000s(beingneither, it failedevenonitsownterms).Second,questioningtherecordnotonlyrevealstheabsenceofBoomer goodness, it shows something of the opposite, especially in theantidemocraticmethodstheBoomersimplementedtopreservecontrolatatimewhendemographicpoweralonecannolongersustainthesociopathicagenda.

Tobeclear,thischapterdoesnotarguethattheBoomerdecadeshavebeenwithout moral advances; it argues that the Boomers don’t deserve nearly asmuchcreditforthoseadvancesascommonlysupposed.Gainscame,butnotasquickly as before, and were unevenly distributed, sometimes highly so. Theyoften arrived courtesy of mixed motives, as with the expansion of disabilityrights,or,overtheoppositionofBoomers,asinthecaseofgaymarriage.Andtheywereoffsetbysomenewandverylargeinjustices,especiallyineconomicmatters,whichaffect farmorepeople than theoldcategoriesofdiscriminationeverdid.Asbillsfromthesociopathicdecadescomedue,Americansmaydecideto forgive theBoomergeneration someof itsmisdeeds,but they shoulddo soonly as a matter of their own goodness, not as thanks for moral services theBoomers never rendered. Much of that forgiveness will come in the form of

money—theflowofseniorbenefits—makingtheBoomers’recordoneconomicfairnessanaturalplacetobegin.

MoneyMattersEconomic justice is where the narrative of Boomer morality breaks downcompletely.Thestartlingriseofincomeandwealthinequalityhasbeendetailedinthisbook(e.g.,Chapter15)andelsewhere.Thegeneralconsensusisthathighlevels of inequality create problems, although there are some debates aboutwhether inequality is immoral or amoral and whether the present levels ofinequalityarereallyquiteasbadasthey’vebeenmadeout.*Whathasnotbeendebatedasthoroughlyisintergenerationalinequality,andtherelativesilenceonthat issue is partly because the issues were settled long ago. For individuals,debtsdiewiththedebtor;ithasbeenalongtimesincetheWestforcedchildrento make good on obligations they had no say in accumulating. For Boomersociety, thereverse is true.Themechanismsofperpetualnationaldebtand thedeferredobligationsofpensions,environment,infrastructure,andsoondoallowdebtstobepassedalong.

The Boomers inherited some of the lightest intergenerational burdens inAmericanhistoryandwillleavesomeofthegreatest.Indoingso,theBoomershaveauthoredoneofthegreatestinjusticesofamodernnation(mostly)atpeace.It’saninjusticethatisnotasovertorviolentasthecrueltiesbasedoncategoriesofrace,gender,orsexuality.Andunlikeconventionalcategoriesofoppression—which were based on minority status (with the exception of women, aminority that is in population terms, a majority)—intergenerational injusticeaffectsnotonlymostAmericansnow living, but all thoseyet tobeborn.Thevarious explanations, excuses, motivations, and contexts for this catastrophehavealreadybeenraisedanddisposedofinearlierchapters;allthatmattershereis that the intergenerational injusticecreatedby theBoomers, infullserviceofthemselves,byitselfmootsanyideaofBoomergoodness.

The more abstract type of academic philosopher may dismiss economicissues as crass and collateral—how can a national debt, however swollen,comparetoalynching?Foragivenfamily,atagivenmoment,nocomparisoncanbemade;doingsowouldbegrotesque.Butovertime,andonasocialscale,economicinjusticebecomesawrongoftremendousproportion,andisthemoreinsidious for being less graphic. In a market society, economic justice andeconomicopportunityare the ingredientsnecessary tomakeallother formsof

justice truly meaningful and should not be ignored. It is very hard for onegenerationtoengageinthe“pursuitofhappiness”ifitisbusypayingthebillforanother generation’s sociopathic pursuit of the same.Worse, it can be hard toeven participate in democracy at all. If a younger citizen, saddled witheducational debt, paying taxes to service obligations taken out by priorgenerations,workingacrummyandinflexiblejob,cannottaketimeofftovote,then his vote has been rendered nugatory. Economic injustice is a moreroundabout way of disenfranchising people than the Jim Crow laws of old,though it has its own considerable power. It is also not the only way theBoomershavefailedtoupholdthecentralprincipleofdemocracy.

OnePerson,HowManyVotes?Asidefromoddliminalcases,theincontestablevirtueinAmericaistherighttovote.Noneof thedebates thatmuddy thewaters around abortionor thedeathpenalty are pertinent to the franchise. History’s judgment of Americans whoseek to disenfranchise other Americans is invariably harsh. The principle hasbeensettled:Citizenshavearighttovoteandtodosofreely,withoutprejudice,andwithminimalinconvenience.

Thestruggletoarriveatthatprinciple—astrugglethathasprovidedhistorywith so many opportunities to judge prior generations, to whose ranks theBoomers will eventually be added—has been long. It started in 1776 andcontinueduntil1965,andthelength,generaldirection,andthebloodyfightsitengendered show how central the free vote is to the moral arc of the UnitedStates. At the Founding, not many people could vote. There were a lot ofqualifying adjectives: You had to be a citizen who was also white, adult,propertied,andmale.Afterthe1790s,thelimitingadjectiveswerewhite,adult,andmale;aftertheCivilWar,adultandmale;by1919,justadult(andeventhedefinitionofadultwasbroadenedinthe1970stoincludesemi-adultteenagers).There was resistance every step of the way—the old guard liked as manyadjectives in its democracy as it did in its prose—and if “white” and “male”could no longer be employed as overt qualifiers, “stakeholder” and “literacy”would do, enforced by poll taxes, residency requirements, and reading tests.Thosewhodidnothavethemeanstopaythetariff tovote,hadnotlivedlongenoughinoneplace,orcouldnotmeetthestandardsofliteracy,couldnotvote.Suchpeoplewereusuallypoorblacks (andnota fewpoorwhites),whichwasthepoint.

Bytheearly1960s—i.e.,beforeBoomerscouldparticipateinthedialogue—Congresshadhadenough.Nomoreadjectives,nomorequalifiers,nomoretests.The Constitution, as then understood and amended, required no less. Toguaranteeagainstbacksliding,Congresspassed theVotingRightsActof1965(theVRA).TheVRApaidspecialattentiontoplacesthathadbeenhistoricallyabusive about the franchise. The act was an essential part of ensuring thatcitizens who cared to vote would have those votes counted, without the oldimpediments.

UndertheBoomers,RightandLeft,adjectivesandqualifiershavestartedto

return, and themoral arc has begun to reverse. Felons had long faced votingrestrictions, but these restrictions were of limited numerical impact until theBoomer justice systemstartedmass-producingmillionsof felons, startingwithBillClinton.Ifpollandliteracytaxeswereout,proxieslikevoterIDlawscouldbe employed, and have now become something of a vogue with Boomerlegislators.Youstillhavetobeabletoreadandtocoughupmoneytoget,say,adriver’slicense,thoughsincethesefiltersareappliedattheDMVinsteadofatthevotingbooth,theydon’tcountaspolltaxesorliteracytests.Totakeanotherexample, many states have no explicit provisions that require employers toprovidepaidleavetovote,soastagnatingeconomyalsoservesasafilter,onethatcanfavorolderpeople,whoareeitherretiredorareseniorenoughtohaveflexiblejobs.

As exclusionary techniques mutated faster than Boomer morality evolved,lawsliketheVRAremainedimportantprotectorsofthefranchise,helpingrootoutnewandsubtlediscriminations.IntheBoomeryears,however,theVRAhasbeenevisceratedby theSupremeCourt,with the implicitconsentofCongress.On the Court’s part, Chief Justice John Roberts (a Boomer, appointed by aBoomer, and confirmed by Boomers) effectively gutted the VRA in ShelbyCounty v. Holder (2013), a decision Roberts wrote himself.5 He was wellprepared for the task: Even as a junior attorney in the ReaganWhite House,RobertshadbeenplottingVRA’sdemise.6Onceon theCourt,Roberts limitedtheVRA,partlyrelyingonlegaltheoriesandassumptionsimplicitinDredScottv.Sandford (1857).7Thismightseemlikesomuchdusty legalarcana,but it’sstunninglyperverse.DredScott is one of the SupremeCourt’smost infamousdecisions, a long-discredited slave case. To resurrect its latent reasoning as adoctrinalweaponagainstalawdesignedtoprotecttheblackfranchisetookgall,and it also took Boomers. If you removed all the Boomers from the ShelbyCourt, theVRAwouldhave emerged intact.* Since theCourt is only nine (orsometimes, if the Boomers on the Senate Judiciary Committee are beingparticularlymoody or ineffective, eight) people, this a slightly trivial thoughtexperiment. What is not trivial is that Shelby devolved power to the states,allowing them to impose new voting restrictions without worrying aboutintervention by federal bureaucrats—those meddlesome elites, again. Boomerstate legislatures had a field day, imposing ID laws, restricting onlineregistration,redrawingvotingmaps,andlimitingsame-dayregistrationandthepreregistrationofcitizensabouttoturneighteen,allstrategiesthattendtomakevotingharderforminoritiesandtheyoung.

EquallyimportantisthatRobertscouldnothavesunktheVRAifCongresshadn’topenedthedoor.TheVRAdependsondata todeterminewhichplaces,based on historical practices, are prone to voting abuses and need federalpreclearancebeforetheyadjusttheirvotinglaws.Unlessthatdatawereupdatedtoaccountfornewinformation,theVRAwouldbecomeanarbitraryburden—whichwasoneofRoberts’spoints, andavalidone.Fora time,Congresshadpaidattention to theVRA,adjustingandexpanding theact. In1982,Congresseven overturned a court case that hadmade it somewhat harder to implementcertainpartsoftheVRA.8AndthenCongressmostlylostinterest.Certainly,by1984, itwas time to think about updating theVRA’s formulas; theCensus of1980 had published its results in May 1983.9 The VRA was not especiallyendangeredthen,butastheyearspassed,freshdatacamein,newvotingabusescametolight,andtheSupremeCourtstartedtoraise technicalquestionsabouttheVRA,solegislatorsshouldhaverealizedtheVRAwasgrowingbrittle.10In1992, just before Boomers seized control of the executive branch and thelegislature,Congressmadeitsfinaltrulysubstantiverevisionstotheact.

After1992,inthefollowingyearsofuntrammeledBoomerpowerandunderboth parties, the act was simply renewed in a cursory fashion, withoutmeaningfulrevisionorupdate.11Themostcharitableinterpretationmightbethatnocongresspersonwantedtorevisitthemathanddiscoverthatworkremainedtobedoneinahomedistrictin,say,Alabama,whichifnotintentionallymaliciouswascertainlyaderelictionofduty.ThemorerealisticinterpretationwasthattheLeft couldn’t be bothered to do themathor spend the political capital neededelsewhere(likeexpandingentitlements)whiletheRightperhapsunderstoodthatinaction would undermine the VRA itself. If the Shelby Court was just ninepeople, theinactiveBoomerCongresswasa literalcastof thousandsoperating(ornot)overseveraldecades.

Erosion in voting-protection laws also keeps the federal government fromdoing much about scandals like the paucity of voting booths, as in Phoenix,where voters in the 2016 primary had just one polling place per 108,000residents.12Inademocracy,thatisanoutrage,thoughperhapsretiredBoomerscan afford to wait in line. Older people are also less itinerant than youngerpeople and have no problem furnishing a permanent address to obtain moreconvenient absentee ballots, or producing a local identity card to complywiththeIDlawdujour.

Meanwhile, the once minor category of people disenfranchised by felonyrecords has become amajor one, swollen by the huge rise in Boomer felony

prosecutions. These ex-felons tend to be substantially younger and less whitethantheBoomers,andeveniftheintentofthree-strikeslawswasnottoadjustthevotingbalance,thatwasitseffect.Recently,BoomerDemocratshavestartedto let small numbers of felonsvote, a ceremonyofminor consequence exceptwhenitisn’t—aswiththesuspiciousconcurrenceofsuchreformsduringcloseelections,withVirginia’sgovernorin2016performingarecentactofdecency-cum-self-servicebyallowingupto200,000felonstovote.13(Virginiacanbeaswing state, and its governor had ties to the Clintons and probably somereasonablebeliefsabouthowhisnewvotersmightcasttheirballots.)

IfVirginia in 2016 provides a compromised precedent about felony-votingreforms,historyhasbetterandgranderexamples.BeforetheadventofBoomerpower, felony disenfranchisement had been dropping, a trend that continuedeven under law-and-order Nixon. According to the Sentencing Project, thenumberofdisenfranchised felonswasabout1.76million in1960,dropping to1.18million in1976—and then it startedrisingagain, fasterasBoomerpowergrew,ballooningto5.85millionby2010.14Someofthoseex-felonsevenlegallyhave the right to vote in their states, though a lack of funding, outreach, andpolicy reversals as new governors undo prior revisions functionally deprivemanyex-felonsofrightstheyactuallyhave.Thepointisnottoarguethemeritsofwhetherex-felonsshouldvote;itistopointoutareaswheretheBoomershaveshrunk the franchise or have failed to protect the existing rights of qualifiedvoters,oftenwithintergenerationalconsequences.

There have been other antidemocratic frustrations, like the antique rulessurrounding the party system, baroque arcana fit for theHolyRomanEmpire.Theserulesalsohaveintergenerationalconsequences,asmanyindependentandyoungervotersdiscoveredin2016.TheDemocraticnominationwasnotrigged,assomeSanderssupportershadit,becausethePartycansetitsownrulesanditcompliedwith them. It’s just very hard for the young, lacking themoney andpersonal influence that accretewithage, to change the rulesorbecome super-delegates (who, based on average age, are Boomers). With Boomer voteswaning, these legal techniques are of increasing importance to perpetuatinggenerational power. Many operate at the expense of what we, at leastemotionally, understand democracy to be. However slippery notions of“goodness”mightbe,inademocracy,interferingwiththevotingrightsofothersis,as1984wouldputit,doubleplusungood.

Questionsofgoodnessaside,chippingawayatthepowerofothergroupsisastrategy with limitations. New voters arrive faster than they can be plausibly

disenfranchised,andnonewBoomersarebeingborntoreplacethosethatageisstealing away. Fortunately, coping with the depletions of age is a Boomerspecialty. Like broken hips, fallen compatriots can be replaced by somethingaltogetherstrongerandmoredurable:allittakesismoneyandawillingnesstotoleratetheintroductionofsomethingartificialintothebodypolitic.

CompaniesArePeople,TooEven as the Boomers eroded the franchise of many human persons, theyvigorouslyexpandedthepowerofmoneyandcorporations,reversingaseriesofreforms enacted between 1905 and 1975. As a result, money and companieshavemore direct and potent influence inAmerican politics than they have indecades.Whether this is good, bad, or indifferent in theory depends on yourpolitical philosophy. In practice, history suggests that too much money,especially from nonhumans, warps the proper functioning of democracy bysubverting the principle of “one person, one vote.” Without regulation,companies, PACs, and the rich can dominate the media. Sometimes thisinfluence is effective, sometimes it isn’t, but it always takes money, and thepeoplewithmoney,aswe’vediscovered,alsotendtobeold,i.e.,Boomers.

The pernicious effect of money politics is not merely theoretical, as thenineteenthcenturyshowed. Industrialistsandunionbosses regularlypurchasedinfluence, directly and through the organizations they controlled, gaining thepower to control executive appointments and direct convenient legislation.Bythebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,thishadbecomeintolerablynoxious,andTeddyRoosevelt askedCongress to look intocampaign finance reforms.Overthefollowingdecades,variouslimitswereemplaced, includingalawrequiringcampaign contribution disclosures signed (doubtless with some irony) byRichardNixon in1972.15After theWatergate scandal,whichhadbeen tied toslush money, Congress redoubled its efforts, setting up the Federal ElectionCommission (FEC), whose duties are to “disclose campaign financeinformation”andensurecompliancewithcampaigncontributionrules.16 Therehad been abuses, but a pre-Boomer Congress tried to do something, howevertardily,toaddressthem.

The triumph of campaign-finance reform was brief and in many waysprefiguredthecollapseoftheVRA.*Inbothcases,Congressionalblundersandsubsequentinactioncreatedthepossibilityoflegalchallenges;inbothinstances,the legal challenges materialized; and in both instances Congress failed torespondeffectively.Inthecaseoffinancereform,thelegalchallengesarrivedasBuckley v.Valeo (1976),which upheld someSeventies reforms, like financialdisclosures,whilestrikingdownothers,notablytherestrictionsonspendingby

candidatesandinterestedgroups.17FortheCourt,itwasallaquestionofbalanceof the government’s interest in fair elections against citizens’ interests in freespeech(whichinacommercialsocietyinvolvedspendingmoney),andtheCourtfound that the right balance had not been struck.As long asBuckley stood, itwouldbeawinforrichcandidates.OneoftheBuckleydissentersworriedaboutself-fundedcampaignsfortherich;prescientindeed,givenPerot,Trump,andtoamuch lesser extent, Romney. Thatmany self-funders failed to secure officedoesnotmean self-fundinghadno effect, sincemany self-fundersdid capturetheir party’s nomination, and therefore adjusted the choices available to theelectorate.

Buckleywasavictorynotonlyforrichhumans,butthenonhumanrich,i.e,corporations.Thewholeideathatcorporationswerepeople(andthusentitledtospeak and influence as humans did) was worrisome. In a later case, evenWilliam Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee, expressed doubts on that subject.18Nothing about Buckley prevented Congress from another try at combatingmoneypolitics.Buckleywasayoungcase,withoutalegacyandsupportedbyafragilemajority,andspendingwasinitiallylight,soCongressmighthavefoundadifferentpath.

So, justasShelbyopened thedoor forBoomerstate legislatures to refigurevoting rights,Buckleymade it possible for bigmoney to return to politics.Atfirst, the intrusionsweremodest,butonceBoomershadcolonizedboardroomsand the legislatures, the various strategies of unlimited evasion took off: darkmoney and superPACs, thinly disguised “think tanks,” cryptolobbying, and soforth.By2002,mattershadgottenunseemlyenoughtoprovokenewregulationsintheformoftheBipartisanCampaignReformAct,sponsoredbyJohnMcCainandRussFeingold.*Thatlawwassloppilydraftedandfartoolate.Thetimetoact had been sometime in the 1980s or 1990s, before there were billions offacts/dollarsontheground,alleagertoundoMcCain-Feingold.Bythe2000s,itbecame trivial to dispose of irritants like McCain-Feingold, and courtsdispatched them in a series of cases culminating in Citizens United v. FEC(2010).*Anyway,politicaltheatreaside,theBoomerswerelargelycontentwiththeideaofcorporatepersonhoodandspeech,andthecultureofpoliticalmoney.HillaryClinton said shedespises the ideaofPACs, but she’s enjoyed several,mostquitelarge.

Lestthisseemmerelyacademic,thecorrosivemoneypoliticsoftheBoomererahavebecomesoentrenchedandpervasivethattheSupremeCourtnowseemsunable to evendefine corruption.During an appeal byVirginia’s ex-governor

(BoomerBobMcDonnell)inatrinkets-for-favorscase,thedefenseboileddowntothis:behaviorofMcDonnell’ssorthadbecomesowidespread—thatBoomerfavorite,“everybodydoesit”—thattheCourtshouldnolongerfindthesesortsoftransactions corrupting. So what if McDonnell (who had campaigned on apromise to convene an ethics panel and then wisely dropped the issue) hadreceivedvacations,theloanofaFerrari,orhada$15,000cateringbillpickedupbyadonoropentotheoccasionalkindness(whollynonreciprocal,ofcourse)?19Afterall,McDonnellhadnotissuedanylegislationwithareceiptfor“servicesrendered”inlieuofasigningstatement.Rathersurprisingly,Justicesofvariousstripes seemed to agreewithMcDonnell during oral argument and eventually,andunanimously,vacatedtheconviction.It’shardtoseehowagenerationcanmaintainitsmoralcredentialswhenithascreatedapoliticalculturesodistortedthatnomemberofthenation’shighestcourtcandistinguishbetweenbriberyandbusiness as usual.Who is bribing whom and why are questions that, by thispoint,haveobviousanswers.

YouHavetheRighttoRemainSilent,YouDoNotHavetheRighttoanAttorneyBecausemostfederaljudgesholdlifetimeappointments,andbecausesomanyofthem are Boomers and were appointed by Boomers, the judiciary will be animportantredoubtofBoomerideologyformanyyears.(Let’snotevengetintothe farces that are elected state judges.)As the sociopathic agenda is now thestatus quo, judges can simply strike down laws inconvenient to the Boomers.Giventhatmanyimportantcasesareclose,withalmostequallycompellinglegalarguments, and future disputes over things like entitlements arewithoutmuchprecedent, outcomesmay turn on a judge’s ability to identify and sympathizewiththeargumentsofaparticulargroup.Boomerswillcertainlyprefertoarguebeforejudgeswhosharetheirsameviewsandproblems.Thatdynamicmaynotbeanaffirmativeevil,butneitherisitwhollyneutral.

Norshouldwerelyoncourts,asthenationdidmidcentury,toserveasafontofpersonalrights.Withthenotableexceptionofgaymarriage,courtsaregettingoutofthatbusinessandindoingso,aregivingBoomerlegislaturesafreerhandtowhittle away at rightsAmericans take for granted.Evenwhenvictories areachieved, they frequently depend on the whims of a single Justice, AnthonyKennedy,making themmorefragileand lesscredible.TheentireappellatebarnowfindsitselfinthepositionofthewineindustryduringthegloryyearsofthepeerlesslyinfluentialcriticRobertParker:cateringtotheidiosyncraticandoftenoddtastesofasingleman,withsomestrangeandlaboredoutcomesthatmaynotprovereliableovertime.

Thiswas not always so.When theCourt handeddownBrown v.Board ofEducation (1954), the decision was unanimous—an act of real moralimagination considering that all theBrown justiceswere old,whitemen bornbefore the Model T and the airplane. Prior courts also created the modernconcept of defendant’s rights, notably in Gideon v. Wainright (1963) andMirandav.Arizona(1966),apermanentfeatureofLaw&Order(“youhavetheright to remain silent, youhave the right to an attorney,” etc.).Given that theshow’s suspects are usually guilty, this senior staple conditions its viewers tounderstandMirandaasanoxiousimpediment.TheBoomerjusticesystemseemstoagree,displayingimpatiencewithMiranda, theEighthAmendment,and the

rest; theBoomermodusoperandi is JackBauer’sof24,knee-cappingswarthysuspectswithoutsomuchasaconstitutionalcurtsey.Anyway,what“righttoanattorney” can there be, given the defunding of public defenders we saw inChapter 14? Once, courts might have acted to reverse these sorts of policyabuses.Now,Boomer legislaturesandvoterscanbereasonablyconfident theirintrusionswillbetoleratedbyjudges—inpartbecausetheyselectedthosejudgesinthefirstplace.*

Abortionisanotherexampleof theShelbydynamic—ascourtsbecomelesscommitted to rights, they create avenues for rights to be taken away. Legalcontraception and abortion started appearing in individual states through the1950sand1960sandwereestablishednationallyinthelineofcasesculminatinginRoev.Wade (1973).Thesocialcontroversyoverabortionneverwentaway,but the law seemed settled until 1992, when the Court took up PlannedParenthood v. Casey. A mostly non-Boomer Court revised Roe’s trimestersysteminfavorofthesquishier“undueburdens”testforabortionaccess.20Fairenough;Roe’s trimester systemwaspseudoscienceanyway.However,Boomerlegislators knewwhat to do—they started erecting all sorts of barriers, undueand otherwise. With even the youngest Boomers now past menopause, thatgeneration can indulge inGod-fearing regulations thatwill haveno impact onthem or, if liberal, can save political capital for more Boomer-specificchallenges.† (Roe/Casey were on the ballot in 2016; a vote for Trump wastantamounttoavoteagainstRoe.Boomerwomenseemednottocare.)Thus,theaccelerating closure of abortion clinics, the renewed drama over anythingrelating to fetal tissue, sex ed, evolution, and other matters that were and/orshouldhavebeensettledlongago.21

Gender,Generations,andGreensMost conceptions of “goodness” involve fairness, and fairness has not been aBoomerpriority.EconomicinequalityexpandedgreatlyduringBoomertenure—helped along by bipartisan cuts to capital gains and estate taxes, and thestrangulation of quality public schooling. Gaps, however, were not limited tothosebetweenrichandpoor.

Althoughwomenhavebeenasignificantpartoftheworkforcefordecades,theystilldonotreceiveequalpayforequalwork.TheEqualRightsAmendmentwould have provided a foundation for redress. ERA even had Republicanchampions in the White House through the 1970s, and nearly achievedratification.Theamendment’smomentumevaporatedjustastheBoomerswererising topower.While theERA isdead, the imbalances it sought toeliminatelive on. Women still only earn about $0.76–$0.78 to a man’s $1.00, andimprovement almost entirely stopped after 2001 (when Boomer control ofmanagement neared its apex).22 Women remain underrepresented ingovernment:19.4percentof the2015–2016Congresswas female,andwomenmakeupaminorityoftheSupremeCourt.InAmerica,2016wasthefirstyearawoman had a strong chance at her nation’s highest office. By contrast, ToryBritain had a female prime minister by 1979, Canada (briefly) had a femaleprimeministerin1993,Germanyelecteditsfirstfemaleleaderin2005,Brazilin2011,andsoon.Americangenderequalityhasnotbeenachieved,andthathasbeenachoiceperpetuatedbytheBoomers.Boomershavelongbeenfreetovoteforwomen and paywomen equally.Boomer-led companies that trumpet theirability topredictwhat flavorofDoritosaconsumerwantsonagivendaycancertainlyfigureouthowtopayMs.XthesamewageasMr.Y.

Finally, on the international stage, the consumer-driven, neoliberalBoomerculturehasunleashedvastenvironmentalandsocialproblems,andjustbecausesome of these manifest offshore does not mean they vanish from the moralequation. The sociopathic society of consumption depends heavily on goodsturned out by dismal sweatshops (e.g., Boomer Kathie Lee’s/Wal-Mart’sDickensian workshops, Boomers Steve Jobs’/Tim Cook’s subcontractedfactories,sodepressingthattheyfeaturesuicidenetstopreventemployeesfromleaping to their deaths).23 Asking other countries to improve their labor

conditionswouldnotonlybeethical, itwould improveAmerica’s competitiveposition. The only thing Boomers really ask for now, however, is that theirpurchases be cheap and the moral quandaries offshored. As for pollution,geographic felicity will make America one of the last countries physicallyaffectedbyglobalwarming.CountrieslikeVietnam,forwhichliberalBoomershad affected so much sympathy in the Sixties, will be inundated by theconsequencesofBoomerenergypolicy.(HenryKissingerwasright:ConsumercapitalismcoulddefeatHanoi.)Bythen,ofcourse,theBoomerswillbeintheirexpensive, environmentally unsound caskets, manufactured by funeraloligopolistHillenbrand.AtleastHillenbrandisanAmericancompanyfeaturing“predictabl[ly] strong cash flows”; it’s even, as Wall Street would put it,“acylical.”24ThenexttimesomeonetellsyouthatAmericamakesnothing,hasnogrowthindustries,aone-wordriposte:caskets.

MixedVictories,MixedMotives:GaysandtheDisabledCivilrightshavepostedtwomajorvictoriesduringtheBoomerdecades,fortheLGBTcommunity and thedisabled, but noone shouldgrant theBoomers toomuchcredit.On the first, theBoomers contributed, thoughnotnearly enough,and many stand Canute-like (without Canute’s irony), trying to roll back thetransgender waves emanating from the toilets of the nation’s decaying publicschools.LGBT rightshavebeenanythingbut aBoomervictory.Obergefell v.Hodges(2015),grantinggaystherighttomarry,wouldhavecomeouttheotherway were it not for the coalition of non-Boomer liberals and AnthonyKennedy.*,25 To ask whether Obama’s tardy support of gay unions gaveKennedy cover or lower courts gave cover to Obama is to miss the point.Obergefell reflected the mores of younger people, not the Boomers. TheBoomersremainmoreambivalentaboutgayrightsthansucceedinggenerations,asshowninopinionpollsandtheirsporadiceffortstoamendstateconstitutionsingay-unfriendlyways.26

Let us not forget, also, that theClintons, the epitomes ofBoomerismwhonowlabortopresentthemselvesaseternalchampionsofliberty,weredeeplyonthewrongsideofhistorywhenBillwasinpower.Aspresident,Clintonhadtheopportunity to integrate openly gay members into the armed forces. It wouldhave been a step far smaller and less controversial than Truman’s order tointegrateblacktroopshalfacenturyearlier—about60percentpost–WWIIwereagainst black integration, andwhile opposition to gay integration in the early1990s was substantial, it was considerably weaker than opposition to racialintegration had been decades before.27 Could Boomer Clinton take a steprequiringhalfTruman’scourage?

No.ClintonacquiescedtoCongress’s“Don’tAsk,Don’tTell”policy.Thatlaw found “the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate apropensityorintenttoengageinhomosexualactswouldcreateanunacceptablerisktothehighstandardsofmorale,goodorderanddiscipline,andunitcohesionthat are the essence of military capability.”28 Of course, a special studycommissionedbyClintonandhisdefensesecretaryhadfoundnothingofthesortwouldhappen.Themost cogent voiceurging integration camenot fromgays’

putativeally,theyouthfulClinton,butthegrizzledanddistinctlyun-BoomerishRepublicanBarryGoldwater.*,29

WhileClintonpersonallyopposedDon’tAskDon’tTell,expedienceprovedirresistible,andhavingdigestedtheunjustappetizer,Clintoncouldhardlywaveawaytheinevitableentrée.Thus,thegratuitoussequel,theDefenseofMarriageAct,passedoverwhelminglybyCongress,whichClintondidnotevenbothertoveto.DOMAwasanactofpureanimustothegayrightscause,affordingonlyheterosexualmarriages the protections of federal law and permitting states toreject gay marriages legally performed outside their borders, with all thepredictableconsequences.

Notwithstanding Clinton (and Obama in his first term, whowas distinctlywobbly on the issue), someBoomers did support gaymarriage. But themainimpulse came from the young. The long legal struggle that brought aboutObergefell was entrained by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom (b. 1967),who in 2004 ordered his clerks to issuemarriage licenses to gay couples.* AmajorityofAmericanshavesinceacceptedtheideaofgayrights,butBoomerswere tepid to hostile in 2004. Just before Obergefell was argued, Boomersupportwas18–28percentlowerthanthatoftheyoung,andtheonlygroupwithnet opposition to gay marriage was the sixty-five-plus set.30 Obviously, thestruggleforgayrightsdidnotbeginandendwithNewsom.ItstretchedbacktoStonewallanditsmanyBoomerparticipants.Thenagain,italsostretchedbackconsiderably further than that, to the Mattachine Society (c. 1950) and itspredecessors. All one can say is that the Boomers played a partial andambiguouspartingayrights,andmanyhavenotreconciledthemselvestonewrealities.Americansareobviouslyfreetotakewhateverpositiontheylikeongayrights, with one exception: believing that the Boomers were unalloyedchampionsofthecause.

The Boomers did achieve some major advances in equality, for disabledpersons.ThewatershedwastheAmericanswithDisabilitiesActof1990(ADA),passed by an increasingly Boomer Congress and signed by the non-BoomerBush. As a utilitarian matter, ADAwas expensive, unwieldy, and sometimesmuddled;themoralimpulsewascommendable,though.

TheADAwouldsubsequentlybetaintedbyBoomerself-interestwhenBushII signed an expansion in 2008. The key fact: The 2008 amendmentssubstantiallybroadenedtheADA’sdefinitionof“disability.”Now,inadditiontothe limblessand the lame,disabilitywould includedysfunctions in“caring foroneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking,

standing, lifting,bending,speaking,breathing, learning, reading,concentrating,thinking, communicating, and working” and impairments of “major bodilyfunctions.”31

Why might a reactionary Boomer Republican sign such a law, one thatrequiredoverturninga1999SupremeCourt caseon the samesubject?For thesamereasonhesignedMedicarePartD.TheADA’snewlyexpansivedefinitionsweptinaseaofseniorsnowswellingwithBoomers.Awin,butaself-servingone,andquitewelltimed:In1990,noBoomerwasreallyelderly;in2008,theoldestwassixty-eightand themeanagewasfifty-six,quicklyapproaching thepointwhere“caringforoneself”wasbecomingaconcern.Predictably,thelate-night landscapebecameclutteredwithcommercials forMedicare-reimbursablescooters,stairmovers,andothergovernment-subsidizedaids.32

As went the ADA, so went health care generally, a landscape of mixedoutcomes and motivations. Medicare Part D, as previously seen, was a hugesubsidy, to the old and to the drug companies. Because there is no long-termplan to financePartD, it is a temporarygift to theBoomers and apermanentliability to everyoneelse. It is a liabilitymade largerby theBoomers’ lackofantitrust enforcement, which permitted huge consolidation in drug, insurance,andhospitalcompanies.AsforObamacare,whichbarelysqueakedthrough,itistoosoonto tell.Certainly,Obamacare’s implementationhasbeenrocky,anditappearsthatthelawcouldbesignificantlylesseffectivethananticipated,thoughit does seem to be improvingmattersmeaningfully. Despite its compromises,Obamacare may be the one truly significant social accomplishment of theBoomers, and perhaps their only substantial gift to young people, as it allowsthose under twenty-six to remain on parental policies. At least for now,Obamacareshouldnotbediscountedinthemoralcalculus,whateveritspracticalresultsandlikelyguttingpost-2016.

Privacy:WeCanHearYouThinkingPrivacyonceheldgreatvalueforAmericans;inCalifornia,it’senshrinedintheveryfirstparagraphof thatstate’sConstitution.33Nosimilarlyexplicit right toprivacyappearsinthefederalConstitution;itwas“discovered”bypre-BoomerJustices.Nevertheless,it’sclearthattheFoundersconsideredprivacyimportant,adding the Fourth Amendment to protect the sanctity of the home fromunwarranted intrusions. A century later, privacy remained an essential civicvirtue.In1890,beforehejoinedtheSupremeCourt,LouisBrandeiswrotethatthe“righttobeletalone”wasnecessarytoprotectthepersonandtoavoid“whatiswhisperedinthecloset”frombeing“proclaimedfromtheroof-tops.”34Whenthe telephone caught on, Brandeis worried about the abuses of wiretapping.35Without privacy, as Brandeis and the Founders knew, the institutions ofdemocracy wither. The indiscriminate collection of vast amounts of datatransforms free expression into the ability to self-incriminate, while renderingtransparent an otherwise private ballot to the good people of Langley andelsewhere.Theintrusionshavebeenmildsofar,buttheprecedentisset,anditishardly encouraging that we know that the government spies on Americancitizens,abettedbyasecretcourtsystemthatroutinelyaccepts99+percentofallgovernment surveillance applications.What thismeans for privacy is unclear,becausethesecretcourts’opinionsarenotreleasedandonlythegovernmentisallowedtopresentevidence—whichdoesnotsoundverycourt-like.

Under theBoomers, justiceandprivacyare increasingly treatedasoptionalgoods,tobesacrificedonthealtarofpanicaspoliticalneedsdemand.Notmanyremember,but itwasBillClintonwhopushed the snowballdownhillwith theAntiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (ATEDPA), whichamong other things, substantially modified laws about habeas corpus in theUnitedStates,makingitharderforprisonerstocontesttheirdetention—thelaweven barred recourse to the Supreme Court. ATEDPA was passed after theOklahoma City and first World Trade Center attacks, and its efficacy as aresponsetothoseincidentshasbeenmadeclear.

When9/11happened,theBoomermachineonceagainrolledintounthinkingaction, producing the Patriot Act, legislation of breathtaking hysteria andinvasiveness,withwarrantless searches, intrusive requests (which,until tardily

disbarred,requirednoprobablecause,carriednojudicialoversight,andforbadetherecipientfromevendisclosingthatarequesthadbeenmade,andthuswereabout as un-American as possible, by the standards of the Founders), and ofcoursemassdatacollection.Patriotembodiedthewholeapparatusof1984,withtechnology considerably more advanced than Orwell’s telescreen. Perhaps nogenerationmight have summoned the courage to resist such lawmaking in theimmediateaftermathofcrisis.EvenRoosevelt,amanwithagoodtemperamentand an even keel, ordered the internment of American citizens of JapaneseheritageduringWorldWarII.Theinternmentcampswereclosedayearafterthewarended,eventually replacedbyAmerica’sgreathealingartifact,ashoppingmall calledTanforan. Later, bothReagan andBush I issued apologies for thewrong, letters were sent to the survivors, as well as the truest act ofgovernmentalcontrition,checks.Thesewerelate,butseeminglyheartfelt.

So far, theBoomers and their hysterical policies are driftingon a differentcourse;iftheyhadfollowedtheinternmentcamptimeline,wewouldhavebeendonewith all of this by 2003 at the latest. But ten years after the events thatinspired it,Patriotwasrenewed. In2015,criticalprovisionswereextendedforanother four years, as the USA Freedom Act of 2015.* Even after EdwardSnowdenetal.revealedtheflawsofthesecuritystate,inpartbythesimplefactthatanonlymodestlytalentedandlow-levelcontractorwasabletoscamperoffwith secrets (many of them potentially yours, since the government wasrecording vast amounts of e-mail, though it was trying to “minimize” theimpacts on Americans), even after Ground Zero went back to being just“downtown” (complete with another shopping mall), even after all that,Patriot/Freedomcontinues.36 It is surely time to reconsider—thoroughly—lawsconceivedinhasteandmourning,thathavealwayslivedinconsiderabletensionwith the freedoms they notionally sought to protect, and whose efficacy hasneverbeenentirelyclear.ItwouldseemthatBoomersRightandLeft,whohavelong agreed about the degrading effect of an intrusive state on the cherishedgoodofliberty,wouldhavedonesobynow.Theyhavenot.

BellumAmericanaDespite,oranyway,probablynotbecauseof thePatriotAct, theworldhas, ingeneral,becomeamorepeacefulplace,measuredbycasualtiesoverallandpercapita. Peace being a universal virtue, and the subject of so many Sixtieshomilies,youmightthinkthattheBoomersweretheprimemovers.Onceagain,the details show otherwise. Not only has the phenomenon been international,BoomerAmerica runs somewhat against the trend,both inmilitaryadventuresanditsloveaffairwithguns,whichremainsurprisinglyeasytobuy.Anyway,itwasnevertruethattheBoomerswerewhollypacific;asChapter3showed,theyoungwerethemostardentsupportersofthewar.But“hostility”isatraitofthesociopath, and however many peace symbols might still be dangling in theHaight,theBoomershavealwaysbeenwillingtoreachforthepistol.

Fortherecord,therehavebeenatleastseventeenmilitaryinterventionsunderBoomer presidents, some lasting many years. For context, America has beenmore or less continually involved in a conflict since theRevolution, but afterVietnam, these tended tobe fastandsmall—e.g.,Reagan’sswift (if theatrical)rescue of students in Grenada and Bush I’s quick deposition of PanamaniandictatorManuelNoriega—andwhenlarger,genuinelymultilateralandconfinedtospecificobjectives,aswithBushI’sliberationofKuwait.*

That has changed again, and the generation that pledged “not anotherVietnam”hasfounditselfwithseveral.ChiefamongtheBoomermilitaryfiascosare the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there were others, active andotherwise, usually with murky motivations. Compare Bill Clinton’s tardyresponsetothehumanrightscrisisintheBalkanstotheswiftnessofhismissileattacks on Sudan, conveniently coincident with the Lewinsky investigation.37ConsiderthedebacleinLibyaunderSecretaryofStateHillaryClinton,partiallydisownedevenbyherownboss,howeverelliptically,inaninterviewwithTheAtlantic and more candidly by Vice President Biden elsewhere.38 Peruse theentirety of the foreign policy under Boomer neocons (Dick Cheney, PaulWolfowitz, andCondoleezzaRicechief among them),whichestablishedovertregime change as part of the national mission, against which the covertexpeditions of the CIA in the midcentury in Central America and Iran seemdownrightlimitedandgentlemanly.

IfBoomerforeignpolicyhadquestionablemotivationsandenormouscosts,itdidachieveonethingatthecostofanother—vastlyfewerAmericanliveshavebeen lost than were in Vietnam, at the cost of relying on drones and thetolerationoffailedstates,whichthemselvesrepresentliabilitiesdeferred.Somemay argue that it’s hard to compare reconstruction in Libya, Iraq, andAfghanistan with state building in West Germany, Japan, South Korea, andIsrael during the 1940s to 1960s. Certainly it is, in large part because theBoomersdidn’tmakearealgoofreconstruction:Muchmoneywasspent(someondubiousmilitarycontractorsandlocalcronies),but thoughtfulplanningandfollow-throughwerenotably absent.Partly thanks to forward thinking like theMarshall Plan,whenGermans and Japanese arrive in theUnitedStates today,theydonotcarryresentmentsaboutoccupation,firebombing,andnukedcities;they arrive as some of our friendliest allies andmost civil tourists. From thecountries the Boomers have invaded, mired as they still are in chaos andcorruption,wemayreceivelessamiablevisitors.AllonecansayaboutBoomermilitarypolicyisthatitsmotivationshavebeennobetterthantheywereinprioryears, the gains more elusive, and follow-up—perhaps the most morallyrevealing aspect—has been a failure when it has been pursued at all.Indifference,incompetence,whateveritis,itisnotgoodness.

WhatprogresswasachievedduringtheBoomerdecadescomparesunfavorablywith the revolutionary accomplishments of prior generations, and thiswas nottheproductofrogueandregressivepoliticians,butelectedrepresentativeswhoreflected thewill of their Boomer constituents, as revealed by voting patternsand opinion polls. At best, Boomers failed to maintain the pace of gainsprevailing before 1970. At worst, Boomers have begun to actively thwartprogress.ForthosewhobelievethesemoralfailurescomepurelycourtesyoftheRepublicanParty,andnot theBoomersgenerally, thereare twocounterpoints:(1)Boomersoverall,especiallyyoungerBoomers,arenetRepublican(Chapter7); and (2) many rights lapses have been enthusiastically bipartisan, like theprisonlegislationofthe1990s.

TheBoomersdidnot inheritaperfectAmerica.But thenationwasmakingquickmoralprogress.Attheendofthetwenty-firstcentury,thesamecannotbesaid,andseveralhundredmillionAmericanswilllivewiththeconsequencesofthesemissed opportunities andmoral lapses.We have seen how theBoomershavefailedonalmosteveryimportantissuetheyhadthepowertocontrol,and

howinmanycases,theydidsooutofpureself-interest,toenrichthemselvesandpreservetheirownpower—insomeways,theverypersistenceofBoomerpoweristestamenttothegenerationalinjusticepracticedbytheBoomers.Verylittleofthiswasconsistentwith,ormotivatedby,thenotionsofequity,fairness,privacy,democracy, or peace thatwe customarily associatewith “goodness.”Many ofthe illusions of Boomer goodness were dispelled by the specifics covered inprior chapters, but now that the remains have been dealt with, there are noexcusesleft.It’stimetocallforthecheck.

CHAPTERSEVENTEEN

PRICETAGSANDPRESCRIPTIONS

Behold,Iwasshapenininiquity;andinsindidmymotherconceiveme.

—Psalm51:51

WhentheoriginalBadParents,AdamandEve,tooktheserpent’sadviceoverGod’s,theylostthefamilyhome(Eden)andgainedanenduringlegacy(originalsin).TheOldTestamentdoesnotexplicitlyrecordhowthefirstchildren,CainandAbel,reconciledthemselvestothisdismalinheritance,thoughwecaninferfromthesubsequentfratricidethatthefamily’sreducedcircumstancesproducedsome tensions. To our post-Freudian eyes, Cain’s murder of Abel seems likeclassic displacement; surely, there weremore obvious targets. But Adam andEve endured (the former for 930 years), snakes multiplied, and the celestialgrandfather hung around until Nietzsche killed finally him off circa 1882.Laboringundertheburdenoftheirprogenitors’sin,succeedinggenerationshada rougher go. The rest of the Old Testament reads like the files from apsychiatrichospital, filledwithmurder, revenge, theft,andwar, tosaynothingabout thereally unsettlingbits like the talesofLot andhisdaughters.Despiteengenderingthiswholemess,AdamandEveeventuallytrendedheavenward,anideal vantage point from which to view their offspring’s descent to lesshospitableclimes.

Copingwiththelegaciesleftbybadparentsisaneternalchallenge,inwhichgrace and fairness rarely feature. Themillions ofAmericanswhowill shortlypartakeof thisancientdrama, individuallyandasa society, shoulddosowithcare.Thetemptationwillbetofrustration,andthedanger,thatfrustrationwillbemisdirected: toward siblings, spouses, nurses, estate lawyers, Medicarebureaucrats,andeveryoneelsetaskedwithtakingcareofpeoplewhodidn’ttakecare of themselves—i.e., at society, instead of at the sociopaths. Misdirectedsquabbling would suit the Boomers, since it would distract the young frompursuingtherealculprits.TheBoomersshouldnotbegrantedthatsatisfaction.

Instead,weshouldrememberwhocausedtheproblemsinthefirstplaceanddoasasocietywhatdecentpeopledoindividuallywiththeirowncranky,aging,and culpable parents. The first step is to appreciate when the elderly are nolongercompetentandtoremovefromthemtheabilitytoharmselforothers,orrunup anymoredebts.That accomplished,you can tabulate themistakes: thesecond mortgages, inadequate insurance, accumulating doctors’ bills, leakyroofs,thelotofit.Youthen,theestateplannerstellus,liquidatewhatparentalassets thereare tomeet thoseobligationsand theadditionalcostsof long-termcare.Anyshortfallswillbeyourobligation,onewayoranother.

Manyof thosewhohave alreadybeen through this sagaknow that no realgratitude will be forthcoming. At best, these good deeds will be viewed asnothinglessthanyourduty,andatworst,theelderlywillletflyaccusationsofchurlishnessandingratitude.Thiswillbeinfuriating,especiallyconsideringthatany money you spend will come from a paycheck depleted by variousdeductions for senior programs you may never fully enjoy, even as thosedeductionssupplySocialSecuritychecksthatparentsbrandishasproofoftheirself-sufficiency. The mechanisms of a national, sociopathic agenda subvertsTolstoy:Eachfamilycannowbeunhappyinthesameway,andmultiplyingtheabovefrustrationsby75million,theremainingBoomerpopulation,equalsalotof unhappiness and more than a little rage. Whether these feelings can bechanneledintoaproductivecoalitioninsteadoffratricidalconflictovercollateralissues,isthisbook’sfinalsubject.

IftheBoomerscanberemovedfrompower,thenthetallyinganddivisionofliabilitiescanbegin.Alas,Americacannotrelyonarefreshingfiscalbaptismtoremit sin, even though this is essentially what Candidate Trump proposed,throughhisunprecedentedsuggestionofnationaldefault.NorcanAmericaforceBoomers into the confessional in the hopes that the bridges, schools, and theprison-state repair themselvesafterasufficientnumberofHailMarys,or their

politicalequivalent,thehollowapologiesofthepoliticiancaughtout.Therewillbenomomentofgrace,nogreatcatharsis,onlyasuccessionofcheckswrittenandbudgetsreallocated.Itisaprocessnotwithoutaquietnobility.Italsohasitscold satisfactions, including the collection of funds from the Boomersthemselves.

Remediating the sociopathic Superfund site of Boomer America will beexpensive.Inmoneyalone,theprojectwillrequire$8.65trillionsoonandover$1 trillion inadditionalannual investment.Given thepastchapters, thesizeofthe bill will not come as complete shock.Whatmay be surprising is that theUnitedStatescanaffordallofit.

Thoughdormantformanydecades,theargumentforinvestmentremainsaspowerful and straightforward as ever: Proper investment enriches society overthe longrun.Goodas this is, there isnogettingaroundonefrustratingreality,whichisthatthesizeofthetabandtheageofitsoriginatorsareconsiderable,sothatthosedoingmostofthepayingwillbetheleastculpable.It’splausiblethatthe youngest Americans will eventually receive a decent return on theirinvestment. If they are forward thinking, it shouldn’t be difficult to convincethem to support thenecessary reforms.Theharder task is topersuademiddle-aged Americans, who will succeed the Boomers in power, to pursue costlychange.Byvirtueof theirage,Americans inmidlifehavesubstantial incomes,makingthemprimetargetsfornewtaxation,whilealsobeingsufficientlyoldtomake full recoupment unlikely. These Americans (mostly GenX but alsoincluding theyoungestBoomersof thenonsociopathicvariety)willneed tobemotivated by patriotism and the interests of their own children. Theywill becalledupontodomuch,andtheydeserveanhonesttreatmentofwhatneedstobe fixed and how much that will really cost. There can be no more LafferCurves, free-lunch privatization schemes, or any of the other delusionalneoliberaltheologythatofferssalvationwithoutgoodworks.

Astothosegoodworks,theyarelegionandexpensive.Whilethetotalsarenecessarily imprecise and debatable, the bill’s general enormity is undeniable.Whether thesumis$6,$8.65,or$10+trillion, it’salways trillionsandalwaysmanyofthem.Collectingallthestrandscoveredbefore,thenexttableshowstheroughtab,excludingthe$18+trillioninnationaldebtaboutwhichwecanandshoulddonothingimmediate.

TheBill

InfrastructureNear-TermCosts:$3.6trillionOngoingAdditionalCosts:$100billion

PensionsNear-TermCosts:$1trillionOngoingAdditionalCosts:$200billion

MilitaryNear-TermCosts:$800billionOngoingAdditionalCosts:$100billion

Entitlements/HealthCareNear-TermCosts:$750billionOngoingAdditionalCosts:$200billion

ClimateNear-TermCosts:$1trillionOngoingAdditionalCosts:$150billion

Education/R&DNear-TermCosts:$1.5trillionOngoingAdditionalCosts:$250billion

ExtrainterestNear-TermCosts:—OngoingAdditionalCosts:$170billion(minimum)

TotalNear-TermCosts:$8.65trillionOngoingAdditionalCosts:$1.17trillion

Note:“Near-term”means thenext fewyears,awindowthat reflectsboth thecheapest time to remediateandalsotheperiodinwhichpartofthesumcanbecollectedfromtheBoomers;itisforthosereasonsmorefront-loadedthanitcouldotherwisebe.“Ongoing”simplymeanstheadditional,unbudgetedexpenseoverthenextthirtyorsoyears,atwhichpointcertainitemslikeeducation,pensions,andclimateshouldbeingoodenoughshapethattheycanbemaintainedfairlycheaplyandwecanfinallybeginrepayingpartofthe

nationaldebt.

These are the roughprices to keep the systemgoing theway it is, andwemaydecidethattheseareunacceptablyhighpricestopayforcertainitems.Butwe have to choose, not just let the system drift along, spawning deficits touncertain purpose. Significant reductions to entitlement programs, limitingforeign intervention, reducing spending in thinlypopulated areas—all items toconsider—would greatly reduce the total. Keep in mind that TARP alone,designedtocleanupthefinancialmessof2008,wasauthorizedtoexpend/investup to$700billion juston the financial sectorandcouldhavebeenacompleteloss (in the end, it was not). A slightly larger sum for ongoing investment,insteadofcrisismanagement,doesnotseemundueinthatcontext.Certainly,itwouldhelpifthegovernmentpassedalongadigestablesummaryofitsfinancialpositiontotaxpayers—itsuppliesprojectedbenefitsinformation,whichisaboutas complicated and political a figure as one can imagine, to Social Securitycontributors.Couldgovermentnotalsoprovide,withareceiptforeveryannualtax filing,aone-pagestatementof thegovernment’s financialpositionand theuseofmonies?Thismightassisttaxpayersindecidingwhattheyreallywanttofund,allowingforadegreeofinformedconsent.

Evenslimmed-down,somepartsof thisagendacannotbeeasilyavoided—major spending on infastructure, R&D, and some welfare seems like apreconditiontoagrowing,functionalsocietyandthesealonewillcosttrillions.Investmentsat this scaledemandsacrifice,nota favoriteBoomerword.Theseare sums associated with major wars, and they demand commensurate effort,meaning higher taxes, more investment, and less profligacy. Collecting themoneyrequiresexquisitecare,sincesloppytaxhikescanpunishgrowth,andthewholepointistoreturnAmericatoatrajectoryofquickupwardgrowth.*Thatrules out the cruder mechanisms of austerity in the Teutonic mold (practicedrecently,andtodevastatingeffect,byBerlinonAthens)andtheself-limitinglet-the-rich-pay-it-allpopulismoftheextremeLeftandRight.

Whatcouldworkisaninvestmentprogram,muchofitadministeredbythestate,initiallyfundedbydebtandultimatelypaidforbymoderatetaxincreasesonmostAmericans.Afteryearsofneoliberalconditioning,suchaprogrammayseemirretrievablyLeftist,fundamentallyun-American,orantitheticaltogrowth;none of these descriptions are warranted. All of these strategies have beenpursuedbefore,oftenquitesuccessfully,andbybothparties.Usingtaxrevenuesto support even the most expensive and state-centered programs, e.g.,

infrastructure and defense, would not strike a 1950s Republican like DwightEisenhowerascreepingsocialism,forthesimplereasonthathedidsohimself.Doubtless,someofthisbook’sproposalsaretothenotionalLeftofObamaandClinton; thenagain, thosepoliticiansofferedpolicies that frequently lay to theRight of Nixon, except in certain matters of civil rights. It’s all a matter ofperspective, and that perspective should be supplied by data and socialconsensus,nottheidiosyncraticworldviewoftheshrinkingBoomerelectorate.

TheBoomermessisthelargestchallengethenationhasfacedinsometime,thoughonce theBoomerestablishmenthasbeen replaced, itwillbehelpful toview reform as a process of manageable fiscal adjustments, instead of anopportunity to avenge a cosmic injustice. TheBoomersmight deserve to bearalmost all of the burden, but as a practicalmatter, they cannot.Everyonewillhavetoparticipate,thoughtotheextentBoomerscanbetargetedwithoutruiningthem,theyshouldbe.

TheEasy(ish)Part:BorrowingandInvestingAftersomanychaptersskeweringtheBoomersfortheiraddictiontodebt,itmayseemoddtocallformoreborrowing,thoughmoreborrowingistheappropriatecourse. No level of taxation can provide enough immediate funds, andborrowing is unusually cheap in the post-2008world. The difference betweentheborrowingoftheBoomeryearsandtheborrowingofthefuturerestsinhowfunds are used. The old practice of subsidizing transient consumption withperpetualdebtneedstogo.Thewayforwardmustbetaxandinvest,nottaxandspend,andnewdebtshouldbeviewedasaninstrumenttodealwithatemporarydifficulty,tobereducedwhenthechallengeabates.

Distinguishing between investment and consumption is a subject treated atlengthinpolicyliteratureandworthyofconsiderableponderingbybureaucrats,butnovoterhastimeoropportunitytodothesame.Whenbondissuancesarriveontheballot,theoptionsare“yes”and“no.”Toresolvethatbinaryinthethreeminutesallottedinthevotingbooth,aruleofthumbhelps:ifaprojectdoesnotprovide benefits for at least as long as the term of the associated debt, thatprojectshouldbeviewedwith(nondispositive)suspicion.Projectswithfleetingandunquantifiablebenefitsarelikelytobedisguisedconsumption.Itshouldalso(thoughithasn’t,forthirty-oddyears)gowithoutsayingthattotalascertainablebenefits should exceed total costs.* These are not rules to be applied withunthinking narrowness. Some worthy projects are inherently speculative andmayseemtofalloutsidetherubric,likeCalifornia’s2004proposaltofundstemcell research. At the time, it was not clear when or if the state’s $3 billioninvestmentwouldberecouped.Intheend,Californiavoted“yes”andthatwastherightchoice,bothexanteandposthoc.Moreover,whileanyspecificR&Dproject might be speculative, in the aggregate, R&D has a long history ofpositiveandenduringreturns.Alittleperspectiveisall that’srequiredtomaketheserules functionalguides to theprofusionofbondrequestsmadeofvoters.Olympicstadium:out.Decentschools:in.

When good projects do arrive, even debt-obsessed voters should not (fornow)bedeterredby the scopeof obligations incurred.American interest ratesare near zero in real terms and the arrival of subzero returns on Japanese andEuropeansovereigndebtwill limit theupwardpressureonratesthathugenew

debtsusuallyentail.Theworldhasvastamountsofcashlookingforapositiveyield and very fewgoodplaces to find it: Swiss banks in 2015–2016 actuallycharged major depositors for the privilege of holding ready funds. In such aworld, America can offer rates that are both absolutely low and extremelycompetitive,perhaps1–2percent,eminentlyaffordableeventoahighlyindebtednation. This happy climate is not guaranteed to last, any more than rottingbridgesareguaranteedtostandabsentrepair.

Thisbringsus to infrastructure, sorely inneedof investment, ineverythingfrom filling potholes to upgrading systems like Amtrak’s increasingly ricketyNortheast Corridor, which also happens to be by far the most profitable andrationalpartoftheAmtraksystem,thoughithasthemisfortuneofservingurbancorridors that rural congressmen despise.2 Bridges to nowhere and vanityprojectshavegiven infrastructure abad reputation.Butmaking sensible, data-driveninvestmentsprovidessafety,profit,andnewjobs.Ifdoingsobenefitsthecoasts (and it will), so be it; they pay the taxes anyway.* Given systemicunderemployment, infrastructure investment will provide jobs without muchupwardpressureonwages.Onecouldeasilyenvisionspending$3–4trillioninthe next few years, reaping a net benefit and little inflationary damage. It’s asubstantial investment—an order of magnitude more than anything proposedduring the2016election—butanythingmeaningfully lesswilldoequally littlegood.

Given the unusually good environment for issuing government bonds, it isalso a good time to relieve student debt. Government borrows much morecheaply than students and may as well use its advantage by assuming manystudentdebtsdirectly—includingthe$150billionowedtoprivatepartiesasof2012 (the date of the latest comprehensive data).3 Many loans are already“impaired,”and thegovernment is already in the forgivenessbusiness throughfront-end mechanisms like means-tested repayments, deferrals, and outrightforbearances(i.e.,write-offs).Onthebackend, thegovernment ison thehookthrough guarantees and automatic programs like welfare and other safety netentitlements.So it is really just aquestionof timing,costs, andallocation, thesortsofarbitrageandfiddlingWallStreetlovesinothercontexts;wejusthavetobehonestaboutthemechanics.

The gains of forgiveness would be substantial, emotionally (studentborrowersare“distressed”invarioussenses)andfiscally.Federalstudentloanscarried an interest rate in 2015–2016 of between 4.3 and 6.8 percent, withprivate loans carrying higher rates, to say nothing of the even higher costs of

credit extended to cover student living expenses.4 By contrast, the ten-yearTreasuryyieldwas,inmid-2016,about1.8percent.Ifonlyhalfofstudentdebtwereretired,thisinterestratearbitragewouldsave$20–30billionannually.Anysavingsare,ofcourse,fromthestudent(and,long-term,social)perspective;thevariousandoftenpredatorycorporationswhoissueorholdtheseloanswouldbedeprived of an equal sum (and the Treasury of some revenues, though byrelievingstudentsofsomedebt, thegovernmentmighthelpstudents livemoreproductive lives and eventually generate more tax revenue). Rationalizingstudentloanscouldalsoshoreupthefinancialsystem,sincemanyprivateloanholdershave shaky finances—thiswasaproblem in the2000s forSallieMae,the sort-of-private-sort-of-public loan provider—and dealing with systemicproblemsearly is invariablycheaper thancleaning themupduringacrisis.Noone shouldbedeluded that this is anythingother than a bailout, andonewithvery distasteful aspects, subsidizing some very bad decisions by students andhelping out some dubious participants in the loan business. That is the dirtynatureofall responses to financialcrises.Better thegovernmentaddress theseproblemsnow,before crushingdebt derails younger lives prematurely and thecosts arrive, compounded, via the back doors of welfare and other programs.Studentdebtisjustoneexampleoftheflexibilitypermittedbythecurrentlylowcostsofgovernmentborrowing.

Inalesssociopathicpoliticalenvironment,evenAmerica’slargestprogramscanbefixedfairlyeasilywithminoradjustments,entirelyaffordablerelativetothe giant consequences of inaction. Returning Social Security to long-termbalance requiresmoderate increases toFICA taxes andminor increases of theretirementagetoreflectincreasedlongevity(Chapter12).ClimatepolicyneedsappropriateinvestmentsinenergyinfrastructureandR&Dandreformslikecap-and-trade,whicharenotterriblyexpensiveintheshort-termandbringlong-termbenefitstopublicandprivateparties.Thecap-and-tradeprogramsimplementedtodealwithacidraininthe1990sprovokednorecessionsandCalifornia,whichhas had its own carbon cap-and-trade program in effect since 2012–2013, isprosperous.Any temporary dislocationswould be small compared to both thetotaleconomyandthedamageaverted.Eventhemilitarycanbebroughtbacktofullreadinessinjustafewyearsatfairlymodestcostbyundoingthearbitrarydamageofsequestrationandcullingtheself-servingfaunaofcongressionalporkandwhite-elephantsystems.

Becausedebt ispresently socheapandmanyof the largest challenges likeSocialSecurityandclimatehavecoststhatcanbespreadovermanyyears,some

of the largest problems are actually the easiest to address, conceptually, if notpolitically. The real challenge is equitably allocating the various costs andavoidingthewastethatattendsanylargereshufflingoffunds.

TheHarderAdjustments:HealthyDebt,TaxIncreases,BenefitCuts,andAvoidingWasteExceptinsevererecessions,anyadditionstothedebtshouldbeaccompaniedbybudgets that pay current interest out of current revenues and come withreasonable plans for their eventual extinguishment.* Investing $8.65 trillionimmediately would add considerably to nominal interest payments, thoughbecause real interest rates are near zero, even borrowing at this scale carriesmodest costs. Still, even nominal obligations must be paid and interest plusongoinginvestmentswouldaddabout$1.2trillioninspending,andthatmeansnewtaxes.

TotaltaxreceiptsintheUnitedStatesarecloseto$7trillionacrossfederal,state,andlocal,taxes,someetingnewexpensesimpliesarelativetaxincreaseof21–25 percent, substantial but not unbearable. To allay any heart attacks, thatmeans thehighestnominal federal ratesmight rise toaround50percent (from39.6 percent, though the effective rates would be much lower). For averagetaxpayers,theireffective15percentratewouldcreepupto18percentorslightlyhigher.Thesefiguresassumethecurrenttaxandbenefitssystemsotherwisestaythesame,which,justtocalmdowntheRightistreader,theypalpablyshouldnot.Wecanandshouldrejiggerthebrackets,FICAallocations,benefits,deductions,andso forth.Pullinga fewof the taxcodes’many leversmight leavenew taxrates much closer to current rack rates, raising revenue while eliminating thedistorting subsidies embedded in the code. It’s possible to be fiscally prudentwithout dismantling the government or flirting with confiscatory taxation,thoughnooneshouldbedeludedthatthetotaltaxtakemustgoup,startingwithtaxesontheBoomers.(Itseemsimpossiblethatthiswillhappenin2017,buttheelectionsof2018and2020offernewopportunities.)

Seniors—i.e., Boomers—will view higher taxes as an unfairness not to beborne and the prospect of reduced benefits as an outrage; anyway, they willargue, they don’t have the money. Like much of Boomer dialogue, suchassertionsaremostlyself-servingandfalse.TheBoomersdidnotpaytheirfairshareoftaxes,asthenationaldebtandgeneraldecayattest,andBoomersshouldmake good on their debts. As for pensions, benefits, and other senior citizenbonuses,theBoomersmightarguethattheyareattheendoftheirworkinglives

and so any cuts would be an unprecedented cruelty.* Well, it might be aninconvenience,but itwouldnotbeacruelty,morallyor fiscally, andcertainlynot unprecedented. Themoral facts have been established. So have the fiscalfacts:Olderpeopledohavealottotax.Thericheronesownadisproportionateamount ofwealth,much ofwhich generates incomewhether theBoomers areworkingornot.Evenlessrichseniorsreceiveallmannerofbenefits,pensions,and other overly generous/unsustainable payments that can be reduced eitherdirectlyorthroughthetax,whetherornottheyhaveconsiderablemoneyassets(andmanydonot).Someage-targetedtaxesmaybeunconstitutionalandothers,howeverlegal,maybeeffectivelyquashedbystallinglitigationthatallowstheBoomerstomakeittothegraveuntouched.However,theveryBoomerpoliciesdesignedtoprotecttheirgenerationalinterestsalsocreatemanyunambiguouslylegalandfairtargets,correlatedwithageandripeforharvest.

SocialSecurityistheobviousplacetostart,andtheretirementageshouldberaisedforanyonereasonablyabletowork,includingtheyoungerBoomers,byatleastthreeyears.(“Early”retirementwouldthenhappenatsixty-five,and“full”retirement at seventyor later.)Similar revisionsweremade in 1983, in awaythat protected the Boomers (Chapter 12). It’s time to do it again, withoutgenerational indulgence.WealthierBoomers canalsohave theirbenefits taxedmoreaggressively,anotherstrategybackedbyprecedent.Clawingbackold-agebenefits has the advantage of being generationally targeted and also sends amessagetoyoungerworkersthatthestatecannot(andindeed,neverintendedtonordid)coverallofretirement.NorthernEuropeanshavevastlymoregenerouswelfare states and higher personal savings rates; they understand that even ingeneroussystems,individualresponsibilityremainsparamount.

Thereareotherareaswheretaxescanbereasonably,generationallytargeted.The Boomers are the cohort presently reaping the greatest gains frominheritances, and these can be taxed at something above the functionally zerorate that generally applies. Indeed, doing so would be downright republican(lowercase), given that low inheritance taxes are oddities in a nation founded,howeverglancingly,inoppositiontoinheritedprivilege.Theexemption,nowat$5.45 million, can be lowered dramatically, allowing sentimental items to bepassedalongwithoutabettingdynasticwealthwhileshoringup the fisc.Otherexemptionscanbereducedorabolished,includingthe“step-up”basisatdeath,aloopholethatdirectstheIRStoexcludeanyqualifyinggainsthataccruedduringa giver’s lifetime, which can be most of them.* When Britain decided itsparasitic and antidemocratic gentry needed to go, the mechanism was “death

duties.”Thatwasacenturyago;certainlytwenty-first-centuryAmericacanbeatleastasprogressiveasEdwardianBritain.Why,precisely,dotheseniorviewersofPBScaresomuchabouthowDowntonAbbeywillsurvivethepredationsofLloyd George and his death duties? Because Boomers have their ownMcDowntonstoworryabout.

Even before they change hands, American McDowntons are alreadyprotected by some generationally discriminatory exemptions that themselvesdeserverevision,especially theproperty taxcapsenactedsince the1970s.TheBoomers have long profited from these anomalies at the expense of schools,infrastructure,andtheresidentialaspirationsofyoungerAmericans.Thelongeronestaysput,themorevaluablethecapbecomes—capsassumethatthetaxablevalueofproperty increases at an arbitrarily low rate, say2percent, even if inmanymarkets appreciation ismuch higher. So a long-term resident inMalibumight be taxed as if his home were worth $1 million, even if an identicalpropertynextdoorjustsoldfor$25millionandis taxedaccordingly.Revisingthesecapswouldbeprogressive,bothinstandardtermsandgenerationalones.Itwould alsobe efficient, as capsdistort all sorts of economicdecisionmaking,reducing labor market flexibility by encouraging people to stay put, whichmakes no sense in an era where lifetime employment has vanished and jobsmigrate. (The same is true of rent control, another strategy that favors seniorswhileconstrainingsupplyandforcingthepriceofunrestrictedrentalsupward.)The usual counterargument is that such revisions will displace seniors whocannotaffordtoliveinthehomesoftheirchoice,towhichtheansweris:tough.ThelawconfersrightsofcitizenshipintheUnitedStates,notarighttoresideinaparticularplace.Abolishingcapsandrentcontrolmaycreateshort-termpricedeclines, though this would serve as something of a generational equalizer,putting more homes in reach of younger cohorts, among whom rates ofhomeownershiparenotablydepressed.

Vastasthegenerationalsubsidiesofpropertytaxprotectionsare,theypaleincomparison to medical spending, consumed by seniors in disproportionateamount and substantially at public expense—a fact the simple existence ofMedicare’s age-qualification underlines. The most reasonable reforms entailmore cost-benefit analyses of the sort routinely imposed on other governmentprograms;rationing,tousethechargedterm.EvangelicalRepublicansmaynotcarefor“deathpanels,”butwhoaretheytodefytheirGod,whosayeththatthe“days of our years are threescore years and ten” or, at most, by “reason ofstrength” (or Medicare) might extend to “fourscore”?5 Let us grant the

evangelicalwish thatWashingtoncease interferingwithGod’sdesign, at leastonthismatter.Anyway,socialprogramsaresupposedtodothegreatestsocialgood,notcater to falsesentimentsaboutkindlygeriatrics.Costly interventionstodragalifeoutafewunproductivemonths,atthepriceofalostgenerationofchildren, do not balance in the Benthamite books. If they were true to theirprinciples,insteadofbowingtoBoomerhypocrisy,boththeLeftandtheRightwouldeachfindsomethingtolikeaboutrationing.

TheprospectofrationingmayalsoencouragetheBoomerstoembracemoresensible medical policies. It would expose neoliberal welfare as the unviablechimeraitis,apolicythatsimultaneouslyrequiresthegovernmentbethesinglelargest buyer of health care while forbidding the state from using its marketpower tonegotiatediscounts fromthemedicaloligopolies theBoomershelpedcreate.More thoughtfulpoliciescansavea lot,whilesacrificing little.Swedenspends9.6percentofGDPonhealthversusAmerica’s16.9percent (in2012),andStockholmisn’texactlylitteredwiththecorpsesofneglectedseniors.6

Rich as many Boomers are, many are not, and this means generationaltaxationalonecanneversuffice.Taxeswillneedtorisegenerally,evenonthesacred cowof themiddle class,whose teats havebeen supposedly abusedbuthaveactuallyexperiencedonlythemosttendercaresses.Nowhere,inthegreatdebates over theprogressivity of theAmerican tax system that have raged foryears,hasthereeverbeenrealdiscussionofaskinganythingofthemiddleclass.All major candidates in 2016 promised relief for “middle-class” taxpayers, anow-customaryritual.Whythemiddleclassshouldgetabreakhasneverbeenclearly articulated, for the same reason that the definition of “middle class” isnever articulated.The vastmajority of the electorate (up to 87 percent) viewsthemselvesassomesortof“middleclass”andthereforeinterpretsanyproposedbreaks to be in their immediate self-interest.7 This is one promise Boomerpoliticiansusuallykeep,andithasshieldedthevastmiddlefrompayingitsfairshare.

Beforeweget to themiddle, let’sstartwith thesinsof thebottomandtop,therespectivefixationsoftheRightandLeft.Thebottomquintileorsoalreadyreceives net subsidies from the government, and these transfers seem likesomething of a precondition to a functioning society in practice, regardless oftheir theoretical merits. Presently they seem set to a level that is, roughly,minimally functional, so there is little to trim—the subsidiesare smallenoughthatmeaningful reductionswouldcreatemassunrestwithoutmuchfiscalgain.Noteven theKochswant to risk repeatingLouisXVI’s flight toVarennes (or

Zurich, at any rate) and there’s littlewe candohere.The lower-middle class,however, does have something to contribute—it is taxed at exceedingly lowrates,sothatmanyofitsmemberspaylessthantheyreceiveinbenefits.Noristhe lower-middle some citadel of unalloyed virtue.While the evasions of theupperbracketsfeaturemorezeroes,thelesswealthycommittheirownevasions.Cash-basedcompensation,liketipsandsoon,frequentlygounreported.Swaninto an upscale hair salon, past the doors proudly announcing the acceptance ofVisa andAmex, and you see anATM, there to dispense untraceable cash fortips, testamentstothecultureoflow-stakesevasion.TheIRSgivesthissortofcheating a free pass, because it lacks resources to take action. Aside fromexaminingsuspiciousreturnsreportingzeroincome,theIRSbasicallydoesnotscrutinize the “middle class” at all: It examines 0.5 percent of filers reportingincomes between $25,000 and $200,000, while it examines 6 percent, 10percent, and 16 percent of returns reporting incomes over $1, $5, and $10million, respectively.8 All parts of the middle class can contribute somewhatmore,andtheIRScanensurethattheydo.

As for soaking the rich, there aren’t that many of them, and they can bedunkedonly somany times.Evendramatic taxhikeson this small populationwouldproduceatmostanextra$300to$400billion,whichdoesnotcompletelyclose current deficits, to say nothing of the additional investments called for.*Nor would abolishing favorable rates on capital gains and dividends besufficient,supplyingperhaps$200billionannually,andonlyifthemarketholdstogether.9 (The amount is notably low because so many capital gains areshieldedbymiddle-classretirementplans.)Thewealthyshouldpaytheirshare,buttheyalreadypayquitealot:thetopquintileofearners(householdsearningan average of about $270,000 annually) paid 69.0 percent of federal incometaxes; the top 1 percent alone pay 25.4 percent of taxes.10Respectively, thesegroupsaccount for52.6and15.0percentof income; theypaymorerelative totheirshareofincomeandothergroupspayless,whichispreciselythepointoftheprogressivesystemandtheexistenceofaskewitselfisnotacritiqueofthesocial policies of a progressive system. Whatever your position about thefairness of how the rich generate their income, there’s no getting around theheavydependenceof thegovernmentonreceipts fromaverysmallnumberofpeople, and the implications of this have not beenmuch discussed outside ofsome(self-servingandoverheated)Rightistthinktanks.

While progressivity is important, the point many have missed is thatexcessive focus on collections from just the richest risks further social

distortions, from the perspectives of the Left, Right, andwhat remains of thecenter. Populists should keep in mind that a system that is alreadydisproportionatelyfundedbytherichwillbecomeevermorecaptivetothemastaxes increase.The richwillbecomeevenmore interested in taxpolicy,whilethe governmentwill become evermore dependent on thewell-being of a tinyclassof individualsandcater to themaccordingly; ifyouhaveonlyonegooselaying golden eggs, the goose had better be happy. Overtaxing the rich alsoencourages other unhealthy dynamics. Those who pay tend to feel they own;those who do not cannot feel quite the same. After a certain point, extremeprogressivitydefeats thesocialpurpose itseeks toachieve, reducingsociety tooligarchyversusmob,withtheoligarchyfeelingentitledtogovernatwhimandemotionallyjustifiedinevadingaburdenothersdonotreallyshare.*,11Themob,lackingasenseofproprietorship,canhardlybeexpectedtotakeaproperinterestinmaintaining society—howmuch can a personwho pays no net taxes reallycomplain aboutwhat the government is doingwith his “tax dollars”?The taxsystemshouldbeprogressiveandperhapshighlyso,notutterlylopsided.

Taxes on almost the entire base should rise and levies should be moreefficientlycollected.TheIRScanreceiveproperfundingtocollectwhatpeoplefail to pay. The Service estimates that at least $450 billion goes uncollectedeveryyear,andevenafteraudits,morethan$400billionthatisowedwillneverbecollected.12ProperfundingoftheServicecouldretrieveasignificantfractionofthedeficitbyitself,aboutasmuchasamajorhikeontherichwould,withoutchangingasinglerate.Itisnotenoughbyitself,butitwouldhelp,anditwouldbeequitable.

Similar reforms of corporate taxation would provide additional revenue,while keeping things fair and improving American competitiveness. Official(ratherthaneffective)Americancorporatetaxratesarehighbyglobalstandards,which encourages evasion, ofmore and less legalmeans.Large, sophisticatedandaggressivecorporations, likeAppleandGE,haveoftenpaidnothing.13 (ItusedtobejokedthatGEwas,byattorneysemployed,thelargesttaxlawfirminthe world; that’s not the highest and best use of GE’s resources.) Lower andmoreuniformtaxationwouldbemorefairtosmallercorporationsandencouragelarger companies to remain in America, instead of being “domiciled” inmicronationsthathavenothingtodowithacompany’scorebusiness.

Highertaxeswouldimpactconsumption,thoughthisisnotnecessarilybad,especiallyifconsumptiontaxeshelpedreflecttherealcostofpurchases,manyofwhich are subsidized by society (meaning: younger generations). Though

consumption taxes have long enjoyed support in policy circles, they arefrequentlyderidedaspoliticalnonstarters,which isbizarreasmanysuch taxesalready exist: sales taxes, regulatory fees like car registration taxes, gas taxes,use taxes, tolls, and even property taxes, capped as they are. Even ifconsumptiontaxesofthekindseeninEuropeareimpracticable,raisingexistingconsumption taxeswould not only generate revenue and encourage savings, itwould help internalize externalities, i.e., the true social costs of the goodsconsumed.TheanomalouslylowpriceofenergyinAmericafailstocapturethetotalcostsfossilfuelscreate,andasimplewaytoreduceemissionsistoraisethepriceoffuel.Asfuelhasbeenrelativelycheapforafewyears,itisaconvenienttime to raise taxeson fuel.Somemayprotest that consumption taxes,or evencarbon taxes, are unfairly regressive, but they are small components of agenerally progressive tax system and also the most direct means of makingconsumersbeartherealcostoftheirpurchases.

Along the same lines—ofmaking people assume directly costs thatwouldotherwise be socialized—are insurance fees. The premiums that regulatorschargethefinancialsector,forexample,havebeeninadequate,whichwaswhyCongress had to cough up a fewhundred billion to rescue the banks in 2008.Socialinsurancepremiumsforentitlements,aswe’veseen,arealsotoolow.Soarepremiumsforthesemiprivateworldofpensions,asthehopelessstateofthePBGC shows. Unlike the financial sector, pensions and the PBGC are insufficientlybadshape thatprospective insurancewillneverbeenough tomeetexisting liabilities. Subsidies will be required from general revenues, as willsteep benefits cuts—which theBoomers deeply oppose andmust be forced tobear. Again, Social Security and pensions are not promises made by the USConstitution,andanyonewhoreliesexclusivelyontheseprogramsdoessoathisperil.*,14 Pensioners should have known better, and a contrary conclusionimpliesapaternalisticstateofbreathtakingscale.

Thepointoftrudgingupanddownthetaxtablesistoshowthatthereisnoonetaxrevisionthatcansolvetheproblembyitself.Onlytaxationonalmostthewhole taxbase,withspecialemphasison theBoomersand theproperties theycontrol,cansupplyrevenueontheorderrequired(anddosowithanyfairness).Whenpoliticianssaythatthewealthyarenotpayingenoughtaxes,theyarerightifonlybecausenoone ispresentlypayingenough taxes.Whenpoliticians saythemiddleclass(whateverthat is)paystoomuch, theyignoreboththehistoryandthemath.TheeffectiveincometaxrateformostAmericansrunsaround15percent, aswe saw inChapter8. The bottom fifth receives outright subsidies,

and something like 40 to 60 percent of Americans consume, via tax credits,entitlements, andother public services,more economicvalue than theypay intaxes.15 What politicians are really talking about for the bottom half of themiddleclassisnottaxrelief,butdeepeningthetaxsubsidyfromthewealthytothelower-middleclass.Societycandothis,butitshouldbehonestaboutwhatisgoingon,andthatwillentaildispatchingallthenostrumsoflower-middle-classvirtuefrompoliticaldialogue.Thetradeofself-regardfora3percentgrosstaxsavingsdoesn’tseemlikethesortofexchangeahealthyrepublicshouldmake.

Every interest group in the world has plans to reform taxes, and no onepersoncanunderstandthemillionsofwordsoffederal,state,local,andagencytaxesandfees,orthevariousglossesonthemprovidedbythelobbyingindustry.Nooneperson—noonevoterorreader—hasto.Allthathastobeappreciatedisthat thescaleof theproblemdefiesanycheapfixand thatessentiallyall taxesmustriseforsometime.Mypersonalhopewouldbeforthestatetorecedefromits role as manager of perpetual financial crisis, concentrating instead oneffective regulation and limiting itself to the various things it does best, likebuildingroads,andschools,andfundingbasicresearch,withtaxesscaleddownto lowest reasonable need. After we repair damage to the system, we shouldconsiderareturntolowertaxes.Thatpointismanyyearsaway.

Thisbookstartedwithananalogyofatrialandnowthataverdicthasbeenreached (or anyway, the prosecution is resting), the time has come to ask forpenalties.Indoingso,it’shelpfultorevisitthelegalframework.Inlegalterms,what the Boomers did to the country was knowing and voluntary, sometimesrecklessbutoftenintentional,andtheyprofitedfromtheiractions.Thisiswhatthe law requires before ordering restitution. While not all of the Boomersdirectly participated, almost all benefited; they are, as the lawwould have it,jointlyandseverallyliable.Traditionally,it’suptogroupdefendantstosortoutwhoshouldpaywhat,butinthiscasetheanalysissimplycollapsestoaquestionofwhocanpayatall.Andgiventhesizeoftheclaim,essentiallyeveryBoomerwhocanpayshould.Thenagain,giventhesuminvolved,somustweall.Thatisthenatureofsociety,sociopathsbedamned.

AvoidingaRepeat:FutureGenerationsAll of these reforms and investments would be of limited utility if anothergenerationofsociopathsemerged.Itisnotenoughtoundothedamage;wemustavoidarepeat.ThisisoneofthefewareaswhereAmericacanenjoyrelativelyeasyoptimism.Forbetterorworse,manyoftheuniqueconditionsthattwistedtheBoomersintogenerationalsociopathywillnotrecur.Thecomfortableworlddescribed in the first twochapters,with itsassumptionsabouteffortless futureprosperity, has vanished.16 The historical anomaly of bottle-feeding largelydisappeared by themid-1970s (except among the poor). Permissive parentingsoldierson, thoughplentyofalternativemodelshavearisentohopefullybettereffect.Eventelevision,stillomnipresentandcorrosive,nowcompeteswithotherdiversionsthatseemlesswarping.Whiletherearesomeindicationsthatnewertechnologies like social networking foster narcissism among the young, andperpetuatethesortofmediagroup-thinkthatprevailedaftertheabolitionoftheFairness Doctrine, nothing quite as bad as television seems to have arrived,though itwill be years beforewe can reach a definitive conclusion. For now,newertechnologiesdonotseemtopromotesociopathyinthesamewayasTV;there has been no Facebook crime wave, or Twitter rampage. (Sometimeshermeticrecirculatorsofmisinformation,theseplatformsallowforcrowinganddisingenuousnessbutdonotseemtocreatesociopathicorcriminalmind-setsinthe first place, with the possible exception of extreme bullying.) As forcontroversial foreign entanglements, there have been plenty, but the rise of avolunteerarmy,albeitonedistastefullysupplementedbymercenariesandblacksites, has avoided someof the problemswith the draft, problems that anywayseem to have been as much a means to express sociopathic tendencies as acreatorofthem.

Themostimportanttask,ifwewanttoavoidcreatinganothergenerationofsociopaths, is providing an education in the value society produces and thethoughtfulmanagementofpersonalchoices.Itisashamethatcivicsdisappearedfromthecurriculumandthatcoursesonfinancialliteracyneverreallyexisted.Itis also a tragedy that many view life as a zero-sum game, where wealth cannever be created, only reallocated. However disappointing growth has beenundertheBoomers,theeconomyhasstillexpanded.Thesearenottheneo–Dark

Ages,where theonlyway togetahead is forhedgefundmanagers topracticerapine and plunder on neighboringWestchester villages, though the Boomersseemtobelieveasmuch.Naïveasitmaysound,inoculatingsocietyagainsttheantisocial requires, at bottom,persuadingpeopleofwhat is palpably true: thatsocietyhasvalueandeveryoneshouldcontribute.

AFTERWORD

Arevolutiondoesnotlastmorethanfifteenyears,aperiod

whichcoincideswiththeflourishingofageneration.—JoséOrtegayGasset1

Insightful as the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset was about masspower and historical transformations, he did not live long enough to seeBoomers,whichmighthaveprovokedhimtorevisehisrevolutionarytimeline.It has been forty years since theBoomers began accumulating real power andabouttwenty-fivesincetheygainedcommandofthenation’shighestofficeandmany of its legislatures, and they are still upending the social order in fairlyradical ways. Many years remain before Boomers will voluntarily relinquishtheir holds on the White House, legislatures, courts, governors’ mansions,executiveoffices,andtheotherimportantperchesfromwhichtheycontinuetopracticesociopathic revolution.Evenagehasn’t slowed theBoomersdown,asthereductionstimeinflictsonBoomernumbersandgeneralenergyareoffsetbythe influence of money and specific enthusiasm over the issue of seniorentitlements.Likeallsociopathic revolutions, theBoomerrevolutionwishes tobepermanentandifitcannotmanagethat,then2030or2040willdo.Boomersarewellontheirwaytoaccomplishingtheirgoal.

TheBoomers’continuingefficacyisreflectedinpoliticians’ritualobeisancetoSocialSecurityandMedicare,nowinvariablydiscussedinreligioustermslike“untouchable,”“inviolable,”and“sacrosanct,”renderingthemsacredinstitutionsfor which tithing is strictly nonoptional. In 1983, these programs could be

rationally discussed. Now, even though these programs—like the rest of thesociopathic program—are known to be unsustainable as-is by all reasonablepolicy makers, they drift on. Because the problems Boomers created, fromentitlementson,grownotsomuchinlinearasexponentialterms,thecrisisthatfeels distant today will, when it comes, seem to have arrived overnight.Tempting as it is to wait for age to do its work, unless action is taken soon,America of the 2030swill understandHemingway’s dictum about bankruptcyarriving slowly, then suddenly. By then, the Boomers will be gone, and themoment for justice will have passed. Only the problems, more vast and lesstractable,willremain.

David Hume, an altogether more realistic philosopher than his Spanishsuccessor,marveledathoweasyitwasforaminoritytocontrolasociety.Humewouldnotbe surprised to see the sociopathshangingoneven though theyarenowsubstantiallyoutnumberedbyothergenerationswho,iftheyactedtogether,could unseat the Boomers. But younger generations have found nothing toinspirethesamesortofdevotionalinterestthatmakestheBoomerssoeffective.Sofar,youngervoterstendtowardsingle-issuepolitics,andhoweverworthyanygiven issue may be, most single-issue politics are self-limiting. A carbon taxdoes not fix the banks, fixing the banks does not ensure civic equality,transgenderbathroomaccessdoesnotrevivifyR&D,andnoneofthesereformsreally address the huge imbalances that have been accumulating under theBoomers.Comprehensivereformrequiresyoungergenerationstoalignclosely,todemolishtheentiresociopathicedifice,insteadofpickingatitonebrickatatime.

Unfortunately, there is one major exception to the rule about single-issuepolitics,anditbenefits theBoomers—aslongas theycanwinonentitlements,they can keep everything. Entitlements are so large that they essentiallydeterminethebudgetandthenationalfuture,andtheyareaneasyissuetorallyaround. The nonsociopathic electorate needs to find for itself something ascompelling and far-reaching as entitlements are for the Boomers, andparadoxically, entitlement reform is unlikely to serve as the rallying point.Entitlementsenjoyimmenseabstractpopularityacrossallagegroups(thanksinparttoBoomerdeceitaboutthem)andtechnicaladjustmentstoretirementagesandpayoutratioshaven’tarousedmasspassionanddon’tseemlikelyto.Giventhattheactuarialcatastrophehasbeenwellunderstoodfordecadesandthattheonlyresponsehasbeenanexpansionofseniorbenefits,itseemsunityrequiresadifferentcatalyst.

What might work is an Other, the common enemy the philosopher CarlSchmitt believed societies needed to push them into decisive action.2 Schmitt,being a German of a certain era, reached some ugly conclusions aboutOtherhood,buthewasnotwithoutapoint,andhisthinkinghasrecentlybecomesomething of a vogue even for people who (correctly) find Schmitt himselfrepellent.ASchmittianmenacedoesmotivatesociety,sometimestogoodends,if the Us is genuinely commendable and the Other, not so much. Over thecenturies,theScotshadtheEnglish;theEnglish,thenuisancesoftheContinent;theContinent,OttomansatthegatesofVienna;everythingnorthofWittenberg,everything south to Rome; and the Thirteen Colonies, the bewigged tyrantlodged at Windsor. All these Others triggered political revolutions (and maystill), some of which were very good and others definitely not, thoughmanywere serious and popular attempts to deal with real problems. But inmodernAmerica, in pressing need of reform, there has been a conspicuous lack ofmotivation; the enemiesdisappeared.George III is longdead, as are the “EvilEmpire” andOsamabinLaden.Cuba, the dagger once pointed at the heart ofAmerica, isopenfortourism,andif theIslamicRepublicstillofficiallyfixateson America as the Great Satan, Tehran and Washington are at least talkingagain. Immigrants, the latest target,make for an angry talkingpoint, though anationcontenttoemploysomanyofthem—notjustinfactories,butinhomes,asgardeners,cooks,andnurses—andsoaddictedtothecheaplaborimmigrantsprovide, won’t really kick the habit. What foreign menace, then, could everpromptatrulypositiveandcomprehensivesocialrestructuring?None,perhaps.ButthereisalargebodyofOthers,closeathand:theBoomers.

Part ofmy goal throughout has obviously been to establish Boomers as ahighly culpable Other, one whose deposition might lead to some real good.Boomers really are different, as they often and proudly remind. They do notshare other generations’ values and do not behave in ways that accord withAmerica’sbetterconceptionsofitself.TheyareOther,even,intheirownways,enemiesofstateandsociety.ThinkofGroverNorquist’sdreamofdrowningthegovernmentinabathtub(or,inlessvirulentform,BillClinton’sdeclarationthatthe “era of big government is over”), or the despoliation of the environment,indiscriminateimprisonment,andintergenerationalexpropriation.ArethesenotproofofBoomerOtherhood?

Ratherthanrepeatingtheargumentsofthepastseventeenchaptersandtheirhundredsofendnotes,perhapsit’seasiertojustlettheOthersindictthemselves.InMay2016,asIwasworkingonthisbook,TheAtlanticranacoverstorythat

demonstratesintheformofonepersonthestorythisbookhasbeentryingtotellaboutanentiregeneration.ThearticleinquestionwaswrittenbyNealGabler,aBoomer,purportingtoexpose“thesecretshameofmiddle-classAmericans.”3Itwaspresentedasthelamentofamandeniedtheopportunitytothrive,butclosereading,underthelightprovidedbytheprecedingchapters,showsthearticleforwhat it really is: a very public disgrace brought on by the Boomers’ Otherlyhabitsofmind.

Gabler’spremiseisthatheisoneofalmosthalfofAmericanswhocouldnotconjureup$400topayforanemergency.Bylocatinghimselfinthesecurityof150million companions,Gabler has prepared his escape; you know itwill beanyone’sfaultexceptGabler’s.ButGablerpurportstofixtheblameonhimself,providinghimthechancetochargeyou,theAtlanticsubscriber,foranexerciseinconfessionaltherapy.

Gabler’snarrativeofhowhearrivedathisparticularStationoftheCrossisastoryoffollyunleavenedbyself-awareness.Gabler,likeallBoomers,arrivedinarichandfunctionalAmerica.Yet,despitehavingteachingjobs,bookcontracts,aTVgig,aspousewhoworkedasa“filmexecutive,”parentswhopaidforhisdaughters’collegeeducations,and“typicallyma[king]asolidmiddle-oreven,at times upper-middle-class income,” Gabler and his wife find themselvesborderlineinsolvent—althoughhisfinancialilliteracydoesn’tmakeclearifhe’sactuallybrokeorjusthardupforcash.HedoesresideintheHamptons,afterall,whicharenotexactlyNairobi.Letthispass;Gablersayshe’sinabind,andwecantakehimathiswordonthebiographicaldetails,ifnothisconclusion.

Whatfollowsareaparadeofself-admittedbadchoices,ofastonishingscope,thatencompassthewholerottingcornucopiaofBoomerism.Perthearticle,itisGablerwhochosetobecomeawriter(notfamouslyremunerativeinanyera).ItisGablerwhochosetobuyaBrooklynco-opwhichheassertshe“couldafford,”thoughobviouslyhecouldnot:HisBrooklynaddressexposedhischildrentotheindignity of public school, requiringGabler to dispatch the kids to expensiveprivate institutions. The condo eventually had to be sold at a crippling loss.(Another collision of theBoomers’mentality of effortlesswealth against hardreality:Thehousingmarketdoesnotonlygoup.)Movingalong,itwasGablerwho relocated toEastHampton (not asnice asone imagines,mindyou—“welivetherefull-timelikepoorpeople[sic],”Gablernotes).Gabler’schildrenweresmartenoughtogainentrancetoStanford,HarvardMedicalSchool,Emory,andtheUniversityofTexas (the latterpresumably,givenhisNewYorkaddresses,not at in-state tuition rates; then again, does New York even have public

universities?Sixty-fourcampusesintheSUNYsystemalone,asithappens).Itwasnot,however,Gablerwhoprimarilypaidthebills,itwashisparents.

Well, howcouldGabler pay?Hehadblownpast a bookdeadline andwassued by his publisher to have the advance returned (an outrage, since “bookdeadlines are commonly missed and routinely extended,” the same sort ofeveryone-does-itthinkingofNannygate/McDonnellgate).Atsomepoint,Gableralsofailedtopayhistaxesandnowowespenalties;heimplicitlyragesagainstaprogressive taxsystemthatcasthim intoahigherbracketdue to theoffensivedelivery of a lump-sum book advance (for which most authors would begrateful,butnotGabler).Alas,Gablerdidn’tcomecleantohiswifeabouttheirfinancial position, and she prematurely retired from her executive career,apparently deluded by the prospect of a manly provider tilling the fields ofliterature. So far, so bad, and on it goes: a daughter’swedding arrives,whichGablerpaysfor—soundsgood,except thathecashedouthis401(k) topayforthepartyandatsomepointhadtoborrowmoneyfromanadultchild,practicingathomewhatSocialSecurityeffectsatnationalscale.Nowinthefinancialhole,GablerteachesMFAstudents,becomingacynicalaccompliceintheproductionofindebtedcannonfoddertobemowndownbyanindustrythat,asGablerhasbeenlaboringtoexplain,doesnotprovidearealliving.

So whose fault is it? Gabler says it’s his, though the whole hair shirt heweaves for himself is more or less unraveled by a pull quote pleading that“perhapsnoneofthiswouldhavehappenedifmyincomehadsteadilygrownthewayincomesusedtogrowinAmerica.Itdidn’tandtheydon’t.”That’struebyitself, though incomes are still somewhat higher than theywerewhenGablercame of age, and people once saved a fair amount of those earnings. TheproblemisthatGablerignorestheBoomer-engineeredpoliciesthatthisbookhasbeen laboring todragout fromunder their slimyrock,perhapsbecausehehasbeentoobusylivingtheirpersonalequivalent.

Thearticle,liketheBoomersthemselves,continueseventhoughit’salreadydone more than enough damage. As it happens, even a degraded Americaoffered Gabler opportunities—think of those prestigewriting/teaching/fellowship gigs, and his job as a critic on TV. It’s just thatGabler couldn’t hold on to themoney or the highly paid TVwork, the latterbecausehewasn’t“frivolousenoughforthemedium.”Gabler,noweligibleforcustomaryseniorbenefits, isalmostcertainlyonthedole,sothiswholetaleofwoeissubsidizednotonlybythegoodpeopleofTheAtlantic,butbyyou, thetaxpayer, though to be fair it’s possible that 15 percent of his Social Security

benefitsarebeinggarnishedtorepayhistaxdebts.4ThereasonGablerisputinthestocksisbecauseheembodiesinoneperson

thewholeBoomerproblemandthedifficultyinachievingrepair.Gablerchosetopublishthestory,notasanapology,butasanexcuseandajustification.Heisnotcontrite;hetakesnorealresponsibility.HeistheOther,utterlyunfixableandtotally oblivious, one example out of millions. Gabler had every opportunity,startingwithhisstudiesat the then-cheapUniversityofMichiganandrightupthroughthedecidedlyuntaxingdemandsofhistelevisedmoviereviews.Thoseopportunities Gabler blew, just as the Boomers generally inherited a healthynationandleavebehindonesteepedindifficulty.Gablerwrapsupbycitingthestatistic that 21percent ofAmericans view a lotterywin as themost practicalway to accumulate wealth. Of course, Gabler and the Boomers did win thelottery:Theywerebornintherichestandmostdynamiceconomytheworldhadever seen, midcentury America. They just did what so many do with lotterylucre:wasteit.

This is a deeply negative portrayal, but a certain negativitymaybewhat’srequired. If dense-print tables of marginal tax rates and federal deficits don’tprovoke thenecessaryemotions,maybeGabler’svividexamplewill.Would itbemorepleasingtoframethecomingstruggleintermseithermorepositiveormore abstract, a “Struggle forSociety”or a “WaronSociopathy”?Formany,yes.But palatability is no guarantee of practicability. Positive campaigns takedecadestosucceed,whichAmericadoesnothave.Therecordofpurelypositivecampaignsisdecidedlymixedinanyevent:JimmyCartertriedthesermonizingapproachinhisMalaiseSpeech,andwesawhow thatworkedout.Evenwhenpositive campaigns do work, they tend to have negative aspects. Civil rightswere as much a campaign against bigotry, slavery, and a literal war on theSouth, as they were for justice and freedom. As for abstraction, a “War onSociopathy”wouldprobablygothesamewayasotherwarsonabstractionslikepoverty and drugs—pure concept is rarely electrifying, and anyway there’salwayssomethingtangiblebehindthescrimoftheory.Wecanprobablynomorehave aWar on Sociopathywithout proceeding against the sociopaths thanwecanwageaWaronTerrorwithouttargetingsometerrorists.ThedifficultyisthatiftheBoomersareaviableOthertheyare,inimportantways,alsoanUs.

Eight centuries ago, the Catholic abbot Arnaud Amalric confronted a similarproblem, a group of Cathar heretics holed up inside Béziers. Attempts to

persuade(heterodox-but-still-Christian)Catharstoembraceorthodoxyfailed,sothe Cathars had to go. Regrettably, the heretics had sealed themselves in thetown along with some orthodox Catholics, mixing up Us and Other. ThemedievalChurch,however, specialized in logic thathadbrutal internalclarity.Theabbotdulyinstructedhistroops“Caediteeos.NovitenimDominusquisunteius,” which works out, more or less, as: “Kill them all. God will know Hisown.”Thetownwasputtothesword,thehomesburned,andanoticedispatchedtothePope.Doubtlesssomewillseethisbookastheprintedequivalentof thegreasy abbot-inquisitor, rubbing its inky paws together as it torches thestockadesofBoomerism.BadasmanyBoomershavebeen,caediteeosisn’tthisbook’smotto.NotallBoomersaresociopaths,andnotallofthemdeservetobecondemned.ButmanyBoomersdobehavesociopathically,andasageneration,theirmanagementhasbeendisastrousandneedstobeterminated.

There is no surefire treatment for sociopathy at the individual level, andtherapists generallywait around for a spontaneous remission.Americadoesn’thave the luxury of patient optimism and nothing about Boomer behavior orpathologiesrecommendsanythinglessthancoercionbythestate,democraticallyauthorized. Boomers have been getting their way for decades and expect tocontinuedoingso.TheyarenotabouttoswingopenthedoorsofCongresstoletintheforcesofsocialorthodoxy,rainbowsstreamingdownfromheaven,dovesrisinguptomeet them,andachorusofhosannasallaround.TheBoomersaretooold,andbenefittoomuchfromtheirpolicies,foranyofthat.Nevertheless,thisisnotthirteenth-centuryBéziers,itistwenty-first-centuryAmerica,andthegoal is not to extirpate heresy but replenish society. We cannot destroy thevillageinordertosaveit;wecanatmostdoagutremodel.

Just asBoomer policies began as personal before emerging as political, soreform will have to begin as cultural before it becomes civic, essentiallyreversingthesociopathicprocess,startingwithareintroductiontodialoguesofreasonanddifficulty.TheBoomercultofFeelinghasgottenoutofcontrol. Inpolicymatters,“Ifeelthat”doesnothavethesamevalidityas“thedatashow”and “prudence suggests.” It’s perverse that feelings gained precedence duringthe same period when technology made thoughtful civic participation trulyviable. The defunding of the government’s statistical projects has beenlamentable,but there is stillahugebodyofdataavailable,mostof it free (fornow),andcitizenshavethemeanstofigureoutwhatworkswithoutresortingtothe unreliable compass of pure emotion. Americans do not have to “feel”anything about the effectiveness of abstinence education; they can look at the

data, download policy abstracts, or even watch twenty-two minutes of JohnOliver.

Withtheseresourcesattheirdisposalandafewmomentsofcriticalthought,almostnomajorissuesarebeyondthekenofeventhemosttime-pressedvoters.Decadesofdebtanddeficitsmakeclearthattaxeswilleventuallyhavetogoup,or some spending go down, or both. Figuring out whether to vote for aninfrastructure bill is as easy as driving over the local streets or reading a fewheadlines—whenabridgecollapses, itdoesnottakeacivilengineeringdegreetoconcludethatsomethinghasgoneseriouslywrong.

Where self-study cannot suffice, competent experts abound. We regularlyandprofitablyrelyonexpertsforthenecessitiesofdailylife,sowhynotdothesameinpublicpolicy?Nooneneedstoknowthedetailsofnuclearfissionorthethermodynamicsofmethanecombustiontoturnonthelights;aswitchisflickedandtheengineerstakecareoftherest,nopersonalfeelingsorspecialexpertiserequired. Entitlements reform should be no different—substantial revisionsincluding higher taxes and benefits cuts are obviously required. Voters canauthorizepoliticians topursue thesechanges,whileconsigningdetails like lifeexpectancy and inflation indexing to the specialists. Doing so requiresjettisoning thewholedisastrouscultureofanti-elitism,withoutabandoning thecitizen’sobligationtojudiciouslyselectwhicheliteexpertsdeservecredence,anobligation easilymet.A studyon smoking fundedby cigarette companies andconducted by a no-name college may not be wrong, but it demands morescrutiny than a Stanford study conducted under the auspices of the NationalInstitutes of Health and submitted to the rigors of peer review. Studies onfinancial soundness sponsored by banking groups are pertinent, but hardlydispositive.Science,reason,andtheintermediationofcompetentelitesprovideampleprophylaxistothesociopathiccultoffeeling.

It will also be necessary to reacquaint public discourse with nuance andambiguity, insteadof demanding reductive soundbites like “nonew taxes” or“zero-tolerancepolicing.”Totakeoneexample,nooneknowstheexactrateofunemployment.Expertshaveonlyarangeofestimates,withvaryingdegreesofconfidence. That does not mean that there isn’t some core consensus or thateveryopinion(orfeeling),howeverextreme,isequallyvalid,orthatreasonablecertaintycan’tbeachieved.Inthecaseofthefigurethatstartedthisbook—theprojection of what median incomes could have been absent the nation’s longdeceleration—it was one estimate within a plausible range. For narrativesimplicity,thedetailsandassumptionswereconsignedtotheendnotes,butthere

theyare,availableforreviewandupfordebate.Thatdebateisvaluableandmaylead to other discoveries ormore precise estimates.However, the trends havebeengoingonforsolongandaresopronouncedthatnoreasonableadjustmentwillchangethegeneralconclusionaboutadistressingdecelerationinAmericangrowth.Thesameistrueformanyofthepolicyissuesdiscussedinthisbookandelsewhere. Given the scale of the problems facing the United States, generalconclusions suffice. It reallydoesn’tmatter if there are twenty thousand, fortythousand,orsixtythousanddangerousdams,orifthenationaldebtis$14or$18trillion and growing at 3 percent or 3.5 percent annually—the numbers anddirectionsaresevereenoughtodemandchangeregardless.

Returning to a thoughtful, empirical culture will also make it easier topersuade the population of another general conclusion: that society hasconsiderable positive value. After many chapters slogging through thesociopathic wreckage of the past decades, readers may despair of convincingenoughvotersofthatfact,yettherearereasonstohope.Youngergroupsalreadyhave the most prosocial outlooks, even though they have been deprived—courtesyoftheBoomers—ofdirectexperiencewithareallyflourishingsociety.Theseviewscanbeencouraged through reasoneddebateand rerunninganoldpolitical experiment: investing for the general welfare and promoting theinterestsofsociety.Ithas,afterall,workedbefore.Thereisnoguaranteethatitwillworkagain,butthetoxicresultsofthepresentexperimentcommendsomeother course, and we may as well choose one that enjoys both a history ofsuccess and normative justification. All that’s required to begin is a return toreason, probity, and investment, and reorienting policy in opposition to thesociopaths.Andyes,therewillhavetobesomeadditionaltaxes.IfGodwillnotknowhisowninthisnewstruggle,wecanrelyonaproperlyequippedIRStostandinHisstead.

The goals of this cultural reorientation are straightforward. The first is toprovideafoundationforunityagainsttheBoomeragenda,andtodoitquickly.Ifthatunityrequiresadegreeofangeraboutwhathashappenedtothecountryandat those responsible, sobe it.TheBoomersdeserveAmerica’sdispleasureandtheyoughttorepaywhattheycan.Thesecondistorememberthattheanti-anti-socialagendais,atheart,aprosocialagenda,onethatstrengthenstheidealsof a commonwealth. The Boomer Other is only a framing device, hopefullyuseful,butnotanendinitself.Rememberingtheprosocialgoalhelpfullylimitshow far we proceed against the Boomers, because for all their considerablefaults,theyarepartofsociety,too.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Iamgratefulforthesupportofthemanypeoplewhohelpedmakethisbookareality.

First,thankstomyfriendAlexandraWolfeforintroducingmetomyagency,Janklow&Nesbit.Myagent at J&N,PaulLucas,hasbeena terrific advocateandagreatreader.IalwaysfeltPaulLucasandIwereinittogether—andnotallwriterscansay thesameabout theiragents.BrennaEnglish-LoebofJ&Nalsodeservesmythanks.

My research assistants April Reino, Griffin Price, and Wendy Lim weretireless in tracking down all manner of data and dealt gracefully with all myrequests,nomatterhowobscure.AprilinparticularwasamodelofMidwesternfortitudeandforbearance;Griffin’sexcellentwork inquantitativeanalysiswasessential.The teamwas joined toward the endbyRebeccaThomson, and I’mdelightedthatsheandAprilwilljoinmeonfutureprojects.Thanksalsotomyfriend Eric Silverberg,who helpedme findmy research assistants in the firstplace.

The entire team atHachetteBookswas a pleasure toworkwith:MichelleAielli,BetsyHulsebosch,LaurenHummel,andthepublisherofHachetteBooks,Mauro DiPreta. My editor, PaulWhitlatch, was everything I could hope for:rigorous,thoughtful,fair,andwithimpeccableinstincts.The“Pauls,”agentandeditor,LucasandWhitlatch,madethebookbetterthanitwouldhavebeen.

ThanksalsotoLynnGoldbergandherteamatGoldbergMcDuffie,includingAngela Baggetta and Emily Lavelle, who along with Hachette’s team wereessentialtogettingthebooknoticed.

Muchofthedatainthisbookderivesfromgovernmentsources.Americansareluckytoliveinacountrystillcommittedtothecollectionandprovisionof

data:theCensus,BEA,theFed,theCBO,theGAO,theNationalInstitutesandvarious academies, and others. These institutions have suffered endlessbudgetaryindignitiesbutstillmanagetoproducethemostcomprehensivesetofdataanysocietyhasevercollectedabout itself.EvenafterdecadesofBoomerneglect and hostility, no bureaucracy is as committed to making a nation astransparenttoitselfastheAmericanbureaucracy.Theseinstitutionsdeservefargreatercreditthantheyget.Mythankstothem.Myfeelingsabouttheirpoliticalmasters,Ithink,areclearlyandabundantlydifferent.

Onthepersonalside,myparents—andyes,oneofthemisaBoomer—havealways been there forme and they havemy gratitude and love.They deservelavish praise, but they’re not the sort of people who like to read aboutthemselves.I’lljustleaveitas:Thankyou,Parents.Mypartner,David,hasbeenawisefirstreader,anextraordinarysourceofsupportandcounsel,andafontofendless patience. (Bruce: “I think the next book could be a little provocative,plusIneedyournotesonthischapterbytomorrow,andalsotherearepackagesdownstairswithreferencebooksandwouldyoumindstackingthembytheotherbookson the sofa and just shove aside the twoboxesofbooks that havebluePost-its on them?” David: “Uh-huh. Also, you need an additional citation onyourmarginal tax stats.”)Andofcourse, there’sFuzbo,Cherry,Cola, and theAnimalFamily.Butthey’reanotherstory.

Various others, from less obvious quarters, deserve thanks. I managed tocome down with a surprising number of ailments while writing this book—including pneumonia but (disappointingly) not something more, you know,writerly,likeconsumption.Dr.CliffordSewellmanagedtogetmethroughtheseafflictions.IstartedandfinishedthisbookinahousemoreorlessbuiltbymyfriendLuis,andifmyeditorthinksI’mahelplessfiddler,heshouldmeetLuis,who has been a great friend over the twelve years (and counting) that my“remodel”hastaken.

Finally,aquickhellotoRuxingandYenaFitzgerald,BenjaminLevchin,andFrancesca Dizon—I’ll get to that childrens’ book one day, but probably notbeforeyouhavekidsofyourown.

ANOTEONTHENUMBERSANDCONVENTIONS

Thegoalsinpresentingdatainthisbookaretobereliable,fair,andclear.Clarityis not always a goal harmonious with the other objectives, and so certaincomplexities have been placed in the footnotes and endnotes to improvereadability.Therestofthesenotesarenotessentialforunderstandinganythingin the text—I present them for completeness and becausemany of the topicsdiscussed are complex, controversial, and the subject of surprisingly…vigorous…academicdiscussion.(ManythinkthatPickettyandSaezarethelastwordon incomeinequality,andwhile theyhavedonegoodwork, thatwork ishighly controversial—not just in its conclusions, but in itsmethodologies anddataselected.)

Figurespresentedinthisbookmayalsovaryfromfigurescitedinthedailynews;thelatterareoftennotannualized,notinflationadjusted,andnotfinal—thisisnocriticismofnewspapers,whichoperateonadifferenttimescale.Thefollowing explainswhy someof thesedifferences appear andwhy this book’sversionsshouldbemorereliableandfair.

Forhistoricalcomparisons,dollarfigureshaveusuallybeeninflationadjustedwith nominal figures shown where relevant. Doing so allows sensiblecomparisons when long periods are discussed. Readers will not need tounderstandtheadjustmentmechanismbeyondknowingthat$1 in1980boughtmore than $1 does today and that this dynamic has been accounted for.Mostdollar figures, exceptwhennoted as “nominal,” arepresented in2015dollars.There has been very little inflation between 2015 and press date, and 2016figureswere not finalized as of the original press date; however, inflation hasbeensubduedforalongtimeandmost2015dollarfigureswillbecloseinvalue

tocurrentdollars.IncaseswheredataarepresentedforafterOctober2016,theyarebasedonprojections (usually thegovernment’s)usinga source’sestimatesand“businessasusual”scenariosunlessotherwisenoted.“Now”and“current”in this book refer to the book’s original press date, though figures remainsubstantivelycurrent.

Historical data are also generally presented end-of-period, not intrayear,except where absolute highs and lows are relevant.Where there are multiplesources, consensus values from the most dependable sources (usually, thegovernment)arepresented;consistencyhasbeensoughtinmethodsofinflationadjustmentwherepossible,thoughthegovernmentitselfusesvariousmetricsforinflation adjustment, like constant and chained dollars. In cases of conflictingsources, priority is generally given to reliable, conservative sources (where“conservative” means the numbers least supportive of the book’s argument).There have also been places where the government has only collectedcontinuous, comparable data over particular periods—for example, for certainitems of income, between 1979 and the present. Starting dates and end dateshaveaneffectonmagnitudesofchange,butforthetopicscovereddonotaffectthegeneraldirectionsorconclusions.

Becausegovernmentfrequentlyrevisesrecentdata,theremaybesomeminordeviationsbetweenthemostrecentdatapresentedinthebookandthefinaldatareleasedafter thebook’soriginalpressdate.Readersshouldalsobeawarethatthe government’s fiscal year does not match the calendar year and that lawspassed inagivenyearmaynotbeeffectiveuntil lateryears; thesedistinctionsarenotedwhenrelevant.Thegovernmentalsotakessometimetoanalyzedata,and there isusuallyamultiyear lag for importantdata, like tax receipts.Therecan also be quirks in annual accounting—for example, budget deficits canactuallyvaryontheorderof$50billionbyvirtueofwhetherthegovernment’sfiscalyearendsonaworkdayoraweekend.Again,mostofthedatapresentedarelong-term,greatlyreducingtheimportanceofthesequirks.Differentpartsofthegovernmentproducedifferent analysesof statistics that gounder the sameterm (like “income”) butwhich embody different concepts. TheBEA and theCensus, for example, differ substantially on the definition of income and theypresent figures that are often notably different. I have tried to use consistentsources for the same concepts wherever possible. The trends and conclusionsremain the same, because the differences in methodologies tend to produceroughlythesamegapsoverreasonableperiods,andthedirectionsaregenerallyparallel. Finally, international comparisons are especially challenging because

each country adheres to different accounting standards. Again, the generalconclusions are unaffected and I’ve tried to keep things reconciled wherepossible—it’s not so much apples-to-oranges as tangerines-to-clementines inmostcases.

Incaseswherequoteshavebeenmodifiedforreadability,changeshavebeenmadeonly tononsubstantivepunctuationandcapitalization(e.g.,“Governmentis in Washington” appears as “government is in Washington” instead of“[g]overnmentis inWashington”);otherwise,changesarenoted.Allemphasesinquotationsaremineunlessotherwisenoted.

PraiseforAGenerationofSociopaths

“Informative, provocative, and entertaining reading for those interested inpoliticaleconomyandU.S.socialandeconomichistory.”

—Booklist

“Gibneylaysintothe‘Me’generationforcashingouttheirchildren’sfutureandleavingtheplanetlookinglikearockstar’shotelroom…Timely.”

—Esquire

“AGenerationofSociopathsisapolemic,butwhatapolemic:filledwithdata,richinanecdote,deadlyseriousyetwickedlyfunny.”

—AlexandraWolfe,authorofValleyoftheGods:ASiliconValleyStory

“The core ofGibney’s argument, that the boomers are guilty of ‘generationalplunder,’ is spot-on.He accuses themof ‘themass, democratically sanctionedtransfer of wealth away from the young and toward the Boomers,’ and he’sright.”

—DanaMilbank,WashingtonPost

“Remarkable… Impressively weighted with hard numbers and specifics, thevolumeservesasbothanindictmentofandrebuttaltoaWoodstockGenerationthathasgleefullycelebratedthemselvesfordecadeswhilegraduallyrunningthecountry into theground…Gibneypaints a persuasive and frequently hilariousportraitoftheMeGeneration.”

—Men’sJournal

“Like Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Bruce Cannon

Gibney’s A Generation of Sociopaths proceeds from a deceptively simplepremise:thatthegainsmadebytheAmericanmiddleclassintheperiodaftertheworld wars of the previous century were a fluke… A damning, searinglyrelevantindictment.”

—TheGlobeandMail(Canada)

“[Gibney]maintainsthattheBoomerGeneration,privilegeincarnate,exhibitallthe traits associated with that clinical pathology: ‘deceit, selfishness,imprudence,remorselessness,hostility,theworks.’Hearguesthecasewell.”

—TorontoStar

APPENDICES

APPENDIXA

BoomerSociopathy—TickingtheBoxesTheevidencepresentedinthebookwilleitherpersuadeornotpersuadereadersthat the Boomers behaved in antisocial (i.e., sociopathic) ways. Readers canintuitwhat antisocial personality disorders look like, andwe could leave it atthat.However,clinicalguidesareusefulforframingtheanalysis.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition(“DSM-V”) is the psychiatric profession’s standard reference work foridentifyingdisorders.1TheDSM-Vcontains twomajordiagnosticmodels—itsstandardmodelandits“emergingmodel.”2Thesemodesheavilyoverlapandaregenerallyconsistent.Thisbookcontends thatundereithermodel, theBoomersmeet the clinical standards for “sociopathy”—i.e., “antisocial personalitydisorder.”Thekeydifferencebetweenthetwomodelsisthattheoriginalmodelinvokes a requirement of “conduct disorder” before age fifteen, and time hasmade that data hard to get, although the sustained attention to “juveniledelinquency” during the 1950s and 1960s (when the Boomers were underfifteen)ishighlysuggestive.Inanyevent,thesecondmodeldispenseswiththisrestriction.

Generally, each sociopathic individualmustmeet certainminimum criteriaand this book presents population-wide data, with the exception of certainpoliticalfigureswhosepersonalitiesarewellreported.Insomecases,diagnostic

criteriaautocorrelate.Boomerswhodiddrugswhileoncombatdutyfloutedthelaw, acted improvidently, displayed certain empathetic deficits, etc.: you canbasically construct the checklist for one discrete individual. In other cases,conductmay ormay not have overlapped, and somemaywish to argue that,perhaps, all the Boomers who displayed improvidence (as manifested in thesavings rate) did not manifest, say, lack of empathy. But that proposition ofrandombadbehaviorsnotleadingtoacompositeantisocialwholeisveryhardtobelieve, given the vast populations involved and the necessary implications ofsome actions—e.g., in the case of savings, that the lack of savings andimprovidentlylowtaxratesnecessarilymeanthatothergenerationswillhavetobeartheconsequencesofBoomerconsumption(demonstratinglackofempathy).Wecangoonlikethisallthewaythrough.

The DSM-V is, like all works of its kind, filled with various qualifiers,restrictionsonuse, and soon. It’sdesigned todiagnose individuals,notbroaddemographic groups, but as this book is notmedicating anyone or consigningthem toanasylum, theDSM-Vprovidesan importantguide to thinkingaboutBoomerbehaviors.

APPENDIXB

NOTES

Foreword1.Robins,LeeN.,andDarrelA.Regier.PsychiatricDisordersinAmerica.TheFreePress,1991,ch.11.The ECA study was based on surveys and work conducted by UCLA and Yale, Johns Hopkins,Washington,andDukeuniversities,withalargepopulationinfivemainlyurbansites,andcoordinatedwiththeNationalInstitutesofMentalHealthinthefirsthalfofthe1980s;thefindingsweregeneralizedtonationalpopulationsusing1980sCensusdata.ItuseddefinitionsfromthethirdversionoftheDSM,whichhadthesamegeneralconceptofantisocialpersonalitydisorderasthefifthandcurrentversion,though with slightly different criteria. Not only did ECA find that the prevalence of antisocialpersonalitydisorderwashigherinBoomer-agecohorts,italsospeculatedthatlifetimeprevalencemighthavebeenunderstated relative tooldergroups, asBoomershadnothadasmuch time toaccumulatesymptoms.

Introduction1.Reagan,Ronald.“RonaldReagan’sAnnouncementforPresidentialCandidacy.”NationalArchives,13Nov. 1979, www.reaganlibrary.archives.gov/archives/reference/11.13.79.html. Reagan attributed thissentimentto“someone,”probablyaspeechwriter,butwholeheartedlyendorsedit.

2.Taylor,Paul,etal.“OnceAgain,theFutureAin’tWhatItUsedtoBe.”PewResearchCenter,2May2006, www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/social/pdf/BetterOff.pdf (citing data from 2002, 2006);Stokes,Bruce.“GlobalPublics:EconomicConditionsAreBad:ButPositiveSentimentReboundinginEurope, Japan, U.S.” Pew Research Center, 23 July 2015, www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/07/Pew-Research-Center-Economy-Report-FINAL-July-23-20151.pdf(citingdatafrom2015).

3.UnitedStatesConstitution.Preamble.4.Buettner,Russ,andCharlesV.Bagli.“HowDonaldTrumpBankruptedHisAtlanticCityCasinos,butStillEarnedBillions.”NewYorkTimes,11June2016,www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html?_r=0;Carroll,Lauren,andClaytonYoungman.“Fact-CheckingClaimsAboutDonald Trump’s Four Bankruptcies.” Politifact, 21 Sept. 2015, www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/; Isidore,Chris. “EverythingYouWant to Know about Donald Trump’s Bankruptcies.” CNN, 31 Aug. 2015,money.cnn.com/2015/08/31/news/companies/donald-trump-bankruptcy/; Harwell, Drew, and JacobBogage. “WhatTrumpDidn’t SayAboutHis FourBigBusinessBankruptcies.”WashingtonPost, 7Aug. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-trump-didnt-say-about-his-four-big-business-bankruptcies/2015/08/07/bc054e64-3d12-11e5-9c2d-ed991d848c48_story.html. Trumpadmittedhiscasinos filed forbankruptcy inseveralplaces, including theRepublicanprimarydebatesandinaninterviewwithABC.

5.WhiteHouse,CouncilofEconomicAdvisers.“The2015EconomicReportofthePresident.”EconomicReport of the President, Feb. 2015, ch. 1, p. 39,www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_2015_erp_complete.pdf. The Report is technicallypresentedbythepresidenttoCongress,butit’sfairlyclearthattheCEAdoesmostoftheheavylifting.

6. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. “Real Median Family Income in the United States”(MEFAINUSA672N),www.research.stlouisfed.org(usingdatafromtheUSCensus).TheSt.LouisFedboth produces its own data and aggregates data from other sources, primarily government sources.BecausetheSt.LouisFed’sonlinedatabaseisusedfrequentlyandisaconvenientsourceforreaders,Iwillfrequentlyrefertothissource(hereinafter“FRED”),notingtheapplicableseriesidentifierand,ifFRED’sdataarebasedonsourcesother thantheFederalReserveBank, theinstitutionprovidingthatdata ina series’s firstmention. In thecaseof family income, thestatisticspresentedare for2015, inCPI-U-RSinflation-but-not-seasonally-adjustedterms(essentially,2015dollars).It’simportanttonotethatrecenteconomicdataareconstantlyrevised,andexhibitsomeminorfluctuationsasfinaldataarecollected. Usually, after a few quarters, the economists achieve consensus at a final number. Thesefluctuationsmayaccountforcertainminordifferencesbetweenfiguresquotedinthisbook,inthepress,and even by a given government agency within a few-week period, but do not change any generalconclusionsorraiseanyquestionsaboutthelong-termdatahereinorthereliabilityofgovernmentdatagenerally(thoughthegovernment’sconclusionsareoftensuspect,themorepoliticalandlesstechnicalthedataare).See“ANoteontheNumbersandConventions”forfurtherdiscussion.

7. Ibid.; USDepartment of Commerce, Bureau of EconomicAnalysis (hereinafter “BEA”), ConsumerPriceIndex;author’scalculations.Forthischapter,I’veusedCensus’s“familyincomes”becausetheyhave a longer and more consistent history than “median household incomes.” The latter is a morecommonmetricnow,but it has amorecomplicatedhistory than family income.Both statisticsdrivetoward the same conclusion: Analyzing any reasonable metric reveals a significant gap betweenprojected and actual income, whether that metric is family income, household income or GDP per

capita,andsoon.(Theprojected/actualgapsforGPDpercapitaaresmaller,becausetheywouldbeanaverage,andblendintheconcentrationofwealthatthetop—thoughincomeswouldstillbehigherevenunder that analysis). Because counterfactuals over such long periods draw in so many differentvariables,thisendnoteisalongone.First,thecompositionofAmericanfamilieshaschangedovertimebut that in itself is partly an economic choice and the general conclusion remains the same evenadjustingforchangestofamilycomposition.Second,the“mid”scenarioencompasses1981–82,yearsofrecession,whilethe“actual”seriesincludes2015,wellintotherecovery,soifanything,thecaseisbeingsomewhatunderstated.Third,it’simportanttoacknowledgethatthewaysAmericansearnincomehavechangedovertheyears(andhowtheCensushaschangeditscalculationsofincome,mostrecentlyin the 2013–2014 periodwhich resulted in a 2 to 3 percent jumpdue tomethodology alone).Thesefactors can push the numbers around, but again, they don’t change the general direction or roughmagnitudeofthegap.Forexample,manyAmericansworklongerhoursandmorepeopleinAmericanmulti-personfamiliesworknowthantheydidinthe1950s(soifanything,onecouldarguethatincomesshouldbeevenhigher).Atthesametime,peoplestartworkinglaterinlifeandforseveraldecadeshavebeencompensatedpartlyinnon-cashincomewhichisneverthelessquitevaluableandimportant(likecertainhealthandretirementbenefits)—factoringtheseitemsinwouldnarrowthegapbetweenactualand potential but not come close to erasing it. (This is especially the case considering the formerlygreater availability of defined benefit contributions before the 1980s. The picture darkenswhen youconsiderthatolderpeoplewhoreceivedemployercontributionstoretirementplans/SocialSecurityhaveamuchbetterchanceofcollectingfromthoseplansatpromisedvaluethanyoungerpeopletodaywill.)All in all, principled cases could be made that projected incomes could be higher or lower than Iestimated, but even heavy tweaking still leaves a gap and that gap really grows as the Boomersaccumulatepower.You’dexpectmajordeparturesbythelate1980sorearly1990s(ahysteresis)andthisisessentiallywhathappens.It’sworthnotingthattheEconomicReportofthePresidentcompleteda similar counterfactual in its 2015 Report and found that household incomes would be 98 percenthigherhadcertainpositivetrendscontinued,whichisastrongerclaimthanIadvancehere.Seesupraen5atpp.29–34.

8. “64–65 NY World’s Fair FUTURAMA Ride Video,” www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-5aK0H05jk#action=share.

9.TheestimatedpopulationatthetimeIturnedinthefinaldraftofthisbookwas324million;itwasabout321 when I first started working on the book. US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau(hereinafter“USCensus”).PopulationEstimates,IntercensalEstimates(variousperiods).

10.Diagnostic and StatisticalManual ofMentalDisorders:DSM-5.Washington,DC: 2013 (hereinafter“DSM-V”), 764 (alternative model); cf. ibid. at 659 (default model). A discussion of the specificapplicationoftheDSM-V’svariouscriteriaandcaveatsabouttheirapplicationappearinAppendixAtothisbook.

11.OfficeoftheIndependentCounsel.TheStarrReport.SubmittedbyKennethW.Starr,endnote1091,9Sept.1998,www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/srprintable.htm.

Chapter1:TheViewfrom19461.QuotedinHayden,Deborah.Pox:Genius,MadnessandtheMysteriesofSyphilis.BasicBooks,2003,p.133.

2.Ibid.,pp.137–138.3.USCensus,CurrentPopulationSurveys (variousyearsand intercesal estimates);Centers forDiseaseControlandPrevention’s(“CDC”)PopulationEstimates(same);author’scalculations.

4. Ibid.; US Census, “Current Estimates Data” Population Estimates, 2015,www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html.;CDC.“LiveBirths,BirthRates,andFertilityRates,byRace:1909–2003.” Vital Statistics of the United States, Table 1–1,www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/natfinal2003.annvol1_01.pdf; US Census. “Death Rates by Age, Sex,andRace:1950 to2008.”StatisticalAbstractof theUnitedStates,Tables110,2012 (variousyears),availablefor2011atcensus.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s0110.pdf;author’scalculations.

5. “October 28, 1980 Debate Transcript: the Carter-Reagan Presidential Debate.” Commission onPresidential Debates, 28 Oct. 1980, www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-28-1980-debate-transcript.

6. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Public Affairs. “America’s Wars.”www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf; US Public Health Services, NationalOffice of Vital Statistics. “Vital Statistics of the United States 1945, part I.” Prepared under thesupervision of Halbert L. Dunn, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1945_1.pdf.

7.Haskew,MichaelE.,ed.,TheWorldWarIIDeskReference,CastleBooks,2008at433–35;author’scalculations. “War deaths” includes civilian and combat deaths. Figures for American civiliancasualitiesarenotavailable,butareusuallyassumedtorangefromnegligibletoupto120,000,whichisatinyfractionofthe16millionestimatedciviliandeathsintheSovietUnion,the6millioninPoland,andthe13millioninChina.Thereisconsiderabledebateabouttheexactnumberseachnationlost,butthegeneralconclusionisthatGerman,Chinese,andSovietlosseswereimmense—tensofmillions.

8. Davidson, Justin. “The Kitchen Debate’s Actual Kitchen.” New York, 8 May 2011,nymag.com/realestate/features/commack-moscow-2011-5/.

9.Ibid.;USCensus,CurrentPopulationReports,CurrentIncome(1961)attableB(for1959incomes).10.Zillow.com;FRED,MEFAINUSA672N.LongIslandisadifferentplacenowand358TowlineRoad

hashadsomeupgradesovertheyears,whichexplainssomeoftherelativepriceincrease.Nevertheless,housing consumes a larger share of income for many Americans than it once did, with significantgeographicvariability;itis,tobereductive,costlier.

11. National Bureau of Economic Research. Clotfelter, Charles T. “Patterns of Enrollment andCompletion.”Jan.1991,pp.30–31.

12.FRED,UNRATE(BEA).AfulldiscussionofunemploymenttrendsisinChapter15ofthisbook.13.“AmericanMachine&FoundryCompany.”HarvardBusinessSchool,LehmanBrothersCollection—

Contemporary Business Archives, www.library.hbs.edu/hc/lehman/company.html?company=american_machine_foundry_company.

14.PublicLaw89-10(1965),TitleII,§201etseq.andsubsequentreauthorizationsat20USC§§6301etseq.

15.Brownv.BoardofEducation,347US483(1954).16.SocialSecurityAdministration.LifeExpectancyforSocialSecurity;CDC.Lifetables1900–2100.17.TaxFoundation.“FederalIndividualIncomeTaxRatesHistory:NominalDollars:IncomeYears1913–

2013.”taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf.

18.Ibid.(maximummarginaltaxesfellthroughtheearly1960s,reaching70percentin1965).19.FRED,GFDEGQ188S,FYFSGDA188S(USOfficeofManagementandBudget,hereinafter“OMB”).

FulldiscussionofdebtanddeficitsappearsinChapter9,asdoadditionalandprimarysources.

Chapter2:BringingUpBoomer1.Locke,John.SomeThoughtsConcerningEducation,partI,§1,open-sourceedition,undated(originallypublished 1693), https://the federalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com.wp-content/uploads/2012/12/John-Locke-Thoughts-Concerning-Education.pdf.

2.Ibid.,Dedication.3.DSM-V,p.661.4.Brody, JaneE.“FinalAdvice fromDr.Spock:EatOnlyAllYourVegetables.”NewYorkTimes, 20June 1998, www.nytimes.com/1998/06/20/us/final-advice-from-dr-spock-eat-only-all-your-vegetables.html.

5.Maier,Thomas.Dr.Spock:AnAmericanLife.BasicBooks,2nded.,2003,pp.199,202.6. Ibid., p.130 (quoting Spock, Benjamin.The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care. 1st ed.,Duell,SloanandPearce,14July1946).MultipleeditionsoftheCommonSenseBookhavebeenissued,andMaierhasbeencross-checkedagainsttheCommonSenseBook.

7.QuotedinMaier,pp.138–139.8.QuotedinMaier,p.321;seealsoPace,Eric.“BenjaminSpock,World’sPediatrician,Diesat94.”NewYorkTimes,17Mar.1998(quotingPealeslightlydifferently,buttothesameeffect).

9. US Department of Health and Human Services, US Public Health Service, Office of the SurgeonGeneral. “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Support Breastfeeding.” 2011, pp. 1–5; Horta,Bernardo L., and Cesar G. Victoria. “Long-Term Effects of Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review.”World Health Organization, 2013, (a metastudy, noting a certain heterogeneity of data but manystatisticallysignificantoutcomes,evenadjustingforimportantvariableslikesocioeconomicstatusandmaternalIQ).

10.“ChildhoodLeadPoisoning.”WorldHealthOrganization,2010,p.20etseq.;Godwin,HilaryA.“LeadExposureandPoisoninginChildren.”UCLAInstituteoftheEnvironmentandSustainability.SouthernCalifornia Environmental Report Card, 2009, www.environment.ucla.edu/reportcard/index.html; seealsoReyes,JessicaWolpaw.“EnvironmentalPolicyasSocialPolicy?TheImpactofChildhoodLeadExposureonCrime.”NationalBureauofEconomicResearch,May2007,www.nber.org/papers/w13097(fortheeffectsoflead,butcomingtodifferentconclusionsaboutgenerationalcriminality).

11. US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.“Household Broadband Adoption Climbs to 72.4 Percent.” 6 June 2013,www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2013/household-broadband-adoption-climbs-724-percent.

12.USDepartmentofLabor,BureauofLaborStatistics.“AmericanTimeUseSurveySummary.”24June2016, tables1 and11,www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm. “Teenagers” aredefinedas fifteen-to-nineteen-year-oldsbyBLS.

13.Maier,p.401.14.Powers,John.“DocumentaryRevisitsthe‘Dazzling’PolemicsoftheBuckley-VidalDebates.”NPR,18

Aug. 2015, www.npr.org/2015/08/18/432721150/documentary-revisits-the-dazzling-polemics-of-the-buckley-vidal-debates;Holt,Jim.“WillIntellectualCombatEverTopWilliamBuckleyvs.GoreVidal?A New Documentary Suggests Not.” New York, 26 July 2015,nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/07/best-of-enemies-buckley-vidal.html. Clips of the debates areavailable on YouTube, such as this one, with the relevant portion starting around 10:30,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_nq4tfi24.

15.13FCC1246(1949)andcodifiedinmultiplereleasesafterward.16.48FCC2d1(FCC1974).17.Davis,HoranceG. “TV: Just anAppliance…ToasterwithPictures.”Hendersonville Times-News (a

NYTregionalnewspaper),29Aug.1987,p.4;SyracusePeachCouncil,2FCCRcd5043(1987).

18.“WhatAmericansKnow:1989–2007:PublicKnowledgeofCurrentAffairsLittleChangedbyNewsandInformationRevolutions.”PewResearchCenterfor thePeople&thePress,15Apr.2007,p.13,www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/319.pdf.

19.The Impact of Television: ANatural Experiment in ThreeCommunities. Edited by TannisMacBethWilliams,AcademicPress,1986,pp.2–4,and14,andtables1.3–.4.

20.Ibid.,pp.51–52,61,seealso66andcomparepp.105–106,120–121.21.Ibid.,p.67.22.Ibid.,pp.334,412.23.Ibid.,ch.9.24.Winn,Marie.ThePlugInDrug.PenguinBooks,3rded.,2002,p.109(quotingNIMH,andreferringto

studies cited therein); see also, Hancox, Robert, et al. “Association of Television Viewing duringChildhoodwith Poor EducationalAchievement.” Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, vol.159, July 2005, p. 615 et seq. (noting that the “associations between child and adolescent televisionviewingandeducationoutcomes[whichwerenegative]persistedafteradjustingforIQ,socioeconomicstatus,andchildhoodbehavioralproblems,”ina1972NZcohort);Ridley-Johnson,Robyn,etal.,“TheRelation ofChildren’sTelevisionViewing to SchoolAchievement and I.Q.” Journal ofEducationalResearch, vol. 76, no. 5, May–June 1983, p. 294. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27539990;Borzekowski,DinaL.G.,etal.,“TheRemote,theMouse,andtheNo.2Pencil:TheHouseholdMediaEnvironment and Academic Achievement Among Third Grade Students.” Archives of PediatricAdolescent Medicine, vol. 159, no. 7, 1 July 2005, pp. 607–613 (significantly negative effects forchildrenwithaTVinthebedroom,controllingforothervariables);butcompareGentzkow,Matthew,andJesseM.Shapiro.“PreschoolTelevisionViewingandAdolescentTestScores:HistoricalEvidencefromtheColemanStudy.”QuarterlyJournalofEconomics,vol.123,no.1,Feb.2008.OxfordJournals,qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/123/1/279.short (finding essentially no effects). See alsoWright, JohnC.,etal.“TheRelationsofEarlyTelevisionViewingtoSchoolReadinessandVocabularyofChildrenfromLow-IncomeFamilies:TheEarlyWindowProject,”ChildDevelopment,vol.72,no.5,Sept.–Oct.2001,pp.1347–1366(findingeducationalcontentmayhavesmallpositiveeffects,butgeneralcontenthasnegativeeffectsinstudiedgroup).

25.Winn,p.109.26.AssociatedPress.“CoastSurveyofStudentsLinksRiseinTVUsetoPoorerGrades.”NewYorkTimes,

9Nov.1980.27.Morin, Rich, and Paul Taylor. “Luxury orNecessity? The PublicMakesAU-Turn.” PewResearch

Center, Social & Demographic Trends, 23 Apr. 2009, p. 9,www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/luxury-or-necessity-2009.pdf.

28.Marsiglia, Cheryl S., et al. “Impact of Parenting Styles and Locus of Control on EmergingAdults’Psychosocial Success.” Journal of Education and Human Development, vol. 1, no. 1, 2007.“Authoritative”parenting,whichissomewherebetweenpermissiveandauthoritarian,producesthebestoutcomes.

Chapter3:VietnamandtheEmergingBoomerIdentity1.Johnson,Samuel.“TheIdler.”TheWorksofSamuelJohnson,Vol.7,EssayNo.30,at120.A.Strahan,1801.

2.Rucker,Philip.“TrumpSlamsMcCainforBeing‘Captured’ inVietnam;OtherRepublicansQuicklyCondemn Him.” Washington Post, 18 Jul. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/18/trump-slams-mccain-for-being-captured-in-vietnam/;Felsenthal,Carol.“BernieSanders Found Socialism at theUniversity ofChicago.”ChicagoMagazine, 4 Feb. 2015.There aresomelingeringquestionsaboutwhetherSanderscouldhave,ingoodconscience,appliedforCOstatus,since it requiredat the timea religiousobjection toallwars,which it’snotclearhehad.ButHillaryClinton’sprimarywinmootedthematter.

3.USCensusBureau.StatisticalAbstractoftheUnitedStates:2014.Tables3,7;author’scalculations.4.Loewe,JamesW.LiesMyTeacherToldMe:EverythingYourAmericanHistoryTextbookGotWrong.2nded.,NewPress,2007,pp.244–245and255–256.

5.Daggett,Stephen.“CostsofMajorU.S.Wars.”LibraryofCongress,CongressionalResearchService,29Jun2010,p.2etseq.Figurescitedareforthewarsthemselves;thedefensebudgetwashigherinthe1940s–1960soverall thanitwouldbeduringthelaterconflicts in theMiddleEast.It isreasonabletodebatewhichbasis—alldefense,orjustcombatoperations—istherightmetric,thoughit’simportanttoremember that the secular trend inmid-centuryAmericawas for large defense budgets overall as afractionofnationalincome.

6. Free,LloydA., andHadleyCantril.The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of PublicOpinion.Rutgers University Press, 1967, pp. 59–60 (citing May 1964 Gallup polling; about a quarter ofAmericanswereunaware“aboutthefightinginVietnam”).

7.DSM-V,p.659.8.Pub.Law51-144§1.c-d(1951).Thetwists,turns,andcomplexitiesofthedraftaremind-numbingnow,butwerestudiedintentlyduringthewar.Wecanglossovermanyofthesystem’squirkswithoutlosingthegeneralpoint,althoughthequirks themselvesprovideinterestingtestbedswhoseimplicationsarediscussedlater.

9.USCensus,StatisticalAbstractoftheUnitedStates:1966.Table366;StatisticalAbstractoftheUnitedStates:1976.Table541;author’scalculations.

10. 81Stat. 102§6.a.1,.h.1 (1967); see alsoSelectiveServiceSystem.AnnualReport of theDirector ofSelectiveService,1967,p.14etseq.

11.ReportsoftheDirectoroftheSelectiveService(variousyears);seealsonote9.12.Lunch,WilliamL.,andPeterSperlich.“AmericanPublicOpinionandtheWarinVietnam.”Western

PoliticalQuarterly,vol.32,no.1,Mar.1979,p.24.JSTOR,www.jstor.org/stable/447561.13.Ibid.,pp.32–33.14.Appleton,Sheldon.“ThePublic,thePolls,andtheWar.”VietnamPerspectives,vol.1,no.4,May1966,

pp.3–13.15.Ibid.,pp.24,33;seealsoErksine,Hazel.“ThePolls,PacifismandtheGenerationGap.”PublicOpinion

Quarterly,vol.36,no.4,1972–73,pp.616–627;Erksine,Hazel.“ThePolls:IsWaraMistake.”PublicOpinionQuarterly,vol.34,no.1,1970,pp.134–159.

16. Carroll, Joseph. “The Iraq–Vietnam Comparison.” Gallup Inc., 15 June 2004,www.gallup.com/poll/11998/iraqvietnam-comparison.aspx.

17.Erskine,“ThePolls:IsWaraMistake,”pp.134–135.18.“EveryPersonoftheYearCoverEver.”Time,time.com/3614128/person-of-the-year-covers/.19.Baskir,LawrenceM.,andWilliamA.Strauss;seealsothischapter’snote9,ChanceandCircumstance:

TheDraft,theWarandtheVietnamGeneration.AlfredA.Knopf.,1sted.,1978,pp.4–6,Fig1.

20.Foley,MichaelS.ConfrontingtheWarMachine:DraftResistanceDuringtheVietnamWar.UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,2003,p.37.

21.SelectiveServiceSystem.AnnualReportoftheDirectorofSelectiveService,1967,p.16.22.Baskir,Strauss,Fig.1.Seealsothischapter’snote9.23.Foley,pp.39–40.24.Kuziemko,Ilyana.“‘DodgingUp’toCollegeor‘DodgingDown’toJail:BehavioralResponsestothe

VietnamDraftbyRaceandClass.”PrincetonUniversityandNationalBoardofEconomicResearch,2010; and Kuziemko, Ilyana. “Did the Vietnam Draft Increase Human Capital Dispersion? Draft-Avoidance Behavior by Race and Class.” Princeton University and National Board of EconomicResearch,Jan.2010.

25.Miller,GlennT.PietyandProfession:AmericanProtestantTheologicalEducation,1870–1970.Wm.B. Eerdmans, 2007, p. 699, and footnotes 55, 728. John C. Stocker conducted similar research andreachedconcurrentconclusionsinworkfortheLillyFoundation.

26.Kuziemko,“‘DodgingUp’toCollegeor‘DodgingDown’toJail”;Card,David,andThomasLemieux.“Going to College to Avoid the Draft: The Unintended Legacy of the Vietnam War.” AmericanEconomic Review, vol. 91, no. 2, May 2001, pp. 97–102. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2677740;Associated Press. “College Enrollment Linked to Vietnam War.” New York Times, 2 Sept. 1984,www.nytimes.com/1984/09/02/us/college-enrollment-linked-to-vietnam-war.html (citing research bythe Census Bureau); Opportunity, no. 113, Nov. 2011, pp. 2–3 (noting anomalous spike in maleenrollmentnotparalleledinwomenduringdraftperiod).

27.Graham,FredP.“SpockandCoffinIndictedforActivityagainstDraft.”TheNewYorkTimes,6Jan.1968,www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/specials/spock-indicted.html.

28.Maraniss,David.FirstinHisClass:TheBiographyofBillClinton,Touchstone,1996,pp.188–194;seealsoIfill,Gwen.“The1992Campaign:NewHampshire:ClintonThankedColonel in’69for‘SavingMefromtheDraft.’”NewYorkTimes,13Feb.1992(reprintingClinton’sratherconfusinglettertohisROTCdirector); Ifill,Gwen. “The 1992Campaign:Democrats;VietnamWarDraft StatusBecomesIssueforClinton.”NewYorkTimes,7Feb.1992;Brokaw,Tom,etal. “BillClintonTries toDefendHimself on Draft Issue.” NBC Nightly News, 15 Sept. 1992, archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=33559.

29.Seelye,KatharineQ.“The2004Campaign:MilitaryService;Cheney’sFiveDraftDefermentsduringthe Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign Issue.” New York Times, 1 May 2004,nytimes.com/2004/05/01/us/2004-campaign-military-service-cheney-s-five-draft-deferments-during-vietnam-era.html.

30.Foley,p.51.31.Appy,ChristianG.Working-ClassWar:AmericanCombatSoldiers&Vietnam.University ofNorth

CarolinaPress,1993,p.27;seealsoBaskir,Strauss,pp.6–9andch.2generally.32.Timberg,Robert.JohnMcCain:AnAmericanOdyssey.1stpaperbacked.,FreePress,2007,p.122.33.Foley,p.12.34.BaskirandStrauss,pp.40–41(172,000COclassifications);andUSCensusBureau.StatisticalAbstract

of theUnited States: 1977, table 598 (179,000CO classifications between 1965 and 1975); see alsoSelective Service System. Semi-Annual Report of Director of Selective Service, 1973, Appendix 12(noting about 300,000 classifications); Fox, Richard P. “Conscientious Objection to War: TheBackground and a Current Appraisal.” Cleveland State Law Review, 1982, p. 90; Levi, Margaret.Consent,Dissent,andPatriotism.CambridgeUniversityPress,1997,pp.164–173.BecauseofthewayCO objections were processed, compilers occasionally double-counted; the consensus is that about175,000COclassificationsweremadeandeven the largest figuresnotedwere just a tiny fractionofotherdefermenttypes.

35.Kuziemko,“‘DodgingUp’toCollegeor‘DodgingDown’toJail”;Kuziemko,“DidtheVietnamDraft

IncreaseHumanCapitalDispersion?”p.2andsecs.5–6.36.Ibid.37.Kuziemko,“‘DodgingUp’toCollegeor‘DodgingDown’toJail,”p.22.38.BaskirandStrauss,pp.126–129.39.Anderson,TerryH.TheSixties,Pearson,2012,pp.79–80;BaskirandStrauss,pp.8–9.40.DSM-V,pp.660–61.41. Heinl, Robert D. “The Collapse of the Armed Forces.” Armed Forces Journal. North American

Newspaper Alliance, 7 June 1971, reprinted in Gettleman, Marvin, et al. Vietnam and America: ADocumentedHistory.GrovePress.1995,pp.326–336.

42.Ibid.,p.329.43.Brush,Peter.“TheHardTruthaboutFragging.”VietnamMagazine,Oct.2010,pp.40–43.44.Anderson,p.167.45.BaskirandStrauss,pp.134–136.46.Bell,BruceD. “Characteristics ofArmyDeserters in theDoDSpecialDischargeReviewProgram.”

ResearchReport1229.USArmyResearchInstitutefortheBehavioralandSocialSciences,Oct.1979,p.2andn.4.

47.Heinl,inGettleman,p.334.48.Karnow,Stanley.Vietnam:AHistory.2nded.,PenguinBooksGroup,1997,p.20.49.Plato.Crito(generally).50. Stern, Lewis M. “Response to Vietnamese Refugees: Surveys of Public Opinion.” Social Work: A

JournaloftheNationalAssociationofSocialWorkers,vol.26,no.4,1981,pp.306etseq.51.Elliott,Debbie.“ALessoninHistory:ResettlingRefugeesofVietnam.”AllThingsConsidered,14Jan.

2007;StateDepartmentArchives.“ForeignRelationsoftheUnitedStates,1969–1976,vol.X,Vietnam,January 1973–July 1975.” Document 263, 1976, history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v10/d263;seealsoforapartisanopinion,Pham,QuangX.“Ford’sFinestLegacy.”WashingtonPost,30 Dec. 2006, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901070.html.Chapman, Bruce. “As Governor, Jerry Brown Was Vociferous Foe of Vietnamese Immigration.”DiscoveryNews,2Oct.2010.

52.Hunter,Marjorie.“FordOffersAmnestyProgramRequiring2YearsPublicWork;DefendsHisPardonofNixon.”NewYorkTimes,17Sept.1974,p.1.Estimatesvariedastonumberseligibleforclemency;the government cited figures that were probably too low and were in any event rendered moot byCarter’ssubsequentpardon.Moreover,underFord’sclemency,thetwo-yeartermcouldbereducedfor“mitigating”circumstanceslikefamilyhardship,soit’snotclearthatmuchpenancereallywouldhavebeenrequired.

Chapter4:EmpireofSelf1.DSM-V,p.662.2.Ibid.,pp.660–61.3.Swatz,JamesA.SubstanceAbuseinAmerica:ADocumentaryandReferenceGuide.Greenwood,2012,p. 158;West ofCenter:Art and theCounterCultureExperiment inAmerica, 1965–1977. Edited byElissaAutherandAdamLerner.UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2Nov.2011,p.57.

4. “Protest: The Banners of Dissent.” Time. 27 Oct. 1967,content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841090,00.html.

5.Gitlin,Todd.TheSixties:YearsofHope,DaysofRage.Reviseded.,Bantam,1July1993,p.214.6. Cottrell, Robert C. Sex, Drugs and Rock ’n’ Roll: The Rise of America’s 1960s Counterculture.Rowman&Littlefield,19Mar.2015,p.88.

7.TheNewYorkTimes:TheTimesoftheSixties:TheCulture,PoliticsandPersonalitiesThatShapedtheDecades.EditedbyJohnRockwell.BlackDog&Leventhal,2014,p.152.

8.“GallupFindsRiseinMarijuanaUse,”NewYorkTimes,6.Feb.1972,p.36(pollingcollegestudentsand finding under 5 percent had tried marijuana in 1967, rising to 42 percent by 1970 and then amajoritybytheendof1971;ofthatmajority,fouroutoffivehaduseditinthepastyearandthreeoutoffiveinthepastmonth).SeealsoGolub,Andrew,BruceD.Johnson,“TheRiseofMarijuanaastheDrugofChoiceAmongYouthfulAdultArrestees,”June2001,USDepartmentofJustice,at6(citingdataforgeneralpopulationderivedfromtheNationalHouseholdSurveyonDrugAbuseetal).SeealsoRobison, Jennifer. “Decades of Drug Use: Data from the ’60s and ’70s.” Gallup, 2 July 2002,http://www.gallup.com/poll/6331/decades-drug-use-data-from-60s-70s.aspx (marijuana use among alladultsunder5percentinthelate1960s).

9.Seenotes8and10.10.Harrison,LanaD., et al. “CannabisUse in theUnitedStates: Implications forPolicy.”Universityof

Delaware, Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies, 12 Jun. 1995, pp. 181–183. CEDRO, www.cedro-uva.org/lib/harrison.cannabis.pdf;NationalCommissiononMarijuanaandDrugAbuse.“Marihuana:ASignal of Misunderstanding.” Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, Mar. 1972; see alsoJohnston,LloydD.,etal.“MonitoringtheFuture:NationalSurveyResultsonDrugUse1975–2014,”vol.2,2014,p.27,tables9.15etseq.(sponsoredbyNIDAandNIH).

11.Johnston,“MonitoringtheFuture,”tables9.10,9.12,9.15.12.NationalInstituteonDrugAbuse.“DrugFacts,NationwideTrends.”(rev.2015,mostrecentdatafrom

2013surveys),p.2,www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/drugfacts_nationtrends_6_15.pdf.13. Twenge, JeanM., et al. “Changes inAmericanAdults’ SexualBehavior andAttitudes 1972–2012.”

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2014–2015,psy2.fau.edu/~shermanr/Twenge%20Sherman%20&%20Wells%20In%20Press.pdf at 2273 in journalform.

14.Ibid.,Finer,LawrenceB.,andJesseMPhilbin.“TrendsinAgesatKeyReproductiveTransitionsintheUnitedStates,1951–2010.”Women’sHealthIssues.May–June2014,pp.5–6(electronicversion).

15. Ibid.;seealsoTwenge,JeanM.,etal.“Changes inAmericanAdults’SexualBehaviorandAttitudes1972–2012.”TheMillennialsdoappeartohaveverypromiscuoussubcohorts.

16. Ibid. at 2280.The number of partners peaked in the cohort born during the 1960s generally, and soincludessomeGenXers.Thedatacitedarenotsufficientlygranulartomakeaprecisebreakat1964.

17.Ibid.18.Twenge,“ChangesinAmericanAdults’SexualBehaviorandAttitudes1972–2012,”at2279.19.DSM-Vat660.20.Griswoldv.Connecticut,381US479(1965);Eisenstadtv.Baird,405US438(1972).

21.Kost,Kathryn,andStanleyHenshaw.“U.S.TeenagePregnancies,BirthsandAbortions2010:NationalandStateTrendsbyAge,RaceandEthnicity.”GuttmacherInstitute,May2014,table2.1.

22. Cowan, Sarah K. “Cohort Abortion Measures for the United States.” Population and DevelopmentReview,vol.39,no.2,June2013,p.9,fig.6,table1.HHSPublicAccess.

23.Ibid.,p10.24.Ibid.,table2.1.25.CDC.“2014SexuallyTransmittedDiseaseSurveillance2014.”2015,tables10,21,35.TheCDCdata

are themost reliable data available, althoughmethodology and collection are imperfect due to stateinconsistencies in collection.Given the sizeofn, however,CDC’s conclusions shouldbe consideredgenerallyreliable.

26.DSM-V,pp.660–61,764.27.Foreman,Amanda.“TheHeartbreakingHistoryofDivorce.”SmithsonianMagazine,Feb.2014.28.Wilcox,W.Bradford.“TheEvolutionofDivorce.”NationalAffairs,2009,p.81.29. US Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1998, table no. 123 and subsequent years at

comparable tables; see also US Census Bureau. “Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages andDivorces: 2009.” Current Population Report: Household Economic Studies, May 2011, pp. 7–10;Thomas,SusanGregory.“TheDivorceGeneration.”WallStreetJournal,9July2011.SaturdayEssay.Becausedivorce ispoliticized,notallstatescompilegooddata, federal fundingforcollectionofdatawasrestrictedinthe1990s,anddivorcedataarenotoriouslyhardtopindown,butthegeneraltrendindivorcecanbediscernedreadilyenough.

30.Kennedy, Sheela, and StevenRuggles. “BreakingUp IsHard toCount: TheRise ofDivorce in theUnited States, 1980–2010.” Demography, 8 Jan. 2014, p. 595, and cites associated with figurespresentedinthischapterfortheriseinmaritalinstabilityafter1970.Boomersarenowlatemiddle-agedorsenior,but theirpatternofhighmarital instabilitycontinues.Subsequentgenerationsdomarrylessfrequently,andlater,andtheirlowerincidenceofdivorceisaffectedbythosetrends,sincethosewhoarenotmarriedcannot,bydefinition,getdivorced.

31.Brown,SusanL.,andI-FenLin.“TheGrayDivorceRevolution:RisingDivorceAmongMiddle-AgedandOlderAdults,1990–2010.”JournalsofGerontologySeriesB,vol.67,no.6,2012,pp.731–741;seegenerallyThomas,SusanGregory.“TheGrayDivorcés.”WallStreetJournal,3Mar.2012.SaturdayEssay.

32.Brown,andLin.“TheGrayDivorceRevolution”;seegenerallyThomas,“TheGrayDivorcés,”andseealsocitesassociatedwithfigurespresentedherein.

33.Thomas(citingStrauss,William,andNeilHowe.Generations:TheHistoryofAmerica’sFuture,1584to2069.Quill,30.Sept.1992).IhavemyowndoubtsaboutGenerationsgenerally,butotherliteraturesupportsitspithysummary.

34. Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. The Divorce Culture: Rethinking our Commitments to Marriage andFamily.Vintage,3Feb.1998.

35.“Number,Timing,andDurationofMarriagesandDivorces:2009.”USCensusBureau,2009,table4,www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf;author’scalculations.

36.Foragoodsummary,seeArkowitz,Hal,andScottO.Lilienfield.“IsDivorceBadforChildren?TheBreakupMayBePainful,butMostKidsAdjustWelloverTime.”ScientificAmerican,1Mar.2013;seealsoAmato,PaulR.,andJacobCheadle,“TheLongReachofDivorce:DivorceandChildWell-BeingAcrossThreeGenerations.”JournalofMarriageandFamily,vol.67,no.1,Feb.2005,pp.192–193etseq.andworkscitedtherein.

37.Brown,p.731.38.DSM-V,p.660.39. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. PSAVERT (BEA). The personal savings rate is the rate for

individuals, nonprofit institutions, pensions, and assorted entities, but it’s the best proxy on a

longitudinalbasisforindividualsavingsasapercentofdisposableincome.Forafurtherdiscussionofsavings,seeChapter12.

40.Ibid.41.CDC.“PrevalenceofObesityAmongAdults,”and“PrevalenceofOverweight,Obesity,andExtreme

ObesityAmongAdults:UnitedStates,Trends,1960–1962Through2009–2010.”CDC,NationalCenterforHealthStatistics.“Health,UnitedStates,2015:WithSpecialFeatureonRacialandEthnicHealthDisparities.”2016,table58,www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus15.pdf#053.

42. World Health Organization, Global Health Observatory Data Repository,apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.A900A?lang=en(datafor2010and2014).

43.CDC.“PrevalenceofOverweightandObesityamongChildrenandAdolescents:UnitedStates,1963–1965through2011–2012.”Sept.2014.

44.Seenotes41–43;seealsoLeveille,SuzanneG.“TrendsinObesityandArthritisAmongBabyBoomersandTheirPredecessors,1971–2002.”AmericanJournalofPublicHealth,vol.95,no.9,Sept.2005,p.1607etseq.;compareReuters.“ObesityRatesforElderly,MiddleAgedontheRise.”HuffingtonPost,25 Oct. 2012, www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/obesity-rates-elderly-middle-aged-rise_n_2017221.html.

45.Seenote44.46.Wang,Claire,etal.“HealthandEconomicBurdenoftheProjectedObesityTrendsintheUSAandthe

UK.”Lancet378,no.9793,27Aug.2011,pp.812–825.Theexcesshealth-carecostsareestimatedtobeontheorderoftensofbillions,possiblyoffsetifobesepeoplesimplydieearlier.

47.Wolfe,Tom.“ReportsonAmerica’sNewGreatAwakening:The ‘Me’Decade.”NewYork, 23Aug.1976;seealsoLasch,Christopher.TheCultureofNarcissism,AmericanLifeinanAgeofDiminishingExpectations.W.W.Norton,1979;andLasch’sessaysfromthe1970s.

48.Hutchinson,Lydia. “TheRollingStones’ ‘ICan’tGetNoSatisfaction.’”Performing Songwriter. 26July2013,performingsongwriter.com/rolling-stones-satisfaction/.

49.Twenge,JeanM.,etal.“ChangesinPronounUseinAmericanBooksandtheRiseofIndividualism,1960–1980.”JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,vol.43,no.3,2012,p.408,andgenerallypp.406–415.

50.Ibid.51.Ibid.;seealsoGooglegram.52.DSM-V,p.660.53.Bradley,StefanM.Harlemvs.ColumbiaUniversity:BlackStudentPowerintheLate1960s.University

of Illinois Press. 2009, pp. 74–85; see also Fraser, Ronald. 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt.Pantheon, 12 Apr. 1988, pp. 195–199; Martin, Douglas. “Henry S. Coleman, 79, Dies; Hostage atColumbiain’68.”NewYorkTimes,4Feb.2006.Therehavebeenself-servingassertionsbystudentsthatColemanhadbeenorderedtostayinhisofficebytheadministration.

54.Anderson,p.108.55.Cf.Adler,Margot.“1968ColumbiaProtestsStillStirPassion.”NPR.23Apr.2008(statementofAllen

Silver).56. Twenge, JeanM., et al. “Changes inAmericanAdults’ SexualBehavior andAttitudes 1972–2012,”

ArchivesofSexualBehavior,vol.44,no.8,Nov.2015,andvarious,esp.9.57. “Distracted by Technology at Mealtimes—It’s Not Who You Think.” Nielsen, 11 Nov. 2015,

nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/distracted-by-technology-at-mealtimes-its-not-who-you-may-think.html.

Chapter5:ScienceandSentimentality1.Pearce,Matt.“U.S.Rep.PaulBroun:EvolutionaLiefrom‘thePitofHell,’”LosAngelesTimes,7Oct.2012.

2.Berlin,Isaiah.AgainsttheCurrent.2nded.,PrincetonUniversityPress.2013,p.205.BerlindescribesthepositionoftheFrench-influencedEnlightenmentandthendiscussesitsGermanromanticopposite.Idonotuse“empirical”inthephilosophicalsenseofthedivide,betweenempiricalAnglophoneandnon-empiricalContinentalphilosophy.

3.DeclarationofIndependence.4.ConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,art.I,sec.8.5. Saenz, Arlette. “Sen. Jim Inhofe Throws Snowball on Senate Floor in Attempt to Debunk ClimateChange.”ABCNews.26Feb.2015,abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-jim-inhofe-throws-snowball-senate-floor-attempt/story?id=29255635(embeddedvideoofInhofeandthesnowball).

6.De Tocqueville,Alexis.Democracy inAmerica. Edited and translated byHarvey C.Mansfield andDelbaWinthrop.UniversityofChicagoPress,2000,ch.10.

7.UnitedStatesCongress.CongressionalGlobe,vol.27,p.1693;7USC§304.8.AmericanAssociationfor theAdvancementofScience.“HistoricalTrendsinFederalR&D.”FederalR&D as a share of discretionary and total budget, 1962–2016, www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd,andseealsoandcomparewiththecitationsprovidedforthefigureinthischapter.

9. White House, Council of Economic Advisers. “The 2016 Economic Report of the President.” InEconomicReportofthePresident,Feb.2016,p.220(internalcitationsomitted).

10.Ibid.,sec.5.11.NationalScienceFoundation.“R&DRecognizedasInvestmentinU.S.GDPStatistics:GDPIncrease

Slightly Lowers R&D-to-GDP Ratio.” InfoBriefs, NSF 15-315, 30 Mar. 2015,www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15315/.TheAmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScienceandtheBEAcompilesimilarstatisticsshowingthesametrends.

12. Pion,GeorgineM., andMarkW. Lipsey. “PublicAttitudes Toward Science and Technology:WhatHavetheSurveysToldUs?”PublicOpinionQuarterly,vol.45,no.3,1981,pp.303–316andtable1.

13.Ibid.,table1.14.Ibid.,table2.Thewordingonthesurveychangedovertheyears,anddataareprovidedforthe1972–

1976 surveys as worded. However, the overwhelmingly positive prior response to a (less nuanced)question,incombinationwiththerestofthedatainthischapter,suggeststhatthingstookaturnintheearly1970s.

15.Ibid.,tables3and309(re:confidenceinscientificestablishment,supportforbasicresearchbetweenthe1960sand1970s);LaPorte,ToddR.,andDanielMetlay.“TechnologyObserved:AttitudesofaWaryPublic.”Science,11Apr.1975,tables3–4(re:science’sabilitytosolveproblems,from1972to1974;samplebasedonCaliforniaresidentsonly).

16.LaPorteandMetlay,secs.3–4.17.Ibid.18.Handler,Phillip.“PublicDoubtsAboutScience.”Science,vol.208,no.4448,6June1980.19. Pew Research Center. “Americans, Politics and Science Issues.” 1 July 2015 (noting contemporary

attitudesbycohort).20.NationalScienceFoundation.“ScienceandEngineeringIndicators,NationalScienceFoundation2014.”

Appendix, tables 7–8 and ch. 7, generally, www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/data. NSFdecomposestherawdata,whichcanbefoundfromtheUniversityofChicago’sGSS,usingindicatorsSOLARREV, EARTHSUN, etc. Only respondents who answered the heliocentric question correctlywere asked the year-revolution question; those who answered the former incorrectly were coded as

beingwrongaboutthelatter.21.Ibid.22.Ibid.,ch.7.23.Ibid.,appendix,tables2–17,2–23,2–33.24. Epstein, Jennifer. “Graduation Gaps for Science Majors.” Inside Higher Ed. 17 Feb. 2010,

www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/17/stem;“UndergraduateEducation,Enrollment,andDegreesin the United States.” Science and Engineering Indicators 2012, ch. 2,www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c2/c2s2.htm; Anderson, Stuart. “The Importance of InternationalStudents to America.” National Foundation for American Policy. NEAP Policy Brief, July 2013,www.nfap.com/pdf/New%20NFAP%20Policy%20Brief%20The%20Importance%20of%20International%20Students%20to%20America,%20July%202013.pdf(compiling data from NSF); National Science Foundation. “Science and Engineering Indicators,NationalScienceFoundation2014.”Appendix,table2-33(availableasdownloaddocument).

25.GoogleNgramViewersearchesfor“feel,”“howIfeel,”and“Ifeelthat.”26.GoogleNgramViewersearchfor“true.”27. Pew Research Center. “Public Trust in Government: 1958–2014.” 13 Nov. 2014, www.people-

press.org/2014/11/13/public-trust-in-government/.28.Ibid.29.Burke,Edmund.“ALetterfromMr.BurketoaMemberoftheNationalAssembly;InAnswertoSome

ObjectionstohisBookonFrenchAffairs.”19Jan.1791,metaphors.iath.virginia.edu/metaphors/20164(excerpted); original available at books.google.com/books?id=L1wPAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=chain&f=false,pp.68–69.

30.Reagan,Ronald. 12Aug.1986, available in thePublicPapersof thePresidentsof theUnitedStates(June28–Dec.31,1986)at1081.

31.Clymer,Adam.“M’GovernAsksStandAgainstTax-CutTide.”NewYorkTimes,18Jun.1978.32.“DietaryGoalsfortheUnitedStates.”PreparedbytheStaffoftheSelectCommitteeonNutritionand

HumanNeeds(knownasthe“McGovernCommission”),Feb.1977,pp.1–2.Ninety-FifthUnitedStatesCongress,1stSession.

33. “Vice President Spiro Agnew Speech.” The Pacifica Radio/UC Berkeley. Social Activism SoundRecording Project. Houston, Texas, 22 May 1970,lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/agnewtranscript.html.

34.Novak,Michael.“ReconsideringVaticanII.”CatholiCity.20Apr.2010.35.Newport, Frank. “CatholicsSimilar toMainstreamonAbortion,Stem-Cells.”Gallup. 30Mar. 2009,

www.gallup.com/poll/117154/catholics-similar-mainstream-abortion-stem-cells.aspx. Catholics whoregularlyattendchurcharemoreorthodox,butsubstantialminoritiesstillholdmoreliberal,heterodoxviewsonmanymatters.

36. “Pontifical Council for Legislative Text” (approved by Benedict XVI). 13 Mar. 2006,www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html.

37.“AChurchDivided:RulingEndsVa.’sEpiscopalBattle.”NPR.AllThingsConsidered.10Apr.2012,www.npr.org/2012/04/10/150351713/a-church-divided-ruling-ends-va-s-episcopal-battle.

38. Montague, John. “The Law and Financial Transparency in Churches: Reconsidering the form 990Exemption.”Cardozo Law Review, vol. 35, no. 203, 2013, www.cardozolawreview.com/content/35-1/MONTAGUE.35.1.pdf.

39.“DoAllDogsReallyGoToHeaven?”CBN.www1.cbn.com/700club/do-all-dogs-really-go-heaven.40.Malachi3:10(KingJamesVersion).

Chapter6:DiscoandtheRootsofNeoliberalism1. Roosevelt, Franklin D. Second Inaugural Address. 20 Jan. 1937,http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/froos2.asp.

2.VonMises,Ludwig.HumanAction:ATreatiseonEconomics.TheLudwigvonMisesInstitute,1998,at874.TheGermaneditionappearedin1940,theEnglishedition,in1949.

3. Von Mises, Ludwig. Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition, ch. 11, Mises Institute,mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition/html/p/30.

4. Say, Jean-Baptiste.ATreatise onPoliticalEconomy. See alsoSmith,Adam.TheWealth ofNations(note,however,thatSmith,whilefavoringalimitedroleforgovernmentandemphasizingthemarket’ssuperiorability toorganize itself,didendorsecertainspecific roles for thegovernment, like thepost,and the encouragement of certain industries—these specifics havenowbeen lost to thegeneralityofSmith’sInvisibleHand).

5.Harris,EthanS.BenBernanke’sFed:TheFederalReserveAfterGreenspan.HarvardBusinessReviewPress. 15 July 2008, ch. 12. There are several similar, but slightly different versions of this quotefloatingaround,butthesubstanceisalwaysthesame.

6.“StatementofAims.”TheMontPelerinSociety.www.montpelerin.org/statement-of-aims/.7. “Mont Pelerin Society Directory 2010.” Re-created by DeSmogBlog.www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Mont%20Pelerin%20Society%20Directory%202010.pdf.

8. “‘GoldwaterGirl’: PuttingContext to aResurfacedHillaryClinton Interview.”NPR. 26Mar. 2016,www.npr.org/2016/03/26/471958017/-goldwater-girl-putting-context-to-a-resurfaced-hillary-clinton-interview?version=meter+at+7&module=meterLinks&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click.

9. Goldwater, Barry. The Conscience of a Conservative. E-book ed., Start Publishing, 2012, ch. 2,generally,andpp.85–86.

10.Ibid.,pp.86–87.11.Ibid.,p.88.12.Ibid.,p.98.13.Ibid.,p.100.14. Chomsky, Noam. “Richard Nixon Was ‘Last Liberal President.’” Huffington Post. 21 Feb. 2014,

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/21/noam-chomsky-richard-nixon_n_4832847.html.15.Bachman,Helena.“GlobalFirst?EverySwissCouldBeGuaranteed$2,600aMonthTax-Free.”USA

Today, 6 May 2016, www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/05/switzerland-referendom-monthly-income-tax-free/83940610/; “Switzerland’sVotersRejectBasic IncomePlan.”BBC. 5 June2016,www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060.

16.Parker,Richard.JohnKennethGalbraith:HisLife,HisPolitics,HisEconomics.1sted.,UniversityofChicago Press, 1 Aug. 2006, p. 501; Perlman, Rick. Nixonland: The Rise of a President and theFracturingofAmerica.Scribner,14Apr.2009,p.710.

17.FRED,UNRATE.18.Mayer,Gerald.“UnionMembershipTrendsintheUnitedStates.”CRSReport forCongress.31Aug.

2004, digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&context=key_workplacegenerallyandatAppendixA(referringto“employed”workers;thesametrendsaretruebasedonothersubcategorieswithminor differences in absolute levels);USDepartment of Labor, Bureau of LaborStatistics (hereinafter “BLS”). “Union members—2015.” Press Release. 28 Jan. 2016,www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf.

19.FRED,UNRATE,FPCPITOTLZGUSA(WorldBank);CPI(BEA).

20. US Census, Income and Poverty Reports (various years); BEA, inflation indicators; author’scalculations. See also “Trends in the Distribution of Household Income between 1979 and 2007,”CongressionalBudgetOffice,October2011.TheBLSalsodecomposesaveragehourlyearningsoverallandbysectorandtheseshowthesametrends.

21.“PresidentGeraldR.Ford’sAddresstoaJointSessionofCongressontheEconomy.”GeraldR.FordPresidentialLibrary&Museum.www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/740121.asp.

22.Mieczkowski,Yanek.GeraldFordandtheChallengesofthe1970s.UniversityPressofKentucky,22Apr. 2005, p. 131; see alsoBirnbaum, JeffreyH. “Ford’sEconomicRecordBeliesHisReputation.”Washington Post. 28 Dec. 2006, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701580.html.

23. White House, Office of Management and Budget. “Historical Tables.” Table 1.2,www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.(2014–2016).

24. Carter, Jimmy. “‘Crisis of Confidence’ Speech.” Miller Center. Transcript. 15 July 1979,millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3402.

Chapter7:TheBoomerAscendancy1.Hamilton,Alexander, JamesMadison, John Jay, IanShapiro (ed.).TheFederalistPapers.No. 47 at245. New Haven, CT: 2009. Madison was talking about separation of institutional powers. AskingwhetherMadisonwouldhaveviewedinstitutionaldominancebyBoomersasbeingmoreparalleltohisthinkingintheFederalistPapersorACandidStateofPartiesisprobablytoopedanticforanepigraph(orevenanendnote);sufficeittosay,IdoubthewouldhavebeenthrilledbytheBoomers.

2. US Census. “Historical National Population, Intercensal Estimates from 2000 to 2010, PopulationEstimates Program for 2013”; CDC, “Death Rates, CDC-NCHS Live Births from 1909 to 2003”;author’scalculations;suprachapter1,note4.

3.USDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,CDC,PopulationStatistics,“Residentpopulation,byage, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: United States, selected years 1950–2013”,www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/hispanic.htm#population(accessedfor2013data);supranote2.

4. Neale, Thomas H. “The Eighteen Year Old Vote: The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and SubsequentVoting Rates of Newly Enfranchised Age Groups.” Report No. 83-103. Library of Congress,Congressional Research Service, 20 May 1983,digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8805/m1/1/high_res_d/83-103GOV_1983May20.pdf. Thefourstateswithsub-twenty-onevotingageswereGeorgia,Kentucky,Alaska(nineteen-year-oldvote),andHawaii(twenty-year-oldvote)—andonlytwoofthesestateshadsubstantialelectorates.

5. US Census, “Current Estimates Data” Population Estimates, 2015,www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html;CDC.“LiveBirths,BirthRates,andFertilityRates,byRace:1909–2003.” Vital Statistics of the United States, Table 1-1,www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/natfinal2003.annvol1_01.pdf; US Census. “Death Rates by Age, Sex,and Race: 1950 to 2008.” Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011, table 110, 2012,census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s0110.pdf;author’scalculations.

6.Kennedy,EdwardM.“VotingAgeto18TestimonyBeforetheSenateSubcommitteeonConstitutionalAmendments.”9Mar.1970,tedkennedy.org/ownwords/event/voting_age.

7. I’m synthesizing the results of two surveys here,which is not best practice, but given the vast gulfbetweenpopularandpoliticalknowledge,agapthat’sappearedrepeatedlyacrossmanypolls,thepointstands.University ofPennsylvania,AnnenbergPublicPolicyCenter. “AmericansKnowSurprisinglyLittle About Their Government, Survey Finds.” 17 Sept. 2014,cdn.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Civics-survey-press-release-09-17-2014-for-PR-Newswire.pdf;PewResearchCenter.“WhatAmericansKnow:1989–2007:PublicKnowledgeofCurrentAffairs LittleChanged byNews and InformationRevolutions.” 15Apr. 2007,www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/319.pdf.

8.Supranotes2–3.9.Ibid.10.Nixon,Richard.“LettertoHouseLeadersSupportingaConstitutionalAmendmenttoLowertheVoting

Age.” The American Presidency Project. 27 Apr. 1970, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2487;Berman,Ari.“WhattheSupremeCourtDoesn’tUnderstandabouttheVotingRightsAct.”Nation.25June2013,www.thenation.com/article/what-supreme-court-doesnt-understand-about-voting-rights-act/.

11. US House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives. “The 26th Amendment.” 1 July 1971,history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/The-26th-Amendment/; Senate. Journal of theSenate.92ndCongress,1stsession,1971.S.S.J.Res.7/65Stat.710,1971.

12. “Ratification of Constitutional Amendments.” U.S. Constitution Online,usconstitution.net/constamrat.html.

13.Fish,EricS.“TheTwenty-SixthAmendmentEnforcementPower.”YaleLawJournal,vol.121no.5

(Mar.2012),pp.1222–1224.14. Ghitza, Yair, and Andrew Gelman. “The Great Society, Reagan’s Revolution and Generations of

PresidentialVoting.”WorkingPaper.7July2014,p.17;andGallup.“ElectionPolls—VoteByGroups,1968–1972.”Seealsoinfranote21.

15. Balz, Dan. “Karl Rove—The Strategist.” Washington Post. 23 July 1999,www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm.

16.GhitzaandGelman.“TheGreatSociety,Reagan’sRevolutionandGenerationsofPresidentialVoting”(workingpaper);seeinfranote21foradiscussionofthiswork.

17.Toomey,TraciL.,etal.“TheAge-21MinimumLegalDrinkingAge:ACaseStudyLinkingPastandCurrentDebates.”Addiction, vol. 104, no. 12,Dec. 2009, pp. 1958–1965 (the last state to lower itsdrinking age,Oklahoma, hewed an odd course: it allowed for the sale of “non-intoxicating” beer ofunder3.2percentalcoholcontenttowomenundertwenty-onebutnotmen;theSupremeCourtfoundthis constituted gender discrimination and banned the practice);Craig v.Boren, 429US at 190–191(1976).

18.23USC158(1984).19.Seeinfranote23.20. Based on author’s calculations using an API pull from www.govtrack.us and comparison to

Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22source%22%3A%22members%22%7D.Thechart’sunderlyingdata,fromtheAPIpull,calculatesmembershipbasedonelectionresultsandthestartofaCongressionalterm.Smallvariancesareproducedbyresignations,deaths,andotherchangestotheHouseintraterm,buttheseareminorandoftentendedtoincreasethenumberofBoomers,asin2008wherethereplacementsaddedtothenetBoomercount.Excludedfromthesecalculationsarenon-votingmembers of theHouse representing theDistrict of Columbia and the territories. See also thefootnote to this paragraph regarding my treatment of term dates of a given Congress. In general,Boomer shares of government cited in this book derive from the sources and methods noted here,usuallytheAPIpulls.

21.GhitzaandGelman.SeealsotheinteractivetoolavailableontheNYTimeswebsite,usingthesamedataat: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/08/upshot/how-the-year-you-were-born-influences-your-politics.html.GhitzaandGelmanusepresidentialapprovalratingsasaproxyforpartyaffiliation,andmodelcumulativepreferences,andhowapersonborninagivenyearmightvoteinan“average”election.TheDemocraticsub-cohortof1947–1954isonlyaboutathirdoftheBoomerpopulationandtherestoftheBoomersdriftRepublican,pushingthewholegenerationintoRepublicanterritory.Exitpolling data is another way to break out political preferences, but these surveys tend to clump agegroups(e.g.,30–44)inlargebucketsthatmakeitdifficulttoperformacontinuousanalysis.Ingeneral,theBoomers tended to favor thewinning candidate (whowon in large part due toBoomer electoralstrength). From 1988–2008, presidential elections for Boomer cohorts either trended Republican orwhere a Democrat had a plurality, they tended to favor the Democrat somewhat more weakly thanyoungergroups,andinverycloseelectionslike2000,Boomerdeviationshadasignificantimpact.Theexit poll data are for all people in the age bracket; stripping out the decisively Democratic vote ofcertain groups (like blacks) tends to push white Boomers into even greater deviation from youngergroups in a Rightward tilt. Best, Samuel J., Brian S. Krueger, Exit Polls: Surveying the AmericanElectorate,1972–2010.Sage/CQPress,LosAngeles(2012);author’scalculations.ThedataforHouseelectionsishighlyvaried,thoughBoomersappearedtobethemostRepublicangroupsincertaincriticalHouseelections,likethoseof1994and2010.Again,theabsenceofcontinuousandgranulardataoverlong periods, and the limited number of elections and often vivid comparisons between candidates(whichGhitzaandGelmantriedtofactorout),makeithardertodrawrobustinferencesfromexitpolls.Theredoesseemtobeatilt,andmanyauthorsdobelieveitissignificant.Intheend,theactualpartyaffiliationmatterslessthanthepoliciespursuedbyagivenpolitician,whichisthesubjectofthenextchapters.Thefactofasecretballot(adefinitesocialgood)meansthatitwillalwaysbeimpossibleto

reallyknowhowanyonevoted,andthismaybeaparticularprobleminself-reporteddatalikeexitpollsfromsociopathspronetodeception.

Chapter8:Taxes1.USCongress,CongressionalBudgetOffice.“TheDistributionofHouseholdIncomeandFederalTaxes,2013.”8June2016,pp.3,18–19.

2.OxfordEnglishDictionary.Onlineedition.3.USDepartmentof theTreasury, InternalRevenueService. “IRSProposesNewRegistration,TestingandContinuingEducationRequirementsforTaxReturnPreparersNotAlreadySubjecttoOversight.”3Nov. 2014, www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Proposes-New-Registration,-Testing-and-Continuing-Education-Requirements-for-Tax-Return-Preparers-Not-Already-Subject-to-Oversight.

4. Grieder, William. “Rolling Back the 20th Century: The Right-Wing Ideologues Are Dead SeriousAboutDismantlingGovernment.”Nation.24Apr.2003,www.thenation.com/article/rolling-back-20th-century/.

5. Good, Chris. “Norquist’s Tax Pledge:What It Is and How It Started.” ABCNews. 26 Nov. 2012,abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/norquists-tax-pledge-what-it-is-and-how-it-started/; “FederalTaxpayer Protection Pledge Questions and Answers.” Americans for Tax Reform. 1 June 2011,www.atr.org/federal-taxpayer-protection-questions-answers-a6204.

6.ConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.art.I,sec.2.7. “Fact Sheet, 100-Year Tax History: The Length and Legacy of Tax Law.” CCH.www.cch.com/wbot2013/factsheet.pdf (asummarybyamajorpublisherof the taxcodes);TheBible:Authorized King James Version. Edited by Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett. Oxford UniversityPress. 15 May 2008; Amazon. www.amazon.com/Bible-Authorized-Version-Oxford-Classics/dp/0199535949/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452610777&sr=8-1&keywords=oxford+king+james+bible.

8.Fraser,C.Gerald.“WritersandEditorstoDefyTaxinWarProtest.”NewYorkTimes,31Jan.1968,p.2.

9. Writers and Editors War Tax Protest,http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Writers%20and%20Editors%20Protest/Item%2002.pdf(the“pledge”).

10. “Joan Baez DeclaresWar on IRS.”Desert Sun, no. 282, 30 June 1964, cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=DS19640630.2.32.

11. Schulz, Kathryn. “Pond Scum.” New Yorker, 19 Oct. 2015,www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/pond-scum; Brooks, Rebecca Beatrice. “Henry DavidThoreau Arrested for Nonpayment of Poll Tax.” History of Massachusetts, 14 July 2012,historyofmassachusetts.org/henry-david-thoreau-arrested-for-nonpayment-of-poll-tax/.

12.InternalRevenueService.“U.S.IndividualIncomeTax.”StatisticsofIncomeTax,HistoricalTable23,May 2016, www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-historical-table-23. For an Excel-ready summary, see TaxFoundation. “Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History: Nominal Dollar: Income Years 1913–2013.” taxfoundation.org/sites/default/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf (a tabularpresentationoftaxbracketswithouteditorialgloss).

13. Jacobson, Darien B., Brian G. Raub, and Barry W. Johnson. “The Estate Tax: Ninety Years andCounting.” Statistics of Income Bulletin 27.1 (2007): 118-28, https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07sumbul.pdf.

14. Social SecurityAdministration. “ResearchNote #12: Taxation of Social SecurityBenefits.”AgencyHistory.www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html.See alsoSocialSecurityAmendments of 1983,PubLaw98-21,enacted20April1983(applyingtothefirsttaxyearafter1983—i.e.,1984).

15.InternalRevenueService.“U.S.IndividualIncomeTax.”StatisticsofIncomeTax,HistoricalTable23,May2016,www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-historical-table-23.

16. Ventry, Dennis J. Jr. “The Accidental Deduction: A History and Critique of the Tax Subsidy forMortgageInterest.”DukeLawReview,vol.73,no.1,2010,p.275.

17.Ippolito,DennisS.Deficits,DebtandtheNewPoliticsofTaxPolicy.CambridgeUniversityPress,Nov.2012, p. 167. For a general discussion of Bush I’s tax policies, see Brownlee, W. Elliot, FederalTaxationinAmerica:AHistory,3ded.,CambridgeUniversityPress,2016,pp.210–220.

18.Ippolito,p.167.(internalcitesandquotesomitted).19.Ibid.20. Schmalz, Jeffrey, “The 1992Election: TheNation’sVoters: ClintonCarves aWide PathDeep into

Reagan Country.” New York Times, 4 Nov. 1992, www.nytimes.com/1992/11/04/nyregion/1992-election-nation-s-voters-clinton-carves-wide-path-deep-into-reagan-country.html.

21.Omnibus ReconciliationAct of 1993, PL 103-66; Brownlee, at ch. 8. See also for amore readablehistory of rates: Tax Foundation. “U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862–2013.”taxfoundation.org/sites/default/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf.

22.Ippolito,p.171.23.Purdum,ToddS. “ClintonAngersFriend andFoe inTaxRemark.”NewYorkTimes, 19Oct. 1995,

www.nytimes.com/1995/10/19/us/clinton-angers-friend-and-foe-in-tax-remark.html; Richter, Paul.“ClintonApologiesMayNotBeSorryMove,AnalystsSay:Politics:OfficialWashingtonIsReactingNegativelytothePresident’sStatements,buttheTacticHasWorkedinthePast,ObserversNote.”LosAngelesTimes,4Nov.1995,articles.latimes.com/1995-11-04/news/mn-64654_1_official-washington.

24.TaxpayerReliefActof1997,PL105–34.25.Ibid.26.EconomicGrowthandTaxReconciliationReliefActof2001,PL107–16.27.JobsandGrowthTaxReliefReconciliationActof2003,PL108–27.28.Ibid.29.TaxRelief,UnemploymentInsuranceReauthorization,andJobCreationActof2010,PL111-312.30.AmericanTaxpayerReliefActof2012,PL112–140.31.Ibid.32.Ibid.33.Ibid.Seealsoforasummary,Sullivan,Paul.“TheEndofaDecadeofUncertaintyoverGiftandEstate

Taxes.”New York Times, 4 Jan. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/your-money/fiscal-deal-ends-decade-of-uncertainty-over-gift-and-estate-taxes.html.

34.Theproperty-taxlimitingProposition13enteredtheCaliforniaConstitutionasArt.13A.35. “How Proposition 13 Changed California Politics.” Contra Consta Bee.

contracostabee.com/proposition-13-california-politics/; “Governor’s Budget Summary—2016-2017”;California Budget. www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/pdf/BudgetSummary/Introduction.pdf; Steinhauer,Jennifer. “In Budget Deal, California Shuts $41 Billion Gap.” New York Times, 19 Feb. 2009,www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/20california.html;“TwoStepsBack:ShouldCaliforniaCut ItsWayto a Balanced Budget?” The California Budget Project. Feb. 2008.www.sdgrantmakers.org/Portals/0/PastPrograms/CBPTwoStepsBack.pdf.

36. Office of Management and Budget. “Corporate Income Taxes.” Budget of the U.S. Government:HistoricalTables,table2.2,www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist.pdf.;FRED,CP(BEA);author’scalculations.

37. Marr, Chuck, and Cecile Murray. “IRS Funding Cuts Compromise Taxpayer Service and WeakenEnforcement,” updated 4 April 2016. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/6-25-14tax.pdf; Letter from former IRScommissioners to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, 2015,taxprof.typepad.com/files/former-irs-comissioners-letter-on-agency-budget.pdf; Johnston, David Cay.“Honey, They Shrunk the IRS.” Reuters, 17 Jan. 2012, blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-

johnston/2012/01/17/honey-they-shrunk-the-irs (noting that the “likelihood of a big company beingauditedhasplummeted50percentagepointsfrom72percentin1990to22percentin2010”);Bischoff,Bill,MarketWatch.“WorriedaboutbeingauditedbytheIRS?Hereareyourchances.”MarketWatch,29 Jan. 2016 (part of a series from MarketWatch on this subject, including a prior article datedDecember15,2015).

38. Rubin, Richard. “IRS toHireUp to 700 EnforcementWorkers.”Wall Street Journal, 3May 2016,www.wsj.com/articles/irs-to-hire-up-to-700-enforcement-workers-1462302623.

39.“TaxGapEstimatesforTaxYears2008–2010.”InternalRevenueService,April2016.40.Quoted inBartlett,Bruce.“TheNewRepublicanTaxPolicy.”NewYorkTimes,Economix (blog),20

Nov.2012,economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/the-new-republican-tax-policy/.41. Dreyfuss, Bob. “Grover Norquist: ‘Field Marshal’ of the Bush Plan.” Nation, 26 Apr. 2001,

www.thenation.com/article/grover-norquist-field-marshal-bush-plan/.42.FederalReserveBankofSt.Louis,EconomicSynopses,No.24(2011).43.E.g.,supranote1at22.44.“TotalGovernmentReceiptsinAbsoluteAmountsandasPercentagesofGDP:1948–2015.”Officeof

ManagementandBudget,2016,https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.45.Ibid.;author’scalculations.46.Ibid.

Chapter9:DebtandDeficits1.USGovernmentAccountabilityOffice. “Bureau of theFiscal Service’s FiscalYears 2015 and 2014Schedules of Federal Debts.” GAO, Report to the Secretary of the Treasury, Nov. 2015,www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2015.pdf.

2.Smith,Robert.“WhentheU.S.PaidOfftheEntireNationalDebt(AndWhyItDidn’tLast).”NPR,15Apr. 2011, www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/04/15/135423586/when-the-u-s-paid-off-the-entire-national-debt-and-why-it-didnt-last;Faber,Harold.“ThereWasaSurplus,Once.”NewYorkTimes, 6Feb.1986,www.nytimes.com/1986/02/06/us/there-was-a-surplus-once.html;Meacham,Jon.AmericanLion:AndrewJackson in theWhiteHouse, reprinted ed.,RandomHouseTradePaperbacks, 30Apr.2009,ch.28,p.298.

3.USDepartmentoftheTreasury,TreasuryDirect.“HistoricalDebtOutstanding—Annual1790–1849,”www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo1.htm.

4.FRED,GFDEGQ188S(originalsources:FREDandOMB).AnoverviewcanbefoundfromtheCBO,infranote5.

5. US Congress, Congressional Budget Office. “The Budget and Economic Outlook 2016–2026.” Jan.2016,p.1;USCongress,CongressionalBudgetOffice.“The2016BudgetOutlook”;PresentationbyKeith Hall at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s 2016 Fiscal Summit, 11 May 2016, p. 15; USCongress,CongressionalBudgetOffice.“2015Long-TermBudgetOutlook.”June2015,pp.11and79–80, www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50250-LongTermBudgetOutlook-4.pdf.The first two cites show that the pointwhen thewar debt thresholdwillbesurpassedhasadvancedfrom2040intothe2030s(basedonchangesinprojectionsfrom2015to2016).

6.Jefferson,Thomas.“LettertoJamesMadison.”1789,Memorialed.7:455;Jefferson,Thomas.“LettertoA.L.C.DestuttdeTracy.”1820,Forded.10:175.

7.Hamilton,Alexander. “Letter toRobertMorris.”30Apr.1781,FoundersOnline,NationalArchives,last modified October 5, 2016, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-02-02-1167.(Original source: The Papers ofAlexanderHamilton, vol. 2, 1779–1781, ed.HaroldC. Syrett.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1961,pp.604–635.)Hamilton,Alexander.“ReportonPublicCredit.”ReportsoftheSecretaryoftheTreasuryoftheUnitedStates,vol.1,Blair&Rives,1837,p.27(originalstatementmadeJanuary1790).

8.Nietzsche,Friedrich.“OnTheGenealogyofMorality.”SecondEssay.9.Schama,Simon.Citizens:AChronicleoftheFrenchRevolution.VintageBooks,Mar.1990,p.65.10.Ibid.,p.66.11. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (hereinafter “OECD”), OECD Data.

“General Government Debt.” data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-debt.htm. It’s impossible toprecisely know or compare China’s debt-to-GDP ratio because of government manipulations andgovernmentownershipofindustries,butChinesedebtlevelswereandarehigh.

12.USGovernmentAccountabilityOffice. “Bureau of theFiscal Service’s FiscalYears 2015 and 2014Schedules of Federal Debts.” Report to the Secretary of the Treasury, Nov. 2015,www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2015.pdf(forfiscalyears2014–2015).

13.Constitutionof theUnitedStates,art. I, sec.10,andTenthAmendment.Statescannotabrogate theirobligations,anddeclaringfederalbankruptcywouldputstatesunderthejurisdictionofafederaljudge,violatingthesovereigntyprovisionsoftheTenthAmendment.

14.Detrixhe,John.“U.S.LosesAAARatingatS&PonConcernDebtCutsDeficient.”Bloomberg,6Aug.2011, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-08-06/u-s-credit-rating-cut-by-s-p-for-first-time-on-deficit-reduction-accord.

15. Office of Management and Budget. “Federal Debt at the End of the Year: 1940–2021.” 2016,www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.

16. Bartlett, Bruce. “Starve the Beast.” Independent Review, vol. 12, no. 1, Summer 2007,www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf. Bartlett was first an assistant to Jack Kemp(oneoftheco-sponsorsofthemajor1981cut)andthenaTreasuryDepartmentofficial.

17.Blustein, Paul. “RecentBudgetBattlesLeave theBasicTenets ofWelfare State Intact.”Wall StreetJournal,21Oct.1985.

18.USCongress,CongressionalBudgetOffice.“TheBudgetandEconomicOutlook:FiscalYears2002–2011.”Jan.2001,xiii,summarytable1,etseq.

19. Ibid.; and US Congress, Congressional Budget Office. “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014–2024.”TableH-1;author’scalculations.

20. US Congress, Congressional Budget Office. “Updated Budget Projections: 2016–2026.”Mar. 2016,table2.

21. White House, Office of Management and Budget. Historical Debt Tables, table 7.1,www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals(forfiscal2015).

22.Ibid.;seealsoUSGovernmentAccountabilityOffice.“BureauoftheFiscalService’sFiscalYears2015and2014SchedulesofFederalDebts.”

23.WhiteHouse,OfficeofManagementandBudget.HistoricalDebtTables;seealsoUSDepartmentofthe Treasury, Treasury Direct. “Historical Debt Outstanding—Annual 2000–2005,”www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm.

24.LibraryofCongress,CongressionalResearchService.DebtCeilingHistory;seealsoUSGovernmentAccountabilityOffice.“BureauoftheFiscalService’sFiscalYears2015and2014SchedulesofFederalDebts.”

25.SocialSecurityAdministration.“FrequentlyAskedQuestionsAbouttheSocialSecurityTrustFunds.”Questions4and7(notingthatthe“cashexchangedforthesecurities[oftheTrustFund]goesintothegeneral fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund”),www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#&a0=6.

26. Ibid.; and Social Security Administration. “Social Security Board of Trustees: Trust Fund ReserveGains One Year for Projected Depletion Date.” Press release, 22 July 2015,www.ssa.gov/news/#/post/7-2015-1.

27.SocialSecurityAdministration.“FrequentlyAskedQuestionsAbouttheSocialSecurityTrustFunds.”28.USGovernmentAccountabilityOffice. “Bureau of theFiscal Service’s FiscalYears 2015 and 2014

SchedulesofFederalDebts.”29.TheBoardofTrustees,FederalHospitalInsuranceandFederalSupplementaryMedicalInsuranceTrust

Funds. The 2015 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance andFederal SupplementaryMedical InsuranceTrustFunds2015 (hereinafter“MedicareTrusteesReport2015”),p.26,CentersforMedicare&MedicaidServices,www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/Downloads/TR2015.pdf. See the discussioninChapters12and13.

30. US Federal Reserve System, Board of Governors. “Federal Reserve Banks Combined FinancialStatements:Asofand for theYearsEndedDecember31,2015and2014and IndependentAuditors’Report,”www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/combinedfinstmt2015.pdf.

31.USFederalReserveSystem,BoardofGovernors.“FinancialAccountsoftheUnitedStates.”10Mar.2016,tableD3.

32. US Department of the Treasury. “Recovery Act,”www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Pages/babs.aspx.

33.USDepartmentoftheTreasury.“TreasuryAnalysisofBuildAmericaBondsInsuranceandSavings,”p.3,www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Documents/BABs%20Report.pdf.

34. Federal Reserve. “Debt Outstanding by Sector.” Financial Accounts of the United States, table D3,September 2016. www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdf.; US Treasury. “Federal Debt.”Treasury Bulletin, Table FD-1, September 2016.www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/treasBulletin/current.htm.;author’scalculations.SeealsoChapter12.Thespeculativeitemsareallimportant,buttheyarecontingentandwillbepaidoverdifferenttimehorizons, so I’veexcluded them—though they,and theadditional~2–3percentofGDPadded to thedebtannually(viathedeficit)—willallhavetopaidbytheyoung.

35.USDepartmentoftheTreasury.FiscalYear2015FinancialReportoftheUnitedStatesGovernment,2016,p.19.

36.Wessel,David,andThomasT.VogelJr.“ArcaneWorldofBondsIsGuideandBeacontoaPopulistPresident.”WallStreetJournal,25Feb1993,A1.

37. US Federal Reserve System, Board of Governors. Selected Interest Rates (Daily)—H.15; USDepartmentofLabor.BureauofLaborStatistics.“ConsumerPriceIndex.”

38. US Department of the Treasury, Treasury Direct. “Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding,”treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm.

39. US Department of the Treasury, Office of Debt Management. “Treasury Presentation to TBAC,”www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/quarterly-refunding/Documents/November%202014%20QRCombined%20Charges%20for%20Archives.pdf.

40.Seesupranotes38–40;author’scalculations(basedonTreasurydataandten-yearyields).41.Appelbaum,Binyamin. “DonaldTrump’s Idea toCutNationalDebt:GetCreditors toAcceptLess.”

New York Times, 6 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/donald-trumps-idea-to-cut-national-debt-get-creditors-to-accept-less.html?_r=0.

42.USFederalReserveSystem,BoardofGovernors“FinancialAccountsof theUnitedStates,”10Mar.2016,tableD3;FederalReserveStatisticalRelease,G.19,ConsumerCredit,released6May2016.

43.USFederalReserveStatisticalRelease.“FinancialAccountsoftheUnitedStates,”10Mar.2016,tableD3.

44. Federal Judicial Center. “Bankruptcy Cases.”www.fjc.gov/history/caseload.nsf/page/caseloads_bankruptcy; US Census. Statistical Abstract of theUnitedStates:1965,partII,no.3(definesadultsbyexcludingpopulationnineteenandunder).

45. Federal Judicial Center. “Bankruptcy Cases”; US Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States:1999,sec.1,no.14(definesadultsbyexcludingpopulationnineteenandunder).

46.Eder,Steve,andMichaelBarbaro.“MarcoRubio’sCareerBedeviledbyFinancialStruggles.”NewYorkTimes, 9 June 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-finances-debt-loans-credit.html.

47. Rubin, Richard, and John McCormick. “Even 40,000 Scott Walkers Aren’t as Wealthy as DonaldTrump.” Bloomberg, 3 Aug. 2015, www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-03/even-40-000-scott-walkers-aren-t-as-wealthy-as-donald-trump;Jacobs,Harrison.“ScottWalkerhastensofthousandsofdollars’worthofcredit-carddebt.”BusinessInsider,3Aug.2015,www.businessinsider.com/scott-walker-has-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-worth-of-credit-card-debt-2015-8.

48. Topaz, Jonathan, and Kristen East. “Bernie Sanders’Wife Accounts for All His Reported Assets.”Politico, 16 July 2015, www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-wife-accounts-for-reported-assets-120261;Gaudiano,Nicole.“CreditCardDebtaRegularFeatureonSanders’FinanceReports.”USAToday,12June2015.

49.McIntire,Mike.“TedCruzDidn’tReportGoldmanSachsLoaninaSenateRace.”NewYorkTimes,13Jan.2016,www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/ted-cruz-wall-street-loan-senate-bid-2012.html.

50. “A Chance to Reset the Republican Race.” Editorial. New York Times, 30 Jan. 2016,www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/a-chance-to-reset-the-republican-race.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-

region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region&_r=1; Niquette, Mark.“JohnKasich’sLehmanDaysCreateRorshachTestforViewingHisCareer.”Bloomberg,9July2015,www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-09/john-kasich-s-lehman-days-create-rorshach-test-for-viewing-his-career;Lee,MJ. “JohnKasich’sWallStreetTiesCouldHaunt2016Bid.”CNN,8 June2015,www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/john-kasich-2016-lehman-brothers-wall-street/index.html.

Chapter10:IndefinitelyDeferredMaintenance1.DSM-V,pp.659–61.2.OxfordEnglishDictionary.Onlineedition.3. BEA. NIPA tables, 2014, sec. 1, 5. Other countries have different accountingmechanisms, but thegeneralpointremainsandisreinforcedbyadrivedownanyEuropeanorJapanesefreeway.

4.Ibid.(text);Wessel,David.“SpendingonOurCrumblingInfrastructure.”WallStreetJournal.10Mar.2015. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/10/spending-on-our-crumbling-infrastructure/ (footnote).Seealsonote12regardingSummers.

5. Bowe, Rebecca, and Lisa Pickoff-White. “Five Years after Deadly San Bruno Explosion: AreWeSafer?”KQEDNews.TheCaliforniaReport,8Sept.2015,ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/09/08/five-years-after-deadly-san-bruno-explosion-are-we-safer; Rawlings, Nate. “Joe Biden Says NYC Airport Like‘Some3rd-WorldCountry.’”Time,7Feb.2014.

6.AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers. InfrastructureReportCard, 2013, pp. 11–12.Like all rigorousanalyses, ASCE’s methodology and assessments have changed somewhat over time, but the gradesacrosstimeareclearlydesignedtobecomparative.

7.Ibid.,p.67.8.Ibid.9. Ibid.; see also “About theReportCard:Methodology.”www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/about-the-report-card/methodology.

10.AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers.InfrastructureReportCard,pp.65–67;author’scalculations.11.Bivens, Josh.“TheShort-andLong-TermImpactsof Infrastructure InvestmentsonU.S.Employment

and EconomicActivity.” Economic Policy Institute. Briefing paper, 374, 1 July 2014, p. 19 et seq.(citing CBO, CEA,Moody’s, and its own research); InternationalMonetary Fund.World EconomicOutlook.Oct.2014,ch.3,p.82.

12.Summers,LawrenceH.“TheAgeofSecularStagnation:WhatItIsandWhattoDoAboutIt.”ForeignAffairs, March–April 2016, www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-02-15/age-secular-stagnation.

13.USDepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.“HighwayStatistics2014.”tablesVM-1, MF-2, www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2014/. (Though the report’s title says2014,thedataarefrom2015.)

14.Author’scalculationsbasedon,forexample,USDepartmentofEnergy(DOE),EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy(EERE),TransportationEnergyDataBook(TEDB),June2011, table1.12.“2015Urban Mobility Score Card.” Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Aug. 2015, Ex. 1 et seq.,d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-scorecard-2015-wappx.pdf. Thecongestioncostsaloneareabout$160billioninfuelandtime,withaccidentsandothereffectsaddingevenmore.

15.FederationofTaxAdministrators.“StateMotorFuelTaxes:Gasoline.”Apr.2016,(figuresobtainedbysubtractingnotedstatedeltaof5cpg2015–2016).Gastaxesincludesmaller,transport-relateditemslikeacontributiontomasstransit,fundingforleakingcontainers,etc.

16. Auxier, Richard. “Reforming State Gas Taxes.” Tax Policy Center, 6 Nov. 2014,taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/413286-reforming-state-gas-tax.pdf.

17. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. “Office of Highway PolicyInformation,” tables 4.2.1 and 8.2.1, www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2014/; USDepartment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. “Ask the Rambler.”www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/gastax.cfm(gastaxes);BLS.CPIInflationcalculator.

18.Kearney,MelissaS.,etal.“RacingAheadorFallingBehind:SixEconomicFactsAboutTransportation

Infrastructure in the United States?” The Hamilton Project, May 2015, sec. 5,www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/six_econ_facts_transportation_infrastructure_united_states_final.pdf.

19.UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst/WBZ.“Crosstabs:UMassAmherst/WBZPollofMassachusettsRegistered Voters.” Ballot Question 1,cbsboston.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/crosstabs_september29_final.pdf.

20. Lehman, Chris. “Oregon to Test Switching to Mileage-Based Gas Tax.” NPR, 1 June 2015,www.npr.org/2015/06/01/411138483/oregon-to-test-switching-to-mileage-based-gas-tax.

21. Public Law 114-41; US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. “HighwayTrustFundTicker:HighwayAccountByMonth,”www.transportation.gov/highway-trust-fund-ticker.

22. Broder, John M. “Democrats Divided over Gas Tax.” New York Times, 29 Apr. 2008,www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29campaign.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&_r=0;Luhby,Tami.“U.S.HighwayFundCrushedbyCutbackinDriving.”CNNMoney,5Sept.2008.

23.USDepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.“FinancialFederal-AidHighways:TheHighwayTrustFund.”www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/fifahiwy/fifahi05.htm.

24.Supranote14,“2015UrbanMobilityScoreCard.”Ex.1.25.BLS.“AmericanTimeUse,”2014,tableA-1.26. See American Society of Civil Engineers. Infrastructure Report Card, 2013, generally; see also US

Public Interest Research Group. Madsen, Travis, et al. “Road Work Ahead: Holding GovernmentAccountableforFixingAmerica’sCrumblingRoadsandBridges,”Apr.2010,p.15etseq.

27.TRIP.“BumpyRoadsAhead:America’sRoughestRidesandStrategiestoMakeOurRoadSmoother,”July2015,AppendixA.

28.Tuss,Adam.“NewReport:D.C.AreaReallyDoesHavetheWorstTrafficintheU.S.”NBC4,5Feb.2013, www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/New-Report-DC-Really-Does-Have-the-Worst-Traffic-in-the-US-189744731.html;USAToday,andScottBroom,WUSA.“Report:DCTrafficIstheWorstintheU.S.”26Aug.2015,www.wusa9.com/story/news/2015/08/26/report-dc-traffic-worst-us/32440837/.

29.USDepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration. “HighwayBridgesbyState andHighwaySystem.”31Dec2015,www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/defbr15.cfm#a,andseeinfranote31.

30. Ibid.; see also American Society of Civil Engineers, Infrastructure Report Card 2013, BridgesSubsection.

31.Nixon,Ron. “$11BillionLater,High-SpeedRail Is InchingAlong.”NewYorkTimes, 6Aug. 2014,www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speedrail.html?emc=edit_th_20140807&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=45299538&_r=0; 49 USC §26105.2.A. (defining“high-speedrail”).

32.Nussbaum,Paul. “Amtrak’sHigh-SpeedNortheastCorridor Plan at $151Billion.” Inquirer, 10 July2012, posted on Philly.com, articles.philly.com/2012-07-10/news/32602302_1_amtrak-president-joseph-boardman-acela-express-northeast-corridor;Amtrak.“AmtrakVisionfortheNortheastCorridor:2012UpdateReport,”2012,p.28.

33.E.g.,“WorldSpeedSurvey2007:NewLinesBoostRail’sHighSpeedPerformance.”RailwayGazette,4 Sept. 2007, www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/world-speed-survey-new-lines-boost-rails-high-speed-performance.html; “TopTenFastestTrains in theWorld.”Railway-technology.com,29Aug.2013,www.railway-technology.com/features/feature-top-ten-fastest-trains-in-the-world.

34.AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers.InfrastructureReportCard,2013,p.67.35.Fandos,Nicholas.“LengthyShutdowns inWashington,D.C.MetroSystemArePossible.”NewYork

Times, 30 Mar. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/us/lengthy-shutdowns-in-washington-dc-metro-system-are-possible.html.

36.AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers.InfrastructureReportCard,2013,p.67.

37.USGovernmentAccountabilityOffice.“CommercialNuclearWaste:EffectsofaTerminationof theYuccaMountainRepositoryProgramandLessonsLearned.”GAO-11-1129,releasedon10May2011,www.gao.gov/assets/320/317634.html; see also US Government Accountability Office. GAOTestimony,GAO-13-532T,11Apr.2013,introductionandgenerally.

38.AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers.InfrastructureReportCard,2013,p.15.39. USArmyCorp of Engineers. “National Inventory of Dams.” June 2016; Association of State Dam

SafetyOfficials. “2014 Statistics on StateDamSafetyRegulation,”Aug. 2015; see also Poindexter,Gregory B. “Alabama Remains Only U.S. State Lacking a State Dam Safety Program.”HydroWorld.com, 23 Dec. 2015, www.hydroworld.com/articles/2015/12/alabama-remains-only-u-s-state-lacking-a-state-dam-safety-program.html.

40. USArmyCorp of Engineers. “National Inventory of Dams,” June 2016; Association of State DamSafetyOfficials.“2014StatisticsonStateDamSafetyRegulation,”Aug.2015.

41.Ibid.;author’scalculations.42. New York City, Department of Environmental Protection. “City Water Tunnel No. 3,”

www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/dep_projects/cp_city_water_tunnel3.shtml.43.Ibid.44. In 2013, for example, the DoD requested about $150 billion for compensation expenses, including

benefitsandhealthcareforpresentandformerpersonnel,outofatotalbudgetofabout$470billion,orroughly1/3rd.USCongress,CongressionalBudgetOffice.“CostsofMilitaryPayandBenefitsintheDefenseBudget,”14Nov.14,2012. Inaverysubstantialway, themilitary isandforsome timehasbeen,ajobsprogram.

45.ConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,articleI,sec.8.46.45USC§5501andPublicLaw101–427(1990).47. US Congress, Congressional Budget Office. “Updated Budget Projections: 2016 to 2026,” 24Mar.

2016,fig4.48.WhiteHouse,OfficeofManagementandBudget.“OutlaysbyFunctionandSuperfunction—National

Defense.”HistoricalTables,table3.2,www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.Thesequesterwasbasedon legislationpassed in 2011 and2013 andwas triggered in 2014 and2015. If spending fallsbelowlegislatedcaps,thereisnosequestrationperse,althoughthebudgetssubmittedtoCongressareclearlydraftedwiththesequesterinmind,andthereforethesequesterhassimilareffectswhetherornotitisexplicitlytriggered.

49.USDepartmentofDefense.QuadrennialDefenseReview2014,p.viii.50.Ibid.,p.22.51.NationalDefensePanel.“EnsuringaStrongU.S.DefensefortheFuture:TheNationalDefensePanel

Reviewofthe2014QuadrennialDefenseReview.”Advancecopy,31July2014,p.29.52.Ibid.53.Ibid.,p.30.54.Ibid.55. US Marine Corps. “Opening Statement to the Defense Subcommittee—House Appropriations

CommitteeonPostureoftheUnitedStatesMarineCorps.”PresentedbyJosephF.DunfordJr.,26Feb.2015.

56.HeritageFoundation.“2016IndexofU.S.MilitaryStrength,”pp.228,234;O’Hanlon,MichaelE.“TheFutureof theU.S.Army.”Brookings,18Sept.2015(noting that thepresentarmyis“fairlysmallbymostrelevantmeasures,”thattheauthor“wouldoppose”futurereductions—whichwerecontemplated,andthatcertainofpartsoftheQDRwere“mistaken”).

57. “Houston Police Department Operational Staffing Model.” Police Executive Research Forum, May2014, p. 150,www.houstontx.gov/police/department_reports/operational_staffing/Houston_Police_Department_Operational_Staffing_Model_May_2014.pdf;

EstonianDefense Forces, www.mil.ee/en/defence-forces. Bendavid, Naftali. “Just Five of 28NATOMembers Meet Defense Spending Goal, Report Says.” 22 June 2015; North Atlantic TreatyOrganization. “Defense Expenditures of NATO Countries (2008–2015),” 28 Jan. 2016, p. 2; NorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization.“ReadinessActionPlan.”23June2016(the“WalesSummit2014”).

58. White House, Office of Management and Budget. Historical Debt Tables, table 14.5,www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.

59.Petroski,Henry.TheRoadTaken:TheHistoryandFutureofAmerica’sInfrastructure.Bloomsbury,16Feb.2016,p.85;BLS.CPIInflationcalculator;VanDerbeken,Jaxon.“BayBridgeFixinPlace,$25Million Later.” SF Gate, 19 Dec. 2013, www.sfgate.com/default/article/Bay-Bridge-fix-in-place-25-million-later-5076643.php.

60.Fitzsimmons,EmmaG.“$2.4BillionSubwayStopWasLeakingBeforeItOpened.”NewYorkTimes,29Mar.2016,mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/nyregion/documents-reveal-early-concerns-about-leaks-at-hudson-yards-subway-station.html.

Chapter11:BoomerFinance:TheViciousCycleofRiskandDeceit1.DSM-V,p.660.2. Courtauld, George. England’s Best Loved Poems: The Enchantment of England. Random HouseeBooks,sec.5.

3.Hitchens,Christopher.AndYet…Essays,e-booksed.,p.468(firstprintedinSlate,“TheCaseAgainstHillary.”14 Jan.2008); seealsoPurdum,Todd.“HillaryClintonMeetsManWhoGaveHer2L’s.”NewYorkTimes, 3 Apr. 1995 (repeating improbable story by Clinton); see also “EdmundHillary.”Biography.com.

4. E.g., Securities Act of 1933; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Investment Company Act of 1940;InvestmentAdvisersActof1940;BankingActof1933(Glass-Steagall;establishedFDIC);CommodityExchangeActof1936;CommodityFuturesTradingCommissionActof1974.

5.Brandeis,LouisD.OtherPeople’sMoney—AndHowtheBankersUseIt.Martinoed.,2009,p.92.6.Leeds,Jeff.“AndersenAuditorDetailsShreddingofEnronPapers.”LosAngelesTimes,14May2002,articles.latimes.com/2002/may/14/business/fi-andersen14; Associated Press. “In Depositions, ArthurAndersen Staffers Detail ‘Shred Room.’” Fox News, 15 Mar. 2002,www.foxnews.com/story/2002/03/15/in-depositions-arthur-andersen-staffers-detail-shred-room.html.

7.USDepartmentof theTreasury,Bureauof theFiscalService.“FinancialReportof theUnitedStatesGovernment—2015,”25Feb.2016,pp.18,82etseq.

8.Ibid.,pp.138–165.Paginationisbasedontheoveralldocument’spaginationappearingatthetopleft;subpartshavetheirownpagination.

9.Ibid.,“StatementoftheComptrollerGeneral,”pp.11,37–38.10.Ibid.,p.40.11.No one really knows how largeOBS liabilities are. Sometimes people cite some truly extraordinary

figures—nolessthantheworld’seconomicproductandoftenvastlymore—buttheseareoftenbasedonface/notionalvalues,ratherthanprobableexposureorcashpaid,andmanyoftheseliabilitiesnet(BankAmaylose$1milliononanOBSitem,whileBankBgains$1millionandthismaysaynothingaboutthesystemasawhole).Nevertheless,it’sclearthatthetotaloutstandingisquitelarge;e.g.,USFederalReserve,“FinancialAccountsoftheUnitedStates,”tableL.111(Q22016)(notingabout$40trillionin“other” derivatives, $14 trillion in interest derivatives, and assorted trillions, for just “DepositoryInstitutions: Off-Balance Sheet Items”). The net, real exposure is probably an order of magnitudesmaller—whichisstillalot.

12. Rogin, Joshn. “Fiorina’s HP Earned Millions from Sales in Iran.” Bloomberg, 14 Sept. 2015,www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-14/under-fiorina-hp-earned-millions-from-sales-in-iran.

13.Riegle-NealInterstateBankingandBranchingEfficiencyAct,sec.101.14.FederalDepositInsuranceCorporation.“HistoryoftheEighties—LessonsfortheFuture,”vol.1,1997,

p.240.15. Brooker, Katrina. “Citi’s Creator, Alone with His Regrets.” New York Times, 2 Jan 2010,

www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/business/economy/03weill.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0.16.Labaton,Stephen.“Agency’s’04RuleLetBanksPileUpNewDebt.”NewYorkTimes,2Oct.2008,

www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html.17. For an interesting narrative history, see “Money, Power and Wall Street.” PBS. Frontline,

www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/money-power-wall-street/transcript/.18.Labaton.19. Nakamoto, Michiyo, and David Wighton. “Citigroup Chief Stays Bullish on Buy-outs.” Financial

Times,9July2007.20. US Securities and Exchange Commission. “SEC Halts Short Selling of Financial Stocks to Protect

InvestorsandMarkets,”19Sept.2008,www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-211.htm.21.Ibid.22. United States Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012. Internet preamble,

www.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed.html;Samuelson,Robert J. “Don’tKillAmerica’sDatabook.”WashingtonPost,21Aug.2011.

23.Labaton.24. Financial Accounting Standards Board. Statement No. 157, generally p. 15 (regarding “Level 3

inputs”);FinancialAccountingStandardsBoardof theFinancialAccountingFoundation.“FairValueMeasurement(Topic820):AmendmentstoAchieveCommonFairValueMeasurementandDisclosureRequirementsinU.S.GAAPandIFRSs.”FinancialAccountingSeries.AccountingStandardsUpdate,No. 2011-04, May 2011; US Securities and Exchange Commission. “SEC Office of the ChiefAccountant and FASB Staff Clarifications on Fair Value Accounting.” Release 2008-234, 30 Sept.2008;USSecuritiesandExchangeCommission.“InvestmentCompanyActof1940—Section2(a)(41)andRules2a-4and22c-1:InvestmentCompanyInstituteDesignatedNRSROs.”19Aug.2010.

25. The Federal Reserve Act (1977 amendments); Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. “The FederalReserve’sDualMandate.”www.chicagofed.org/publications/speeches/our-dual-mandate.

26. US Federal Reserve System, Board of Governors. “Credit and Liquidity Programs and the BalanceSheet.”www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm,Aug.2007–Dec.2015.

27.Sanders,Bernie.“Transcript:BernieSandersMeetswiththeDailyNewsEditorialBoard.”NewYorkDaily News, 4 Apr. 2016, www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306.

28. US Federal Reserve System, Board of Governors. Statistical table 8. “Table 8. Initial marginrequirementsUnderRegulationsT,U,andX”(aspercentageofmarketvalue).

29. New York Stock Exchange, “FRB Initial margin requirements—percent of total value required topurchase stock,” http://www.nyxdata.com/nysedata/asp/factbook/viewer_edition.asp?mode=table&key=52&category=8.

30.Fortune,Peter.“MarginRequirements,MarginLoans,andMarginRates:PracticeandPrinciples.”NewEngland Economic Review, Sept.–Oct. 2000, pp. 43–44,www.bostonfed.org/economic/neer/neer2000/neer500b.pdf.Fortunebeganhis article bypositioning itat somethingof a direct response toShiller’s lament aboutmargin requirements.Tobe fair,Fortunemadesometechnicaldistinctionsbetweeninitial,maintenance,andothermargins,butmissedthemainpoint,asthecrashshowed.

31.Lahart,Justin.“S&P500Earnings:FarWorseThanAdvertised.”WallStreetJournal,24Feb.2016.32. Case-Schiller Cyclically Adjusted P/E Ratio, available via yCharts (series: I:SP500CAP). This

cyclicallyadjustedratioisnotwithoutitscontroversies,butisthebestdatasetofferingperspectiveoverthe long, long term.The rawS&P500P/E ratiowas11.7 inQ41988,18.1 inQ41995,30.5 inQ41999,andwasaround23–25inthefirsthalfof2016.Thestory,inotherwords,isthesame.Thecasecouldbemadethatthingsaresomewhatbetterorsomewhatworse—somewhatbetterbecausemodelsdigestinterestrates,andinterestratesarelow,“justifying”highervaluations;somewhatworse,becauseofsurvivorshipbias,theriseofultra-highP/Eratiosinprivateequity(ifthere’sany“E”atall),etc.Myviewisthatthingsareprobablysomewhatworse.

33.Holland,A.Steven.“RealInterestRates:WhatAccountsforTheirRise?”FederalReserveBankofSt.Louis, Dec. 1984, pp. 1–3 (online pagination),research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/84/12/Rates_Dec1984.pdf.NotethatHollandwasmeasuringTreasury rates, not consumer rates, but the one drove the other; e.g., FRED MORTG vs. CPI(suggestingthatrealthirty-yearmortgageratesvergedtoward0percentattimes).

34. Ibid. The FRED database provides a number of consumer credit interest rates for everything frommortgagestocreditcards,whichcanbeusefullycomparedandshowthesamepattern.

Chapter12:TheBriefTriumphofLongRetirement1. Banerjee, Sudipto. “Change in Household Spending after Retirement: Results from a LongitudinalSample.” Employee Benefit Research Institute (hereinafter “EBRI”). No. 420, Nov. 2015,www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/EBRI_IB_420.Nov15.HH-Exp.pdf. I’ve adjusted to include changes inpaymentstomortgagespending—ifmortgagesareincluded,theaveragenumbersrisefurther,whilethemedianremainsunaffected,soIhavepresentedthelowestboundforthemedian,andthelowestboundfor the average to be conservative; see also Butrica, Barbara, et al., “Understanding ExpenditurePatterns in Retirement,” Urban Institute, 18 Jan. 2005,www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication_pdfs/411130-Understanding-Expenditure-Patterns-in-Retirement.pdf.Note that different studies use different numbers, cohorts, processes, etc.,but all come to the same general conclusion—retirement spending is ~80 percent of preretirementspending,atleastintheearlyyears.Spendinginlateryearsmaydeclineasfewertripsaretaken,thoughmedicalexpensesgrow.

2.FRED,PSAVERT;author’scalculations.Fortheestimateofsavingsnecessaryona“cashbasis,”I’veassumed all savings are invested in very low-risk securities with a 2 percent real yield, a constantincomeandconstantsavings rate, thatgainson retirementsavingsarecontinuousandnot taxeduntilretirement,andthatnoadditionalsourcesofincomeareavailable.Everyvariablecanbeeasilydebated,butwiththesignificantexceptionoftheassumedrateofreturn,thatmethodtendstobeundulygenerousto thesavings rate.Thepoint is that thesavings ratecanandshouldhavebeenmuchhigher,even ifreturnswerecloserto5–6%inrealterms.

3.LibraryofCongress,CongressionalResearchService.Topoleski,JohnJ.“U.S.HouseholdSavingsforRetirement in2010,”23July2013,fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43057.pdf;Morrissey,Monique.“TheStateofAmericanRetirement:How401(k)sHaveFailedMostAmericanWorkers,”Mar. 2016, table 3 etseq.,EconomicPolicyInstitute,www.epi.org/publication/retirement-in-america/.

4.FRED,PSAVERT.5.Ibid.6. OECD. “Household Savings: Total % of Household Disposable Income, 2000–2015,”data.oecd.org/hha/household-savings.htm#indicator-chart. It’s important to emphasize themethodologicaldifferencesbetweenhowtheUnitedStatescalculatessavingsandhowtherestof theOECDdoes(sincetherestoftheOECDhassubstantialpensionplans);andchangesinplanvaluesareimportantandincluded.TotheextentchangesintheUSplansareincluded,aswewillsee,theywouldmostlikelyfurtherreduceAmericanrates,quitesubstantially.

7.Helman,Ruth,etal.“The2015RetirementConfidenceSurvey.”EBRI.No.413,Apr.2015,pp.13,16–23,www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/EBRI_IB_413_Apr15_RCS-2015.pdf.

8. Roosevelt, FranklinD. “FDR’s Statements on Social Security.” Presidential Statements.Message toCongressReviewing theBroadObjectivesandAccomplishmentsof theAdministration,8June1934.SocialSecurityAdministration,www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html.

9.USDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment.“FHAReverseMortgages(HECMs)forSeniors.”portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/sfh/hecm/hecmabou.

10. Butrica, Barbara A. “The Disappearing Defined Benefit Pension and Its Potential Impact on theRetirement Incomes of Baby Boomers.” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 69, no. 3, 2009, p. 1,www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n3/v69n3p1.pdf.

11. Norris, Floyd. “Private Pension Plans, Even at Big Companies, May Be Underfunded.”New YorkTimes, 20 July 2012, nytimes.com/2012/07/21/business/pension-plans-increasingly-underfunded-at-largest-companies.html?_r=0(citing$355billionasof2012forjusttheS&P500companies).

12.Novy-Marx,Robert, and JoshuaRuah. “The IntergenerationalTransfer ofPublicPensionPromises.”NationalBureauofEconomicResearch.WorkingPaperNo.14343,Sept.2008;Novy-Marx,Robert,

andJoshuaD.Ruah,“TheRevenueDemandsofPublicEmployeePensionPromises.”NationalBureauofEconomicResearch.WorkingPaperNo.18489,Oct.2012,p.31.

13.Walsh,MaryWilliams.“ASourSurpriseforPensions:TwoSetsofBooks.”NewYorkTimes,17Sept.2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/business/dealbook/a-sour-surprise-for-public-pensions-two-sets-of-books.html?_r=0.

14.Martin,TimothyW.“TreasuryDepartmentRejectsTeamsters’CentralStatesProposal toCutRetireeBenefits.” Wall Street Journal, 6 May 2016, www.wsj.com/articles/treasury-department-rejects-teamsters-central-states-proposal-to-cut-retiree-benefits-1462558028.

15. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. “2015 Annual Report: Preserving and Protecting Pensions.”2015,pp.23–28,www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2015-annual-report.pdf.

16.Ibid.,pp.24,28,36.17.OfficeofInspectorGeneral.SemiannualReporttoCongress,Apr.2015,pp.6,9–10,availableatOffice

ofInspectorGeneral,PensionBenefitGuarantyCorporationAuditReport.Priorandsubsequentreportsfound essentially the same things; e.g., Office of Inspector General, Pension Benefit GuarantyCorporationAuditReport,Nov.2015.

18.Roosevelt,Franklin.“MessagetoCongressReviewingtheBroadObjectivesandAccomplishmentsoftheAdministration.”8June1934.

19. CDC. Life Tables, table A, 2011, www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_11.pdf; CDC. LifeTables,table6-A,1982,www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life82_2acc.pdf.

20.CenterforRetirementResearchatBostonCollege(summarizingandinterpretingCensusinformation).“Frequently Requested Data.” Mar. 2013. Retirement Period of Males, 1962–2050, crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/1012/01/figure-101.pdf, and Average Retirement Age for Men, 1962–2012,crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/1012/01/Avg_ret_age_men1.pdf.Theageofaverageretirementreacheda low in the 1990s and has since risen, but so has longevity,with the result that the total length ofnonworkingyearshasincreased.

21.Author’scalculations;seealsoHelman,Ruth,etal.“The2016RetirementConfidenceSurvey:WorkerConfidenceStable,RetireeConfidenceContinuestoincrease.”EBRI.No.422,Mar.2016,p.26(notingthat48percentthinktheyneedatleast$500,000anduptoover$1.5milliontoretire).

22.Helman,“The2016RetirementConfidenceSurvey,”p.5.Retireesbecomesomewhatmoreconfident,but people presently retired also have the greatest likelihood of collecting pension benefits andentitlements,whichareevaporatingforpresentworkers.

23.FRED.CPIMEDSLvs.CPIAUSCL(BLS).24.MedicareTrusteesReport2015,p.41andAppendixJ(StatementofActuarialOpinion),at258.25. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, National Association of State Retirement

Administrators.“IssueBrief:PublicPensionPlanInvestmentReturnAssumptions.”Feb.2016,p.3;seealsoPublicPlansData.“NationalData,”publicplansdata.org/quick-facts/national/.

26. Ibid.; see alsoMartin,Timothy. “PublicPensionsRollBackReturnTargets.”WallStreetJournal, 4Sept. 2015, www.wsj.com/articles/taxpayers-more-pension-burdens-headed-your-way-1441388090#:U_KmuhxfW4eYXA.

27. Social SecurityAdministration. “Social SecurityHistory, SupremeCourtCase:Fleming vs.Nestor.”SocialSecurityOnline,www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html.

28.363US603(1960).29. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Meyerson, Noah P. “Social Security: What

Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?” 28 Aug. 2014, p. 6,www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33514.pdf.Meyersonisalittlecursoryinhisdescription,butheseemstotaketheideaoflegalentitlementalittlemoreseriouslythan,say,theSupremeCourtdoes.

30.42USC1303.31.Mettler,Suzanne,andJuliannaKoch.“WhoSaysTheyHaveEverUsedaGovernmentSocialProgram?

TheRoleofPolicyVisibility.”CornellUniversity,DepartmentofGovernment. 28Feb. 2012, p. 36,government.arts.cornell.edu/assets/faculty/docs/mettler/PerceptionGovt-KochMettler-022812.pdf.

32.Ventura,Elbert.“TheTeaPartyParadox.”ColumbiaJournalismReview,Jan.–Feb.2012;seegenerallyWilliamson, Vanessa, et al. “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.”PerspectiveonPolitics,vol.9,no.1,Mar.2011,p.33.

33. Steuerle, C. Eugene, and Caleb Quakenbush. “Social Security andMedicare Lifetime Benefits andTaxes.”Urban Institute.Sept. 2015, table15.Measurements in2015dollars, both earning “average”wages, presented as present values. See their discussion for important assumptions about payouts,earningshistories,anddiscountrates(whichseemreasonable).

34.E.g.,TheBoardofTrustees,FederalOld-AgeandSurvivorsInsuranceandFederalDisabilityInsuranceTrustFund.The2015AnnualReportof theBoardofTrusteesof theFederalOld-AgeandSurvivorsInsuranceandFederalDisabilityInsuranceTrustFunds,2015(hereinafter“2015SSAAnnualReport”),pp.6,25,etseq.,https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/tr2015.pdf;MedicareTrusteesReport2015.

35.Clingman,Michael,etal.“InternalRealRatesofReturnunder theOASDIProgramforHypotheticalWorkers.”ActuarialNote,no.2015.5,Mar.2016,table1etseq.(notingthatinternalratesofreturnfalltoward2.5percentannuallyforaveragegroupsandunder1percentfortheyoungestandrichest,shouldcutsorbenefitsbeenactedpost-2033).

36.KaiserFoundation.“OverviewofMedicareSpending.”kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-financing-fact-sheet/;seealsoMedicareTrusteesReport2015,pp.23,34,38–40.

37. Levin, Josh. “The Welfare Queen.” Slate, 19 Dec. 2013,www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html.

38. Medicare. “Medicare’s Wheelchair & Scooter Benefit.” Revised Apr. 2014,www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/11046.pdf.

39.Koltikoff,LaurenceJ.,etal.GetWhat’sYours:TheSecretstoMaxingOutYourSocialSecurity.Simon&Schuster,17Feb.2015,p.5.

40.Ibid.41.Ibid.,p.113.42.Ibid.,backcover.43.2015SSAAnnualReport,tableIV.B3,2015,p.61.https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/tr2015.pdf.44.PublicLaw113-270,(2014;“NoSocialSecurityforNazisAct”).45.2015SSAAnnualReport,tableIV.B.3.NotethatprojectionsareforSSA’s“intermediate”scenarioand

includethemuchsmallerpopulationofdisabledpersonsasbeneficiaries,perSSAmethodology.46.USCongress,CongressionalBudgetOffice.“ADetailedDescriptionofCBO’sCostEstimatefor the

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.” July 2014, p. viii, www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/108th-congress-2003-2004/reports/07-21-medicare.pdf.MedicareTrusteesReport2015, table IV.B10.Therewouldhavebeenimmaterialreductionsduetotechnicalchangesofcertainprovisions,withthelowestnetcosttofederalspendingbeing$395billion.

47.Ramey,Corinne,“InsurersProbedonHepatitisCDrugCoverage.”WallStreetJournal,2Mar.2016,www.wsj.com/articles/insurers-probed-on-hepatitis-c-drug-coverage-1456965087.

48.NewYorkStateDepartmentofHealth.“StateHealthDepartmentUrgesHepatitisCTesting,”May15,2014, https://www.health.ny.gov/press/releases/2014/2014-05-14_may_hepatitis_awareness_month.htm;Ramey.

49.MedicareTrusteesReport2015,p.198.Seealsonote51.50.Certaingroupsofnon-seniors,likethepermanentlydisabled,mayqualifyforMedicarebenefits.Most

non-seniorsdonot.51.National Institute forHealthCareManagement. “TheConcentration ofHealthCareSpending.” July

2012.52. Osborn, Robin, et al. “International Survey of Older Adults Finds Shortcomings in Access,

CoordinationandPatient-CenteredCare.”HealthAffairs,vol.33,no.12,2014,pp.2247–2255;UnitedHealth Foundation. America’s Health Rankings, 2016, p. 21; “America’s Health Rankings: SeniorReport,” 2016,UnitedHealth Foundation. https://assets.americashealthrankings/org/app/uploads/final-report-seniors-edition-1.pdf.

53. Social Security Administration. “Social Security History, ch. 4: The Fourth Round: 1957 to 1965,”www.ssa.gov/history/corningchap4.html.

54.Medicare Trustees Report 2015, p. 198 (intermediate assumptions); US Census. “Person Income in2015.” Current Population Survey, 26 Aug. 2016; Kirby G. Posey. “Household Income: 2015.” USCensus,16Sept.2016;author’scalculations.Therearecertaindifferences inhowMedicareaccountsforcosts,buttheseareimmaterial.Thelargerquestioniswhether,asMedicareitselfsuspects,costswillbemuchhigher.

55.MedicareTrusteesReport2015,p.198.56. Ibid., pp. 69–71. Under “infinite horizon” scenarios, the number is higher, but these estimates are

uncertain.57.Ibid.,p.70.58.Ibid.,AppendixV.C.59.Ibid.,p.194.60.USDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,CentersforMedicareandMedicaidServices,Officeof

the Actuary. “ProjectedMedicare Expenditures Under Current Law, the Projected Baseline, and anIllustrativeAlternativeScenario.”28Aug.2014,pp.1,14–16,www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/Downloads/2014TRAlternativeScenario.pdf.

61.Munnell,AliciaH.,etal.“AreRetireesFallingShort?ReconcilingtheConflictingEvidence,”pp.5,22.CenterforRetirementResearchatBostonCollege,crr.bc.edu/working-papers/are-retirees-falling-short-reconciling-the-conflicting-evidence/.Thepaperattempttoreconcilemoreandlessoptimisticscenarios,buttrendstowardthelessoptimistic.

Chapter13:PreparingfortheFuture1.DSM-V,pp.659–660.2.Winthrop, John. “AModel ofChristianCharity” (1630).Collectionsof theMassachusettsHistoricalSociety.3rdseries,7:31–48,1838,history.hanover.edu/texts/winthmod.html.

3. US Department of the Interior, National Parks Service. “Theodore Roosevelt and Conservation.”www.nps.gov/thro/learn/historyculture/theodore-roosevelt-and-conservation.htm; US Department ofAgriculture. “Major Uses of Land in the United States.” 2002, p. 1,www.ers.usda.gov/media/250091/eib14_1_.pdf.

4. Public Law 88-206; amended by Public Laws 90-148, 91-604, 95-95, and 101-549; see also USEnvironmental Protection Agency. “Clean Air Act Overview.” www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-text.

5.Ibid.6.Chevron USA v. NRDC, 467 US 837 (1984);Auer v. Robbins, 519 US 452 (1997). Three justicesabstainedinChevronforvariousreasons,buttheremainderwereunanimous;Auerwasalsounanimous.JusticeScaliadeliveredtheAueropinion,andthensubsequentlyseemedtotrytowalkitback;hedied,butthewaragainstChevron/Auerdeferenceseemstobetakingonnewlife.

7. Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency (2015), slip opinion available atwww.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_10n2.pdf.Whether theSupremeCourt ever really tookits own rulings seriously, lower courts were certainly bound by them. For a general discussion, seeSaxman,SethP.“TheStateofChevron: 15YearsAfterMead.”Administrative LawReviewAccord,vol.68,24Mar.2016,andalsothewritingsofBillEskridge.

8.Turque,Bill.“InventingAlGore:ABiography.”HoughtonMifflin,2000,p.133.9.Ibid.,pp.105–106.10. Ibid.; Morrison, Micah. “Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner.” Wall Street Journal,

Commentary, 29 June 2000, www.wsj.com/articles/SB96224176442047890; Theobald, Bill.“Environmentalist Gore Allowed Zinc Mine.” USA Today, 18 Mar. 2007,usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-18-goremine_N.htm; Hennenberger, Melinda. “AlGore’sPetrodollarsOnceAgainMakeHimaChipofftheOldBlock.”WashingtonPost,8Jan.2013,www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/01/08/al-gores-petrodollars-once-again-make-him-a-chip-off-the-old-block/; Douglas, Frantz. “The 2000 Campaign: The Vice President; GoreFamily’sTiestoOilCompanyMagnateReapBigRewards,andaFewProblems.”NewYorkTimes,19Mar. 2000; Center for Public Integrity. “How the Gores, Father and Son, Helped Their PatronOccidentalPetroleum,”11Jan.2000,www.publicintegrity.org/2000/01/11/3315/how-gores-father-and-son-helped-their-patron-occidental-petroleum.

11. Nussbaum, Bruce. “Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint Is Big.” Bloomberg, 27 Feb. 2007,www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2007-02-26/al-gores-carbon-footprint-is-big-dot.

12. “Worldwide Effort Is Proposed to Study Climate and Its Impact.” Special Contribution.New YorkTimes, 13 Feb. 1979, C3; see alsoWorldMeteorological Organization. “World Climate Programme(WCP).” www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcp.html; Bierly, EugeneW. “TheWorld Climate Program:Collaboration andCommunicationon aGlobalScale.”Annalsof theAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience,vol.495,Jan.1988,pp.113–114.

13. Infra note 14–15; and Betts, Richard A., et al. “When Could Global Warming Reach 4°C?”PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSociety,vol.369,no.1934,2011,pp.67–84.

14.IPCC.ClimateChange2013:ThePhysicalScienceBasis.ContributionofWorkingGroupItotheFifthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,2013,www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf

(hereinafter “IPCC”), chapter1generally, figure1.9, chapter13 (separate contribution), andauthor’scalculations. For more recent and dire predictions, see DeConto, Robert M., and David Pollard.“ContributionofAntarcticatoPastandFutureSea-LevelRise.”Nature.vol.531,31Mar.2016,p.591;Hansen,James,etal.“IceMelt,SeaLevelRiseandSuperstorms:EvidenceFromPaleoclimateData,Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming Could Be Dangerous.”AtmosphericChemistryandPhysics,vol.16,no.6,22Mar.2016.

15. E.g., Fox,Douglas. “ScientistsAreWatching InHorror as IceCollapses.”NationalGeographic, 12Apr.2016.

16. Pew Research Center. “Americans, Politics, and Science Issues.” p. 38, 42,www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/2015-07-01_science-and-politics_FINAL.pdf. (A popup appearssaying this file is anembargoeddraft, but it’sposted in severalplacesonPew,markedas final, andcitedinPew’spressreleases;itappearsfinal).Theeffectsofageappearsomewhatmoreimportanteventhantheeffectsofeducation,butmoreresearchisrequiredtodetanglethevariables.

17. Doran, Peter T., Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. “Examining the Scientific Consensus on ClimateChange.”Eos,TransactionsAmericanGeophysicalUnion.AGUPublications,vol.90,no.3,pp.22–33;Cook, John, et al. “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic GlobalWarming in the ScientificLiterature.” IOPscience, Environmental Research Letters. 15 May 2013 (suggesting >97 percentconsensusamongthoseexpressinganopinion).

18.Supranote16,p.52etseq.19.Ibid.,p.37.20.Stokes,Bruce,etal.“GlobalConcernAboutClimateChange,BroadSupportforLimitingEmissions.”

Pew Research Center, 5 Nov. 2015, p. 20. Younger people are substantially more likely to believeclimatechangewillaffectthempersonally,butarestillunrealistic.

21.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.“USGreenhouseGasEmissionsbyGasInventoryReport:1990–2014.” www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html; and US EnvironmentalProtection Agency. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014.” 15 Apr.2016,atES-1.Onapercapitabasis,therehasbeensomeimprovement,butpercapitaisnotthemostrelevantmetricforthisissue.

22. Ibid., sec. 8 (notingUS calculation exclusion of “Other”); IPCC, sec. 5.4;OECD. “CarbonDioxideEmissions Embodied in International Trade.” Sept. 2015,www.oecd.org/industry/ind/carbondioxideemissionsembodiedininternationaltrade.htm and associatedspreadsheetsandauthor’scalculations.TheObamaadministration’splanforcutsisareductionby2025of26to28percentbelow2005levels,orabout2.5percentannuallyasacrudeaverage.“U.S.CoverNote,INDCandAccompanyingInformation.”Itremainstobeseenhowthelate2016acceptancebyObamaoftheParisAccordschangesthistarget.UnitedStatesofAmerica,“Submission,”31Mar.2015,www4.unfccc.int/Submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/United%20States%20of%20America/1/U.S.%20Cover%20Note%20INDC%20and%20Accompanying%20Information.pdf.

23. US Energy Information Administration. “Total Petroleum and Other Liquids Production, 2014,”www.eia.gov/beta/international/rankings/#?prodact=53-1&cy=2014andauthor’scalculations.SeealsoEIAatwww.eia.gov/beta/international.

24.Ibid.25.Cook,Lynn,andErinAilworth.“FirstTankerofU.S.CrudeOil forExportSailsFromTexas.”Wall

StreetJournal,31Dec.2015.26.USDept.ofTransportation.“SummaryofFuelEconomyPerformance.”2013,pp.3–4.27.Ibid.28. Author’s calculations. The delta in range estimates is a product of differences between linear vs.

compoundgrowth.29.IPCC.AnnexII,tableA.II,pp.18–19etseq.30.USDepartmentofDefense.“NationalSecurityImplicationsofClimate-RelatedRisksandaChanging

Climate,”23July2015,pp.1,14.31.Vidal,John,andDavidAdam.“ChinaOvertakesUSasWorld’sBiggestCO2Emitter.”Guardian,19

June2007.32.CushmanJr.,JohnH.“U.S.SignsaPacttoReduceGasesTiedtoWarming.”NewYorkTimes,13Nov.

1998;105thCongress,1stSession,S.Res.98andRecordVoteNo.205(1997).33.Ibid.(Congressionalvote).34.HousePermanentSelectCommitteeonIntelligence,HouseSelectCommitteeonEnergyIndependence

and Global Warming. “National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications ofGlobal Climate Change to 2030. Statement for the Record of Dr. Thomas Fingar,” 25 June 2008,fas.org/irp/congress/2008_hr/062508fingar.pdf.

35. 102ndCongress, SenateConsideration ofTreatyDocument 102-38, 1992,www.congress.gov/treaty-document/102nd-congress/38(akathe“RioTreaty”).

36.USEnergyInformationAdministration.“NuclearReactorOperationalStatusTables,”2011.37.InternationalAtomicEnergyAgency.PowerReactorInformationSystem,France,2015.38. Sullivan, Peter. “Panel Members Clash over Fetal Tissue Subpoenas.” Hill, 2 Mar. 2016,

thehill.com/policy/healthcare/271474-panel-members-clash-over-fetal-tissue-subpoenas.39. Phillips, Erica. “Massive Robots Keep Docks Shipshape.” Wall Street Journal, 27 Mar. 2016,

www.wsj.com/articles/massive-robots-keep-docks-shipshape-1459104327.

Chapter14:Detention,After-SchoolandOtherwise1.Attributed.Certainly,it’sconsistentwithHugo’sgeneralsentiments.2.BureauofJusticeStatistics.“AnnualProbationSurvey,AnnualParoleSurvey,AnnualSurveyofJails,CensusofJailInmates,andNationalPrisonerStatisticsProgram,1980–2014,”appendix1anddatafile;US Census. “Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions,States,andPuertoRico:April1,2010toJuly1,2014.”NST-EST2014-01.

3.Wirtz,Willard,etal.“OnFurtherExamination:ReportoftheAdvisoryPanelontheScholasticAptitudeTest Score Decline,” College Entrance Examination Board, 1977, table 2,research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/misc1977-1-report-sat-score-decline.pdf.SeealsoUSDepartmentofEducation,NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,DigestofEducationStatistics,2014(NCES2016-006),chapter2andprioreditions(hereinafter“NCESDigest”withrelevantdataspecified).

4.Wirtz,pp.45–46.5.Ibid.,sec.“PervasiveChange.”6.Ibid.,sec.“ThroughOtherLookingGlasses.”7.Ibid.8.Ibid.,sec.“AsItWasintheBeginning.”9.Ibid.,sec.8andPartIV.10.Wirtz,table2;“ScholasticAptitudeTestscoreaveragesforcollege-boundhighschoolseniors,bysex:

1966–67 to 1993–94.” National Center for Education Statistics, 1995,nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d95/dtab124.asp. The College Board has subsequently recentered andrescoredtheSAT,butduringtheperiodcoveredthescaleremainedthesame.

11.Reagan,Ronald.“StateoftheUnion.”25Jan.1984;NationalCommissiononExcellenceinEducation.DavidPierpontGardner.“ANationatRisk”and“LetterofTransmittal.”Apr.1983.

12. Gardner, “A Nation at Risk” and “Letter of Transmittal”; National Commission on Excellence inEducation.Apr.1983,sec.“FindingsRegardingExpectations.”

13.Ibid.14.Ibid.;Wirtz,p.29.15.Seelye,KatharineQ.“RelentlessMoralCrusaderIsRelentlessGambler,Too.”NewYorkTimes,3May

2003,www.nytimes.com/2003/05/03/national/03GAMB.html.Bennett admitted to gambling, but saidhe alsowon; nevertheless, given howcasinosmakemoney, even if he’d justwagered $8million healmostcertainlylostalot.

16.Ravitch,Diane.“TheDeathandLifeof theGreatAmericanSchoolSystem:HowTestingandChoiceAreUnderminingEducation.”BasicBooks,2010,pp.132–144(citingmultiplestudiesofallideologiesfrompublicandprivateinstitutions).

17.Ibid.,pp.266–267(summarizing—correctly—theresultsofMatthewG.Springer,etal.“TeacherPayfor Performance.” National Center on Performance Incentives. Led by Vanderbilt Peabody College,2010,pp.43–49).

18. US Department of Education. National Assessment of Education Progress. Table 221.30 (assessing1984 to 2012; homework for the oldest students remained highly stable; some younger students arereceivingsomewhatless).

19.Bromberg,Marni, andChristinaTheokas. “MeanderingTowardGraduation:TranscriptOutcomesofHighSchoolGraduates.”EducationTrust,Apr.2016,p.1.

20.Ibid.,pp.4,7.21. UC Berkeley, Office of Undergraduate Admissions. “Student Profile” for 2015 freshmen,

admissions.berkeley.edu/studentprofile; U.S. News and World Report. “National Universities

Rankings.” 2016 College Rankings, colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/page+2.

22.AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers.InfrastructureReportCard,2013,pp.7–8,59,67.23.Ibid.,p.7.24.OECD. “Programme for International StudentAssessment (PISA)Results fromPISA2012,” p. 1 et

seq.,www.oecd.org/unitedstates/PISA-2012-results-US.pdf.25.Duncan,Arne. “TheVisonofEducationReform in theUnitedStates.”Speech toUNESCO,4Nov.

2010,unesco.usmission.gov/duncan-remarks.html.26. US Department of Education, Office of Inspector General. “The Office of Innovation and

Improvement’s Oversight and Monitoring of the Charter Schools Program’s Planning andImplementationGrants.”p.9,www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2012/a02l0002.pdf.

27.NCESDigest.Table208,Pupil/TeacherRatio,1955–2024.28.Ibid.29. National Assessment of Educational Progress. “Trends in Academic Progress: Reading 1971–2012,

Mathematics1973–2012.”TheNation’sReportCard,pp.7and29.30.Ibid.,p.16.31.Ravitch,p.31.32. Desilver, Drew. “U.S. Students Improving—Slowly—in Math and Science, but Still Lagging

Internationally.” PewResearch Center, 2 Feb. 2015, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/u-s-students-improving-slowly-in-math-and-science-but-still-lagging-internationally; National Center forEducation Statistics. “Public High School Graduation Rates,”nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_coi.asp.

33.E.g.,PublicLaw107-110generallyandat§§1117.a.5.i,1119.a.3,1501.a.2.A(2002).34.HirschfeldDavis,Julie.“PresidentObamaSigns intoLawaRewriteofNoChildLeftBehind.”New

York Times, 10 Dec. 2015, nytimes.com/2015/12/11/us/politics/president-obama-signs-into-law-a-rewrite-of-no-child-left-behind.html?_r=0;PL114-95.

35.Almasy,Steve. “AtlantaSchoolsCheatingScandal: 11 of 12DefendantsConvicted.”CNN, 14Apr.2015;Chandler,MichaelAlison.“SixD.C.SchoolsHad‘Critical’TestingViolations,11OthersHadIrregularities.”WashingtonPost,21Sept.2015;Bichao,Sergio.“HowTheTestingCrazeScandalizedWoodbridgeSchoolsandCheatedKidsOutOfLearning.”MyCentralJersey.com;Martinez,Aaron,andLindseyAnderson.“5EducatorsArrestedinEPISDScheme.”ElPasoTimes,27Apr.2016.

36.WhiteHouse.“RemarksofPresidentBarackObama—AddresstoJointSessionofCongress,”24Feb.2009,www.whitehouse.gov/video/EVR022409/#transcript.

37.Ibid.38.USDepartment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “MedianWeekly Earnings in 2014Dollars of

People25YearsandOlder,byEducationalAttainmentandGender,1979–2014”(notingforthosewith“somecollegeorassociatedegree,”wagesfellfromapeakof$1,000medianweeklyto$872by2014,andforwomenfromahighof$723in2004to$661by2014inadjusteddollars).

39.Author’s calculationsbasedondata fromNCESDigest, on-line edition,Table303.70, variousyears(totalundergradfallenrollmentindegree-grantingpostsecondaryinstitutions).

40.Ibid.41.US Senate, Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. “EmergingRisk?”AnOverview of

Growth,Spending,StudentDebtandUnansweredQuestionsinFor-ProfitHigherEducation,”24June2010,p.1,www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/For-Profit%20Emerging%20Risk%20Report1.pdf.

42. Ibid., p. 3 (citingDept. of EducationAnalysis); see also for a comprehensive list of reports on thesubject, all reaching similar conclusions, National Conference of State Legislatures. “For-ProfitColleges and Universities.” July 2013, www.ncsl.org/research/education/for-profit-colleges-and-universities.aspx.

43. Dayen, David. “This is America’s Worst College: Screwed-Over Corinthian College Students GetScrewed Again by So-Called Debt Relief.” Salon, 9 June 2015,www.salon.com/2015/06/09/this_is_americas_worst_college_screwed_over_corinthian_college_students_get_screwed_again_by_so_called_debt_relief/.

44.Seesupranotes43–44(notingthat18,256wereenrolledinfor-profitcollegesin1970,and106,397in1980,withthevastincreasecomingin1990–2010).

45. University of California. “UC Merced Freshman Admission Profile,”admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses/merced/freshman-profile/index.html; University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, Office of Undergraduate Admissions. “Student Profile,”admissions.berkeley.edu/studentprofile; UCLA, Office of Analysis and Information Management,www.aim.ucla.edu/admissions.aspx.

46. National Assessment of Educational Progress, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center forEducationStatistics. “First-YearUndergraduateRemedialCoursetaking:1999–2000,2003–04,2007–08,”Jan.2013,pp.1–2,nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013013.pdf.Studentsrequiringremedialeducationaretakenas“unprepared”forourpurposes.

47. National Center for Education Statistics. “Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty,”nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/Indicator_CSC/COE_csc_2013_04.pdf; American Association ofUniversity Professors. “Background Facts on Contingent Faculty,”www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-facts; see alsowww.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/2013%20Salary%20Survey%20Tables%20and%20Figures/Figure%201.pdf(forhistoricaldatathrough2011).

48.French,Laurie.“TheForeverProfessors:AcademicsWhoDon’tRetireAreGreedy,SelfishandBadforStudents.” Chronicle of Higher Education, 14 Nov. 2014, chronicle.com/article/Retire-Already-/149965/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en;WilliamsJune,Audrey.“AgingProfessorsCreateaFacultyBottleneck,”ChronicleofHigherEducation,18Mar.2012,chronicle.com/article/Professors-Are-Graying-and/131226/ (noting a doubling of faculty aged sixty-five or older between 2000 and2011).

49. US Federal Reserve System, Board of Governors. “Consumer Credit—G.19,”www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g19/Current/.

50. FRED, SLOAS; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. “Consumer Credit—G.19.”StatisticalReleasesandHistoricalData,August2016,www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g19/current/.

51. Roeder, Oliver, et al. “What Caused the CrimeDecline?” Brennan Center for Justice at NewYorkUniversity of Law, 2015, p. 3,www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/What_Caused_The_Crime_Decline.pdf. TheBrennanCenterrefersto“consumerconfidence,”whichishighlycorrelatedwitheconomicgrowth,oratleastitsperception.

52.Ibid.,p.1.53.Ibid.,table3.54.BureauofJusticeStatistics.“EstimatednumberofpersonsundercorrectionalsupervisionintheUnited

States, 1980–2014.” Total Correctional Population, 2016, www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfdetail&iid=487;USCensus.“AnnualEstimatesofthePopulationfortheUnitedStates,Regions,States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 (NST-EST2007-01).” National Table, 2007,www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2007/;author’scalculations.

55.Vargas,Ricardo.“Theanti-drugpolicy,aerialsprayingof illicitcropsandtheirsocial,environmentalandpoliticalimpactsinColombia.”JournalofDrugIssues,vol.32,no.1(2002):11–60.TheClintonprogramwasknownas“PlanColombia”andwellreportedatthetime.

56. Langton, Lynn, andDonald Farole, Jr. “State PublicDefender Programs, 2007”;USDepartment ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Special Report. Sept. 2010,www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/spdp07.pdf; US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

“PublicDefenderOfficesNationwideReceivedNearly5.6MillionIndigentDefenseCasesin2007,”16Sept. 2010, ojp.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2010/BJS10122.htm.Contractors and pro bono attorneysprovide additional services, but they cannot be relied on as the core of public defense. For a goodoverview, see Justice Policy Institute. “System Overload: The Costs of Under-Resourcing PublicDefense.” July 2011,www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/system_overload_final.pdf.

57.Constitutionof theUnitedStates.SixthandFourteenthAmendments;Gideonv.Wainwright,372US335(1963).

58.Roeder,p.56etseq.59.Infranote62andtheprisonandassociatednoteforthischapter;InstituteforCriminalPolicyResearch.

“WorldPrisonBrief”;CIAWorldFactbook.60. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. “Correctional

PopulationsintheUnitedStates,2014,”table1,www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus14.pdf(rev.Jan.21,2016); US Census, Population Division, Dec. 2015,https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/productview.xhtml.

61.Ibid.,p.5(DoJ).62.USDepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,BureauofJusticeStatistics.“Prisonersin2014,”

Sept. 2015, table 8; see also US Government Accountability Office. “Growing Inmate CrowdingNegativelyAffectsInmates,Staff,andInfrastructure,”Sept.2012(forhistoricaldata).

63.Henrichson,ChristianandRuthDelaney.“ThePriceofPrisons:WhatIncarcerationCostsTaxpayers.”Vera Institute for Justice. Updated 20 July 2012, pp. 7–8,www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-of-prisons-updated-version-021914.pdf.

64.CaliforniaStateLegislature,LegislativeAnalyst’sOffice.“HowMuchDoesItCost toIncarcerateanInmate?”www.lao.ca.gov/PolicyAreas/CJ/6_cj_inmatecost(citingfiguresfor2008–2009).

65.FederalRegister. “AnnualDeterminationofAverageCost of Incarceration” (in2014), 9Sept. 2015,www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/03/09/2015-05437/annual-determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration.

66.FRED,G160121A027NBEA.FRED’soriginalsourceisBEA,NIPAtable3.15.67.UniversityofCalifornia,“BudgetforCurrentOperations2015–16,”appendix1(Nov.2014);Stateof

California,“CaliforniaStateBudget2015–16,”pp.22,33(2015).68.Ollove,Michael.“Ex-FelonsAreAbouttoGetHealthCoverage.”ThePewCharitableTrusts,5Apr.

2013, www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2013/04/05/exfelons-are-about-to-get-health-coverage.

69.USDepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,BureauofJusticeStatistics.“Prisonersin2014,”p. 15; see alsoNationalAssociation for theAdvancement ofColoredPeople. “Criminal JusticeFactSheet,”www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet.

Chapter15:TheWagesofSin1.USCongress,CongressionalBudgetOffice.“TrendsinFamilyWealth,1989–2013,”18Aug.2016,p.2.

2.Hughes,Robert.“BridesheadRedecorated.”Time,11Nov.1985.3. Appelbaum, Binyamin. “Outspoken Fed Official Frets About Following Japan’s Path.” New YorkTimes, 4 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/upshot/outspoken-fed-official-frets-about-following-japans-path.html?mabReward=A3&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&_r=0.

4.USDepartmentofCommerce,BureauofEconomicAnalysis.NationalIncomeandProductAccountsGross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2016. Current releases available at:http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/GDP/GDPnewsrelease.htm(accessedhereOctober10,2016).

5.FRED,A939RX0Q048SBEA(BEA);author’scalculations.6. Iritani, Evelyn. “Great Idea but Don’t Quote Him.” Los Angeles Times, 9 Sept. 2004,articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/09/business/fi-deng9/2;BaoTong.“HowDengXiaopingHelpedCreateaCorruptChina.”NewYorkTimes,3June2015,www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/opinion/bao-tong-how-deng-xiaoping-helped-create-a-corrupt-china.html?_r=0.

7.Iritani.8. Congressional Budget Office. “Trends in Family Wealth, 1989 to 2013.” 2016,www.cbo.gov/publication/51846,underlyingtables;author’scalculations.

9.“IntergenerationalJusticeinAgingSocieties:ACross-NationalComparisonof29OECDCountries.”Bertelsmann Stiftung. Sustainable Governance Indicators. p. 6 et seq., news.sgi-network.org/uploads/tx_amsgistudies/Intergenerational_Justice_OECD.pdf.

10.USCensus.CurrentPopulationSurvey,2014.HistoricalPovertytable3andp.12.11.Ibid.12.CongressionalBudgetOffice.“TrendsinFamilyWealth,1989to2013.”13. BLS, table A-15, U-3 measure, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm; Bureau of Labor

Statistics.“HowtheGovernmentMeasuresUnemployment,”www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm.14. “About.” Bernie Sanders’s Senate website, www.sanders.senate.gov/about; Ronayne, Kathleen.

“Sanders Declares as Democrat in NH Primary.” Burlington Free Press, 5 Nov. 2015,www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2015/11/05/sanders-declares-democrat-nh-primary/75242938/.SandersmayultimatelychangehisregistrationtoDemocratonapermanentbasis,buthishomepageasofthefirsthalfof2016continuedtomentionhisstatusasanindependent.

15.BLS,tableA-15,U-6definition,www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm.16.FRED,UNRATE,UEMPMEAN,U6RATE(BEA);author’scalculations.17.Katz,LawrenceF.,andAlanB.Krueger.“TheRiseandNatureofAlternativeWorkArrangementsin

theUnitedStates,1995–2015.”WorkingPaper.29Mar.2016,p.7,revisedSeptember13,2016.18.WithapologiestoRobertHughesonthis.19. Bauerlein, David. “Automakers’ Drive into SoutheastMisses Florida: Car Companies, Attracted by

Incentives,Invest$6BilliontoBuildPlantsinOtherSoutheastStates.”Jacksonville.com,8Nov.2011,jacksonville.com/news/florida/2011-11-08/story/automakers-drive-southeast-misses-florida#.

20. Costa, Daniel. “The Immigration Innovation (I2) Act of 2013.” Economic Policy Institute. 27 Feb.2013,www.epi.org/publication/immigration-innovation-i2-act-2013/;USCitizenship and ImmigrationServices.“H-1BFiscalYear(FY)2017CapSeason.”www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-and-fashion-models/h-1b-fiscal-year-fy-2017-cap-season#count.

21. “The Lesson of Zoe Baird.” New York Times, Opinion, 23 Jan. 1993,www.nytimes.com/1993/01/23/opinion/the-lesson-of-zoe-baird.html; “Addressing Nannygate.” NewYorkTimes,Opinion,30Mar.1994,www.nytimes.com/1994/03/30/opinion/addressing-nannygate.html;

Johnston,David. “Clinton’sChoice for JusticeDept.Hired IllegalAliens forHousehold.”NewYorkTimes, 14 Jan. 1993, www.nytimes.com/1993/01/14/us/clinton-s-choice-for-justice-dept-hired-illegal-aliens-for-household.html;Wingert, Pat. “Nannygate II: AWomen’s Backlash?”Newsweek, 14Feb.1993,www.newsweek.com/nannygate-ii-womens-backlash-195214.

22. The CEA provides a good overview of market concentration and its effects. Council of EconomicAdvisors.CEA.“BenefitsofCompetitionandIndicatorsofMarketPower.”Apr.2016.

23. Trainer,David. “HowStockBuybacksDestroy ShareholderValue.”Forbes, 24 Feb. 2016; see alsoLazonick,William.“ProfitsWithoutProsperity.”HarvardBusinessReview,Sept.2014.

24.Rosenbaum,Aliza, andRobCox. “BigMoney: IsBigBeerBegging for anAnti-Trust Probe?”TheWashington Post, 6 Sept. 2009, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090404236.html.Leeb,Stephen.“Wal-MartFattensUponPoorAmerica With 25% of U.S. Grocery Sales.” Forbes.www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/05/20/wal-mart-cleans-up-on-poor-america-with-25-of-u-s-grocery-sales/#31fa4f262bea(alternativemetricshave90percentofAmericanslivingwithin10milesofaWal-Mart;theeffectisthesame).

25. Sanders, Bernie, and Daily News Editorial Board. “Transcript: Bernie Sanders meets with NewsEditorial Board.” New York Daily News, Opinion, 4 Apr. 2016,www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306.

26. Fuglie, Keith, et al. “Rising Concentration in Agricultural Input Industries Influences New FarmTechnologies.” US Department of Agriculture, 3 Dec. 2012, www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012-december/rising-concentration-in-agricultural-input-industries-influences-new-technologies.aspx#.Vxf2yzArKM8.

Chapter16:TheMythofBoomerGoodness1.Mamet, David.The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture. Penguin, e-booksedition,2001,pp.281–282.

2. Bradner, Eric. “Bill Clinton Spars with Black Lives Matter Protesters.” CNN, 8 Apr. 2016,www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/politics/bill-clinton-black-lives-matter-protesters/index.html.

3.Ibid.4.Ibid.5.570U.S.__2013,DocketNo.12–96.6.Serwer,Adam.“ChiefJusticeRoberts’LongWarAgainst theVotingRightsAct.”MotherJones, 27Feb.2013,www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/john-roberts-long-war-against-voting-rights-act;seealso Rutenberg, Jim. “A Dream Undone.” New York Times Magazine, 29 July 2015,www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/magazine/voting-rights-act-dream-undone.html.

7.Howard,CoryH.“AReturntoDredScott?HowRecentSupremeCourtJurisprudenceReflectsDredScott’sLegalReasoningandFailstoProtecttheMostVulnerableinToday’sSociety.”FaulknerLawReview,vol.6,no.2,2014–2015,partV.It’snotthatShelbywasarecapitulationofDredScottsomuchas the triumph of state’s rights over individual civil rights in a similar context and with similarreasoning,withwhatsomemightseeasnotdissimilarimplications.

8. “The Formula behind the Voting Rights Act.” New York Times, 22 Jun. 2013,www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/23/us/voting-rights-act-map.html; Shelby v. Holder, 570 US(2013)pp.4–6.

9.USCensus.Censusof1980,vol.1,May1983,titlepage.10.CityofMobilev.Borden,446US55(1980).11. For a general history with pro-VRA leanings, see Leadership Conference. “History of the VRA.”

www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/vra/history.html.12.Santos,Fernanda.“AngryArizonaVotersDemand:WhySuchLongLinesatPollingStations?”New

YorkTimes, 24Mar. 2016,www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/us/angry-arizona-voters-demand-why-such-long-lines-at-polling-sites.html; see also for associated other questionable practices: Wigel, David.“Two Polling Places, Both Inside Police Stations.” See also Slate, 18 Mar. 2014,www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/03/18/_two_polling_places_both_inside_police_stations.html;National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “Defending Democracy: ConfrontingModernBarrierstoVotingRightsinAmerica,”www.naacp.org/pages/defending-democracy.

13.GayStolberg,Sheryl,andErikEckholm.“VirginiaGovernorRestoresVotingRightstoFelons.”NewYorkTimes,23Apr.2016,www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/governor-terry-mcauliffe-virginia-voting-rights-convicted-felons.html?_r=0.

14. Chung, Jean. “Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer.” Sentencing Project, 10 May 2016, fig. B,www.sentencingproject.org/publications/felony-disenfranchisement-a-primer/.

15.PublicLaw92–225(1972).16.FederalElectionCommission.“AbouttheFEC,”www.fec.gov/about.sthml.17.Buckleyv.Valeo,424US1(1976).18.FirstNationalBankofBostonv.Bellotti,435US735,pp.826–28(1978)(Rehnquist,J.,dissenting).19.Helderman,Rosalind S. “DonorGaveMcDonnell and Family aLake-HouseVacation.”Washington

Post, 18 Apr. 2013, www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/donor-gave-mcdonnell-and-family-a-lake-house-vacation/2013/04/18/7573321c-a76f-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html.

20.PlannedParenthoodv.Casey,505US833(1992),pp.874–77.WholeWoman’sHealthv.Hellerstedtkeptthe“undueburdens”testbutdrewamodestlinetowardamorepermissiveinterpretationthereof.579US(2016).

21.Deprez,EsméE.“AbortionClinicsCloseatRecordPaceAfterStatesTightenRules.”Bloomberg, 3Sept. 2013, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-03/abortion-clinics-close-at-record-pace-after-states-tighten-rules.Foraparticularlybizarreexampleofthereneweddebateoverabortion,thereis,ofcourse,theexampleofTrump.Krieg,Gregory.“DonaldTrump’s3PositionsonAbortionin3Hours.”CNN,31Mar.2016,www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/donald-trump-abortion-positions/index.html.

22. White House, Council of Economic Advisors. Issue Brief. “Gender Pay Gap: Recent Trends andExplanations,” April 2015, p. 1,www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/equal_pay_issue_brief_final.pdf.

23.Cooper,Rob. “InsideApple’sChinese ‘Sweatshop’FactoryWhereWorkersArePaid Just£1.12PerHour to Produce iPhones and iPads for the West.” Daily Mail, 25 Jan. 2013,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Inside-Apples-Chinese-sweatshop-factory-workers-paid-just-1-12-hour.html(basedonreportingoriginallyconductedbyNightline).

24. Hillenbrand. 2015 Annual Report, p. 3,s1.q4cdn.com/966021326/files/doc_financials/annual/hillenbrand-ar-2015.pdf.

25.Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015); Wang, Wendy. “The Rise of Intermarriage: Rates,Characteristics Vary by Race and Gender.” Pew Research Center, 16 Feb. 2012, pp. 33–40,www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/02/SDT-Intermarriage-II.pdf; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1(1967).

26.“ChangingAttitudesonGayMarriage.”PewResearchCenter,12May2016,sec.1;“SupportforSame-SexMarriageatRecordHigh,butKeySegmentsRemainOpposed.”PewResearchCenter,8June2015,p.3.

27. Crabtree, Steve. “Gallup Brain: Strom Thurmond and the 1948 Election.” Gallup, 17 Dec. 2002,www.gallup.com/poll/7444/gallup-brain-strom-thurmond-1948-election.aspx; National DefenseResearchInstitute.“SexualOrientationandU.S.MilitaryPersonnelPolicy:OptionsandAssessment.”RandCorporation,1993,p.191etseq.

28.PublicLaw103-160,subtitleG,§654(a).15(1993).29. Goldwater, BarryM. “Ban on Gays Is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable.” CarnegieMellon

University, www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html (selections fromGoldwater’s commentary in theNewYorkTimes and theWashingtonPost); “Goldwater BacksGayTroops.”NewYorkTimes,11June1993.

30.“MoreSupportforGunRights,GayMarriageThanin2004,2008.”PewResearchCenterforthePeople& the Press, 25 Apr. 2012, p. 5, www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/4-25-12%20Social%20Issues.pdf.

31.AmericanswithDisabilitiesActAmendmentsActof2008.42USC§§12102.1-2(A)(2009).32. For an exemplar ad for Rascal reimbursement, see e.g.,

www.localcommunities.org/servlet/lc_procserv/dbpage=page&mode=display&gid=0133100115109337908042386133.CaliforniaConstitution,art.1,sec.1.34.Olmsteadv.UnitedStates,277U.S.438(1928)(Brandeis,J.,dissenting).35.Ibid.36. Gellman, Barton, and Ashton Soltani. “NSA Infiltrates Links to Yahoo, Google Data Centers

Worldwide, Snowden Documents Says.” Washington Post, 30 Oct. 2013,washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html.

37.GugliottaGuy,andJulietEilperin.“ToughResponseAppealstoClintonCritics.”WashingtonPost,21Aug. 1998, A17, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm.MostsenatorsdidnotquestionClinton’s timing,butsomedid,andIdo—at least incontextwith thetardinessofhisotherinterventions.

38.Goldberg, Jeffrey. “TheObamaDoctrine: TheU.S. President Talks ThroughHisHardestDecisions

About America’s Role in the World.” Atlantic, Apr. 2016,www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/.

Chapter17:PriceTagsandPrescriptions1.Psalm51:5(KingJamesBible).2.Puentes,Robert.etal.“ANewAlignment:StrengtheningAmerica’sCommitmenttoPassengerRail.”Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. 1 Mar. 2013, pp. 7–11, www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/passenger-rail-puentes-tomer.pdf.TheNortheastCorridor receives almost nostate support, unlike less intensively used lines, and runs a net operating profit (discountingdepreciation).

3. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “Private Student Loans,” 29 Aug. 2012,files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_cfpb_Reports_Private-Student-Loans.pdf.

4. US Department of Education. Federal Student Aid, “Interest Rates for New Direct Loans,”studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/announcements/interest-rate.

5.Psalm90:10 (King JamesBible). “Fourscore,” by theway, is very close to the actualAmerican lifeexpectancy.

6. OECD. “How Does Sweden Compare?” Health Statistics 2014, www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-SWEDEN-2014.pdf.

7. Pew Research Center. “Most Say Government Policies Since Recession Have Done Little to HelpMiddleClass,Poor:‘Partial’RecoverySeeninJobs,HouseholdIncomes,”4Mar.2015,www.people-press.org/files/2015/03/03-04-15-Economy-release.pdf.

8.USDepartmentoftheTreasury,InternalRevenueService.“2014DataBook.”1Oct.2013to30Sept.2014,table9.b,www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/14databk.pdf.

9. Entin, Stephen J. “President Obama’s Capital Gains Tax Proposals: Bad for the Economy and theBudget.” Tax Foundation, 21 Jan 2015, taxfoundation.org/blog/president-obama-s-capital-gains-tax-proposals-bad-economy-and-budget. The Tax Foundation has its own axes to grind, but is almostcertainlycorrectonthispointbasedonIRSdata.

10.CongressionalBudgetOffice,“TheDistributionofHouseholdIncomeandFederalTaxes,2013.”June2016.SeethesupplementarydataassociatedwiththisreportandChapter9ofthisbook.TherewasameaningfulchangeinfederaltaxregimesfortherichestAmericansfrom2012to2013,andsomefilersrespondedbyaccelerating income into2012,whichmayunderstate the skew for2013.Nevertheless,2013isthelatesttaxdataavailableandthegeneraldistributionofincomeandtaxesovertherecentpastshowsthesamedynamic.

11.USDepartment of theTreasury, “FY 2015GiftContributions toReduceDebtHeld by the Public.”http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2015.htm.

12.USDepartmentof theTreasury, InternalRevenueService.“TaxGapEstimates forTaxYears2008–2010,” Apr. 2016,www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/tax%20gap%20estimates%20for%202008%20through%202010.pdf. TheIRSdoesnotconduct“taxgap”analysesonaregularbasis;thesewerethemostrecentfigures—currentfiguresareprobablyhigherduetoaslightlylargereconomyandinflation.

13.Myles,Udland. “USCompaniesDon’t PayWhat They’re SupposedTo in Taxes—And It’sGettingWorse.” Business Insider, 18 Oct. 2015, www.businessinsider.com/us-company-effective-tax-rate-below-statutory-rate-2015-10.

14. Pearson, Rich, and Kim Geiger. “Illinois Supreme Court Rules Landmark Pension LawUnconstitutional.” Chicago Tribune, www.chicagotribune.com/ct-illinois-pension-law-court-ruling-20150508-story.html.

15. Freeland, Will. “Nonpayers of Federal Taxes and Net Beneficiaries of Federal Spending.” TaxFoundation, taxfoundation.org/blog/nonpayers-federal-taxes-and-net-beneficiaries-federal-spending;author’sowncalculationsregardingrebatesandsocialconsumptionbasedonCBOanalysesfromthe

series“DistributionofMajorTaxExpenditures”and“DistributionofHousehold IncomeandFederalTax”seriesfromvariousyears.

16.Taylor,Paul,etal.“OnceAgain,theFutureAin’tWhatItUsedtoBe.”PewResearchCenter,2May2006, p. 2, www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/BetterOff.pdf. Half of adults think childrengenerally will do worse, though a declining majority think their children will do better—anotherinstanceofwishfulthinking.

Afterword1.OrtegayGasset,Juan.TheRevoltoftheMasses.W.W.Norton,NewYork:1993(3ded.)at93.Thephilosopherbelievedthatagenerationlastedaboutthirtyyears,thefirsthalfpracticingrevolutionandthesecondhalfpreservingitslegacy.TheBoomersarestillupendingthesystemfortyyearson,distinctfrom both their predecessors and their eventual successors, and in this sense are still prettyrevolutionary.Ibid.atfn.1.

2.Schmitt,Carl.TheConceptofthePolitical.UniversityofChicagoPress,15May2007(generally).3.Gabler,Neal. “TheSecret Shameof theMiddle-ClassAmericans:NearlyHalf ofAmericansWouldHaveTrouble Finding $400 to Pay for anEmergency. I’mOne ofThem.”Atlantic,May 2016.TheAtlanticarticleservesasthesourceformostofthematerialquotedaboutGabler,withsomeexceptionsincludinghiseducationandage(hewasborn1950),factsreportedinseveralprofilesincludingoneintheGreatLakesReview.E.g.,Root,RobertL.,“GLRInterview:NealGabler,”GreatLakesReview,vol.11,no.11(Spring1985),pp.32–38.

4.USDepartmentof theTreasury, InternalRevenueService. “SocialSecurityBenefitsEligible for theFederal Payment Levy Program,” www.irs.gov/individuals/social-security-benefits-eligible-for-the-federal-payment-levy-program.

*Fortheconstructivists,thathistoryprobablyestablishesmeasafree-marketcapitalist,albeitonewhowillargueforhighertaxesandmore(andmorecompetent)regulation.

*Forthisbook,ItreattheBoomersasgenerallywhiteandalwaysnative-born,forreasonsthatwillbecomeclearinChapter1,andalsobecausethelivesofcertainminorities,especiallyofblacks,weresignificantlydifferentfromthoseofwhites,whoformedthevastmajorityoftheBoom.Fromtimetotime,minoritiesdomakeanappearanceinthebook,becausehowtheBoomerstreatedtheirminoritycogenerationalistsoftenfellwellbelowstatedideals,buttodojusticetotheminorityexperiencerequiresanentirelyseparatebook.

*One can questionwhether BarackObama, a chronological Boomer, is really a cogenerationalist.Halfblack,raisedinadistantpartoftheUnitedStatesandthenIndonesia,Obamacomesfromaverydifferentbackground than mainline Boomers, and this may explain why his White House was comparativelymoderate and scandal free. Nevertheless, until his last feverish year of executive orders, Obama wasroutinely hemmed in by a distinctly Boomerish Congress, and he was not without his own Boomerishtendencies.Hispresidencycomparesfavorablywithwhatcamebeforeandwhatwillprobablyfollow,butitisnotmarkedbythesortsofaccomplishmentsseenunderDwightEisenhowerorLyndonJohnson.

*ThedatasupportthestartoftheBoomat1940,asbirthratesrecoveredfromtheDepression-eralowsandrampedupoverthefollowingyears.WhileaslightlylongerdefinitionoftheBoomerisofmarginalutilitytosomearguments,ithurtsitinothers,andhastheunfortunatesideeffectofdragginginatleastoneofmyparents(theotherwasalsobornin1944,butdidn’tcometoAmericauntilthe1960s—i.e.,notaBoomer).DatingtheBoomto1940isamatterofdataandinterpretation,notsimplyadesiretoexpandtheBoomforrhetoricalconvenience,andunlikeconventionaldefinitions,Iexcludenon-nativebornAmericansfrommycalculations. As it happens, including foreign-born and reverting to the conventional date of the Boomproducesnumbersgenerallysimilartothoseproducedbymyowndefinition.

*SocialSecuritywaspartlymodeledonaprogramestablishedduringthenineteenthcenturybyOttovonBismarck.Bismarckalsosettheretirementageat65,thoughGermanlifeexpectancyatbirthwasthenonlyaround45.In1930sAmerica,thosewhodidmakeitto65couldexpecttoliveuptothirteentofifteenyearslonger,butnoneofthesesystemsweredesignedformasslongevityofthekindwehavenow;lessthan54percentofmalessurvivedfrom21to65in1940(soabouthalfwouldpayinbutnevercollect),themedianageofmaledeathwasunder70,and therewereonly8.3millionAmericanswhowere65+whenSocialSecuritybeganpayingout.

*You’llhaveseendifferentrangesfordebt,from65to100+percentinvariousnewspapers.We’lltakeupthedetailsinChapter8.

*Thoughtswent throughmorethanfiftyeditionsinmanylanguages; itsoldfaster thanTwoTreatisesofGovernment,andLeibnizthoughtitmoreinfluentialthanAnEssayConcerningHumanUnderstanding.

*Inadditiontothebottle,theBoomerswerealsoexposedtorelativelyhighlevelsoflead,whichhasbeenassociatedwithseveralsociopathicindicators,likeaggressionandcriminality,aswellaslowerIQ.Whilelead levels starteddecliningby themid-1960s, they remainedatunacceptable levelswell into the1980s.Leadcannotbediscountedasapartialexplanationfor theBoomers’behaviors though itdidnotseemtoproducethesameeffectsin,say,GenX.

*It’srevealingthatoneofTVcriticism’shighestcomplimentsistocallashow“addictive,”whichisnotgenerallyacomplimentforotherproducts,withthepertinentexceptionofjunkfood.

*HistorianJamesLoewe,aprofessorattheUniversityofVermont,examinedadozentextbooksandfoundthatVietnamreceivedaboutthesame(brief)coverageastheWarof1812,andeventhesetreatmentswereuninformative. He also recounts a dispiriting survey of his students, one that posed the question “WhofoughtthewarinVietnam?,”towhichonequarterrespondedNorthandSouthKorea,whichdemonstratesasurprisinglevelofspecificignoranceaboutthewar,tosaynothingofthequestionsitraisesaboutLowe’sstudents—thesurveydidmentionVietnam.

* I don’t mean to downplay death and sacrifice, only to provide context.My own namesake, a soldiernamedBruceCannon,diedinthewar,andmyfatherfoughtinit,forwhatit’sworth.

*WestmorelandwasTime’s“ManoftheYear”for1965,followedbytheBoomersin1966.

*There is,ofcourse,acertain irony in studentsprotesting the injusticesofagovernmentwhileactivelyparticipatinginitsdiscriminatorysocialengineeringprogram.

*TheSelectiveServiceAdministrationcontractedwithEducationalTestingService (ETS) tohandle thetest; ETS is still around administering things like theGRE, and TOEFL, consulting on theNAEP, andprovidingotheranalytics.

* Clinton has offered several different spins to mollify critics. Since he was well understood to haveopposed thewar,hecouldhaveopted forCOstatus.Hedidnot.Sinceheexpressedadesire tostand insolidarity with his friends who had been shipped off to Vietnam, he could have simply turned up at arecruitmentofficeandbeendonewith it.Healsodidnot. Instead,heflippedvariousdefermentswitchesandthenofferedcontradictorystories.

* Some might argue that CO was less attractive because it exposed applicants to the caprices of agovernmentreviewboard,andthatobjectionhastruth.Butwhileboardsfrequentlyandarbitrarilyrefusedto see themeritsofanapplicant’scase, especially in thewar’searlyphases, theydidgranta substantialfraction of applications, and anyway the government could just as capriciously change the standards forothersortsofdeferments,asindeeditdid.TheSupremeCourthadalsoimposedsomeCOguidelinesonthedraftboardsinUSv.Seeger(1965),makingthingsalittlelessarbitrary,andgrantsofapplicationsbecamemoreroutine.

*TheBoomerscanbemostlyexcusedonthisfront,butonlyifit’sconcededthattheprotestmovementhadrelatively little effect on thewar—because ifBoomerprotestsdid help end thewar, subsequent protestscouldhaveinfluencedthepeaceprocess,especiallyastheBoomershadtherighttovotebythewar’send.Eitherway,theBoomersdidn’tacquitthemselveswell.

†Anotheroption:Onecouldhavebeenforthewarandagainstreparations;thismighthavebeenconsistent,thoughnotempathetic.

*Myownviewsrunlibertarianonthesematters,andIdon’ttakethisasachancetodosomepreachingonchastityandtolerance.However,myviewsareirrelevanttothesociopathicdiagnosis;whatmattersforthataresociety’sviewsatthetime.

*Thedrugcultureoftenmadebothsides ridiculous,with theestablishment issuinghystericalprophecies(“our insaneasylumsaregoing tobefilled if theyoungpeoplecontinue touse[LSD]”)andengaging inridiculousdisplays,aswhenRichardNixonappointedabloated,pill-poppingElvisPresleya“federalagentatlarge”fortheBureauofNarcoticsandDangerousDrugs.

*Obviously,certaindrugslikeFentanylweren’tavailabletotheBoomers,sonocomparisonsastothosearepossible.

*Theredoappeartohavebeenverypromiscuoussubsetsinthegeneralpopulation,whichskewsthedata,buttheirexistenceunderlinesthegeneralpoint.Italsodoesn’tchangethefactsoftheBoomers’generallyhigherlevelsofpromiscuity,revealedinthemediannumberofpartners,anumberthatpeakedamongthoseborninthe1950sand1960s—i.e.,theBoomers.

*Itisunclearwhetherthehappinessofadultswhodivorcedpersistedverylong.

*TheBoomers’parentsdidn’tbeginretiringenmasseuntilthe1980s,sotheirtransitionfromaperiodofsavingtospendingdoesn’texplainawaythedecline.Anyway,theBoomerswerealargergroupthantheirparents,whichshouldhavemorethancompensatedfortheoldergroup’stransitionfromworktoretirement.

*Whilethe1980smayseemrelativelylateforthisaspectofBoomerpsychologytomanifest,publishingbooksisanenterpriseofthemiddle-aged,astatustheBoomersbegantoachievecoincidentwiththeriseinthe first-person pronoun. Perhaps only authors have grownmore narcissistic, but it seems unlikely thatwritersoperatetotallydivorcedfromthecultureiffornootherreasonthanthattheyarebothproductsofitandmustselltheirbookstowillingaudiences.Thewaronpassive-voiceconstructionperhapsmadeitsowncontributions.

*Whether theYippieswereseriousaboutanyspecificgoal isunclear,because themovement itselfwasfundamentally unserious. Nevertheless, the Yippie’s stated platform was anarchy, with Yippie goalscapturedintheirflag,ablackfieldsymbolizinganarchy,withasocialistredstar,overlaidbyamarijuanaleaf.The authorities took themat theirword.AbbieHoffman, theYippies’ leader,waspre-Boomer, butmanyoftheYouthInternationalPartywere,obviously,youth—Boomersatthetime.

*Theempiricalstandardisnotabsoluteproof;it isreasonableevidenceforapropositionothersmaytestthemselves. Scientists furnish any number of predictions and observations with varying degrees ofconfidence,butthisdoesn’tadmitthattheircaseisuntrueorunproved;itissimpleintellectualhonestythatmost things cannot be known with 100 percent certainty, however close we may get. The Boomers,however,exploittheseconcessionstocandorinwayswewillshortlytakeup.

*DespitetheirRepublicanorigins,publicuniversitiesfindmostoftheiradvocatesintheLeftishpartofthespectrum. In the interests of balance, some red meat for the Rightish side: When governors object tospending public funds on certain disciplines, they do have the weight of history and law on their side,includingtheoriginalstatutethatdelegatesspecificcurricularimplementationtothe“States.”

*Duke,whichdidnotbeginasaland-grantschool,istheonlySoutherninstitutiontoregularlyappearinthemosteliteleaguetables.

*Theclosestthingtothegee-whizfuturismoftheFairsisEpcotCenter,openedin1982,whoseSpaceshipEarthfeaturedaride throughthehistoryof technologyandcommunications.WhenIvisited in2010, theridemalfunctionedwhen it reached the diorama about the birth of the personal computer in the 1970s,whichseemsapt.

*Inmostsurveys,scienceandtechnologyweregrouped.While therearesignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwofields,thepublictendstoconflatescienceandtechnology,andanothersurveyfoundpeoplewere,ifanything,moreskepticalabouttechnologythanscience.

*Americans’scientificunderstandingisroughlyonaparwithEuropeans’,withsomespecificdifferences—muchworseknowledgeofenvironmentalmatters(onlytheSlovaksandRussiansknew—barely—less)and evolution, for example, and American policy in these areas has been unusual as well. However,EuropeanstendtodefertoelitessomewhatmorethanAmericans,andthisneutralizessomeoftheeffectsofscientificilliteracy.

*Again,anti-empiricalthinking.Whichismorelikelyofahomepistol:(1)thatitcausesadeadlyaccidentor (2) that it terrifies a government with nuclear weapons and Hellfire missiles into respecting theConstitution?

*Not thatAthens,withall thoseslavesandwith the franchise limited tomenofproperty,waspreciselydemocraticanyway.

*NeoliberalismdidenjoysomevogueoutsideofAmerica,thoughnevertothesamedegree,andwasmostprominentinculturallysimilarplaceslikeBritainandCanada.Thatcher,bytheway,hadsomethingmorethoughtful and less sociopathic inmindwhen she said“there’sno such thingas society” (whichLabourenjoyedtakingoutofcontextsinceitseemssopatentlyantisocial),butit’srevealingthatitbecameamemeforAmerica’sneoliberalcousins.

*AdamSmithhasbeenco-optedbyhistoryasapureliberal,buthewasnot.Heendorsedsomerolesforgovernment,ofthesortenshrinedinthebodyoftheConstitution(butnotallofitsamendments).

* Odd, because a depreciating dollar in ordinary circumstances should have made US deposits lessattractive; Europe’s political misfortunes therefore becameAmerica’s luck, a situation that is repeating,withChinaandtheGulfsupplementingEuropeanmoney,whichisalsoheadingstatesideagain.

*Theinabilitytoruncontrolledexperimentsisoneofthemanyreasonsmacroeconomicsisnota“science,”though that does not mean macroeconomics has nothing to offer—even though populists are fond ofderidingprofessionaleconomistsasirrelevanttheorists.

*PelerinwasnamedaftertheresortthathostedtheSociety’sfirstmeeting,justasDavos,BrettonWoods,andBilderbergare.NotfornothingdoestheJamesBondfranchisedeposititsmegalomaniacalvillainsinlavishisolation.

† These divisions have the convenient effect of allowing any failures of the neoliberal enterprise to bepinnedonaheterodoxsubgroupbutneverthecoreideasthemselves.

*Thevotingage in1964was twenty-one, so theeighteen-year-oldClintoncouldn’tvote forGoldwater,though she did campaign for him as a “GoldwaterGirl,” an unappetizing anachronism that conjures upimagesofdubious1960sairhostesses.Ina1996NationalPublicRadiointerview,Clintonsaid“IfeellikemypoliticalbeliefsarerootedintheconservatismthatIwasraisedwith.”Criticsmaydespairofpinningdownherpoliticalbeliefstoday,butweatleastknowsomeoftheirorigins.

*Public-sectorworkersandtheBoomersremainthemostheavilyunionizedsegments.

*Agethresholdsmayseemtobegenerationallyagnosticandindeedwouldbeifprogramslinkedtothemweremaintainedinperpetuity.Thatisnotthecase—there’snoVietnamWaranymore,nodraft,andinthenexttwodecades,therewillbenoSocialSecurityaswepresentlyunderstandit.TransiencemakesmanyagethresholdsamechanismofBoomerempowermentmasqueradingasgenerallegislation.

*The keyword here is “democratic.”There have been other groups, even individuals,who had greaterinfluencethantheBoomers,butnoneeffectedchangeinwayswewouldnowunderstandtobedemocratic.Forexample,theFoundingFatherswereatinyandimmenselywealthyoligarchy—GeorgeWashingtonwasoneoftherichestmenintheColonies,thanksinlargeparttohisslaveholdings—operatingduringatimewhenthefranchiseextendedonlytowhitemen.

*NixonhadlongwantedtolimittheVRAtotakethe“monkey…offthebacksoftheSouth,”aregionthatwasbecominganimportantRepublicanbase.

*Somehavearguedthatlegislatorscavedtoprovidestudentswithaformaloutletfortheirrage,inthehopeof diverting campus unrest. The implications of this depend on your view of the degree of violenceprevailingoncampusesinthe1960sandthephilosophicalacceptabilityofmorallycompromisedprotestsaboutoneissueleadingtoaresponseonatangentialissue.

†Intriguingly,theTwenty-SeventhAmendment(resistingmodificationstointrasessioncongressionalpay)wasproposedin1789andratifiedonlyin1992.

‡ The Twenty-SixthAmendmentmay yet serve the Boomers—its expansive language provides that therighttovote“shallnotbedeniedorabridged…onaccountofage.”AsEricFishnoted,thatcouldpreventlawsfromrestrictingmentallyincompetentseniorsfromvoting,orbeusedtoforcestatestoprovidebusing,specialvotingmachines,andotheraccommodationstoensurethatgrayingBoomerscanvote.

*CongressesruntwoyearsfromJanuary3ofthecalendaryearfollowinganelection.Forsimplicity,Iomitthelast2.5daysofaCongressionaltermforease(itavoidstheprospectofmultipleCongressesinasingleyear,whichisnotreallyhowthingsoperate).Forexample,the110thCongressranfromJanuary3,2007toJanuary3,2009,butIsimplyconsiderittobethe2007–2008Congress.

*Becauseofthediversityoftaxregimesinthestates,thischapterfocusesonfederaltaxpolicyforclarity.Statetaxesvaryconsiderably:Somestateshavenoincometax,whileCaliforniataxesincomeatratesupto13.3percentandhasnospecial treatment forcapitalgains;somestateshavenosales taxes,whileothershavemultipleandoftenhighrates.Theseeffectscanbeimportant,butitwouldtakefiftychapterstocoverallofthem(plusabonussectionforterritorialtaxes).LocaltaxesarementionedwhentheyareespeciallyimportanttotheargumentandtotheBoomers.

*I’marguingcontrarytomynarrowself-interesthere,whichdoesnotmakemeagoodperson,onlyonewithsomeappreciationfortherequirementsofaccountingandprobity.

*ThedayIwrotethissentence,onthePost’shomepageeightofthefifteenstoriesinthepage’stophalfwereaboutsexand/ordrugs,includingavideoessayontheartofpenisphotography.ToadoptMcCluhan,themediumwasthemessage.

* Obviously, previous nontaxation of Social Security benefits was of great benefit to the pre-Boomergeneration,butgiventhatthisgenerationhadtaxeditselfatratesupto94percent,oneisinclinedtogivethemsomethingofapassonthis.

*Inflationandsecularinterestratedeclineshaveerodedtherealvalueofthemortgageinterestdeductionsince,sothatitismuchlessvaluableforyoungpeoplethanitwasfortheBoomers.

*A surcharge of 3.8 percent on capital gains/dividendswas added for the 2013 tax year for the richesttaxpayers,thoughitdidnotapplytoqualifiedgainsonsalesofprivateresidences,qualifyinginheritances,andthevariousothergoodiesdoledouttotheBoomermasses.

*Effectivefederalcorporatetaxratesarearound25–28percentversusanofficialrateof35percent(plusanaverage4percentforstate/local).AsapercentageofGDP,theyhavefallentoexceedinglylowlevelseven as corporate profits on thismeasure have risen—the point here is not to imply (as some do) thatcorporate taxes are 2 percent—they emphatically are not—only that the divergence between profits andtaxesprovidessomeroomforfurthercontribution.

*Asidenote:Another1980s tax revolutionwas the riseof“pass-through”corporations likeScorpsandLLCs, which had all the benefits of a corporation (limited, instead of unlimited, personal liability, forexample)andallthebenefitsofapartnership(nodoubletaxationofdividends,aswithcorporations).Notonly did these effectively lower taxes, they discouraged investment—S corps are not allowed to retainprofits. And who owns tax-minimizing, liability-limiting assets, created during the Boomer heyday, acategorythatnotablyincludesprivateequityandhedgefunds?Smallbusinessesandtheexceedinglyrich,categoriesincreasinglypopulatedbyBoomers.Asecondaside:BecausenomemberofanLLCcanfilehistaxesbeforetheLLCdoes,ownersofLLCsalwayspayanestimateonApril15andthenfilefinalreturnsbyOctober15.So,ifBrillat-Savarincouldtellwhatyouarebywhatyoueat,youcaneasilytellhowrichapersonisbywhenhefileshistaxes;it’saneatpartytrickforthenosy.

*Thepropermeasurefordebtisnottotaldollars,butasaratioofGDP—a$10trillioneconomycaneasilymanagea$1trilliondebt,justasabillionairecaneasilyaffordthepaymentsonaBentley.

*TheGermanwordfor“bill”/“check”isrechnung,or“reckoning,”andmenacingcloudsofdebtjudgmentlurkinGerman.Notcoincidentally,Germanyhasbothaheftyconsumptiontaxandaculturalaversiontodebt,atleastatthepersonallevel.

* To help Puerto Rico, Congress is considering amodification to the bankruptcy law. Thiswould helpPuertoRico,butwouldnotbeagoodsign,becauseinvestorslentmoneywiththelegalunderstandingthatPuertoRicocouldnotgobankrupt.AndifthefederalgovernmentdoesthisforPuertoRico,itwillreinforcewhat everyone knows but does not believe: that theUnited States can do this for itself, asmany othercountrieshave.

* Government itself has actually undertaken this experiment—during Jackson’s presidency, a federalsurpluswas“deposited”withtheStatestoberecalledintheeventtheTreasuryrequiredit.Afterapanicin1837,themoney,predictably,didnotcomeback.

†EveniftheMedicareportionofthetrustfundweren’tmerelyanaccountingentry,itissotinyrelativetofutureobligationsastobemeaningless,enoughtofundonlyafewmonthsofbenefitsatpresentlevels.

*Thegovernmentalsoessentiallyownsthesecompanies,collectingalltheirprofitsandholdingoptionsforthe79.9percentoftheirequity(since80percentwouldrequiretheGSE’sconsolidationonfederalbalancesheets).

† The government has considerable assets to net against the debt, like land and buildings (French andRussiansovereignlandsalesarehowAmericaendedupwiththeLouisianaTerritoryandAlaska).Sellingthesewould be shortsighted—the privatization of certain infrastructure like parkingmeters and roads inChicagoandelsewhereprovedafiasco—andtemptingasitmightbetoauctionofftheJerseyShoretopaydownthenationaldebt,gainsfromthesaleofsovereignassetswouldbemorethanoffsetbythesignalsofdesperationsentbythosesales.

*Over time,becausenotallof thedebt is retiredeveryyear,and there’sa lagbetweennominal interestratesandeffectiveratespaidonaportfolioofdifferentmaturities.

*There’sahugeandsprawlingdebateoverwhatconstitutes“investment”ineconomicterms.Generally,I’mjustusingthewordasnoneconomistswould.

*AportionofthisdebthasbeenincurredtopaydividendsintheUnitedStates,securedbyforeignearningsleftoverseaswhere theyremainuntaxed.This littleshenaniganwillbediscussed indetail inChapter13.Foreign shelters are also a major reason why newspapers run stories about corporations holding hugeamountsofcash(theotherreasonsrelatetowhollynormalaccountingpracticestooarcanetobotherwithhere).Muchofthatcash,takinganextendedforeignholiday,securespilesofdebtusedtopayforthings,like dividends, back home.At the personal level, it’s like your neighbor borrowing $1million from thebank,securedagainstanuntouchabletrustfundsubjecttotaxpenalties.He’dthenhave$1millionincash,but$1millionindebt;theingenuityismoreimpressivethanthewadsofhundred-dollarbills.

*Myassessmentisactuallymorecharitableandbasedonslightlymorerecentdata:Summershadthenetat0percent,Brookings’sDavidWesselhaditat0.06percentfor2013.

* Some small-government types get exercised aboutASCE’s report card, issued as it is by professionalengineers who would obviously benefit from more infrastructure projects. But the government itselfabandoned its own Report Card. ASCE has made reasonable attempts to continue that work, and thedisaggregateddataproducedbyvariousgovernmentsmakesclearthatASCEisn’tbeingunreasonableinitsdata-basedassessmentisbetterthanthereductivereportcardsusuallyissuedbyKStreet.

†That’s the definition for a “D.”America gets aD+.The “+”may not be entirely reassuring for thoseinchingovertheTappanZeeBridgeintoManhattan,longpastitsintendedworkinglifeandovercapacity,witnessingtheoccasionalcranekeeloverontoTappan’smuch-delayedreplacement.

* Some free marketers hold that public investment in certain infrastructure can “crowd out” privateinvestment,makingallprojectsmoreexpensiveandlessefficient,butthedataforthispropositionhasneverbeenoverlystrong;evenasamatteroftheory,itdoesn’tholdinthepresentenvironment.

†Economicpedantswillimmediatelyraiseeyebrows,sincemuchofthiswillbecategorizedas“spending”inmany technicalpublications,but it quiteobviouslyhasmoreof thecharacteristicsof investment than,say,spendingSocialSecuritychecksonTwinkiesdoes.

*Let’snot evenget into the fact thatnothing seems tohavebeen specifically allocatedoutof the2016budgetforTappanII.

* The ancient Romans built roads for infantry that also facilitated trade and communication while theSovietsbuiltpartsoftheMoscowsubwayespeciallydeeptoserveasfalloutshelters.

*Democraciesdogotowaragainsteachother;theBritishburnedtheWhiteHousein1814andhadplanstoagitateagainstAmericathroughthelate-nineteenthcentury—attimes,therelationshiphasbeen“special”indeed.

*Theonlycomparablysignificantsourcecreatedunder theBoomerswas theFederalReserveEconomicDatacollection (FRED) in themid-1990s,acompilationofdataby theFedbanksandothergovernmentsources.TheFederalReserve,whichsponsorsthoseactivities,wasitselfcreatedin1913.

*Originally,selecteditemswerekeptoffbalancesheetbecausetheydidnotdirectlyrelatetothevalueofthe company itself, like assets held in trust for a client by a company,withonly the client experiencinggainsandlosses.Thedifferencebetweenonandoffbalancesheetcanbesimplifiedasadistinctionbetweenitemsthatare“myproblem”(onbalancesheet)anditemsthatare“mostlysomeoneelse’sproblem”(off).

* It did not help that after the 1970s, many auditors collected vastly greater consulting fees from theirclients than theydidaudit fees,creatingdisincentives toprobe toodeeply into thebooksof theirclients.TheauditorsspunofftheirconsultingbusinessesafterEnronmadesuchconflictsofinteresttooobvioustoendure,thoughmanyauditfirmsstillcollectenormousfeesfortaxandotherworkonlylooselyrelatedto,andsometimesinconflictwith,thecoreauditfunction.

*Auditorspresentlydo thesamewith the trillionsofprofitsAmericancompanieshavestashed, taxfree,overseas.Allthat’srequiredisforauditorstosignoffontheirownsquishystandardthatcompanieshavesomereasonableplansforinvestingthecashabroad.Despitethevastaccumulationofuninvestedcashthatwouldseemtodemonstratethatnosuchplansareintheoffing,theauditorscheerfullywaivethefinancialsontheirway,andthemoneygoesuntaxed.

*Oneof thedirectors ofSilveradoSavings andLoan,Neilwas subsequently found to have engaged invariousbreachesoffiduciarydutyandforcedtopayafine.

* The financial industry has routinely resisted standards of duty long adopted by other professions likemedicineandlaw.TheCFAInstitute,forexample,hasmembersthatincludemanyfinancialprofessionals;itadoptedatrulyclient-orientedcodeofprofessionalconductonlyin2006.Givenwhathappenedlater,onecan question its efficacy.The Institutewas not, by theway, particularly happy about theDepartment ofLabor’smodifications (finally released in2016) upping ethical standards for brokers, financial planners,and insuranceagents.Thepre-2016 standard fellwell shortof “fiduciaryduty,”generally requiringonlythatclientsbeoffered“suitable”productsratherthanthoseintheclient’sbestinterest,orfreeofconflictsofinterest, and so on. In a world of rational actors and/or where government backstops didn’t exist, theabsenceoffiduciarystandardswouldbefine—butagain,thatworlddoesn’texist.

*Theexceptionisifbondsareheldtomaturity.Iftheissuerissolvent,thebondswillbepaidoffatfacevalue. However, relatively few actors can or want to hold bonds to maturity for reasons not worthdiscussinghere.

*Therewasanew,independentphenomenonofspeculationbyforeigninvestors,thoughthiswaslimitedtohigh-endrealestateprimarilyonthecoastsandwasoflimitednationaleffect.

*Therearesomemethodologicaldifferencesdiscussedintheendnotes,andwhiletheyareimportant,theytendtomaketheAmericancomparisonsubstantiallyless,notmore,favorable.

*Aseveryoneinvolvedinthesedebatesgetsaccusedofbias,letmejuststateminefortherecord.AlthoughIwillshortlyargueforheavygovernmentinterventionasapracticalnecessity,asatheoreticalmatter,I’dprefertorelyonthefreemarket.Butthisisnot1776or1935;wecannotstartanew,wecanonlydealwiththefactswehave.

*Aquickresolutionofaparadox:HowdoAmericanshaveanymeaningfulnetworthatall?Theanswerisassetappreciation,inhomes,stocks,etc.Thevalueofspeculativeassetshasoften,however,evaporatedatinconvenienttimes,forexample,in2008,whenthefirstBoomersbegantoretire.Thus,I’vepresentedbothsavings rate and household net worth. The difference between the two shows just how dependentAmericansareonthevariousassetbubblestheFedisincreasinglydesperatetomaintain.

†Thehousingwealth of olderAmericans is a highlyuncertain retirement asset for other reasons.Manyseniorstakeoutsecondmortgages,reversemortgages,andotherdebtthatreducetheirhomeequity;indeed,thegovernmentevenestablishedaprogramtohelpseniorsdothis.TheproblemwillgetworsegiventhatBoomerswillbesellingtheirhomesroughlysimultaneously,tosaynothingofthenegativeeffectsofhighermortgageratesorpropertytaxreforms,shouldthoseevercometopass.Byfacilitatingreversemortgages,thegovernmenthasagainusedthecreditofyoungertaxpayerstosubsidizetheelderly.

*Thedataonwomen is less robustdue to their lower labor forceparticipation inearlierdecades; ithasbeenrising,buttheystillretireslightlyearlierthanmen(62versus64in2011)and,beinglongerlived,theirretirementsareevenmoreextended.

*Especiallyiftherearegapsbetweendiscountratesandcost-of-livingadjustments.

*TheS&P’sannualizedreturns,assumingalldividendswerereinvested,wereunder5percentfrom2000to2015,andformuchof2000to2010,theywereactuallynegative.Onlytheextraordinaryriseafter2009dragged returns into significantlypositive territory, and that dependedonhuge federal interventions thatcannotberepeated—i.e.,abubble.

*Expertscanreasonablyquibbleaboutdiscountratesandassumptions,disclosedintheendnotesandcitedmaterial,butthewholepoliticalpointofentitlementsistoserveasasubsidytomostbeneficiaries,sothereshouldbenothing surprisingaboutpayoutsofmore than1:1 forBoomers.Thegenerationpreceding theBoomersgotoff thebest,with thoseborn in1915gettinganearly3:1payout,e.g.,but theyaredeadornearlyso,andintermsofremedies,thatmootsthediscussion.

*BecausepoliticianshavebeenlessthancandidabouthowSocialSecurityworks,here’sarecap:(1)the“assets” of the Trust Funds are just an accounting entry, so (2) when the “assets” are redeemed, thegovernment has to come upwith the cash somehow, and it does so by (3) collecting current taxes anddebitingtheTrustFundbythesameamount.Thosetaxesarepayrollandincometaxes,whichmeanstheyare paid mostly by working Americans, a category that largely excludes retired Americans collectingOABs.

* You may see different “dependency ratios” in the media, many more alarming than what I present.However, for our analysis, the proper measure is not the total dependent population (which includesdependentchildren),buttheratioofseniorstoworkersinthesystem.

* Heaven forfend the (unlikely) possibility that cryonics should work—would we then be obligated tofreezetheelderly,todefrostandcurethematpublicexpensecirca2200?That’sthereductioadabsurdumof the “death panel” crowd, pioneered by Boomer Governor Sarah Palin, who envisioned a world ofbureaucratsdispensinglifeanddeathonthebasisofgodlessadministrativewhim.

*Oneof the landmark rollbacksofChevron andEPApowerwas argued for by former liberal lion andBoomerLaurenceTribeonbehalfofacoalcompany.TribealsodefendedGEinanenvironmentalcase.Tribe, by the way, had been reprimanded by Harvard for plagiarism and also served as counsel toenvironmentalhypocriteAlGore,whomweshallsoonencounter.

* Besides a certain hypocrisy, Gore ticked off a few other boxes in the standard Boomer sociopathicinventory: marital collapse, a minor financial scandal, certain economies with the truth, etc. Unlike hisrunningmate Clinton, he did not avoid the draft—he served for about sixmonths, near the war’s end,mostlyoutofharm’sway.Thereasonsforhisvolunteeringweredubious:Hedonnedtheuniforminlargeparttoassisthisfather’sreelectioncampaign.

*Like all scientists, those of the IPCCare careful in their phrasing and analysis,with politics probablydriving them to obscure the implications of their work—they’re really only comfortable predicting badthings around2081,when their employerswill be safely dead.But irreversibility and consequenceswillprobably much come sooner, as the IPCC labors to imply without too much impolitic specificity; theendnotesprovidereferencestomoreexplicitdiscussionsofclimateimpacts.Dangerouslevels/effectscouldbereachedbythe2030s–40sandcatastrophiclevels/effectsbythe2060s–2070s,withinthelivesofmanyreadingtoday.NewYorkwouldfeellikeBahrainandBahrainwouldbefunctionallyuninhabitable.

*ThebanswereimposedwhentheUnitedStateswas“runningout”ofoilinthe1970s.

* In the second half of 2016, the Obama administration took a meaningful step to reducehydrofluorocarbons(HFCs),amajorclimatehazard,butwasonlyabletodosobecauseHFCsfellintothelanguageoftheMontrealProtocolagreedtobeforeBoomerscontrolledCongress—aCongressthatwouldnot,inpresentBoomerform,haveconsentedtoanewtreatyonHFCs.TheburdenoftheHFCswitchwill,naturally,fallontofuturegenerations;theBoomersalreadyhavetheirHFC-equippedair-conditioners.

*Anotherparadoxquicklyresolved:Eventhoughtotalenergyusehasgrown,nuclearplantscansupply20percentofneedsbecauseexisting facilitieshavebeenexpandedandbecomesignificantlymoreefficient.However,manyplantsarenecessarilyquiteoldandneedtobereplaced.Newreactorshaveaninitialcarboncost, as allmajor construction projects do, but produce very little carbon afterward.Asmost plants areexpensiveandrequiresignificant initialborrowing, thepresenteraofvery lowinterest ratessignificantlymitigates theironceconsiderableexpenses,whichwereoftendisastrousduring theyearsofhigh interestrates,butshouldnotbesonow.

* To be fair, several other countries, including normally forward-thinking peers in Europe, have takenrestrictivepositionsaswell.Theyhavetheirown,oftendifferent,reasonsforthestrategyandwewillseehowtheydo,too.

*It’sdoubtfulthatamalevolentSkynetwillbetheauthorofcatastrophe;morelikely,AIsresponsibleforessentialsystemslikepowerplants,autonomousweapons,dams,andsoonwillmakemistakesthatcouldunleash catastrophe.Then again, the possibility of a rogue supercomputer is not zero, though it remainsdistant.

*Fulldisclosure:IinvestedinDeepMindpersonallyinitsearlieryears;thecompanywasthenacquiredbyGoogle,inwhichInowholdstock.WallStreethaslongdismissedGoogle’ssideprojectslikeself-drivingcarsandAIasmoneysinks,butGooglehasathoughtfulplanandoneyoumaynotbefullycomfortablewith. Google (in the verb sense; may as well start there) “self-driving car,” “AlphaGo,” and “AndroidMarketshare” and you’ll get a sense for the futureGooglemight have inmind.You can add inBostonDynamics+Atlas+Google,andyoumightgetasenseofGoogle’sterminalambitions,evenifitultimatelyditchesBostonDynamicsinfavorofotherroboticscompanies.

*My subject is generational; I stake little territory in the largely unhelpful andmostly pseudoscientificdebate(onbothsides)regardingtheinherentcapacitiesofagivengroupforagivensubject.Thepurposeofgeneraleducationistoproducecitizenscompetentatmanagingtheirownlivesandcapableofparticipatinginrepresentativegovernment.EitherallethnicitiesandgendersarecapableofatleastthatmuchorwearegoingtohavetocallaConstitutionalConvention.

*Nevertheless,theUnitedStatesspendsmoreperstudentthaneveryotheradvancedcountryexceptfortheexceedinglywealthyandsmallercountriesofAustria,Luxembourg,Norway,andSweden,accordingtotheOECD.It’sfairlyeasytoguesswherethismoneygoes.

*Duncan(b.1964)resignedin2016,asscandalsovermanufacturedtestscoresstartedpercolatingandafterrevelations that charter schools, of which Duncan was an enthusiastic supporter but an indifferentadministrator,werewastingfederaldollars.

*Intriguingly,BillClintonwasthehonorary—andwell-compensated—chancellorofafor-profitinstitution,thoughnotoneaccusedofthesortsofextravagantfraudspracticedelsewhere.Butquestionwhathedidtoearnhiseight-figurecompensationandwhatthatboughtforstudents.Meanwhile,thepresidentsofStanfordandHarvard,whodorealwork,eachmadeaboutathirdasmuch.

*Texas’s“new”campuswasmostlyanagglomerationofoldersites.

*Notall thesecasesareactiveorcomplicated,but these figuresdonotevenpermitacursory reviewofanythingexceptthemostextraordinarycases.Itdoesn’thelpthattheUnitedStatesspendsvirtuallynothingonpublicdefense—0.0002percentofGDPversus0.2percentfortheUK,orone-thousandthonarelativebasis—northatapublicdefender’ssalarycanbelessthananannualbonusforamidtierassociateatabigfirm.

†Boomerwhite-collaroffendersare,ofcourse,almostneverprosecutedandwillbefreetomisbehaveforanother two decadeswithout adding to the prison statistics. Four years after the 2008 crisis, the JusticeDepartmenthadnostatisticsaboutfinancialexecutiveprosecutions(datathathadbeencollectedintheS&Lcrisis),adecisiononelawprofessorcalled“smart”forthedepressingreasonthatthedatawouldbe“reallyembarrassing.”

*Ofcourse,given the skew in income, it’s really the richpaying the taxes to incarcerate thepoor.Thatdoesn’t necessarilymean the rich decided to imprison the poor (though somemay think so—the votingmath,however,meansit’stheBoomermiddle-classthattaxestherichtoimprisonthepoor).Inanycase,it’snotahealthydynamic.

*Roseannewasthelastbighittodealsquarelywiththeproblemsoftheworkingclass,andtotheextentitwasrealistic,itwasnotexactlyoptimisticuntilitsfinalseason.Roseanne’sresolutionitselfwassufficientlyfantasticalthattheentireFrenchcriticalestablishmentwouldhavekeeledoverwithexcitementifitcouldhavegottenbeyondtheplasticflowersandgirth:notonlydotheConnerswinthelottery,buttheshowitselfisrevealedtohavebeenanunlikelytherapeutictoolforitsmillionaireBoomerauteur,MadameRoseanneBarr-Pentland-Thomas-Arnold.We’llseetheBoomerlottery/pecuniaexmachinamakeitsreappearanceintheepilogue.

*Technically,thetitleoffirstBoomerPMwasheldbyKimCampbell,butshelastedlessthan5months.Harperlastednineyears.

*Formostpurposes,peopleinprisonsdon’tcounttowardtheunemploymentrate,thoughtheyarebasicallyunemployed, andwereUS incarceration rates atdevelopedworldnorms,unemploymentwouldbeabouthalfapointhigher.

*Anotherdisclosure: Ihave invested inseveralgigcompanies, likeTaskRabbitandLyft,becausea fewyearsagoIbegantosuspectthatgigswerethefutureofwork.

*OneofwhichapparentlywenttothemostrecentMadameTrump,askilled…model.AspecialclassofH-1Bvisasexistsforjusttheseexceptionalpeople.

*Judge(sic)KimbaWood’snannyappearstohavebeenproperlyhiredunderpriorapplicablelaws;hersinwasfailingtorespondforthrightlytotheWhiteHouse’sspecificquestionsaboutnannies.

*TheNewskeptaskingSanders“how”hewouldbreakupthebanksandifthegovernmenthadthepowerstodo it, and theanswerswerevague, including“well, I think theFedhas [thatauthority]”; thenanotherquestionaboutFedauthoritytodovariousthings“byfiat,”towhichtheresponsewas“Yeah.WellIbelieveyoudo,”andallsortsofsimilarvaguenessonasupposedlysignatureissue,allfromamemberoftheJointEconomicCommittee. It’s hard to provide a cogent summary of Sanders’s rambling, contradictory, andwoollyplans,butyoucan follow the link in theendnotesand subjectyourself to the full thing ifyou’reinclined.

*Shoddyself-righteousnessis,tosomeextent,justpartofpoliticsandhasbeenpracticedbefore,asinthetoxicwitchhuntsprosecutedbyJoeMcCarthyinthe1950s.ButmanyofSenatorMcCarthy’scolleaguescondemnedhimatthetime,andwhileEisenhowerrefusedtopubliclycondemnthesenatoronthegroundsthatitwouldbebeneaththedignityoftheWhiteHouse,thepresidentdidsteadilyundermineasenatorhefound“reprehensible”andwhosemethodshe“despised.”Arguably,Eisenhowershouldhavegonepublic,butintheend,hismovesbehindthescenehelpedachievetherightresult.

† In general, this chapter conflates “goodness”with themildly progressive social agenda accepted by apluralityoftheelectorateorthatflowsoutoftheConstitutionandsettledlaw.Inademocraticsociety,thisseemslikeareasonablewaytolimnadiscussionthatotherwisetendstowardunhelpfulsprawl.

* Some have attempted to sidestep the issue by characterizing inequality as a natural byproduct oftechnological change and the winner-take-all dynamics of modern economies, an idea which has greatcurrencyincertaincircles.Evenifcorrectasadescription—andIthinkitoftenis,asotherchaptershavesuggested—itisnotbyitselfaseriouscontributiontothemoraldiscussion,sinceitconflates inevitabilitywithmoralneutralityandignoresthepossibilityofredistribution.

*TheBoomervotewas3–2tolimittheVRA.RemovingallBoomerswouldhaveleftthevote2–2,andthelowercourtrulingsupholdingtheVRAwouldthereforehavestood.

*ThefactthatmoneypoliticsandvotingrightsabuseswerewidespreadinpriorerasprovidestheBoomerswithnomoralcover,anymorethantheexistenceofgladiatorsintheRomanEmpirewouldjustifybloodsporttoday.GildedAgepracticesgrantnoprotectionfromthechargeofsociopathy.Sociopathyinvolvesdeparturesfromprevailingsocialnorms,andinthe1970s,whentheBoomerswerestartingtoaccumulatepower,normshadmovedagainstmoneypolitics.

*Theoddityofanticorruption legislationbeingsponsoredbyoneof the infamousKeatingFive,agroupaccusedoftakingkickbacksfromthefailingS&Lindustryyearsbefore,wasnothelpful.Thenagain,withBoomers,youtakereformswhereyoucangetthem,aswithDodd-Frank,whosesponsorswerepreviouslyenmeshed in ethics violations, prostitutes, abuse of power investigations, receipt of major funds fromFannieMaepriortoits2008bailout,andsoon.

*Fortherecord,I’msympathetictotheCourt’srulingsasaconceptualmatter,iftheproperdisclosuresaremade. If a citizencan’tunderstandwhat a corporate ad looks likewithvariousmandateddisclosures,orappreciate corporate intention, the idea of the competent citizen-voter vanishes. But this presupposes aworldwhere civics and critical thinking are taught in properly funded schools,which hasn’t existed forsometime.

*Forthoseholdingouthope(orfear)thatconservativeJusticesdriftleftwardovertimeandrendertransientcaseslikeShelby,Citizens,etc., it’sprobably time to letgoof that idea.Pre-BoomersSouter,Blackmun,Stevens,andoccasionallyKennedydiddriftleft.BoomersAlito,Thomas,andRobertshaveperformedasadvertised.

†Theerosionof thechurch-stateboundaryhasbeenanotherBoomer-era loss.Ahumanist republicmustnowendurethehumiliationofwatchingvariousBoomersupplicantslikeJohnBoehnerandBernieSanderspayobeisancetoamedievaltheocratastheircounterpartsbusilymisquotetheBible.Jeffersonwouldhavethoughtthewholethingridiculous,whileJFKwouldbeastounded,sincehisownelectionsufferedfromtheperception that JFKwouldbeobedient toPapist idolatry at the expenseof theProtestant-civic tradition.SucharetheoddswitchbacksoftheBoomeryears.

*Interracialmarriage,which insomewayspresagedgaymarriage,wasalsoanon-Boomerphenomenonthat picked up steam many decades ago in various states and was sanctioned nationally by Loving v.Virginia(1967).Fiftyyearslater,whiteBoomers+remainleastenthusiasticaboutinterracialmarriageandare the only group to display really significant differences of opinion onwhite/black versuswhite/othermiscegenation(ifyouhavetomarryacrosslines,makeitanAsian,itseems);theyarealso,consistently,theleastlikelytohavefamilymarriedacrossraciallines.

*Ofcourse,whenitcametodefundingthemilitaryresultinginhigherlevelsofrisktotroops,butlowerlevels of risk to entitlement spending,we know how theBoomers chose. The gaymenace, being of noconsequencetothefisc,couldbetakenatwhateverlevelofseriousnesspollsrequired.

*TheMassachusettscaseauthorizinggaymarriage in theBayState in2004wasauthoredbya juristofSouthAfricanextractionwithvotes fromBoomerandnon-Boomer Justices,butall thedissentswerebynativeBoomers.

* It’sdifficult togetover the sheermendacityofBoomer legislativenames,whichessentially effect thereverseofagiventitle:EveryChildSucceeds,USAFreedom,Pay-As-You-GoAct,etc.TheparallelisonK Street, where lobbying firms employ equally obnoxious conventions, the formula generally beingappendinganoundescribingwhatoneistryingtodestroytotheTrump-classy“Institute”—e.g.,theKochs’InstituteforJustice.

* The CIA, including under Bush I in a previous role, had worked with Noriega. At least Bush I’sgenerationwasofthetypetocleanupmanyofitsownmesses.

*“Quick”doesn’tmeanthefantastical4–6percentincreasesproposedbysomeRepublicans,butsomethinglike3percentrealgrowth,whichwoulddoublenationalincomeovertwenty-fiveyears.It’sahardgoal,butnotimplausible.

*Many laws require bureaucrats to engage in cost-benefit analysis (CBA), but voters have never beenrequiredtodothesame.TosaythatsociopathicpoliticianshavetriedtopervertCBAbyappealingdirectlyto the basest instinct of voters and by manipulating CBA variables would be something of anunderstatement.

* It’s time to get away from saccharinenotions about the “Heartland”promotedby theBoomerCult ofFeelings.This is a capitalist republic, and thatmeans theHeartland iswhere themoneyandpeople are:NewYork, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, etc. Reason commends that this is where manyinfrastructuredollarsshouldbesent, thoughnotenoughare.ThereasontheHeartlandplaysasubstantialrole in the political dialogue, vetoing progressive legislation and able to demand net transfers fromWashington(despitebeingtheredoubtofconservative“virtue”),isbecauseofantidemocraticcompromisesmadebytheearlyRepublic,asystemtwohundredyearsoutofdate.IfBrooklynhadasmanysenatorsperresidentasWyoming,theboroughwouldhaveadelegationofnine,outofNewYorkCity’stotalofaboutthirty.Thevetoesandpork-barrelingofmiddle-statesenatorsareblackmailandshouldbetreatedassuch.

*Toemphasizeagain:It’sneitherpracticalnordesirable(fortechnicalreasonsthataren’tpertinenthere)toextinguish theentirenationaldebt.However,over thenext fiftyyears,wecancertainly reducedebtasaproportionofGDPbybeingdisciplinedaboutborrowingandbyacceleratingeconomicgrowth.

*Societyhasalonghistoryofforgivingoldpeople;criminals,forexample,canapplyforclemencybasedonage.Societyalsohasalonghistoryofspeciallypenalizingthosewhohavedoneamajorwrongtothenationorwhofailtoshowremorse.TheprinciplesofclemencyareatbestawashfortheBoomers.

*Estaterulesaremind-numbing,sohere’sasimplifiedexample.Ifaparentbuysanassetfor$10,000andit’sworth$1millionatdeath, therewouldnormallybe a taxablegainof$990,000.Step-up ignores thisgain.You,theinheritingchild,wouldbetaxedonlyonthepostmortemgain—e.g.,ifyoulatersoldtheassetfor$1.5million,youwouldbetaxedonlyon$500,000,not$1.49million.

*ManyontheRightmakethetheoreticallyplausibleiftotallyunrealisticargumentthatveryhightaxrateswouldcauseproductivepeople toflee thecountry.Anexodusof therichdidnotoccur in the1940sand1950s, when the highest marginal tax rates were 90+ percent, though the midcentury did not have ageneration of tax-dodging sociopaths. Tax exile also does not really happen in high-tax places that areextremelypleasanttolivein,awhollypredictableoutcomeof…freemarkettheory.Peoplewillpaytoliveinattractiveplaces,likeCaliforniaorSweden,insteadofeasternNevadaortheCongo.Finally,theUnitedStates imposes exit levies thatmake exile totally impracticable except for the exceedingly rich,most ofwhomwillgrumbleathighertaxeswithoutactuallydoingmuch,sinceafewextrapercentwillhavenorealimpactontheirqualityoflife.

*Awordonthebillionaireswhokeepsayingtheypaylowertaxesthantheirsecretaries:Thisisnotonlyfactuallyunlikelyabsentheavyexploitationoftaxavoidance,buteasilyremedied.Pay.govallowspeopletocontributetotheretirementofthenationaldebt—andsothesedisgruntledbillionairesarefreetoadjusttheirtaxrateuptowhateverleveltheylikebythismechanism.InFY2015,theTreasurycollectedagrandtotalof$3.9million,soclearlythishasnotbeenapopularoption.

*However,asaforetasteofthingstocome,somepensionershavebeenattempting,withsuccess,torecastpensionsas legalentitlements; thismaybe trueundersomestateconstitutions,butdoesnotapply to thelargest federal benefits. And it proves that, despite social necessity—for pensions will absolutely breaksomestates,likeIllinois—theBoomersarehell-bentongettingtheirs.

Thankyouforbuyingthisebook,publishedbyHachetteDigital.

Toreceivespecialoffers,bonuscontent,andnewsaboutourlatestebooksandapps,signupforournewsletters.

SignUp

Orvisitusathachettebookgroup.com/newsletters