The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity Common Sense Action | June 2014

ABOUT CSA Created by and for Millennials, Common Sense Action (CSA) is a bipartisan organization that brings youth voices to the policymaking table to fight for generational equity. Generational Equity is the guarantee that the gateways of American opportunity are open as wide – if not wider – for Millennials as they were for our parents and grandparents. With active college chapters nationwide, CSA convenes young leaders from across the political spectrum to craft and advance solutions to the public policy issues so important to our generation that they transcend party lines.

ABOUT BPC Founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and George Mitchell, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) is a non-profit organization that drives principled solutions through rigorous analysis, reasoned negotiation, and respectful dialogue. With projects in multiple issue areas, BPC combines politically balanced policymaking with strong, proactive advocacy and outreach.

DISCLAIMER The findings and recommendations expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s founders, its board of directors, its project leadership and its current staff.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 2

Table of Contents A Call to Action ............................................................... 5 A Letter from BPC’s President ........................................ 7 Our Goals ....................................................................... 10 Executive Summary ...................................................... 11 What is AGE? ......................................................................................................... 11 What are the foundations of AGE? ............................................................................. 11 Why is AGE innovative and different? ......................................................................... 11 What does it mean that AGE is a policy menu? ............................................................ 12 What is the structure of AGE? ................................................................................... 12

Generational Fairness ................................................... 15 What is our vision for Advancing Generational Fairness? ............................................... 15 What is the status quo and how did we get here? ........................................................ 15 What do we propose? .............................................................................................. 17 Reform Social Security to ensure 75-year solvency while preserving the fairness and adequacy of the program ................................................................. 18 Reform Medicare in order to achieve the “triple aim:” improved patient experience, improved population health, and decreased per-capita costs ................. 20 Invest in the capabilities of the next generation to strengthen the infrastructure of today and to develop the infrastructure of tomorrow ...................... 23 Exercise generationally responsible taxing and budgeting to promote long-term economic growth and address long term-debt ........................................ 31

Millennial Mobility .......................................................... 35 What is our vision for Millennial Mobility? ................................................................... 35 What is the status quo and how did we get here? ........................................................ 35 What do we propose? .............................................................................................. 36 Increase access to affordable post-secondary education to give every student the opportunity to pursue his or her dream............................................... 37 Expand the school-to-job pipeline ....................................................................... 42 Reduce incarceration rates and promote reintegration ........................................... 45 Achieve universal access to high-quality early childhood education .......................... 48

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 3

Repairing Politics ........................................................... 51 What is our vision for Repairing Politics? .................................................................... 51 What is the status quo and how did we get here? ........................................................ 51 What do we propose? .............................................................................................. 52 CSA should increase Millennial civic and electoral participation to strengthen the democratic process ..................................................................... 53 CSA should help build a social expectation of national service over the course of a lifetime to increase nation-building at home ......................................... 56

What’s the Next AGE Going to Look Like?................. 58 What’s Next? ................................................................. 59 Endnotes ........................................................................ 61

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 4

A Call to Action To our brothers and sisters, moms and dads, and grandmas and grandpas, We need to have a conversation. And AGE is a conversation starter.

Right now, young Americans—those with the largest stake in America’s future—are getting the short end of the stick. Older generations are passing enormous bills down to our generation, and they are not investing enough in the foundations, skills, and opportunities to ensure that we—their kids and grandkids—can have as good of a life as they did. To make matters worse, older generations are more polarized and therefore Congress is more polarized than at any time since the Civil War. Political warfare has impeded pragmatic solutions that will preserve the American dream for our children.

Throughout history, we have seen one generation after another exceed the success of the generation before it. However, we are the first generation in our country’s history that may not even live as well as our parents. Our future prosperity is at risk not through decisions of our own, but because of decisions the current generation of leaders has refused to make.

It is clear: young Americans cannot afford to be bystanders for critical debates about our nation’s future when we have the most at stake.

Over the last year, hundreds of Millennials across the country have participated in Common Sense Action’s (CSA) deep exploration of our broken political system, the challenges facing Millennials and future generations, and the policy solutions to those challenges.

The Agenda for Generational Equity (AGE), which we release today, is our response. It is the first national and bipartisan policy agenda created by Millennials. It articulates a pragmatic path toward a more prosperous and just America. AGE and the agenda formulation process brings hundreds of young Americans, or Millennials, from both parties to the policymaking table on college campuses, in statehouses, and in Washington.

AGE is a new kind of agenda. Instead of creating a definitive ten-step, all-or-nothing plan, we offer a menu of policy options designed to advance Millennial priorities. Under each pillar, CSA outlines several policy-based goals that we hope to achieve. And under each goal, CSA outlines a menu of policy ideas that we support.

We do not expect that politicians will enact every single policy we recommend, but by emphasizing pragmatic policy ideas that fall between the Democratic 40-yard line and the Republican 40-yard line, we have created a menu of options to choose from that would make significant progress toward restoring our national fiscal health and expanding economic mobility. When combined with campus organizing, AGE is designed to make

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 5

political space for elected leaders to develop principled compromises, make solutions-first decisions, and keep America’s promise to future generations.

AGE is only the first step in our process. It’s what we do with the agenda that matters.

Therefore, AGE is more than just a wonky policy document. It is a manifesto for the Common Sense Action movement.

This is critical because Millennials don’t have a microphone at the policymaking table to safeguard our future from a status quo of political gridlock. And frankly, we haven’t organized to use the tools we have—namely, the right to vote. In the 2012 election, only 45 percent of the 46 million Americans aged 18-29 years old eligible to vote actually voted.1 By contrast, 72 percent of the 39 million eligible seniors voted.2 Even more alarmingly, 18–29year-old voter turnout decreased by six percentage points from 2008 to 2012—while turnout among seniors increased by two percentage points.3 Until that changes and until Millennials start speaking up at the ballot box, elected officials will not have incentives to address the issues that most affect the Millennial generation—the cost of entitlements, high college costs, and the overall lack of investment in the future.

Fortunately, CSA is building a movement to do just that: to keep that American promise to future generations and ensure that not just we as a generation, but America itself, continues to prosper and be a leader to the world.

If we can organize, mobilize, and empower the largest, most networked, most diverse generation in U.S. history to support AGE, young people can impact our political process and policy debates to create lasting change.

Using AGE as a galvanizing vision for a better future, each of Common Sense Action’s chapters have begun to pull Americans—on their campuses and in their communities—off the sidelines and into the political arena to pursue three primary objectives: advancing generational fairness, investing in Millennial mobility, and repairing politics. In just over two months of organizing, nearly 3,400 people endorsed this agenda before we even launched it.

Together, we imagine a world where the American promise to future generations is stronger than ever. We imagine a world where aspiring politicians run for office using the Agenda for Generational Equity as their platform, knowing that thousands of Millennials across the country will mobilize on their behalf. We imagine a world in which our leaders can be principled partisans but see benefit in crossing the aisle to make bipartisan progress. We imagine a world where the gateways of opportunity are open ever wider for future generations of Americans.

Sincerely, Sam Gilman & Andrew Kaplan

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 6

Â

A Letter from BPC’s President In the summer of 2013, four students from Common Sense Action (CSA) came to the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) with an idea. Their aspiration was to organize their peers and create a policy platform reflecting the interests and commitments of their generation. Over the course of the summer they visited every congressional office, recruited and engaged hundreds of interns and worked with the policy staff at BPC to explore an array of complex public policy questions. At the end of the summer they published a framework setting forth the key pillars of the Agenda for Generational Equity (AGE). But the effort did not end there.

In the fall, the enterprising young leaders grew their organization and developed chapters on campuses across the country. The CSA chapters held Campus Congresses and devoted hundreds of hours to researching and debating ideas and proposing workable policy solutions. In early 2014, the student leaders came to Washington, spending three days at BPC developing the shared ideas contained in this tremendously thoughtful and provocative document.

For BPC, it has been an inspiration to partner with CSA in this effort. At the heart of our work is the belief that the best ideas emerge through engaged, passionate and principled debate. The seriousness of purpose, collaborative spirit and creativity demonstrated by our partners at CSA shines through the pages that follow. While BPC provided support and policy advice throughout the development of the AGE Initiative, the recommendations contained in the following pages come directly from the 24 CSA campuses across the country.

Some of the conclusions and recommendations in this document differ from policy proposals developed and supported by BPC. This is the point of encouraging new voices in the national debate. BPC is proud to have the opportunity to help inform, elevate and learn from young leaders across the country. If there is room at the table for both right and left, surely there is room for fresh perspectives from the next generation of leaders.

We encourage you to join the conversation.

Sincerely, Jason Grumet President, Bipartisan Policy Center

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 7

Â

CSA National Board Sam Gilman

Ryann Roberts

Jevin Hodge

Co-Founder and Chief

Director of Policy

Director of Public

Executive Officer Andrew Kaplan Co-Founder and Chief Action Officer

Alyssa Garrett Director of Organizing Lane Farrell

Relations Kirk Hadley Director of Data Science

Director of Communications

Policy Fellows Tommy Joe Bednar

Elizabeth English

John Garrett Clawson

Jessica Seigel

Michael Stinnett

National Summit Delegates Alex Ballasiotes,

Madeline Gootman,

Juannell Riley, Lafayette

University of Georgia

Vanderbilt University

College

Tommy Joe Bednar,

Chloe Hunt, University of

Katie Rodihan, Claremont

Washington & Lee

California - Berkeley

McKenna College

Nelson J. Laracuente,

Henry Sandman,

Wittenberg University

Lafayette College

Joey Larrinaga, American

Tim Schlenger, Brown

University

University

Hillary Lundberg,

Jessica Seigel,

Drew DeVore, Wittenberg

Claremont McKenna

Swarthmore College

University

College

Clare Dreyfus, Vanderbilt

Joe Zanoni, University of

University

Arizona

Elizabeth Ellington,

Zachary Marshall,

Louisiana State University

University of Arizona

Elizabeth English,

Lee Parker, Tulane

University of Michigan

University

Abigail Fletes, Boston

Shiv Patel, University of

University

Georgia

University Rebecca Charen, University of Michigan John Garrett Clawson, Louisiana State University

Michael Stinnett, Boston University Sam Syde, University of California - Berkeley Joe Van Wye, Brown University Kevin Young, Tulane University Eric Zenisek, University of Northern Iowa

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 8

Â

Chapters Arizona State University

Louisiana State University

Boston University

Swarthmore College

Brown University

Tulane University

Claremont McKenna

University of Alabama

College College of William and Mary George Washington University Hofstra University Lafayette College

University of North Carolina University of Northern Iowa University of

University of Arizona

Pennsylvania

University of California -

Vanderbilt University

Berkeley University of California Davis University of Georgia University of Michigan

Chapter Map

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 9

Washington and Lee University Wittenberg University

Our Goals Advancing Generational Fairness. The United States needs a national entitlement and revenue solution that both keeps the promise of a fair and adequate social safety net for our grandparents today and also sustains that safety net for future generations.

Goal: Reform Social Security to ensure 75-year solvency while preserving



the fairness and adequacy of the program.

Goal: Reform Medicare in order to achieve the “triple aim:” improved



patient experience, improved population health, and decreased per-capita costs.

Goal: Invest in the capabilities of the next generation to strengthen the



infrastructure of today and to develop the infrastructure of tomorrow.

Goal: Exercise generationally responsible taxing and budgeting to promote



long-term economic growth and address long term-debt.

Investing in Millennial Mobility. The United States must make additional investments in education, workforce development, and the infrastructure of the future, so that all young Americans have the opportunity to succeed in the 21st century. 

Goal: Increase access to affordable post-secondary education to give every student the opportunity to pursue his or her dream.



Goal: Expand the school-to-job pipeline.



Goal: Reduce incarceration rates and promote reintegration.



Goal: Achieve universal access to early childhood education.

Repairing Politics. Millennials should help heal our political system by voting more, participating in public and community service, and working across party lines. CSA must take a lead in repairing the fabric of U.S. politics by encouraging our friends and peers to serve, participate, and vote. 

Goal: CSA should increase Millennial civic and electoral participation to strengthen the democratic process.



Goal: CSA should help build a social expectation of national service over the course of a lifetime to increase nation-building at home.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 10

Â

Executive Summary What is AGE? The Agenda for Generational Equity (AGE) is the first bipartisan policy agenda created by members of the Millennial generation through a nationwide process. AGE serves as a policy platform and the first manifesto for the national CSA movement.

Through a responsibly partisan process of research, debate, negotiation, and democratic decision-making, Common Sense Action (CSA) chapters comprised of hundreds of Democratic, Republican, and independent young people from across the United States developed AGE in partnership with the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), a think tank committed to advancing bipartisan policy solutions.

What are the foundations of AGE? AGE is framed by three principles outlined by the AGE Steering Committee in the AGE Framework: 1. AGE must be credibly bipartisan, and it must address Millennial priorities that transcend party lines: Fiscal Responsibility, Economic Mobility, Investments, and National Service.

2. Fiscal responsibility and investments are not mutually exclusive. We have an obligation to both keep our financial promises and make critical investments in education and infrastructure.

3. Advancing generational equity demands service, shared sacrifice, and consensus-building.

Why is AGE innovative and different?

AGE is America’s first Millennial policy agenda to be generated through an entirely Millennial-driven, nationwide, and bipartisan process.

Unlike most policy documents, AGE was not created by a small group of policy experts.

Instead, the report was crafted in a nation-wide, open-source process that engaged hundreds of young people.

In the fall of 2013, each CSA chapter researched, formulated, and presented a total of more than 150 distinct policies for inclusion in a national agenda. These policies were debated and

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 11

 vetted at Campus Congresses—conventions that brought together CSA chapter members and other student stakeholders, including student body presidents and the leaders of the college Democrats and college Republicans to vote on each proposal. Two representatives from each of the participating chapters convened at the AGE Policy Summit in Washington.

At the summit, they determined the final policy agenda, which consisted of 40 policy options.

What does it mean that AGE is a policy menu?

Most policy agendas present demands for policymakers to follow. AGE, however, is designed to give policymakers the political space to make decisions. We are not policy experts and, for this reason, we do not profess to know the ten-step definitive plan to get America back on track.

We do not demand that policymakers adopt every single one of our policy options. Instead, we argue that there are different ways to tackle the challenges facing our nation. We support a range of ideas, some center-left and some center-right, on which we believe the parties could find common ground. AGE draws a fence around the Democratic and Republican policy 40-yard lines and is intended to serve as a charge for politicians to take meaningful action.

The next generation of Democratic and Republican leaders will have to tackle these challenges. They will have to propose policy solutions to confront issues of fiscal responsibility, economic mobility, investments, and national service. We aim to kick-start the process.

What is the structure of AGE? The policy document itself is broken into pillars, goals, and policy options.

AGE is built on three pillars: Advancing Generational Fairness, Investing in Millennial Mobility, and Repairing Politics. It outlines ten goals spread throughout the three pillars; four each for Generational Fairness and Millennial Mobility and two for Repairing Politics.

Finally, there are several policy options beneath each goal that propose pragmatic solutions to advance these goals.

The pillars and goals are meant to complement each other. It is extremely important to note that each individual goal or policy option is not centrist; instead, the document as a whole is balanced. The Generational Fairness pillar provides more sustainability; the Millennial Mobility pillar includes more investment.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 12

What is our process?

The Agenda for Generational Equity was researched, crafted, and negotiated over the last ten months by the members of Common Sense Action’s 17 founding chapters, each located on a college campus.

During the summer of 2013, CSA brought together a Steering Committee of 25 young Americans from 18 states to craft the Framework for AGE. For eight weeks, the committee met over pizza to debate, deliberate, and design the agenda. The result was the Framework for the Agenda for Generational Equity.

With the Framework as a blueprint, each chapter worked in the fall of 2013 to craft their own vision for AGE. Through rigorous policy research, committees drafted policy proposals that advanced the goals outlined in the Framework. Chapters then hosted Campus Congresses, where they invited chapter members and other students to debate and vote on proposals, ultimately voting on which policies to include in the final chapter proposal for the agenda. Overall, chapters voted and passed more than 150 distinct policies through this campus process.

In January 2014, CSA convened 40 leaders—two from each CSA chapter—at the BPC to finalize the national Agenda for Generational Equity. We began by breaking into small groups, discussing each individual objective and policy intently. On the second day, the entire group gathered to debate and vote on AGE’s policy goals and policy options.

We all came to that table strong in our own beliefs and ready to fight for them—principled partisans in short. As the day went on, the conversation grew more and more productive.

We did not ask participants to put aside their own political beliefs and passions for the sake of bipartisanship. Instead, we actually sought to embrace the wide range of perspectives in

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 13

the room. At times, we disagreed passionately on ideological grounds. And we honored that disagreement as a necessary part of a responsible partisan process. However, we were able to build trust through discussion. We tried to live the example that we wished Congress would follow: we had made a commitment to ourselves, to each other, and to our chapters to craft an agenda by working together across difference, and we wouldn’t leave the room until it was done. Three meals, 15 hours, three pillars, and 40 accepted policies later, we had finalized the document.

During the spring of 2014, a team of Policy Fellows led by Director of Policy Ryann Roberts worked to weave the selected policy proposals into a cohesive narrative through more research and iterative writing.

Finally, throughout the AGE process, we worked with experts from BPC to help guide our research, craft meaningful objectives, and identify potential policy options for achieving those objectives. Their support, guidance, and expertise were invaluable in the policygeneration process.

What’s Next?

AGE is not an end—it is a beginning. With the agenda in hand, Common Sense Action chapters and members will work together to continue bringing youth voices to the policymaking table on college campuses, in state houses, and in Washington.

The movement behind this agenda is growing quickly. Almost 3,400 people have already endorsed the AGE pillars and goals, and we hope to see that number keep rising as work to spread the word.

Here’s what you can do to support this growing movement: 

Endorse the Agenda



Join or start a CSA chapter



Volunteer for CSA advocacy campaigns

We’re asking Millennials to take a chance with us. Help us convince lawmakers to stop ignoring the issues that matter most to our generation. We have to show them we are passionate and dedicated. For politicians to take action, we must show them that we care first.

We imagine a world in which Millennials have just as a good a chance to succeed as our parents and grandparents. We imagine a world in which our children and grandchildren have more opportunities to succeed than we do.

Join us – it’s our future.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 14

Generational Fairness What is our vision for Advancing Generational Fairness?

The Generational Fairness pillar of the Agenda for Generational Equity outlines a set of priorities that promotes responsible public budgeting by reforming entitlements, strengthening safety nets, investing in infrastructure, and reforming the tax code.

While the framers of the Agenda for Generational Equity do not purport to be budget experts, our vision is to articulate generational priorities for federal spending and taxing. AGE articulates a strategic vision for America’s spending priorities that protects our elders as they age and simultaneously invests in our future talent. We imagine a generationally fair federal budget. Such a forward-looking budget is critical for our

We believe in a government that maintains a fair safety net for our parents and grandparents while ensuring that we sustain that safety net for our generation, for our children, and for our children’s children.

nation’s economic security.

We believe in a government that maintains a fair safety net for our parents and grandparents while ensuring that we sustain that safety net for our generation, for our children, and for our children’s children. Meanwhile, we must also ensure that our entitlement programs do not crowd out investment in the foundations of America’s future.

We must make the critical investments that will promote commerce, improve our standard of living, and ensure that the United States expands its economic prosperity. Similarly, we must simplify the tax code while raising revenues to create more room for businesses to innovate and the necessary funds to pay for our spending commitments. But as we live within our means, we must ever be investing in expanding our means.

Ultimately, only a budget that not only balances the interests of Democrats and Republicans, grandparents and grandchildren, but also engages each generation at the policymaking table can effectively maintain economic security and advance future economic prosperity.

What is the status quo and how did we get here?

In the 1990s, the United States recognized that it needed to save for retirement—the retirement of its large baby-boomer workforce. With several hard-fought legislative

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 15

compromises, like the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, coupled with tremendous economic growth in the late 1990s, the United States had its fiscal house in order. The nation balanced its budget for three straight years (1999–2001).

During the early 2000s, the trend was reversed. With surpluses in hand, Democrats and Republicans each took credit for popular expansions of Medicare and other federal spending programs while simultaneously passing tax cuts. Over the next decade, budget surpluses quickly became rapidly growing deficits. The result of these taxing and spending policies, a recession, and an aging population is a federal debt of nearly $17.149 trillion, or more than 73 percent of GDP—a ratio seen only during the Great Depression and World War II.4 Deficits are now falling due to slight GDP growth, reductions in the growth of discretionary programs, and modest tax increases, but these incremental improvements are not nearly enough to put us on solid footing. As the baby boomers retire, Social Security and Medicare spending will rise significantly, crowding out the ability to make critical investments in the nation’s infrastructure. In other words, the long-term deficit problem is an entitlement spending—especially

We must make a priority of addressing the projected increases in entitlement spending before these bills become too big to pay.

health care spending—problem, combined with an imbalance in revenue receipts. Social Security and Medicare will be unable to pay out full benefits well before the first Millennial retires at age 65. We must make a priority of addressing the projected increases in entitlement spending before these bills become too big to pay.

Meanwhile, America’s infrastructure is outdated, inefficient, and in need of repair. The American Society of Civil Engineers awarded the nation’s overall infrastructure as a D+ in 2013.5 It estimates that the United States needs to see $3.6 trillion in infrastructure investments by 2020 to maintain its current grade.16 Despite the dreary statistics, infrastructure spending hit a 20-year low last year, totaling only 1.7 percent of GDP, according to Business Insider.7 And the country is not just falling behind in physical infrastructure, but also in research and development (R&D). As of 2006, the United States spent only 2.6 percent of its GDP on R&D, which ranked the United States seventh among peer Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.8 In today’s budget debates, however, these programs have been squeezed by ever-increasing mandatory spending. This has meant fewer new construction contracts and less money available for scientific research and development.

Finally, the tax code could be significantly simplified. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that, for FY2013, if Congress eliminated all tax expenditures, such as employersponsored health insurance, it could cut individual income tax rates by about 44 percent and stay revenue-neutral. In absolute terms, tax expenditures add up to $1.3 trillion per year—that’s a lot of money that could otherwise be going to pay for federal programs or to reduce the debt.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 16

In 2013, we saw tentative first steps toward bipartisan budgetary negotiation. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairs of the budget committees in their respective houses, developed a bipartisan budget agreement for 2014 with the support of their party leadership. While an important step, this budget agreement fell far short of articulating a sustainable and long-term vision for the federal government. It is in that context that we propose our budgetary framework.

What do we propose?

Advancing Generational Fairness: The United States needs a national entitlement and revenue solution that both keeps the promise of a fair and adequate social safety net for our grandparents today and also sustains that safety net for future generations.

•

Goal: Reform Social Security to ensure 75-year solvency while preserving the fairness and adequacy of the program.

•

Goal: Reform Medicare in order to achieve the “triple aim:” improved patient experience, improved population health, and decreased per-capita costs.

•

Goal: Invest in the capabilities of the next generation to strengthen the infrastructure of today and to develop the infrastructure of tomorrow.

•

Goal: Exercise generationally responsible taxing and budgeting to promote longterm economic growth and address long term-debt.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 17

GOAL: REFORM SOCIAL SECURITY TO ENSURE 75-YEAR SOLVENCY WHILE PRESERVING THE FAIRNESS AND ADEQUACY OF THE PROGRAM What are the facts?

Since it was signed into law in 1935, the Social Security program has served as a critical safety net for retirees, their survivors, and people with disabilities (through disability insurance). The program is a signature part of the American way of life—a promise to Americans that they will not fall through the cracks in their later years. The government awarded 57 million Americans Social Security benefits in June 2013.9 Many of the recipients rely on Social Security for a large portion of their income; in fact, 14 million elderly Americans, more than 40 percent, rely on Social Security to keep them above the federal poverty level.10 In 2013, the Social Security Board of Trustees predicted that the program’s trust fund will be exhausted in 2033 and will operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, drastically reducing benefits.11 For those of us in the Millennial generation, this means that the program that we paid into for many years will provide us with severely reduced benefits.

Why did we choose this goal?

Social Security is the last line of support for millions of Americans, and austere cuts to benefits would be devastating for many who rely on the program. We cannot slash benefits across the board and let elderly Americans—who have paid into the program—suffer. On the other hand, the Social Security trust fund will soon run out of money, well before Millennials are of age to collect. Beginning in 2033, the Social Security trust funds will no longer be able to pay 100 percent of benefits to all eligible recipients. As the board of trustees for the trust funds noted in their 2013 annual report, Congress and the administration must take steps now to address the looming shortfall.

What are the policy options?

Policy Option 1: Use Chained CPI to index benefits.

Cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for Social Security benefits are indexed to inflation using the traditional consumer price index (CPI) for urban wage earners and clerical workers (CPI-W).

We propose replacing the use of the CPI-W with the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U), or the Chained CPI, which accounts for changes in consumer spending habits when prices grow at different rates. Chained CPI grows about 0.25 percent more slowly per year than

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 18

CPI-W, on average.12 As a result, using Chained CPI to index Social Security to inflation would reduce growth relative to the baseline. Reduction of federal Social Security spending, according to the Social Security Administration’s Board of Trustees, will improve the program’s solvency.13 Policy Option 2: Gradually raise the Social Security retirement age to 69 and index it to life expectancy.

According to the Social Security Administration, the full retirement age will gradually rise from 65 to 67 by 2027, although individuals may still elect to receive a reduced benefit at age 62. This means that for people born from 1943 to 1954, the full retirement age is 66, while that number will increase gradually each year until reaching 67 for people born in 1960 or later.14 Fifty years ago, with a full retirement age set at 65, average life expectancy at age 65 was 14 more years for men and 18 for women. For those reaching age 65 today, life expectancies have grown to 18 and 20 years, respectively—a trend that is expected to continue in future decades, although growth in life expectancy has been very uneven across income levels.15 The Social Security retirement age should continue to be adjusted to reflect this change in longevity.

Raising the full retirement age to 69 and indexing the retirement age to life expectancy would help account for ever-increasing growth in average life expectancy, cause a decrease in federal Social Security spending of approximately 13 percent, and improve trust fund solvency.16 Policy Option 3: Subject 90 percent of wages to the Social Security payroll tax.

The Social Security payroll and self-employment taxes currently apply to annual earnings up to $117,000. Between 1983 and 2008, the share of total wages subjected to this tax declined from 90 percent to 83.4 percent, due to rapid increases in wages for top earners.17 Up to $216,900 of an individual’s earned income would be subject to the payroll tax if the taxable income cap is set to cover 90 percent of total payroll and self-employment income in the economy.18 Raising the cap to 90 percent of payroll is estimated to eliminate about 28 percent of Social Security’s long-run deficit and increase the possibility of 75-year solvency.19 Policy Option 4: Adjust Social Security benefits for wealthier recipients.

Under current Social Security law, benefits are provided to all individuals who pay into the system. Social Security currently includes an “earnings test” that is intended to reduce benefits based only on income earned.20 Benefits are based on a percentage of an individual’s lifetime covered earnings. At full retirement age, an individual’s initial benefit is based on 90 percent of the first $749 of the worker’s average monthly earnings, 32 percent of average monthly earnings between $749 and $4,517, and 15 percent of wages above $4,517 (and below the cap on covered earnings).21 We propose reducing the initial benefit for average monthly wages above $4,517 from 15 percent to 10 percent, impacting

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 19

approximately the top 25 percent of earners. This proposal would enhance Social Security’s long-term sustainability.

GOAL: REFORM MEDICARE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE “TRIPLE AIM:” IMPROVED PATIENT EXPERIENCE, IMPROVED POPULATION HEALTH, AND DECREASED PER-CAPITA COSTS What are the facts?

Health care is the fastest-growing cost for the United States. In 2012, the federal government spent $466 billion on Medicare, or roughly 13 percent of the federal budget.22 On its current track, Medicare as we know it will likely not be around for the Millennial generation, and seniors may eventually see reductions in benefits. Though health care costs have slowed as a result of the recent recession, they will rise faster as the nation recovers.23 Medicare costs are projected to increase as a share of GDP, and the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund program is projected to be exhausted in 2026—just as most baby boomers are in the midst of their retirement years.24 Two main factors combine to drive Medicare’s growth. The first is the increasing number of Medicare-eligible citizens. As of last year, there were 49.4 million Medicare recipients.25 In 2035, that number will rise to a staggering 85.3 million.26 The second is health care inflation. In 2010, drug prices increased by 3 percent, the cost of inpatient admissions by 5.1 percent, and the cost of outpatient visits by 10 percent,27 all of which are substantially higher than the overall inflation rate of 2.3 percent.

Why did we choose this goal?

As the fastest-growing driver of the debt and one of the largest federal expenditures, Medicare must be reformed. Too many seniors and individuals with disabilities rely on the program for the government to cut benefits, and too many Millennials will not receive the benefits they paid for with their tax dollars for us to not reform the program.

A sustainable Medicare program cannot be achieved through a budgetary fix alone. Though Medicare makes up a large portion of the budget, only a comprehensive approach can stem the tide of inflationary health care costs. Budgetary fixes, like raising the eligibility age, do not address the structural problem—a fee-for-service model that incentivizes high-cost procedures and acts as a disincentive for population-based care. A comprehensive approach to fixing Medicare incentivizes more preventative, population-based care; Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs); financing reform; and delivery-system reform. These reforms will advance us toward the path of the triple aim.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 20

What are the policy options?

Policy Option 1: Create stronger incentives for Medicare providers and beneficiaries to move toward advanced payment and care delivery models that incentivize quality and value, such as enhanced ACOs and competitively priced Medicare Advantage.28 The fee-for-service payment system that predominates in the U.S. health care market is a key driver of cost growth, and it serves as a barrier to greater coordination of care. We support encouraging providers and beneficiaries to move toward organized systems of care with advanced payment models that incentivize quality, value, and patient satisfaction. One example of such a model, proposed by BPC’s Health Care Cost Containment Initiative, would create “Medicare Networks,” a new option within traditional Medicare. Full annual payment updates would be reserved for providers who form or join Medicare Networks, and beneficiaries would receive a premium rebate for enrolling. Providers and beneficiaries would share in savings, as long as quality and patient satisfaction targets are met. If cost growth exceeds a target, providers would be required to absorb the difference.

Currently, the capitated Medicare Advantage plans are paid based on spending in the feefor-service part of the program, regardless of whether that is the efficient price. We support transitioning to a competitive-bidding structure in Medicare Advantage. Competitively bid payments to plans would only take effect in regions where it costs less than current law.

Initially, a portion of the savings could be allocated to finance reduced beneficiary premiums and cost-sharing.

Policy Option 2: Create incentives for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries to enroll in wellness or prevention programs and meet program benchmarks—for example, through premium discounts and cash incentives.

Medicare Advantage plans are private health plans that contract with Medicare to provide Part A and Part B benefits. These plans may offer extra coverage, such as vision, hearing, dental, or health and wellness programs with an average premium of $104.90 a month.29 The average premium for Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans is $39, up 14 percent from 2013.30 However, plans can choose not to cover the costs of services that are not “medically necessary” under Medicare. This classification can allow Advantage plans to exclude wellness or prevention programs from coverage. Prevention and wellness programs are especially important for older Americans as they can end health problems early and prevent new health problems from beginning. Allowing Medicare Advantage enrollees to obtain premium discounts by enrolling in prevention or wellness programs and meeting benchmarks within those programs would increase the number of advantage enrollees who obtain these services.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 21

Policy Option 3: Combine Part A and Part B of Medicare.

Medicare Part A is the core of the Medicare program, covering certain costs for inpatient hospital and limited post-acute care services without a premium. Medicare Part B covers physician, outpatient, and other services. It is optional, requires enrollment, and charges a premium. According to some experts, separating the financing systems for Parts A and B often makes it difficult for policymakers to create solutions to address the long-term solvency of both parts.31 Combining Parts A and B would potentially protect beneficiaries from high out-of-pocket spending by improving cost-sharing, efficiency, and coordination throughout the program.32 Policy Option 4: Encourage the use of high-quality, low-cost drugs in Medicare through reforms such as cost-sharing.33 A large driver of rising health care costs is the high cost of prescription drugs. We support reforms that encourage Medicare beneficiaries to use high-quality, low-cost generic drugs over higher-cost brand-name drugs. We also support reforms that will reduce the overall price of prescription drugs to the federal government.

We suggest adjusting the Part D low-income subsidy to increase copayments for brandname drugs while eliminating the copayments for generic drugs. We also recommend that low-income subsidy payments to Part D plans that subsidize the deductible and cost-sharing be limited to the amount that the government would pay for a low-cost alternative drug, if available, unless the higher-cost drug is prescribed as medically necessary.

We also suggest that we change the Part B reimbursement for provider-administered medications. Some physician-administered prescription drugs are reimbursed under Part B of the Medicare program, using the medication’s Average Sales Price (ASP) plus 6 percent to cover the physician’s cost to purchase the medication plus handling costs. Replacing the 6 percent surcharge with a flat payment could achieve budget savings by reducing physician incentives to administer more prescription drugs.

We further suggest that the government should pay the actual price of remaining Part B drug and vaccine reimbursements rather than the wholesale price listed by states.

Converting reimbursements (with a phase-in to minimize disruption) now paid under “Average Wholesale Price” to their actual sales prices would reflect the various discounts and rebates that contribute to the actual sales price.

Policy Option 5: Strengthen and modernize the Medicare benefit.34 The Medicare benefit package does not currently provide adequate protections for enrolled seniors and people with disabilities, as evidenced by the prevalence of Medigap and other supplemental insurance policies used to fill in coverage gaps among about 90 percent of Medicare beneficiaries.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 22

We suggest improving, simplifying, and modernizing the basic traditional Medicare benefit package, providing predictable cost-sharing for beneficiaries by moving from a model of coinsurance to copayments and establishing an annual catastrophic cap for medical services.

Along with this reform, we suggest expanding cost-sharing for those beneficiaries with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level and paying for this by reducing subsidies to higher-income Medicare beneficiaries by establishing modestly lower income thresholds.

GOAL: INVEST IN THE CAPABILITIES OF THE NEXT GENERATION TO STRENGTHEN THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF TODAY AND TO DEVELOP THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF TOMORROW What are the facts?

America’s infrastructure is sorely in need of rehabilitation and, in certain areas, expansion.

The 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers Report gave D grades or worse to U.S. aviation, dams, hazardous waste, inland waterways, levees, roads, transit, and wastewater infrastructure—meaning that each sector was individually deemed to be in substandard condition and at risk of failure.35 Poor infrastructure harms the nation’s international economic competitiveness—the United States is ranked 25th globally in overall infrastructure.36 Outdated transportation infrastructure costs the United States billions. In 2012, Americans in 439 metropolitan areas spent 4.8 billion hours in congestion, burning more than $100 billion of extra fuel.37 Additionally, airport congestion and delays cost the economy an estimated $22 billion.38 Crumbling infrastructure is a threat to public safety as well. Recent sudden collapses of bridges in Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Washington state are indicative of a larger problem—one in nine bridges across the country are rated “deficient.”39 Interestingly, the labor necessary to meet these demands appears to be available. As of April 2014, the unemployment rate for construction workers was 9.4 percent,40 well above the national rate of 6.3 percent.41 According to the Treasury Department, nearly two-thirds of jobs created by investment in infrastructure would be in the construction industry, with the next-highest industry being manufacturing, another area of high unemployment.42 We define infrastructure broadly to include waterworks, waterways, roads, transit, broadband, and energy facilities.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 23

Why did we choose this goal?

Infrastructure is the building block of a prosperous nation. In the past, infrastructure investments have been known to increase short-term and long-term economic growth.

Projects like the Interstate Highway System have been associated with significant future private-sector productivity gains.43 Beyond the direct financial benefit to Americans, mass infrastructure projects are critical for accessibility to jobs, businesses, and supply chains.

Additionally, by providing jobs and lowering transportation expenses, infrastructure investment is particularly beneficial to lower- and middle-class Americans.44 To accomplish these goals, we must ensure that government matches resources with the most valuable type of infrastructure projects. We recognize that we cannot fund all projects and must be smart about which ones we choose—leaving options for state and local governments when applicable. We

Our generation is concerned that if these costs are not addressed now, our ability to pay for regular maintenance on infrastructure in the future will be significantly constrained.

advocate for increased funding at the federal and state levels, with an emphasis on federal grants that are allocated to states for the most essential projects. Partnerships between the private and public sector are also crucial to the development and maintenance of U.S. infrastructure—cooperation between government and industry leads to more jobs and higher project-completion rates. With the right combination of funding, financing, and private-sector partnerships, the federal government can take advantage of the current low interest rates and invest now to save the nation money over the next few decades.

Today, local and state governments across the country are experiencing ever-tightening budgets in the face of mounting infrastructure needs. Our generation is concerned that if these costs are not addressed now, our ability to pay for regular maintenance on infrastructure in the future will be significantly constrained. Deferred maintenance may save current tax and ratepayers but will only compound the next generation’s burden.

Recognizing that federal funds are limited and keeping the nation’s debt obligations in mind, we call for more financing options for infrastructure projects and the leveraging of private investment in addition to federal funding.

What are the policy options?

Policy Option 1: Expand initiatives that allow private companies to invest in infrastructure projects, including a National Infrastructure Financing Authority.

Infrastructure deficits create numerous problems for society as a whole, including increased road fatalities, water safety concerns, and lower economic productivity. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are a cost-effective way for state and local governments to undertake needed infrastructure projects without some of the risk, challenges, and political considerations associated with traditional public-sector approaches.45 Private financing can

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 24

 shift the responsibility of financing and delivery to a private entity, which will help improve infrastructure in areas where public partners are unable or unwilling to embrace the debt or risk.46 Not only do PPPs increase access to funding and investment opportunities, they also allow for access to a wider range of new private-sector expertise and faster and less expensive project implementation.47 While this is largely an issue for state and local governments, the federal government could open up more opportunities for PPPs. Specifically, Congress could create a National Infrastructure Financing Authority. The creation of the Financing Authority would benefit future generations of Americans by leveraging limited public dollars with private investment to grow the number of projects that can be built and upgraded each year. The federal government spends more than $50 billion a year in federal surface transportation grants to states and localities, and these states and localities spend $150 billion of their own funds, in addition to private-sector investments.48 Approximately $3.6 trillion is needed to properly complete infrastructure projects across the nation.49 A National Infrastructure Financing Authority would benefit future generations of Americans by closing this gap between needed investment and current spending. For example, the Financing Authority could be critical to the expansion of public transportation, such as extending high-speed rail projects and local mass transit. These initiatives are crucial to future prosperity, as they will promote job growth and job retention by expanding the pathways through which low-income workers are connected to employment.

The construction of vital infrastructure is paramount to economic growth, public safety, and higher productivity. Currently, 33 states and Puerto Rico have enacted legislation allowing state governments to pursue transportation infrastructure projects using PPPs.50 Policy Option 2: Expand broadband access in underserved communities with the goal of achieving 100 percent access to high-speed broadband using a suite of the most cost-effective public and private initiatives.

In 2011, approximately 34 percent of American adults did not have broadband Internet access at home.51 Many critical resources and services are now offered online; without Internet access many of these families and individuals will continue to fall behind economically, socially, and politically.

Allocating more federal funds for broadband infrastructure and affordability would expedite the adoption process. Higher broadband saturation also creates hundreds of thousands of new jobs: each additional $5 billion investment in broadband creates 250,000 jobs.52 By providing tax credits to foster the development of new technologies, allocating larger fund amounts to broadband adoption programs, and creating partnerships with other agencies and corporations, the federal government can help private and public companies bring fast and affordable broadband Internet to every American, regardless of their location. Emerging technologies are making broadband expansion less politically volatile.53

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 25

Policy Option 3: Index the gas tax to inflation to increase funding for the repair of existing roads and systems.

The United States federal tax rates for gasoline and diesel fuel are 18.4 and 24.4 cents per gallon respectively, and tax receipts bring in about $35 billion in revenue per year.54 The federal gas tax is used to fund road construction, road maintenance, and sustain public transit through the Highway Trust Fund.55 Every year, the real revenue from gas taxes decreases, shrinking the funds in the Highway Trust Fund by about 4 percent a year.56 The Highway Trust Fund was intended to fully fund federal highway programs, however, in recent years significant offsets from general revenues have been required. Indexing the gas tax to inflation would increase the tax for the first time since 1996, allowing an increase in revenue placed into the Highway Trust Fund for the purpose of repairing and maintaining existing roads.57 Without an increase in the gas tax, the Highway Trust Fund is predicted to be unsustainable.58 States such as Florida and Maine have indexed their state gasoline tax to inflation by adjusting the tax based upon the consumer price index (CPI).59 Using the CPI to determine the gas tax rate would grow revenue from gas taxes in “modest and predictable” increments.60 Bipartisan groups like the Domenici-Rivlin Debt Reduction Task Force have called for indexing the gas tax to inflation.

Policy Option 4: Promote research and development through increased federal funding, and an expanded and permanent R&D tax credit.

The United States has been a leader in innovation and that innovation has driven economic development. As noted by the American Energy Innovation Council in its report, Unleashing Private-Sector Energy R&D: Insights from Interviews with 17 R&D Leaders: “Perhaps most importantly, we have found that the current public policy environment poses challenges that businesses cannot solve on their own, and these problems are hindering U.S. technological innovation. This must change. If government and business can work together to foster a climate that promotes innovation, then private-sector R&D can help set us on a path to a more affordable, secure, and prosperous energy future.”61 Investing in R&D means investing in the future of our country and ensuring it will continue to lead in technological and hence, economic development.

Federally funded R&D projects have led to great technological advances and scientific breakthroughs. Increasing federal funding for R&D would expand opportunities for dissemination of knowledge, increasing the scientific workforce and fostering technological advances and scientific breakthroughs in national defense, health, safety, energy, and security, paving the way for a secure and stable future.

The R&D Tax Credit—formally known as the “research and experimentation tax credit”—is a business tax credit for companies incurring R&D expenses in the United States. The R&D tax credit was originally enacted in the Economic Recovery Act of 1981. On January 1, 2014,

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 26

Congress allowed the credit to expire, letting firms across the United States lose out on an estimated $8 billion in tax credits during 2014.

Increasing the credit and making it permanent would provide greater certainty for U.S. companies to invest in R&D, doing away with the uncertainty companies face when Congress fails to renew the credit. Creating a permanent R&D tax credit encourages businesses to continue to invest in R&D activities so that future generations of Americans can experience a reliable and robust national infrastructure.62 Making the R&D tax credit more permanent would help spur innovation, protect job-creators, and keep high-paying R&D jobs in the United States, mirroring other countries that have also improved their R&D incentives.63 In the past, the R&D credit has been popular in both parties—with both President Bush and President Obama suggesting making the credit more permanent. Senator Ron Wyden (DOR), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, recently suggested moving forward on making the credit permanent, remarking that the “roller coaster” of tax extensions is harming corporate innovation. Indeed, Dave Camp, the Republican chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, included a proposal to make the R&D tax credit permanent in his recent tax-code reform proposal. Although the credit was among dozens of temporary tax breaks that expired December 31, lawmakers are examining plans to revive it and extend it retroactively, as they have in the past.64 Policy Option 5: Expand basic and applied R&D into future sources of renewable energy, such as hydrogen fuel and nuclear fusion, while expanding funding to scale and improve existing technology, such as next-generation solar energy; carbon capture and storage technology; cost-effective, efficient batteries; and unconventional hydrocarbon production, to make current energy consumption more secure, efficient, and affordable.

Our overall commitment to expanding R&D includes a particular focus on expanding basic and applied research into future sources of renewable energy and the improvement of existing sources of energy to make current energy consumption more secure, efficient, and affordable.

Our nation has benefited significantly from the development of energy-efficient technologies.

The United States is the world’s largest energy consumer and currently uses one-fifth of the world’s energy.65 While consumption of energy has increased, the productivity of the energy we use has increased faster, in part due to more energy-efficient technologies.66 In this sense, greater energy efficiency has provided more bang

By expanding basic and applied R&D in diverse energy sources, the United States can continue to keep energy affordable while also making our economy more secure.

for the buck in growing the U.S. economy while using resources responsibly, and we support continued investment in efficiency technology development.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 27

 Our nation has also benefited significantly from the development of new oil and gas technologies. In 2011, only 80 percent of energy used in the United States was produced domestically, with the majority of the shortfall being supplied by foreign petroleum imports.67 However, the profile of U.S. energy usage and production is changing rapidly, largely due to the spread of the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing used to extract oil and natural gas, but also due to renewable energy technologies. In 2012, U.S. oil production hit a 15-year high, and natural gas output reached an all-time peak.68 This boom in natural gas and unconventional oil development has led to more than 1.7 million new jobs, the vast majority of which were created in the private sector.69 These developments mean that more of the energy consumed in the United States is produced in the United States, so the country is more energy independent.

Despite these accomplishments, our nation has more progress to make in developing clean energy technology. All of our energy consumption accounts for 5.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the second-highest global total.70 The primary energy sources today are nuclear energy, fossil energy, and renewable sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower. About 9 percent of all energy consumed in the United States is from renewable sources. While horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has created a boom in domestic oil and natural gas supplies, it remains in the long-term best interests of the country to continue to diversify our energy supply. Too much dependence on any one source can create instability in supply markets and consumer costs.

To develop clean energy, the government primarily invests in R&D and tax incentives. The federal government has spent approximately $1.8 billion on renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D, $400 million on fossil energy R&D, and $800 million on nuclear energy R&D annually since 2012.71 Additionally, the federal government makes available tax incentives for clean energy investment and production, which in 2012 were estimated at $13 billion,72 as well as for R&D expenses. We agree with the nation’s leading scientists73 and business leaders74 that this is not enough.

As a nation, we must incentivize the development and commercialization of cleaner and more efficient energy technologies in order to fuel growth through lower prices, increased access, and market stability. As the recent natural-gas boom has illustrated, R&D investments can ultimately drive new energy production and lower energy prices.

These lower prices benefit consumers through

By promoting transparency and accountability, we foster trust between the government and the American taxpayers.

lower living costs and benefit businesses through lower operations costs. By expanding basic and applied R&D in diverse energy sources, the United States can continue to keep energy affordable while also making our economy more secure.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 28

Policy Option 6: Encourage all federally funded initiatives, projects, and development efforts to reveal all reasonably appropriate data freely and widely available in a usable, query-able format.

In October 2012, the Department of Commerce and several other agencies launched FOIAonline, a “new shared-services model that allows the public to search through the FOIA inquiries of participating federal agencies by date, keyword and other parameters.”75 The launch of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) online expanded the tools available to the public, including new document-search capabilities that allow users to narrow their searches to the relevant information they are seeking. Not all government agencies participate in the FOIAonline shared-service model.

Congressional legislation requiring federal agencies to develop and maintain public-access policies would allow public access to all agencies’ federally funded initiatives. This legislation should require most federal agencies to release their non-classified research to the public. It should require all researchers who receive federal funds to submit electronic manuscripts of their final reports to the agencies from which the funds were collected in a timely manner, and it should ensure that the manuscripts are preserved in digital repositories that permit free public access as well.

By promoting transparency and accountability, we foster trust between the government and the American taxpayers. Private institutions and researchers would also be able utilize publicly funded research, promoting further private R&D across countless sectors of the economy.76 Providing the results of public research to the public would allow universities and private entities to create comprehensive databases, communicate with one another, and collaborate on new and innovative projects.77 Policy Option 7: Increase the number of H-1B visas issued to high-skilled immigrants and streamline the application process.

The H-1B program allows businesses to employ highly skilled immigrants in specialty occupations. For many foreign graduates of U.S. universities, including those educated in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields, this is the best chance to remain in the United States. Each fiscal year, 85,000 H-1B visas are available, with exceptions for certain types of employers.78 Because demand regularly exceeds this cap,79 many talented foreign students cannot remain in the United States after graduation. For example, in the filing period for FY2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received about 172,500 H-1B petitions in the first week.80 USCIS used a computer-generated random selection process, or “lottery,” to select which petitions it would consider. This is the second year in a row that USCIS was forced to use the lottery process to select which petitions it would consider. During last year’s filing period for FY2014, USCIS received about 124,000 petitions in the first week.81 Increasing the number of visas issued to eligible immigrants would help U.S. companies meet their labor needs, which would grow the economy and drive innovation in STEM fields.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 29

According to one estimate, by 2018, the United States will face a shortfall of more than 200,000 STEM workers with advanced degrees.82 Allowing high-skilled immigrants to work in the United States would take a step toward investing in America’s readiness to compete in tomorrow’s economy, retaining talent that will help make critical investments in science and technology. On the other hand, if U.S. companies cannot fill their labor needs, the jobs of tomorrow—and the innovators who will create them—will be located in other countries.

In addition to increasing the number of workers available, Congress should streamline the broken H-1B petition process. Each fiscal year begins in October, but as described above, high demand for visas forces companies to submit their petition by the first week of April to even have a chance at getting the workers they need. This requires companies to anticipate labor needs months in advance, with the added uncertainty that they may not even be able to hire the worker they selected. Further, the application process requires significant paperwork and hefty fees.83 This burden on all companies is especially difficult for small businesses and start-ups, which often lack the resources and expertise needed to navigate the process.84 Among numerous other problems, the lottery currently used to decide among petitions gives no weight to the skill of the employee or to the extent of the employer’s need.85 For example, a company that applies for four workers may only be allowed to bring in the one worker that it needs least.

Policy Option 8: Offer green cards to doctoral-level international students and remove per-country quotas.

As described above, employers seeking to hire international students as full-time workers often use the H-1B visa program, which provides only six years of authorized work instead of a more permanent green card.86 Further, the limited green cards available for work reasons (about 12–14 percent of the total allocated each year, more than half of which go to spouses and children)87 are subject to strict per-country quotas, which mandate that no country can take more than 7 percent of the total green cards each year.88 As of April 2014, these limits have caused some workers to wait more than ten years for a green card.89 The uncertainty about if, or how long, immigrants will be able to stay in the United States creates significant uncertainty for both employers and workers, hindering both groups from maximizing their potential.

The United States can no longer afford to take for granted its advantage in attracting highly skilled immigrants. Today’s generation of bright young foreigners has far more opportunities at home, as well as in growing economies all over the world. In a 2011 Gallup poll, 77 percent of foreigners who would like to immigrate somewhere named a country other than the United States as their first-choice destination.90 Creating a more straightforward path to permanent residence for doctoral-level international students would enable the United States to attract and retain more talented young immigrants from around the world. This would support research and growth in the economic sectors that will power the future, including sustainable energy and other STEM fields.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 30

GOAL: EXERCISE GENERATIONALLY RESPONSIBLE TAXING AND BUDGETING TO PROMOTE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ADDRESS LONG TERM-DEBT What are the facts?

Taxing and budgeting are long overdue for reform—both procedural and substantive. If the United States is going to get its fiscal house in order for future generations it must start with making budgetary processes more functional and addressing the tax code to lower rates, close loopholes, and raise revenue. A simpler, fairer, and revenue-positive tax code will help set our generation on a better footing.

A significant source of the tax code’s complexity is tax expenditures, which means spending through the tax code or foregone revenues due to certain tax incentives. Besides making the tax code harder to understand, these tax expenditures are a significant revenue drain. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that, for FY2013, if Congress eliminated all tax expenditures, it could cut individual income tax rates by about 44 percent and stay revenue-neutral.91

We believe that solutions-first policymaking starts with a commitment to actually deciding on a set of spending priorities (a budget).

In absolute terms, tax expenditures add up to $1.3 trillion per year—a lot of money that could otherwise be going to pay for federal programs or to reduce the debt.

Additionally, the federal tax code is impossibly complicated, reading almost four million words long.92 Many Americans struggle to understand their personal tax obligations, meaning that most citizens are forced to pay for a tax service or specialist. American taxpayers and businesses spend 7.6 billion hours each year figuring out how to comply with the federal tax code.93 This is massively expensive; in 2009, the estimated cost of all personal and corporate tax compliance was $193 billion.94 The complexity of the tax code makes personal financial planning more difficult.

Why did we choose this goal?

Though recent compromises offer hope for future budgeting deals, it is highly irresponsible for the U.S. government to live Continuing Resolution to Continuing Resolution, as it has been for the majority of recent years. We believe that solutions-first policymaking starts with a commitment to actually deciding on a set of spending priorities (a budget), which Congress has unfortunately had a hard time doing.

Additionally, outsized debt is a threat to the basic functioning of government. When debt is too high, interest payments crowd out other more desirable uses of federal dollars. The United States has a potential debt crisis looming in its future. Eventually, if debt is growing

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 31

too fast relative to the economy, lenders will begin to question America’s credit worthiness.

This results in a vicious cycle of yet higher borrowing costs. This in turn leads to even higher interest-rate payments. Essentially, as debt rises, taxpayers see less of each tax dollar returned to them in the form of effective government.

As the Federal Reserve tightens monetary policy, interest rates will rise and U.S. borrowing will become more costly. As the baby boomers retire, Social Security and Medicare will compound the problem. Social Security is funded mainly by payroll taxes from current workers; so as fewer people pay into the program relative to those collecting benefits, higher deficits will result. The combination of more beneficiaries and health care inflation will drive up the cost of Medicare as well. All of these problems point to a future of high debt and high interest payments. This future makes the United States much less flexible to respond to a threat at home or abroad, whether military, financial, or natural. The earlier the government addresses the growth of U.S. federal debt, the more flexibility the nation will have to craft effective and equitable policy.

What are the policy options?

Policy Option 1: Implement two-year budgeting and appropriations processes.

Congress recently passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA), a bipartisan two-year budget deal for FY2014 and FY2015. This budget increased existing caps and added new spending paid for through cuts to certain mandatory programs and increases in federal user fees. We recommend Congress not only replicate the BBA with mandatory two-year budgets, but also include two-year appropriations bills. This will decrease the necessity for tactics like sequestration, which are counter-productive to the economic prosperity of the nation. Members of Congress seemed to all agree that the sequester was not only bad public policy, but potentially bad for the economy. We believe that two-year budgets and appropriations make across-the-board extreme cuts like the sequester less likely.

Passing a two-year budget along with twoyear appropriations bills helps stabilize the economy at a time when partisanship in Congress threatens America’s economic engine. Passing a two-year budget is a policy that has bipartisan support, as it was recently passed for FY2014 and FY2015.95 At the very

We recommend Congress not only replicate the BBA with mandatory two-year budgets, but also include two-year appropriations bills.

least, this will ensure that we as a country face these failures of Congress half as often as we would under a single-year budgeting process. Further, a two-year budget will provide Congress with a full year to conduct oversight and focus on issues other than the budget, like immigration reform, infrastructure financing, and education.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 32

Policy Option 2: Adjust the tax code through comprehensive reform, such as lowering individual and corporate rates, reforming the system of tax expenditures through either the elimination of certain corporate and individual tax expenditures or capping the amount received in expenditures and equating the capital gains tax with ordinary incomes.

We believe that Congress should create a tax system that meets the following goals: lower the individual and corporate tax rates for all tax payers, and reduce tax expenditures. We also believe that these changes can be made to the tax code while reducing the national debt.

Tax reform should also reflect three key themes: 

Simplicity



Fairness



Revenue positivity

Though we are not tax experts, we have indicated several reforms that would significantly improve the current tax system based on these themes. This section is particularly indicative of our menu-based approach.

We suggest that Congress reduce rates for individuals of all tax brackets while simultaneously reforming the tax-expenditure regime. By definition, tax expenditures are tax exemptions, exclusions, deductions, and credits claimed by individuals and corporations that exist to “promote social goals without incurring direct expenditures.”96 The most commonly used individual tax expenditures include exclusion of pension contributions, employer-sponsored health care, capital gains at death, untaxed Social Security, railroad retirement benefits deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, charitable contributions, reduced tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains, earned income tax credit, and the child tax credit.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, tax expenditures—if not limited in size—may encourage overconsumption of goods that receive preferential treatment or subsidize activity that would have taken place without the tax incentives.97 Tax expenditures reduce revenue by more than $1 trillion every year.98 When done in tandem with a reduction of rates, tax expenditure reform would raise revenue while not bankrupting citizens and ultimately reduce government interference in certain markets.

We also suggest that Congress tax capital gains at the same rates as ordinary income.

Capital gains, or profits from the sale of properties or investments, are taxed at a maximum at a 23.8 percent rate.99 Profits are considered to be capital gains when the sale price of the property or investment is higher than the original price at which it was purchased.

Historically, capital gains have been taxed at a rate far lower than that of ordinary earned income. The individual tax rate for high earners increased from 38.8 percent to 43.4 percent of income in 2013.100 According to the Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget, “This

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 33

preferential rate is considered to be a tax expenditure, and is one of the most expensive in the tax code, with the highest earners paying about half the taxes on capital income as earned income.”101 As the number of capital gains tax claimers increases, it becomes more crucial to raise the capital gains tax rate to reduce this loss of revenue. Taxing capital gains at the rate for individual high earners would effectively treat capital gains as ordinary income and increase the revenue collected from the capital gains tax Finally, we suggest that Congress significantly reduce the number of corporate tax expenditures, while also lowering the corporate tax rate to promote a competitive business climate and raise revenue. Currently, the top U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent.

Decreasing the corporate tax rate would create an incentive for people to start and stabilize corporations, which would directly lead to more investment on U.S. soil. This reform would provide jobs through a more business-friendly corporate environment. Furthermore, eliminating corporate tax expenditures would provide a substantial increase in tax revenue.

According to the Government Accountability Office, “In 2011, the Department of the Treasury estimated 80 tax expenditures resulted in the government forgoing corporate tax revenue totaling more than $181 billion.”102 The most commonly used corporate tax expenditures include accelerated depreciation and deferral of foreign-earned income.

Policy Option 3: Improve existing IRS free software that helps people file their income taxes.

Most taxpayers today do not utilize free IRS tax software because of ineligibility, unavailability, or they are unaware that it exists. Taxpayers subsequently either try to file themselves, pay for third-party preparation, or fail to file altogether. Congress directed the IRS to implement a “return-free” system in 1998, but nothing significant has developed so far, resulting in tens of millions being spent by the IRS to fix incorrectly filed tax returns.103 The return- free system adjusts the tax code to offer larger numbers of people the same marginal tax rate, preventing many of the errors caused by incorrect filling.104 Improving existing IRS free software would encourage tax payers to use taxpayer assistance centers and other means of tax assistance readily available for the public to use, placing heavy emphasis on free tax preparation software used for electronic filing in order to fully comply with the return-free tax system mandated by Congress in 1988. Compliance with the return-free mandate and establishing universal tax e-filing by the IRS will save millions of dollars in wasted tax dollars and fees that taxpayers would pay to third-party preparers.105 Free tax software will make it easier for younger and lower-income taxpayers, who may lack the knowledge to prepare their taxes by themselves, to file taxes on time and with fewer errors, while reducing the possibility of sensitive information being lost or misused by third-party preparers.106

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 34

Millennial Mobility What is our vision for Millennial Mobility?

We imagine an America where every child, every student, every young person is equipped with the tools and preparation needed to succeed in today’s world. These policies are a blueprint for this America—a future where the next generations enjoy economic prosperity and have every opportunity to achieve their American dreams.

When youth unemployment has risen by more than 50 percent in recent years, when college costs are far outpacing families’ abilities to pay, and when the United States incarcerates the most people per capita in the entire world, we know that something must be done. America can no longer afford to stand idle while its foundations crumble.

Consequently, the Millennial Mobility pillar addresses the need to open up more opportunities for achievement for all Americans through concrete policy solutions.

America can no longer afford to stand idle while its foundations crumble.

Post-secondary education is frequently the pathway to success; by ensuring that more young Americans have access to affordable post-secondary education, we will pave the way for more students to achieve their dreams.

An expanded school-to-job pipeline will ensure that everyone graduates high school either career or college ready, ensuring that those with a college degree can find employment, while those who choose a different educational route have the skills, tools, and opportunities they need to support themselves. With reform of our outdated and abhorrent incarceration policies, we will ease the societal and financial strain on our criminal justice system and refocus our resources on programs that reduce recidivism. Promoting and expanding early childhood education will guarantee that each American child receives the proven educational, health, and behavioral benefits that accompany early education.

What is the status quo and how did we get here?

It is becoming harder and harder to climb the ladder of American opportunity.

Socioeconomic mobility is difficult to achieve in the United States: more than half of children born in the top quintile of income distribution get a college degree, while a mere 7 percent from the bottom quintile graduate from college.107 These statistics are especially discouraging given the importance of higher education to economic mobility: only 5 percent of children born into the bottom quintile who do not graduate from college end up in the top quintile. On the other hand, 30 percent of bottom-quintile children who graduate from

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 35

college rise to the top quintile.108 Opportunity is unfortunately elusive for those who can’t afford post-secondary education.

It is getting harder for students to gain access to post-secondary education: between 1982 and 2007, college tuition costs increased 439 percent while the median family income only rose 147 percent.109 Worse still, total student loan debt has accrued to an estimated $1.2 trillion—triple the $363 trillion in outstanding student loan debt held by Americans a decade ago,110 and it is rising at an average of 6 percent per year.111 The average Millennial owes nearly $30,000 in student loan debt. Even with the help of student loans and financial aid, students and their families are feeling the pinch. Forty-seven states spend less on higher education today than they did in 2008.112 While states are spending less on education, many states are increasing their incarceration budgets—many to the point of spending more on prisons than colleges.113 In fact, over the last 30 years, incarceration rates have increased by more than 500 percent, while the American population has increased by only 36 percent.114 Indeed, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world: 716 citizens out of every 100,000 were behind bars in 2011.115 And incarceration provisions, like the mandatory minimum-sentencing guidelines, have been shown to disproportionately affect Millennials and minority groups.116 Meanwhile, the unemployment rate for those under 30 remains significantly higher than the national

The average Millennial owes nearly $30,000 in student loan debt.

average.117 Finally, it is critical that Millennials advocate for the next generation of Americans by making the most sensible investment in America’s future: early childhood education and school readiness. For every dollar invested in early childhood education, we can expect to see a seven-dollar return.118 This return can be seen in better school performance, improved health outcomes, lower incarceration rates, and better future employment rates for students who enroll in pre-k programs.

What do we propose?

Investing in Millennial Mobility. The United States must make additional investments in education, workforce development, and the infrastructure of the future, so that all young Americans have the opportunity to succeed in the 21st century.

•

Goal: Increase access to affordable post-secondary education to give every student the opportunity to pursue his or her dream.

•

Goal: Expand the school-to-job pipeline.

•

Goal: Reduce incarceration rates and promote reintegration.

•

Goal: Achieve universal access to early high-quality childhood education.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 36

GOAL: INCREASE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION TO GIVE EVERY STUDENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE HIS OR HER DREAM What are the facts?

A college degree has long been viewed as the ticket to prosperity. This is still largely true, even when accounting for higher-than-average unemployment among young Americans. As of April 2014, the unemployment rate for all bachelor’s degree holders over the age of 25 was 3.3 percent, well below the national unemployment rate.119 But skyrocketing expenses and falling completion rates are making a degree harder than ever to get.

As rising costs threaten access to post-secondary education, students are burdened with more and more student debt. As of late 2013, the average student loan debt was nearly $30,000, though many students have debt upward of $100,000.120 In fact, the total amount of outstanding student loan debt has tripled in the last ten years to more than $1.2 trillion.121 Student loans are the only debt that is not dischargeable, meaning that there is no bankruptcy relief for debtors.122 To make matters worse, 41.2 percent of the cohort who entered college in 2005 failed to attain a degree within six years, which means that some students are taking out expensive loans and never even finishing their degrees.123

124 125

Why did we choose this goal?

To increase the affordability of higher education, we must ease the burden of student debt.

There are two sides to this coin: the initial terms and rates of loans as well as the repayment plans that follow. By addressing both, we aim to ensure that students are not only connected to the right loans in the first place, but are also able to repay their debt in a timely fashion without being swamped by interest payments.

Tackling student loans alone cannot solve the affordability problem. Even without interest payments, our colleges and universities are too expensive. High tuition poses many students with the unenviable choice of foregoing higher education or undertaking massive debt. We need to explore every option for lowering costs, such as potentially including pegging federal research dollars to slowing tuition growth.

It is college completion, not college attendance, that truly leads to employment. The unemployment rate for those with some college but no degree (7.7 percent) is hardly better than for those with only a high school diploma (8.3 percent).126 We need to encourage degree completion and create support systems for students at risk of dropping out. In 2005, 41.2 percent of freshmen failed to get a degree within six years—an unacceptable statistic.127 We can and must do better.

Finally, we should recognize that higher education is not the best fit for everyone. We should promote options for those who might be better served by an alternative. Increasing

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 37

the availability of trade and vocational programs, as well as community colleges, will help solve this problem. All students—regardless of the type of post-secondary education they are pursuing—deserve a chance to succeed.

What are the policy options?

Policy Option 1: Study the drivers of the rising costs of post-secondary education and urge Congress to curb this unsustainable growth through measures including federal penalties for schools that do not bend the cost curve.

College costs are rising astronomically, and access to post-secondary education is becoming less attainable for those who do not have the means to pay exorbitant prices. Over the first decade of the 21st century, college tuition costs continued to rise even as median income fell more than $13,000 a year. As of 2010, the average tuition bill ate up nearly 38 percent of median income, as opposed to just 23 percent at the start of the decade.128 In FY2013, the federal government was projected to spend an estimated $170.3 billion129 on student financial aid, a 20 percent increase from FY2012, when $141.9 billion was allocated to aid students facing the rising costs of college.130 Meanwhile, states have actually reduced spending on public universities over the years, placing a greater burden on students to pay tuition and fees. Between 2008 and 2013, total state spending on post-secondary education dropped by an estimated $9 billion.131 This proposal will begin the necessary process of determining why too many American students graduate unsatisfied with their education and provide the information needed to allow students to seek alternative routes to post-secondary education. As the American Enterprise Institute’s Andrew Kelly notes, weathering the rising costs of a traditional fouryear college degree may not be a good decision for many American students if returns are dwindling. According to the U.S. Census, between 2002 and 2012, mean earnings for American men ages 25 to 34 with a bachelor’s degree dropped by more than $4,000 after adjusting for inflation, representing a decline of about 7 percent.132 Economically disadvantaged students in particular need better information about the costs and benefits of attending college and whether accuring tens of thousands of dollars in debt is worth it. Researchers have demonstrated how “nudges and information can raise student aspirations, encourage families to apply for financial aid, and guide students toward colleges where they are likely to graduate.”133 Today, the role of information is critical in ensuring that American students have the necessary tools to make intelligent consumer choices. More extensive information should be available to evaluate the drivers in rising costs in higher education and to aid students in college choice and financial aid options.

As families and Congress look to invest in higher education, both need similar information: greater transparency on college costs and their outcomes. We propose that Congress work on behalf of American students to support studies that evaluate why tuition costs have risen so dramatically since the 1980s, how increased funding is being allocated, what students

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 38

are receiving from their increasingly costly degrees, and how the nation can invest in alternatives that provide opportunities for more Millennials to join the workforce.

U.S. institutions should be rewarded for bending the cost curve—and punished for failing to do so.

Policy Option 2: Further Decrease and Cap Student Loan Rates.

The interest rates for federal student loans vary from 3.4 percent to 9.5 percent depending on loan type and loan disbursement dates. Student loan debt totals approximately $1.2 trillion dollars, rising at an average of 6 percent per year.134 And the average American owes nearly $30,000 in student loan debt.135 As student loan debt continues to rise, it is crucial that further steps are taken to decrease the economic burden student’s face as they enter the workforce. Continuing to decrease and cap student loan rates would increase students’ ability to pay and avoid loan default. Defaulting on student loans occurs when a student is more than 270 days past due on a federal loan payment.136 The negative consequences of defaulting are numerous, ranging from paycheck garnishment to drastically negative impacts on borrowers' credit scores.137 These consequences are long-term and often exist until the debt is paid in full. Decreasing the student loan interest rate would ease the financial burden of borrowers and allow many more to avoid the long-term negative consequences of loan default.

The 2013 Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act altered student loan interest rates on loans disbursed after July 1, 2013, to 2.05 percent, plus the rate on high-yield ten-year Treasury notes for undergraduate students capped at 8.25 percent and 3.6 percent, plus the rate on high-yield ten-year Treasury notes for graduate students capped at 9.5 percent.138 The new law shifts from a fixed-rate system to one in which the rate will vary depending upon the market rate for Treasury notes on the date of its origination.

Policy Option 3: Expand existing federal loan relief programs to include student loan refinancing.

The average college student owes approximately $29,400 in student loan debt as the national student loan debt has grown to $1.2 trillion.139 Refinancing student loans would permit students to lower their interest rates and monthly payments by allowing a new lender to pay back their loan and offer them a new loan.140 Student loan refinancing has gained growing popularity in the private industry, as private firms are refinancing both private and federal loans. When private firms refinance federal loans, effectively becoming private loans, many of the benefits of federal loans are lost. Upon refinancing federal loans to private loans, students are no longer able to benefit from loan-forgiveness programs or income-based repayment.141 Expanding existing federal loan relief programs to include student loan refinancing would allow students to ease the burden of student debt and retain the benefits of federal loan relief programs.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 39

Policy Option 4: (QFRXUDJH IHGHUDO DQG VWDWH JRYHUQPHQWV WR FUHDWH LQQRYDWLYH pilot programs to increase access and decrease the burden of college costs.

Lawmakers in states such as Tennessee and Oregon have proposed bold initiatives to make higher education more affordable.142 When enacted, the “Tennessee Promise” program will allocate funds from the state’s lottery revenues to fully subsidize the cost of attending any of the two-year in-state colleges for Tennessee high school graduates. The rate of return for each additional year of school is estimated at approximately 5-12%. Many experts believe that the “Tennessee Promise” will attract new businesses and create more high-paying jobs for the state.

Oregon is also paving the way in higher education reform. The state has crafted a plan to explore the advantages of an income based payment — rather than repayment — program through its “Pay it Forward” initiative. Under the proposal, students would have the option to attend a state college tuition-free and simply pay the state a small percentage of their income for a specific amount of time after graduation. The federal government, state governments, foundations, and the private sector should use the policy levers at their disposal to encourage more states to pilot educational innovation initiatives that increase access and decrease costs.

Policy Option 5: Include an option to receive income-based information about financial aid eligibility on tax forms 1040 and 1040EZ as an educational campaign on financing post-secondary education.

The 1040 tax form is the most common tax form used by individuals with dependents who wish to file as “head of household.”143 The 1040EZ tax form is the most common tax form used by individuals without dependents who wish to file as single or married and filing jointly.144 Including financial aid information on the tax form 1040 and 1040EZ would act as an educational tool for parents, individuals, or families to understand what their predicted financial contribution to post-secondary education would be. Equipping those who file for financial aid using these forms with this information would help build awareness on costs of education and allow for further financial planning for post-secondary education. Students would still be required to complete all necessary financial aid documents, such as the FAFSA. Policy Option 6: Increase the amount and size of Pell Grants.

The current maximum Pell Grant that can be awarded to a student is $5,730 for the 2014– 2015 academic year.145 The amount awarded to students is based on the student’s financial need, cost of attendance, full-time or part-time status, and plans to attend for the full academic year.146 As of July 1, 2012, a student may only receive Pell Grants for a maximum of 12 semesters, or six years.147 The total FY2013 budget for Pell Grants required $21 billion and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that roughly $30.1 billion will be needed for FY2014 and FY2015.148 The budget for Pell Grants should be increased to make a meaningful impact on the debt incurred by millions of students every year. The average

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 40

 student now holds about $29,400 in student debt, a figure that far exceeds the maximum Pell Grant amount of $5,730 a year, an award amount that most students do not even receive.149 With more than $1.2 trillion in outstanding loan debt, this is an ever-increasing burden on our future leaders that needs to be addressed and reversed.150 By increasing the Pell Grant budget through expansion of the maximum award amount and eligibility, more students can afford to attend college, increasing their ability to succeed in the competitive job market.

Policy Option 7: State governments should invest in statewide scholarship programs similar to the Georgia HOPE scholarship program to increase access to and the favorability of college.

As the cost of attending college continues to rise, it is crucial that states create scholarship programs for its residents to alleviate the short and long term consequences associated with high costs of college. In 1993, the State of Georgia created the HOPE scholarship. The HOPE scholarship is a merit-based scholarship program that rewards Georgia students with a certain amount of funding each semester for college, certificate, or technical education.151 This program is funded entirely by state lottery revenue and provides scholarships to over 230,000 students each year.152 States like West Virginia, New Mexico, Tennessee, Oregon, Louisiana, South Carolina and Kentucky have also begun to implement their own versions of the Georgia HOPE scholarship to assist students in attending and affording higher education programs.153 State governments should invest in statewide scholarship programs in order to increase the number of qualified students attending college, certificate, or career training programs.

Policy Option 8: State legislatures should develop and implement legislation that creates mechanisms to ensure that state revenues appropriated to scholarship funding is appropriately handled and distributed.

The promise of using revenues from state lottery to fund scholarship programs is popular in many states. Many states have provisions that determine the allocation of lottery revenues.

However, in a growing number of states, these provisions are not enough to ensure that the revenues are being distributed according to the original intent. For example, in New York only 30 cents of every dollar of lottery revenue goes to schools, aligning with a national trend of states lowering the share of lottery revenues that fund items like college scholarship programs.154 As the amount of revenue distributed to college scholarship funding decreases, it is important that state legislatures develop and implement legislation that would cement the funding levels of scholarship programs to avoid the negative impacts that occur when fewer scholarships are given to students as the cost of college continues to rise.

Â

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 41

GOAL: EXPAND THE SCHOOL-TO-JOB PIPELINE

What are the facts?

The fundamentals of our economy are changing rapidly. An increasingly globalized and technology-driven economy is changing the way employers do business, and it is significantly impacting the skills that prospective employees must possess to be employable.

To experience sustained economic growth, and to continue the process of emerging from the depths of the Great Recession, we need a workforce that is well-trained in the skills of the 21st-century economy.

America’s federal workforce development system established a variety of programs—notably the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998—that are currently overseen by more than 600 Workforce Investment Boards.155 In 2007, the United States still ranked 27th out of 34 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries in workforce development spending despite America’s focus on federal workforce development programs.156 The recent sequester could also lead to total cuts of $460 million from employment training programs. This would result in up to 13,000 youth losing access to WIA youth employment services.157 Funding is not the only problem facing workforce development programs: there is much debate over the manner in which workforce development programs should be administered.

In 2009, the federal government controlled 47 federal workforce development agencies, many of which overlapped.158 State Workforce Investment Boards are responsible for implementing the WIA programs. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, there is little information regarding the cost-benefit analysis of consolidating or maintaining a large number of federal programs.159 Additionally, the research on whether these programs are effective is inconclusive.

Why did we choose this goal?

Workforce development programs cannot be improved solely by using a top-down approach.

Rather, these programs must be the result of collaborative efforts by the federal government, state governments, local governments, and the private sector. Because the WIA system does not effectively communicate within itself or allocate resources in the most efficient manner, workforce development programs and vocational schools should continue to be administered at the state and local levels with ongoing federal financial support.

Programs are often put in silos and isolated from one another, preventing coordination. If state and local entities are responsible for the administration of the programs, it becomes easier to facilitate a cooperative, interconnected system by lifting federal restrictions on how money can be spent.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 42

Federal, state, and local governments must actively engage the business community to discern what skills they demand in an effective employee, and these stakeholders must then join in a shared effort to design programs aimed at equipping Americans with these skills.

This can be accomplished through the development of public-private partnerships and the formation of vocational-training initiatives that address structural unemployment. If business plays a stronger role in identifying necessary skills and fields as well as in providing leadership, government can play a larger role in tying programs to results and holding programs responsible.

What are the policy options?

Policy Option 1: Expand vocational programs in high school to allow students to take workforce development courses as electives.

Discussions on vocational education have gained traction in recent years as student debt rates continue to rise and young Americans realize viable opportunities in the job market do not necessarily require bachelor’s degrees. These discussions have often centered on the expansion of opportunities for students to pursue occupations in a diverse number of fields to meet the demand for workers. Occupations like brick masonry, construction, electrician, woodworker, and plumbing are projected to be among the ten fastest-growing occupations by 2022, though none require a bachelor’s degree.160 The goal of high school educational programs should be to graduate students who are both college and career ready. Federal and state governments should make necessary changes to ensure that the federal workforce system is promoting all options for today’s young people and not trying to force everyone into the college mold. However, this has been made increasingly difficult due to cuts to federal vocational education funding.

Federal funding for vocational training has dropped from $12 million in 2002 to just over $7 million in 2011.161 These cuts have

Providing students the necessary skills to succeed is a critical component of expanding opportunities for Millennials, ensuring that more young Americans are able to move up the economic ladder by filling growing labor demands amidst the backdrop of a recent economic recession.

resulted in states reducing funding for vocational education. Expanding high school vocational programs and providing the adequate funding to do so will allow more students to gain necessary job skills to enter the job market. Providing students the necessary skills to succeed is a critical component of expanding opportunities for Millennials, ensuring that more young Americans are able to

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 43

move up the economic ladder by filling growing labor demands amidst the backdrop of a recent economic recession.

In recent years, there has been a substantial push for more vocational classes to count toward high school graduation requirements, as well as more project-intensive learning in the classroom. The push has been seen in state legislatures across the country and from states of all political leanings, from California to Texas.162 Many employers are talking to high school students about the benefits of trade schools, and trade schools are now working with employers to create job- and skill-specific programs. However, tight school budgets and overcrowded schools make providing such classes and individual counseling difficult.

More counselors may have to be hired, and more teachers may be required to teach technical classes. Allocating more money for career and technical education programs at all levels of government would help ease financial burdens and allow high schools to create alternative classes for students. U.S. federal workforce and education programs should encourage more of these types of programs and interactions.

Policy Option 2: Streamline overlapping federal workforce development programs.

A 2011 Government Accountability Office report found that 44 of the 47 federal job-training programs overlap in some manner, and only five of these programs had been evaluated for effectiveness.163 The inefficiencies in the workforce development system lead to increased costs for taxpayers, missed opportunities in the workforce, and employers’ inability to hire workers with necessary skills.164 Streamlining overlapping workforce development programs would consolidate redundancies, increase accountability, save costs, and foster a “dynamic, outcome-driven workforce development system that more effectively serves job seekers and employers.”165 Overhauling the job-training system is fundamental to creating a more competitive job market by preparing American workers to both successfully enter and retain their place in the workforce.

Policy Option 3: Colleges, universities, and the federal government should work together to reduce the financial burden of unpaid internships and ultimately seek to eliminate unpaid internships altogether.

According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, 47.8 percent of internships taken by the graduating class of 2013 were unpaid.166 As Millennials struggle to achieve economic stability, the prevalence of unpaid internships often negates economic progress by eliminating opportunities for some Millennials to get ahead and to obtain a fair living wage.

Often, qualified applicants will self-select and not apply for unpaid intern positions because they know they will be unable to afford it—even if the position suits them.

Therefore, it is crucial that students have access to internships that are paid or funded through other sources. In the short term, colleges and universities should partner with donors and companies to increase funding for students to eliminate unpaid internships that have negative financial consequences. In the long run, however, the government should

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 44

seek to eliminate unpaid internships, especially for for-profit companies, by enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Colleges and universities should disallow internship recruitment from companies whose internships violate FSLA. New York University, Columbia University, and many others have begun to tighten their policies on unpaid internships by only advertising internships that follow the FSLA unpaid-intern guidelines.

167

GOAL: REDUCE INCARCERATION RATES AND PROMOTE REINTEGRATION What are the facts?

Incarceration impedes economic mobility in the United States. Over the last 30 years, incarceration rates have increased by more than 500 percent, while the American population has only increased by 36 percent.168 Indeed, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world: 716 citizens out of every 100,000 were behind bars in 2011.169 The United States holds only 5 percent of the world’s total population, yet holds 25 percent of the world’s prisoners.170 The statistics also reflect a disproportionate effect on minorities: one in every ten black males in his thirties is in jail on any given day.171 In 2012, more than 60 percent of the incarcerated population was convicted of a nonviolent offence.172 In fact, nonviolent drug offenders are roughly one-fourth of the incarcerated population, a number that has grown from less than 10 percent in 1980.173 U.S. recidivism rates are similarly high, as roughly 43 percent of those who have recently been released return to jail within the next three years.174 Though the United States already has several ways of addressing recidivism, including a $90 million federal expenditure to support the reintegration of ex-offenders175 and

The United States holds only 5 percent of the world’s total population, yet holds 25 percent of the world’s prisoners.

several programs designed to rehabilitate and reintegrate ex-offenders, recidivism rates have stayed nearly constant for more than a decade.176 Even in a healthy economy, exoffenders experience economic marginalization. Individuals with prison records experience a 10 percent diminution in earnings, solely based on their status as a former offender.177 Why did we choose this goal?

Increased incarceration and recidivism rates create two burdens on society. First, there is a human cost of incarcerating such a large—and disproportionately underprivileged—portion of the population. Men and women who otherwise could have a positive impact on society have been disproportionately sent to prison, where they have no gateways to American opportunity.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 45

Secondly, there are financial burdens on society. Some states have actually spent more money on incarceration than they do on education—California spent $1 billion more in 2012.178 Pew Charitable Trusts calculates that a 10 percent drop in recidivism rates would save states $635 million in prison costs for the first year alone.179 Indeed, reforms to this effect have received support from both sides of the aisle: 19 Republican and nine Democratic governors or state legislatures have reformed their criminal justice system to de-emphasize jail time for nonviolent offenders and emphasize rehabilitation and reintegration.180 Reforming sentencing guidelines and expanding rehabilitation and reintegration programs will help ease the pain of incarceration’s human and financial costs.

The United States must be proactive in the way it handles criminality. Providing those who are released from the prison system with the necessary tools to reintegrate into society plays a vital role in alleviating the taxpayer burden associated with the high recidivism rates currently plaguing the U.S. criminal justice system—but it will only provide the alleviation that is needed in a vacuum. Using reintegration as a means of reducing recidivism is a wholly retroactive solution if it is not coupled with rehabilitation. For example, it is estimated that individuals with prison records will experience a 10 percent depression in earnings.181 Furthermore, a felony conviction, of any kind, denies an individual the right to seek employment in many vocations. This system of economic marginalization assists in the cyclical criminal justice system that has created vastly inflated recidivism rates.

What are the policy options?

Policy Option 1: Reform sentencing practices, such as repealing mandatory minimums for certain nonviolent crimes—like non-trafficking drug offenses.

Current sentencing restrictions, or mandatory minimums, are inflexible and cannot be adjusted on a case-by-case basis. Mandatory minimums have often been connected to mass incarnation and prison overcrowding.182 Reforming sentencing practices would lead to a decrease in the number of people who are incarcerated for committing minor crimes.

Approximately one-quarter of people in U.S prisons are incarcerated because of a drug offense.183 Currently, the prison system holds approximately 2.4 million inmates, about twothirds in prison and one-third in jail, with nonviolent offenders making up more than 60 percent of the prison population.184 Reducing or reforming mandatory minimum sentencing policies would lower the incarceration rate and substantially reduce the costs and number of incarcerated persons. Getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing policies increases the likelihood that individuals can be active participants in the workforce without facing the discrimination that felons and ex-convicts often see in the job market.

Policy Option 2: Conduct a study of the prison population and explore incentivizing states to adopt federal standards on prison education, parental training, workstudy, and vocational training.

Numerous studies have found a strong inverse relationship between education and recidivism rates. The most recent study by the Department of Justice on the educational

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 46

attainment of state and federal prison inmates, published in 2003 from data collected in 1991 and 1997, found that 40 percent of state inmates had not completed high school or its equivalent, compared with 28 percent of federal inmates and 18 percent of the general American population.185 According to the federal Bureau of Prisons, “In most cases, inmates who do not have a high school diploma or [GED] must participate in [a] literacy program for a minimum of 240 hours or until they obtain the GED.”186 Meanwhile, as of the 2003 study, more than nine of ten state prisons provided inmates with educational programs, although participation is not mandatory in all cases.

Prison-based parenting programs, which are offered at all federal prisons, have also been shown to reduce recidivism rates. However, only 11 percent of incarcerated fathers in a 2008 study by the Department of Health and Human Services reported participating in a parenting class.187 These classes appear to be far less available at the state level, especially in male-only and co-ed prisons.188 Likewise, federal prisons offer work-study and vocationaltraining programs, which can be critical to the reintegration of a former inmate. Finally, in August 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder introduced the “Smart on Crime” initiative, a series of criminal justice reforms that included directing all U.S. Attorneys to designate a prevention and reentry coordinator to focus on additional supports to reduce recidivism.189 Congress should authorize a new survey of the inmate population in federal and state prisons, comparing their educational attainment and recidivism rates. Based on the results of the survey, Congress should consider incentivizing states to implement any federal standards in the areas of education, parental training, work-study, and vocational education shown to reduce recidivism, or consider adopting any state standards in these areas that show better results.

Policy Option 3: Restructure the format in which federal and state governments pay private contractors to run prison facilities, by paying a negotiated, monthly lump-sum fee, rather than paying a daily rate per nonviolent inmate.

The recent trend in the privatization of prison services to private contractors has galvanized a series of incarceration policy debates. Today, private prisons are “the biggest business in the prison industry complex,”190 where federal, state, and local governments privatize correctional services through private contracts. These contracts stipulate that the government will pay the prison company a daily dollar amount, ranging from $30 to $80 or higher for each inmate, though the amounts are negotiable.191 Recent estimates indicate that about 18 private corporations are responsible for more than 10,000 prisoners in 27 states. These corporations receive a guaranteed standard amount of money for each inmate, regardless of the actual costs to house them.192 Private companies like the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)—the largest for-profit prison company in the United States—also contain “lockup quotas” in which states’ contracts with private companies often guarantee that prisons will be filled at 90 percent capacity or higher.193 By changing contractual agreements between prison companies and governments, companies would have reduced incentives to fill quotas for inmates and keep inmates past

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 47

their sentencing dates. Restructuring the format in which states and the federal government pay private contractors should lead to lower incarceration rates and more transparent practices that should save costs in the end.194 Reforming the contracts between private prison companies and governments could keep more Millennials out of prisons, reducing overall incarceration rates and promoting reintegration for many young Americans.

Policy Option 4: Develop and expand programs that focus on rehabilitating those with mental health disorders—especially centers that provide outpatient services that are linked with hospitals and expand partnerships between state and federal corrections agencies with the goal of improving care and treatment for mentally ill prisoners.

A 2005 study by the Department of Justice found that more than half of prison inmates nationwide, or approximately 1.25 million inmates at the time, suffered from mental health problems.195 According to the National Institute of Mental Health, just 26.2 percent of American adults suffer from a “diagnosable mental illness” each year, suggesting that mental health issues are significantly more prevalent among the prison population.196 A 2007 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychology and the Law recommended treatment programs, diversionary measures, and strong community reentry programs as key to preventing high rates of recidivism and death after mentally ill prisoners are released.197 Federal and state criminal justice systems have already partnered on research into improving treatment and care for mentally ill prisoners, but greater partnership and cooperation is needed to ensure that those with mental health issues receive a reasonable standard of care whether in the state or federal prison system, to include treatment during incarceration and dedicated reentry programs upon release.

GOAL: ACHIEVE UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

What are the facts?

Today, more than half of America’s low-income five-year-olds do not have the math, reading, or behavioral skills needed to succeed in their kindergarten classrooms.198 Recent studies show that many low-income children are arriving in kindergarten classrooms significantly behind their more affluent peers in many basic skills necessary to succeed in an educational environment; this gap only widens in subsequent years.199 Some scholars have noted that these “ability gaps” surface early and serve as predictors of socioeconomic success later in life.200

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 48

Early interventions in education have been found to promote further schooling, reduce crime, foster workforce productivity, advance health into adulthood, reduce teenage pregnancy, and improve child and social welfare.201 Promoting early childhood programs can furthermore save costs on rehabilitation programs, adult literacy programs, tuition subsidies, and public job training.202 Indeed, some research has even demonstrated that for every $1 invested in pre-k education today, society at large can expect a return of nearly $7 by the time a student turns 18.203 Participants also demonstrate statistically significant increases in graduation rates, college attendance, and health outcomes.204 These outcomes go hand in hand with ensuring that every young American has the opportunity to succeed in the 21st century.

Yet, according to a 2012 OECD study, the United States ranks 28 out of 38 developed nations for the percentage of four-year-olds enrolled in some form of preschool.205 Fewer than three in ten four-year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program.206 Why did we choose this goal?

Investing in early childhood education is fundamentally a Millennial issue. By promoting expansions to and investments in early education, the United States would promote greater social equity and economic security, as well as decreased dependence on the state.207 It is imperative that the United States works to build strong educational foundations for the next generation of Americans, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent with a goal of increasing human capital. Investing conscientiously in the future of young Americans should be a Millennial—and an American— priority.

By intervening early and ensuring that every young

Investing in early childhood education is fundamentally a Millennial issue. By promoting expansions to and investments in early education, the United States would promote greater social equity and economic security, as well as decreased dependence on the state.

American has access to affordable high-quality, early childhood education, this policy item would not only yield significant economic payoffs in the future, but will also lift millions of Americans out of poverty, driving socioeconomic justice for students that too often tragically fall through the cracks in the U.S. education system.

The United States must address the achievement gap in its most primitive stages and promote policies that provide young Americans an equal opportunity to succeed later in life.

These ideas are central to Common Sense Action, and to America’s longstanding tradition in supporting economic mobility for all—young and old alike.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 49

What are the policy options?

Policy Option 1: Increase access to early childhood education by coupling federal funding with matching state funds.

Many states across the country are currently setting aside public funds for the creation of high-quality early childhood education programs, including Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama.208 In fact, in 1998, Oklahoma passed a law that established a pre-k program for all young Oklahomans. The “Oklahoma Project” provides support for disadvantaged children ages three and under through yearlong nursery schools, where families have the option to receive home visits to work on increasing reading exposure to young children.209 Creating more robust federal and state partnerships in early childhood education initiatives will allow states the financial leeway to formulate and implement high-quality programs to prepare students across the country for successful academic careers.

Furthermore, additional federal funding for early childhood education would allow states to expand proven programs. Rhode Island, for example, has one of three state pre-k programs that meets all ten quality benchmarks from the National Institute for Early Education Research, but the program is not large enough to meaningfully close achievement gaps.

Rhode Island ranks 39th of 39 states that offer public pre-k, and only 1 percent of fouryear-olds are enrolled in state-sponsored pre-k, while only 10 percent are enrolled in Head Start Programs. 210 Policy Option 2: Promote closer partnerships between private enterprise and early education, such as the Grow Up Great Initiative.

Because of limited public dollars, private investment in the development of high-quality early childhood programs is critical to a national strategy for Kindergarten readiness and achieving 100 percent access to high quality early-childhood education. Private enterprise recognizes the critical importance of investing in our nation’s youth at an early age.

Private programs like “Grow Up Great” sponsored by PNC Bank in Pittsburgh have seen success and should be incorporated into the national discussion on early childhood education. Private investment in early education will allow the United States to reach more children at a time when states and the federal government are tightening their purse strings, while still exposing the next generation of Americans to the foundations of education that will be necessary in equipping them for the 21st century.

As a 2012 American Enterprise Institute report outlined, public-sector programs are often unable to meet parents’ employment-related childcare needs and lack the capacity to serve millions of families of children three years old and younger.211 Because of limited public dollars, private investment in the development of high-quality early childhood programs is critical to a national strategy for kindergarten readiness and achieving 100 percent access to high-quality early childhood education.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 50

Repairing Politics What is our vision for Repairing Politics?

Repairing Politics requires a different approach than advancing Generational Fairness or investing in Millennial Mobility. Repairing politics requires culture change. It requires a culture of participation and collaboration. By building on shared experience—a shared commitment to participation, collaboration, and service—we can begin to advance a pragmatic national policy vision outlined by the Generational Fairness and Millennial Mobility pillars of the Agenda for Generational Equity.

Our objectives are simple: Millennials should help heal our political system by voting more, participating in public and community service, and working across party lines. In order to change the current political culture and climate, Common Sense Action must be a leader and take initial responsibility for repairing the fabric of U.S. politics by encouraging our friends and peers to serve, participate, and vote.

Accordingly, the Repairing Politics pillar has a different approach than the other two pillars of AGE. The two principal goals of Repairing Politics—increased civic participation and an expectation of national service—are as much a demand of ourselves and our generation as a recommendation for policymakers. As CSA members, we must commit ourselves and our friends to civic engagement and national service in order to re-weave the fabric of our political culture.

Fortunately, strengthening the United States through service and participation represents a distinctly American value: shared experiences create strong community and national bonds.

Time and time again, our country has seen Americans band together: to defeat Hitler and the rise of fascism, to put a man on the moon, and to respond to the national tragedy of September 11, 2001. Through civilian, military, and faith-based service, Americans of all backgrounds have served together to cultivate a greater sense of purpose and belonging.

CSA is here to help lead the charge. As we ask for more from our government and older generations, we commit to paying it forward by becoming more active and engaged citizens, improving our democracy, and serving our country.

What is the status quo and how did we get here?

America has long been a nation of individuals committed to a communitarian ideal. As John Winthrop outlined in the 17th century, the United States is a “city upon a hill,” watched by the world and guided by a dedication to our fellow citizens and a democratic ideal. This commitment to community has persisted throughout U.S. history and continues to this day.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 51

Perhaps summarized best by President John F. Kennedy in his 1961 inauguration speech, the U.S. system of civic engagement and national service declares that we “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Yet our commitment to this ethos has been tested in recent times. A gridlocked political system has deflated enthusiasm for politics and voting numbers. This is particularly true among Millennials: according to a recent Harvard poll, only 23 percent of Millennials say they will “definitely be voting” in the 2014 midterm elections.

Today, large numbers of Americans are attempting to answer the call to service. However, opportunities for national service are shrinking as funds become more limited, meaning that would-be national servants are turned away. For example, AmeriCorps could only accept 14 percent of its applicants in 2011.212 In addition, at any given point in the last decade, less than 1 percent of Americans was serving in the military, creating a wider disconnect between civilians and the military.213 Exacerbating the problem further, civics education has fallen through the cracks, and Millennial voting rates hover well below the average of other generations.

We stand at a crossroads now—faced with a tough road ahead. That road must begin with a first step—a first step started by CSA members across the nation.

What do we propose?

Repairing Politics: Millennials should help heal our political system by voting more, participating in public and community service, and working across party lines. CSA must take a lead in repairing the fabric of U.S. politics by encouraging our friends and peers to serve, participate, and vote.

•

Goal: CSA should increase Millennial civic and electoral participation to strengthen the democratic process.

•

Goal: CSA should help build a social expectation of national service over the course of a lifetime to increase nation-building at home.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 52

Â

GOAL: CSA SHOULD INCREASE MILLENNIAL CIVIC AND ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION TO STRENGTHEN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS What are the facts?

Millennials are disappointingly uninformed about the process of government. In a 2010 study, only 64 percent of 12th graders could correctly identify what a Supreme Court opinion was.214 Approximately half of young people believe that the federal government spends more on foreign aid than Social Security, even though the government spends approximately 15 times more on Social Security. 215

216 217

Woefully inadequate civics education begins early in life. Less than one in three eighthgraders could identify the purpose of the Declaration of Independence,218 while only 27 percent of fourth-graders could identify the purpose of the Constitution.219 Lacking any meaningful knowledge about the basic structure and purpose of our nation’s founding, it is unsurprising how dismal civic participation rates are. In 2012, for example, there was only 45 percent youth voter participation.220 The overall consequence of this civic ignorance is that, on aggregate, Millennials are ill-equipped to fight for their priorities.

Why did we choose this goal?

For us to provide solutions to the problems that we see in government, we must understand how government works. To accomplish that goal, we must first be knowledgeable citizens ourselves before reaching out to educate our friends and peers. Millennials, particularly CSA members, are in a unique position to teach civic skills and combat the growing disconnect between government and its constituents.

We distinguish between two types of actions we can take: chapter activities and policy options. Chapter activities are focused inward, while policy options are recommendations for lawmakers.

How should chapters advance the goal?

Chapter Activity 1: Educate and engage our community on civic, political, and policy issues.

Without a commitment to community education and engagement, repairing politics will be extremely difficult. Therefore, we believe that CSA chapters should actively engage with their communities and networks to foster safe spaces to discuss political issues. Our efforts range from dorm meetings and whiteboard projects to debates and summits. Through these activities, CSA chapters must take up the charge. Although starting the conversation can begin with CSA, it must also be a charge for our entire generation.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 53

Chapter Activity 2: Work with veteran organizations on service projects.

One particularly important area for the nation—and our generation—is veterans’ affairs.

Many of our peers currently or formerly served in the armed services, and their commitment to service deserves an equal commitment by the rest of the country. CSA chapters should increase discussions between veterans and civilians students and help organize joint service projects.

Chapter Activity 3: Educate our candidates on Millennial issues.

CSA chapters should introduce candidates to Millennial issues including those listed in the Agenda for Generational Equity. Chapters also invite candidates to campus for forums and debates as well as analyze candidates’ position statements compared with the priorities advanced by the Agenda for Generational Equity. Results will be presented on an AGE scorecard. Candidate education should boost members’ focus on Millennial issues during their time in office.

What are the policy options?

Policy Option 1: Make it easier for students to vote on or near campuses There are two means by which states could make it easier and more likely for young people to vote: accept student IDs as valid forms of ID for voting and accept college P.O. boxes as valid addresses.

Many states have recently passed strict voter photo ID laws that deem student IDs, even from state institutions, invalid.221 In all, eleven states passed photo ID requirements in 2011 and 2012 that did not include student IDs in the list of acceptable photo IDs.222 In states like Tennessee, state law “allows the use of faculty or staff IDs from state colleges, but the statue explicitly states that voters may not use student IDs at the polls.”223 State and local government should allow college students to easily modify their registration address to their campus address, including P.O. boxes, to increase political participation among young adults. Allowing students to use campus addresses makes voting easier and encourages them to get involved with local, state, and national issues.

Policy Option 2: Increase the efficiency of voting, including potentially increasing the number of polling sites, voting booths and machines, and poll workers with a goal of having no voter wait more than 30 minutes to vote.

Americans noticed increased wait times when they went to cast their ballots in the 2012 presidential election. In fact, more than five million Americans waited more than an hour to

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 54

vote, according to a recent report released by the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration.224 Wait times also disproportionately affected minority voters, as blacks and Latinos waited an average of 20.2 minutes as opposed to the 12.7 minutes for the average white voter.225 Voting experts note that increasing the number of polling workers, machines, and precincts can help mitigate long lines in future elections.226 Reducing the rising wait times of voting across the United States would help ensure that Millennials are not deterred from voting due to inconveniences or inefficiencies at the polls.

Making voting practices more efficient and practical could help ensure that voting is accessible and equitable for all Millennials across party, racial, and socioeconomic lines.

Policy Option 3: Ensure accurate voting lists, employ online voter registration, and increase voting opportunities.

States should adopt online voter registration, which can make it easier to register to vote and to update voter registration information while also creating more accurate statewide voter registration databases as envisioned after the 2000 presidential election.

No one believes that statewide voter registration databases are as accurate as they should be. Due to federal and state laws, it can be difficult for administrators to remove from their states’ voter registration databases those voters who have moved out of the state or those who have died in a different state. It can even be problematic for a voter on Election Day who has moved within the state to a new county without having updated his or her voter registration. Thus, states should also do more to compare their databases across state lines to improve the integrity of their lists.

A large portion of eligible Americans remains unregistered to vote. Online voter registration

In order to change the current political culture and climate, Common Sense Action must be a leader and take initial responsibility for repairing the fabric of U.S. politics by encouraging our friends and peers to serve, participate, and vote.

tools make it easier for individuals to register to vote and reduce the possibility of lost paper registration forms or transcription errors.

Comparing one state’s list against others increases states’ ability to reach out to those voters who no longer live in one state and remove them from the statewide voter registration database, making for a more accurate and secure list of voters.

We are intrigued by the idea of a federal holiday for presidential elections. The 2012 presidential election saw unremarkable voter turnout, with just 58.2 percent of eligible voters going to the polls.227 The 2008 presidential election saw a slightly higher voter turnout with 61.6 percent of eligible voters casting a vote.228 Low voter turnout is often attributed, in part, to complicated work schedules that make it unfavorable for potential voters to miss a portion of work in order to vote.229 Making national election days a federal holiday, one every four years, has the potential to make a significant impact on voter turnout in future national elections, alleviating employment obligations for many. We

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 55

envision a day not only marked by increased voter turnout, but also a celebration of U.S. democracy in a way similar to July 4th. Just as on Independence Day, when Americans put their differences aside to celebrate the nation, we imagine an Election Day where business as usual is put on hold for voting, celebration, and a reminder of our privileged system of self-governance.

It is, however, important to note that each additional federal holiday results in a loss of $150 million associated with closing the federal government, not to mention the cost to business, and thus such a decision should not be taken lightly. Nevertheless, we believe it could result in higher turnout rates and thus a stronger democracy.

Finally, we would also recommend states increase the opportunities for early voting thus providing more days for individuals to vote. Many states already provide multiple days for individuals to vote, and we believe more should follow suit.

GOAL: CSA SHOULD HELP BUILD A SOCIAL EXPECTATION OF NATIONAL SERVICE OVER THE COURSE OF A LIFETIME TO INCREASE NATIONBUILDING AT HOME What are the facts?

National service is the embodiment of a distinctly American notion: that shared experiences create strong community and national bonds. As our country has seen in the last century, Americans have banded together time and time again: to defeat Hitler and the rise of fascism, to put a man on the moon, and to respond to the national tragedy of the September 11 attacks. Through civilian, military, and faith-based service, Americans of all backgrounds served together to cultivate a greater sense of purpose and belonging.

President John F. Kennedy’s call to service echoed from coast to coast: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”230 Today, even greater numbers of Americans are attempting to answer the call to service.

However, opportunities for public service are shrinking as funds become more limited, meaning that would-be national servants are turned away. For example, in 2011, AmeriCorps could only accept 14 percent of its applicants.231 In 2011, the Peace Corps received 150,000 applications for just 4,000 spots.232 In addition, at any given point in the last decade, less than 1 percent of Americans were serving in the military, a historically low proportion that could potentially create a wider disconnect between civilians and the military.233 Exacerbating the problem further, civics education has fallen through the cracks, and Millennial voting rates hover well below the average of other generations.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 56

 Why did we choose this goal?

To rebuild this country and renew the American promise, we cannot simply ask the government to invest in us—we must also invest in the country ourselves. In 2011, Americans volunteered a total of almost eight billion hours, an estimated economic value of roughly $171 billion.234 This lends credence to the argument that we, as civically engaged and community-minded Millennials, can add economic value though civilian and military service. In addition, we charge our generation to take leading roles in government, teach civics education, and promote informed voting. As a generation, Millennials have the ability and obligation to better ourselves, our communities, and our country.

How should chapters advance the goal?

Chapter Activity 1: Encourage young Americans to run for public office, volunteer for a campaign, or participate in another form of civic service.

We must make a commitment to restoring the image of public office as an acceptable form of national service. As a generation, Millennials do not see government service as an important, attractive form of service, preferring instead community service and volunteer work. But to effectively repair politics, Millennials must take an active role in shaping government through a commitment to public service. CSA chapters should take the lead on spearheading this initiative by encouraging young Americans to reconnect with politics through increased commitment to public government service.

What are the policy options?

Policy Option 1: Increase funding for national service opportunities like the Peace Corps and the Corporation For National and Community Services (AmeriCorps).

The Peace Corps (which started in 1961) and AmeriCorps have long been tools of civic engagement for young people. Currently, there are 7,209 Peace Corps volunteers235 and about 80,000 annual volunteers in the AmeriCorps program.236 Funding for these programs is largely dependent on fiscal appropriations set in Congress. Increasing funding for these programs would increase the ability of the program to expand, allowing more volunteers into the program.237 These programs are crucial to engaging Millennials in national and international service, building the foundation for a culture of volunteerism and civic engagement.

Â

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 57

Â

What’s the Next AGE Going to Look Like?

We recognize that AGE 2014 does not address every essential public- and private-sector Millennial issue. The roadmap to 2016 charges chapters to continue to research, debate, and develop new and more innovative federal, state, local, and private-sector solutions to other Millennial challenges not addressed in AGE 2014, such as K-12 education reform, Internet privacy, big data collection, and immigration reform.

AGE is developed on a two-year cycle, beginning with chapters debating, researching, and developing solutions to Millennial issues. When chapters have successfully crafted bipartisan policy that reflects the views of the chapter, chapter leaders convene for a national CSA policy summit where all chapter policies are voted on. The policies that earn 60% or more support from the summit delegates will be included in the 2016 version of the Agenda for Generational Equity.

We believe that AGE needs to be updated every

Chapter policy development

two years to continue to be representative of Millennial issues. Our two-year cycle allows our chapters to constantly research, debate, develop, and advocate for policies that are important to them.

We also believe that national policy alone will not always offer feasible or comprehensive solutions to the challenges Millennials face. For this reason, we will also create a state and local

AGE Publication and Advocacy

CSA Summit

version of the AGE policy document. The policies in this document will be taken from our national AGE document and transformed to focus on state and local governments. The purpose of our state and local AGE policy document will be to allow chapters to make an impact in their own communities on topics that are inherently state and local issues.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 58

What’s Next?

AGE is not an end—it is a beginning. With the agenda in hand, Common Sense Action chapters and members will work together to continue bringing youth voices to the policymaking table on college campuses, in state houses, and in Washington.

Because AGE is a policy menu, not a ten-point platform or contract, we offer flexibility. We recognize that we are not policy experts with decades of experience, and AGE reflects this understanding. A definitive ten-point policy plan might be greeted with lawmakers’ indifference, and we do not aim to be just another group of kids with some cool ideas to be brushed aside. We refuse to allow AGE to be slotted under the “unread” tab of a politician’s email.

Instead, AGE is a policy menu with dozens of policy choices—any of which would advance the

Join us — it's our future.

nation toward a more sustainable future filled with the opportunity for economic mobility, especially for Millennials.

Though we have been primarily engaged with policy, we are now shifting our focus. Over the coming months and the next two years, we will be organizing and mobilizing to put Washington back to work for our generation. And the movement has already begun. Almost 3,400 people have already endorsed the AGE pillars and goals. CSA is spreading quickly, and soon our boots on the ground will make noise by knocking on doors and hosting rallies.

So this is our message to Millennials: Take a chance with us. Help us create the political space that will allow lawmakers to put solutions first and Millennial priorities into effect.

Without a critical mass of Millennials and without uniting our siblings, friends, and families, politicians will not have the incentives to make principled compromises. For politicians to take action, we must show them that we care first.

By joining the CSA movement, you can add your voice to an organization dedicated to making sure that this vision does not slip away. Here’s what you can do: 

Endorse the Agenda



Join or start a CSA chapter



Volunteer for CSA advocacy campaigns

Join us—it’s our future.

And here’s our message for politicians: We cannot raise our voices and be unanswered.

Listen to your constituents. We are organizing. We are mobilizing. We are demanding change, and we will support you at the polls if you make the hard choices that provide

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 59

 future generations with more opportunity. We created a policy menu, with you in mind.

Take advantage of the political space that we will provide.

If we can organize, mobilize, and empower the largest, most networked, most diverse generation in U.S. history to support AGE, young people can impact our political process and policy debates to create lasting change.

We imagine a world in which Millennials have just as a good a chance to succeed as our parents and grandparents. We imagine a world in which our children and grandchildren have more opportunities to succeed than we do. We will work tirelessly to ensure that this world exists.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 60

Endnotes

1

“Youth Voting,” The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-voting/.

2 “The Youth Vote in 2012,” The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, published May 10, 2013, http://www.civicyouth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/CIRCLE_2013FS_outhVoting2012FINAL.pdf.

3

Ibid.

4

“Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product,” St. Louis Federal Reserve, accessed May 9, 2014, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S.

5

“2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,” American Society of Civil Engineers, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.

6

Ibid.

7

Joe Weisenthal, “The Collapse of Public Infrastructure Spending in One Chart,” Business Insider, May 24, 2013, http://www.businessinsider.com/skagit-bridge-collapse-infrastructure-spending-2013-5#!KrcKP.

8 “A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2008,” National Science Board, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0803/start.htm?CFID=10976055&CFTOKEN=66810217&jsessionid=f030426b5a3 b1c2c256b2b1241485bd16273.

9

“Monthly Statistical Snapshot: June 2013,” Social Security Administration, published July 2013, http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/.

10

“Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts About Social Security,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, published November 6, 2012, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3261.

11

“A Summary of the 2013 Annual Reports: Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees,” U.S. Social Security Administration, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/.

12 “Testimony on Using Chained CPI to Index Social Security, Other Federal Programs, and the Tax Code for Inflation,” Congressional Budget Office, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44083.

13

“The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program,” Social Security Administration, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html.

14

“Social Security Fact Sheet,” Social Security Administration, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/IncRetAge.html.

15

Annie Lowrey, “Income Gap, Meet the Longevity Gap,” The New York Times, published March 15, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/business/income-gap-meet-the-longevity-gap.html?_r=0.

16 “Raising the Ages of Eligibility for Medicare and Social Security,” Congressional Budget Office, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/01-10-2012Medicare_SS_EligibilityAgesBrief.pdf.

17

“Raising the Taxable Minimum,” Urban Institute, Accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.urban.org/retirement_policy/sstaxableminimum.cfm.

18

“Options for Reducing the Deficit,” Congressional Budget Office, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44811.

19 “Raising the Taxable Minimum,” Urban Institute, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.urban.org/retirement_policy/sstaxableminimum.cfm.

20 “Means Testing for Social Security,” American Academy of Actuaries, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.actuary.org/files/Means_Testing_SS_IB.pdf.

21 “Restoring America’s Future,” Bipartisan Policy Center, published November 2010, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/files/BPC%20FINAL%20REPORT%20FOR%20PRINTER%2002%2028 %2011.pdf 22 “Monthly Budget Review for May 2013,” Congressional Budget Office, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44320.

23 Tom Daschle, Pete V. Domenici, Bill Frist and Alice M. Rivlin, “A Bipartisan Rx for Patient-Centered Care and System-wide Cost Containment,” Bipartisan Policy Center, published April 18, 2013, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/health-care-cost-containment.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 61

24 “A Summary of the 2013 Annual Reports: Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees,” U.S. Social Security Administration, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/.

25 “Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries,” The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, accessed July 25, 2013, http://kff.org/medicare/state-indicator/total-medicare-beneficiaries/.

26 Judy Feder and Nicole Cafarella, “What’s Driving Up the Cost of Medicare?,” Center for American Progress, published June 14, 2011, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/report/2011/06/14/9730/whatsdriving-up-the-cost-of-medicare/.

27 Alex Nussbaum, “Health Care Costs Rise Higher Than U.S. Inflation Rate,” Bloomberg News, published May 21, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-21/health-care-costs-rise-faster-than-u-s-inflation-rate.html.

28 Tom Daschle, Pete V. Domenici, Bill Frist, and Alice Rivlin, “A Bipartisan Rx for Patient-Centered Care and System-wide Reform,” Bipartisan Policy Center, published April 18, 2013, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/health-care-cost-containment.

29

“Medicare Advantage Plans Cover All Medicare Services,” Medicare.gov, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.medicare.gov/what-medicare-covers/medicare-health-plans/what-medicare-advantage-planscover.html.

30

“Medicare Advantage Fact Sheet,” Kaiser Family Foundation, accessed May 9, 2014, http://kff.org/medicare/factsheet/medicare-advantage-fact-sheet/.

31

Craig F. Caplan and David J. Gross, “The Effects of Merging Part A and Part B of Medicare,” AARP Public Policy Institute, published January 1999, http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/health/9901_medicare.pdf.

32

“Medicare Reform,” Urban Institute, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900423&renderforprint=1&CFID=73650005&CFTOKEN=71367331&jsessionid=f 0304355a26a2aaa83001c791e803f68606d.

33 Tom Daschle, Pete V. Domenici, Bill Frist, and Alice Rivlin, “A Bipartisan Rx for Patient-Centered Care and System-wide Reform,” Bipartisan Policy Center, published April 18, 2013, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/health-care-cost-containment.

34

Ibid.

35

“2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,” American Society of Civil Engineers, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.

36

Klaus Schwab, “The Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013,” World Economic Forum, accessed July 25, 2013, http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2012-2013/.

37

"A New Economic Analysis of Infrastructure Investment," Department of the Treasury with the Council of Economic Advisors, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economicpolicy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf.

38

“2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,” American Society of Civil Engineers, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.

39

Ibid.

40

“Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed May 9, 2014, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04032231?data_tool=XGtable.

41

“Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed May 9, 2014, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000.

42

“A New Economic Analysis of Infrastructure Investment,” Department of the Treasury with the Council of Economic Advisors, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economicpolicy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf.

43

Sean Pool and Jennifer Erickson, “The High Return on Investment for Publicly Funded Research,” Center for American Progress, published December 10, 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology/report/2012/12/10/47481/the-high-return-on-investmentfor-publicly-funded-research/.

44

“A New Economic Analysis of Infrastructure Investment,” Department of the Treasury with the Council of Economic Advisors, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economicpolicy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf.

45 William D. Eggers and Tiffany Dovey, “Closing America's Infrastructure Gap,” Deloitte, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_PPPUS_final(1).pdf.

46

Ibid.

47

Mark Perlman and Julia Pulidindi, “Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation Projects,” National League of Cities, accessed May 9,2014, http://www.nlc.org/find-city-solutions/city-solutions-and-appliedresearch/infrastructure/transportation.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 62

48 “Funding Challenges in Transportation Infrastructure,” Pew Charitable Trusts, published May 5, 2014, http://www.pewstates.org/research/analysis/funding-challenges-in-transportation-infrastructure-85899544774.

49 “2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,” American Society of Civil Engineers, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.

50 Jaime Rall, “Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation,” National Conference of State Legislatures, published February 2014, http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/NCSL-PPPTOOLKIT-update-Feb2014.pdf.

51

Katherine Bates, Julia Pulidini, and Stephen Kane, “Closing the Digital Divide: Promoting Broadband Adoption Among Underserved Populations,” ICF International, published November 26, 2012, http://www.icfi.com/insights/white-papers/2012/closing-digital-divide-promoting-broadband-adoptionunderserved-populations.

52

Joe A. Sumner, “Broadband, Digital Literacy, and Rural Prosperity,” Auburn University Economic and Community Development Institute, accessed February 28, 2014, http://ecdi.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/broadband-digitalliteracy-and-rural-prosperity-2/.

53 Stephanie Condon, "Stimulus Bill Includes $7.2 Billion for Broadband," CNET News, published February 17, 2009, http://www.cnet.com/news/stimulus-bill-includes-7-2-billion-for-broadband/.

54 “Frequently Asked Questions,” Federal Highway Administration, accessed May 9, 2014, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/motorfuel/faqs.htm.

55

Ibid.

56

“Our Nation’s Highways: 2011,” Federal Highway Administration, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter6.cfm.

57

Ibid.

58

“Statement for the Record on the Status of the Highway Trust Fund,” Congressional Budget Office, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44093.

59 “Inflation Adjusted State Gas Taxes,” Tax Foundation, accessed May 9, 2013, http://taxfoundation.org/blog/inflation-adjusted-state-gas-taxes.

60 “Building a Better Gas Tax,” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, published December 2011, http://www.itep.org/bettergastax/bettergastax.pdf.

61 Jeffrey Rissman and Maxine Savitz, “Unleashing Private Sector Energy R&D,” American Energy Innovation Council, published January 2013, http://americanenergyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/UnleashingPrivate-RD-Jan2013.pdf.

62 “Supporting Innovation and Economic Growth,” R&D Credit Coalition, published April 2008, http://www.investinamericasfuture.org/PDFs/R&DTaxCreditStudy2008final.pdf.

63 Nirupama Rao and Stan Vueger, “How the R&D Tax Credit Is Like Duct Tape,” U.S. News & World Report, published May 16, 2013, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/05/16/how-to-fix-theresearch-and-development-tax-credit.

64

Emily Chasan, “Firms May Take Hit from Expired R&D Tax Credit,” January 3, 2014, http://blogs.wsj.com/cfo/2014/01/03/firms-may-take-hit-from-expired-rd-tax-credit/.

65 “International Energy Statistics,” International Telecommunications Union, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=44&pid=44&aid=2.

66 “America’s Energy Resurgence,” Bipartisan Policy Center, accessed July 25, 2013, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/SEPI%2520Report%2520Overview_v15%5B1%5D.pdf.

67 “U.S. Energy Facts Explained,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_home.

68 “Securing American Energy,” The White House, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/securing-american-energy.

69

Laurent Belsie,“ Natural Gas and Unconventional Oil Jobs: 1.7 Million and Counting,” Christian Science Monitor, published October 23, 2012, http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1023/Natural-gas-andunconventional-oil-jobs-1.7-million-and-counting.

70 “CO2 Time Series 1990-2011 per region/country,” Joint Research Centre, accessed July 25, 2013, http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2011.

71 “Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations,” Congressional Research Service, accessed May 6, 2014, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43121.pdf.

72 Molly Sherlock, “Energy Tax Incentives: Measuring Value Across Different Types of Energy Resources,” Congressional Research Service, accessed May 6, 2014, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41953.pdf.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 63

73

“Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy,” President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, accessed May 6, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-energy-tech-report.pdf.

74

“The Business Plan,” American Energy Innovation Council, accessed May 6, 2014, http://americanenergyinnovation.org/the-business-plan-2010.

75

Frank Konkel, "Agencies Should Brace for More Public Access to Records," FCW, published November 7, 2012, http://fcw.com/articles/2012/11/07/transparency-eff.aspx.

76 David Dobbs, "Open Science Revolt Occupies Congress," Wired, published February 9, 2012, http://www.wired.com/2012/02/open-science-revolt-occupies-congress/.

77 "Access to Federally Funded Research," Association of Research Libraries, accessed May 13, 2014, http://www.sparc.arl.org/sites/default/files/rfi-sparc-response-final-10-0119.pdf 78

“H1-B Fiscal Year (FY) 2915 Cap Season,” U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-and-fashionmodels/h-1b-fiscal-year-fy-2015-cap-season.

79 Lazaro Zamora and Matt Graham, “H-1B Visa Cap Expected to Be Hit Within Days,” Bipartisan Policy Center, published April 7, 2014, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/immigration/2014/04/01/h-1b-visa-cap-expected-be-hitwithin-days.

80

“USCIS Reaches FY 2015 H-1B Cap,” U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, published April 10, 2014, http://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-reaches-fy-2015-h-1b-cap-0.

81

“USCIS Reaches FY2014 H-1B Cap,” U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, published April 8, 2013, http://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-reaches-fy-2014-h-1b-cap.

82 “High Skilled Labor,” Partnership for a New American Economy, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.renewoureconomy.org/issues/high-skilled-labor/#.

83

“H1-B Specialty Occupations, DOC Cooperative Research and Development Project Workers, and Fashion Models,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, accessed May 13, 2014, http://www.uscis.gov/working-unitedstates/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-and-fashion-models/h-1b-specialty-occupations-dodcooperative-research-and-development-project-workers-and-fashion-models.

84

Angus Loten, “For Small Firms, Visas Are a Big Headache,” Wall Street Journal, published August 21, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323980604579027130895875634.

85 “USCIS Update,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, April 13, 2007, http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/pressrelease/H1Bfy08CapUpdate041307.pdf.

86

“America’s Foreign Students and Immigration Reform,” Brookings Institution, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/04/09-foreign-students-ruiz.

87

“Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2012,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, accessed May 13, 2014, http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2012-legal-permanent-residents.

88 “Per Country Limit,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/country-limit.

89 “Visa Bulletin for April 2014,” U.S. Department of State, accessed May 9, 2014, http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-policy/bulletin/2014/visa-bulletin-for-april-2014.html.

90 “International Migration Desires Show Signs of Cooling,” Gallup, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.gallup.com/poll/148142/international-migration-desires-show-signs-cooling.aspx.

91 The Complexity of the Tax Code,” Internal Revenue Service, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/userfiles/file/Full-Report/Most-Serious-Problems-Tax-Code-Complexity.pdf.

92

Ibid.

93

Ibid.

94

Ibid.

95

“Summary of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013,” House Budget Committee, accessed May 9, 2014, http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bba2013summary.pdf.

96

“Tax Expenditures,” Tax Policy Center, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefingbook/background/shelters/expenditures.cfm.

97 “Tax Expenditures Have a Major Impact on the Federal Budget,” Congressional Budget Office, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42919.

98

“Tax Expenditure Reform,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3912.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 64

99 “Capital Gains and Losses,” Internal Revenue Service, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html.

100

Margaret Collins and Richard Rubin, “Higher Tax Rates Give Top U.S. Earners Year-End Headaches,” Bloomberg, November 7, 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-07/higher-tax-rates-give-top-u-s-earners-yearend-headaches.html.

101

“The Tax Break-Down,” Center for a Responsible Federal Budget, accessed May 9, 2014, http://crfb.org/blogs/tax-break-down-preferential-rates-capital-gains.

102

“Corporate Tax Expenditures,” General Accounting Office, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-339.

103

“The IRS Has Failed to Make Free Return Preparation and Free

Electronic Filing Available to All Individual Taxpayers,” Internal Revenue Service, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/userfiles/file/Full-Report/Most-Serious-Problems-Free-Return-ElectronicFiling.pdf.

104

“Return-Free Filing,” Tax Policy Center, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefingbook/improve/return-free/what-is.cfm.

105

“The IRS Has Failed to Make Free Return Preparation and Free

Electronic Filing Available to All Individual Taxpayers,” Internal Revenue Service, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/userfiles/file/Full-Report/Most-Serious-Problems-Free-Return-ElectronicFiling.pdf.

106

“FreeFile,” Internal Revenue Service, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.freefile.irs.gov/.

107

Leila Bengali and Mary Daly, “U.S. Economic Mobility: The Dream and the Data,” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, published March 4, 2013, http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economicletter/2013/march/us-economic-mobility-dream-data/.

108

Ibid.

109

Tamar Lewin, "College May Become Unaffordable for Most in U.S." The New York Times, published December 3, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/education/03college.html.

110

“Why Has Student Debt Increased So Much,” Vox, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.vox.com/cards/studentdebt/why-has-student-debt-increased-so-much.

111

“How the $1.2 Trillion College Debt Crisis Is Crippling Students, Parents And The Economy,” Forbes, August 7, 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/specialfeatures/2013/08/07/how-the-college-debt-is-crippling-studentsparents-and-the-economy/.

112

“47 States Spend Less On College Students Than They Did in 2008,” Vox, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.vox.com/cards/student-debt/47-states-spend-less-on-college-students-than-did-in-2008.

113

“Education vs. Prison Costs,” CNNMoney, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.money.cnn.com/infographic/economy/education-vs-prison-costs/.

114

“Incarceration,” The Sentencing Project, accessed July 24 2013, http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=107.

115

"World Prison Brief: United States of America." International Centre for Prison Studies, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=190.

116

Christopher Hartney and Caroline Glesmann, “Prison Bed Profiteers,” National Council on Crime and Delinquency, published May 2012, http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/NCCD%20prison-bedprofiteers.pdf.

117

“Household Data,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea13.pdf.

118 Reynolds et al., "Age 26 Cost–Benefit Analysis of the Child-Parent Center Early Education Program," Child Development, Feb. 2011.

119

“Economic News Release,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm.

120

Joseph E. Stiglitz, “Student Debt and the Crushing of the American Dream,” The New York Times, published May 21, 2013, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/student-debt-and-the-crushing-of-the-americandream/?_r=0.

121

“Student Loan Debt by Age Group,” New York Federal Reserve, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.newyorkfed.org/studentloandebt/.

122 “Student Loan Bankruptcy Exception,” FinAid, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.finaid.org/questions/bankruptcyexception.phtml.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 65

123

Blake Ellis, “Class of 2013 Grads average $35,200 in total debt,” CNN, published May 17, 2013, http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/17/pf/college/student-debt/index.html.

124

“Bankruptcy Case Offers Hope for Student Borrowers,” U.S. News & World Report, published June 12, 2013, http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/2013/06/12/bankruptcy-case-offers-hope-forstudent-borrowers.

125

“Digest of Education Statistics,” National Center for Education Statistics, accessed July 25, 2013, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_376.asp.

126 “The Employment Situation – June 2013,” US Department of Labor, published July 5, 2013, www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf.

127

“Digest of Education Statistics,” National Center for Education Statistics, accessed July 25, 2013, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_376.asp.

128

“The Fiscally Stable University,” Bain & Company, 2012, http://www.bain.com/Images/BAIN_BRIEF_The_financially_sustainable_university.pdf.

129

“Annual Report 2012,” Federal Student Aid, 2012, http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2012report/fsareport.pdf.

130

Ibid.

131

“State Fiscal Support for Higher Education, by State, Fiscal Years 2007-08 (FY08), 2010-11 (FY11), 2011-12 (FY12), 2012-13 (FY13),” Grapevine, accessed July 25, 2013, http://grapevine.illinoisstate.edu/tables/FY13/Table1_FY13.pdf.

132

Andrew Kelly, “Why Conservatives Should Crack the College Conundrum,” American Enterprise Institute, published March 26, 2014, http://www.aei.org/article/education/higher-education/why-conservatives-should-crackthe-college-conundrum/.

133

Andrew Kelly, “Reforming Postsecondary Education to Jumpstart Social Mobility,” American Enterprise Institute, published February 12, 2014, http://www.aei.org/article/education/higher-education/consumerinformation/reforming-postsecondary-education-to-jumpstart-social-mobility/.

134

“Average Student Loan Debt: $29,400,” CNNMoney, accessed May 9, 2014, http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/04/pf/college/student-loan-debt/.

135 “How Much Student Loan Debt Does the Average Student Have?,” Vox, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.vox.com/cards/student-debt/how-much-debt-does-the-average-student-have.

136

“Default Consequences,” American Student Aid, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.asa.org/indefault/consequences/.

137

Ibid.

138

“H.R. 1911,” Congress.gov, accessed May 9, 2014, http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/housebill/1911.

139

“Student Loan Debt by Age Group,” New York Federal Reserve, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.newyorkfed.org/studentloandebt/.

140 “Student Loan Bankruptcy Exception,” FinAid, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.finaid.org/questions/bankruptcyexception.phtml.

141

Blake Ellis, “Class of 2013 Grads average $35,200 in total debt,” CNN, published May 17, 2013, http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/17/pf/college/student-debt/index.html.

142

Cheng Dai, “Oregon and Tennessee Have a Bold Plan That Could Radically Change Higher Education,” PolicyMic, accessed June 6, 2014, http://www.policymic.com/articles/87509/oregon-and-tennessee-have-a-bold-plan-thatcould-radically-change-higher-education.

143

“Forms & Publications,” Internal Revenue Service, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.irs.gov/Forms-&-Pubs.

144

“Information for IRS Tax Form 1040EZ,” Internal Revenue Service, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.irs.com/articles/information-for-irs-tax-form-1040ez.

145

“Federal Pell Grants,” Federal Student Aid, accessed May 9, 2014, http://studentaid.ed.gov/types/grantsscholarships/pell.

146

“Eligibility,” U.S. Department of Education, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fpg/eligibility.html.

147

“CBO Estimates Pell Program to Hit Troubled Waters in FY2014,” National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.nasfaa.org/advocacy/budget2013/news/CBO_Estimates_Pell_Program_to_Hit_Troubled_Waters_in_FY2014.aspx.

148

“CBO March 2012 Baseline Projections for the Student Loan and Pell Grant Programs,” Congressional Budget Office, published March 13, 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43054_StudentLoanPellGrantPrograms.pdf.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 66

149

“Average Student Loan Debt: $29,400,” CNNMoney, accessed May 9, 2014, http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/04/pf/college/student-loan-debt/.

150

Allie Bidwell, “Education Advocates Launch Campaign to Combat Student Debt,” U.S. News & World Report, published March 6, 2014, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/06/education-advocates-launchcampaign-to-combat-student-debt.

151

“Georgia’s HOPE Scholarship Program Overview,” GACollege411, accessed May 13, 2014, https://secure.gacollege411.org/Financial_Aid_Planning/HOPE_Program/Georgia_s_HOPE_Scholarship_Program_O verview.aspx 152

Ibid.

153

Cris Valerio, “Let Us Pay Your College Tuition,” Planet Money, published Feb 25, 2014, http://publicradioeast.org/post/let-us-pay-your-college-tuition 154

Bryce Covert, “Why State Lotteries Never Live Up to Their Promise,” Think Progress, published Fed 25, 2014, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/25/3326421/state-lottery-education/

155

“About Us.” National Association of Workforce Boards, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.nawb.org/about_us.asp.

156

Christopher King and Carolyn Heinrich, “How effective are workforce development programs? Implications for U.S. workforce policies.” University of Texas at Austin, published November 2011, http://www.utexas.edu/research/cshr/pubs/pdf/King-Heinrich-APPAM-10222011.pdf.

157

“Disinvesting in the Skills of America’s Workforce,” National Skills Coalition, published February 2013, http://www.nationalskillscoalition.org/federal-policies/ndd/nsc_sequestration-issue.pdf.

158

“Multiple Employment and Training Programs.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, published January 13, 2011, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92.

159

Ibid.

160

John Ebersole, “Top Issues Facing Higher Education in 2014,” Forbes, January 13, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnebersole/2014/01/13/top-issues-facing-higher-education-in-2014/.

161

“Vocational Education National Programs,” U.S. Department of Education, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/venp/funding.html.

162

Tyler Kingkade, "High School Vocational Education On The Upswing, Coaxing Students Away From Traditional Colleges," Huffington Post, March 18, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/high-school-vocationaleducation_n_2900169.html 163

Elizabeth English and Laura Hall, “Senators Work Up a Job Training Bill,” Bipartisan Policy Center, published July 1, 2013, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2013/07/01/senators-work-job-training-bill.

164

“H.R. 3610, the Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act,” House Committee on Education and the Workforce, published December 8, 2011, http://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=271811.

165

Ibid.

166

“Just 38 Percent of Internships Were Subject to FSLA Guidelines,” National Association of Colleges and Employers, accessed May 9, 2014, https://www.naceweb.org/s06262013/unpaid-internship-FLSA-guidelines.aspx.

167

“Good Steps Against Unpaid Internships,” The New York Times, published March 10, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/opinion/good-steps-against-unpaid-internships.html.

168

“Incarceration.” The Sentencing Project, accessed July 24 2013, http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=107.

169

"World Prison Brief: United States of America." International Centre for Prison Studies, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=190.

170

Ibid.

171

"Racial Disparity," The Sentencing Project, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=122.

172

Lisa Bloom. "When will the U.S. stop mass incarceration?" CNN, published July 03, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/03/opinion/bloom-prison-spending.

173

Ibid.

174

“State of Recidivism,” Pew Charitable Trusts, published 2011, http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/sentencing_and_corrections/State_Recidivism _Revolving_Door_America_Prisons.pdf.

175

“FY2014 Department of Labor Budget in Brief,” U.S. Department of Labor, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.dol.gov/budget/2014/PDF/FY2013BIB.pdf.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 67

176

“State of Recidivism,” Pew Charitable Trusts, published 2011, http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/sentencing_and_corrections/State_Recidivism _Revolving_Door_America_Prisons.pdf.

177

Bruce Western, “The Impact of Incarceration on Wage Mobility and Inequality,” American Sociological Review, (2002): 526-546, http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Western_ASR_02.pdf.

178

Hansook Oh and Mona Adem, “California Budgets $1 Billion to Prisons than Higher Education and Leaves Students Hanging," Daily Sundial, accessed July 25, 2013, http://sundial.csun.edu/2012/09/california-budgets-1billion-more-to-prisons-than-higher-education-and-leaves-students-hanging/.

179

“State of Recidivism,” Pew Charitable Trusts, published 2011, http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/sentencing_and_corrections/State_Recidivism _Revolving_Door_America_Prisons.pdf.

180

Neil King Jr., “As Prisons Squeeze Budgets, GOP Rethinks Crime Focus.” Wall Street Journal, published June 21, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323836504578551902602217018.html.

181

Bruce Western, “The Impact of Incarceration on Wage Mobility and Inequality.” American Sociological Review, (2002): 526-546, http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Western_ASR_02.pdf.

182

“What Are Mandatory Minimums?,” FAMM, accessed May 9, 2014, http://famm.org/mandatorysentencing/mandatory-minimums/.

183

“Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety,” Justice Policy Institute, published January 2008, http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08_01_rep_drugtx_ac-ps.pdf.

184

John Schmitt, Kris Warner, and Sarika Gupta, “The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration,” Center for Economic and Policy Research, published June 2010, http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/incarceration-201006.pdf.

185 Caroline Wolf Harlow, “Education and Correctional Populations,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, revised April 2003, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf.

186

“Education Programs,” Federal Bureau of Prisons, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/education.jsp.

187

“Incarceration & Family,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, accessed May 9, 2014, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/mfs-ip/incarceration&family/ch7.shtml#_Toc208309200.

188

Ibid.

189

“Smart on Crime,” U.S. Department of Justice, published August 2013, http://www.justice.gov/ag/smart-oncrime.pdf.

190

Vicky Pelaez, “The Prison Industry in the U.S.: Big Business Or a New Form of Slavery,” Centre for Research on Globalization, published March 31, 2014, http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-statesbig-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289.

191

Ibid.

192

Christopher Hartney and Caroline Glesmann, “Prison Bed Profiteers,” National Council on Crime and Delinquency, published May 2012, http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/NCCD%20prison-bedprofiteers.pdf.

193

Ibid.

194

Vicky Pelaez, “The Prison Industry in the U.S.: Big Business Or a New Form of Slavery,” Centre for Research on Globalization, published March 31, 2014, http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-statesbig-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289.

195

Doris James and Lauren Glaze, “Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, revised December 2006, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf.

196 “The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America,” National Institute of Mental Health, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml.

197 Anasseril E. Daniel, MD, “Care of the Mentally Ill in Prisons: Challenges and Solutions,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, published 2007, http://www.jaapl.org/content/35/4/406.full.pdf+html.

198

Eduardo Porter, "Investments in Education May Be Misdirected," The New York Times, published April 2, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/business/studies-highlight-benefits-of-earlyeducation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

199

“How Poverty Affects Behavior and Academic Performance,” ASCD, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/109074/chapters/How-Poverty-Affects-Behavior-and-AcademicPerformance.aspx.

200

James J. Heckman, “Schools, Skills and Synapses,” IZA, May 2008, http://ftp.iza.org/dp3515.pdf.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 68

201

James J. Heckman, “Return on Investment: Cost vs. Benefits,” Duke University, accessed May 9, 2014, http://childandfamilypolicy.duke.edu/pdfs/10yranniversary_Heckmanhandout.pdf.

202

James J. Heckman, “Schools, Skills and Synapses,” IZA, May 2008, http://ftp.iza.org/dp3515.pdf.

203

Reynolds et al., "Age 26 Cost–Benefit Analysis of the Child-Parent Center Early Education Program," Child Development, Feb. 2011.

204

Ibid.

205

“Education at a Glance 2012,” Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.htm.

206

“Early Learning: America's Middle Class Promise Begins Early,” U.S. Department of Education, accessed May 13, 2014, https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/early-learning-overview.pdf

207

“The Economics of Inequality,” American Federation of Teachers, accessed May 9, 2014, https://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2011/Heckman.pdf.

208

Sarah Tan, "New Report Highlights Importance of Early Childhood Education," The Times-Picayune, November 3, 2013, http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2013/11/new_report_highlights_the_impo.html.

209

Nicholas Kristof, “Oklahoma! Where the Kids Learn Early,” The New York Times, November 9, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/kristof-oklahoma-where-the-kids-learn-early.html?_r=0.

210

W. Stephen Barnett et al., “The State of Preschool 2011,” National Institute for Early Education Research, accessed November 8, 2013, http://www.nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/2011yearbook.pdf.

211

“Unequal Access,” American Enterprise Institute, published June 26, 2012, http://www.aei.org/files/2012/06/26/-unequal-access-hidden-barriers-to-achieving-both-quality-and-profit-inearly-care-and-education_143725989252.pdf.

212

Joe Klein, “Can Service Save Us?,” Time, published June 20, 2013, http://nation.time.com/2013/06/20/canservice-save-us/.

213

Sabrina Tavernise, “As Fewer Americans Serve, Growing Gap Is Found Between Civilians and Military,” The New York Times, published November 24, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/civilian-military-gap-growsas-fewer-americans-serve.html?_r=0.

214

“Civic Knowledge,” CIRCLE, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.civicyouth.org/ResearchTopics/researchtopics/civic-knowledge/.

215

Ibid.

216

Faith Eischen, “Foreign Aid Spending and the U.S. Budget,” IVN, published August 5, 2008, http://ivn.us/2012/08/05/united-states-foreign-aid-and-budget/.

217

“As the Population Ages, Social Security’s Spending Is Projected to Outpace Its Tax Revenues,” Congressional Budget Office, published October 2, 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43649.

218

Howard Blume, “Sandra Day O’Connor Promotes Civic Education,” The Los Angeles Times, published December 27, 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/27/local/la-me-civics-20111227.

219 Richard J. Coley and Andrew Sum, “Fault Lines in Our Democracy: Civic Knowledge, Voting Behavior, and Civic Engagement in the United States,” Educational Testing Service, published 2012, http://www.ets.org/s/research/19386/rsc/pdf/18719_fault_lines_report.pdf.

220

“Youth Voting,” CIRCLE, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-voting/.

221

“Voter Identification Requirements,” National Conference of State Legislatures, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx.

222

“College Students and Voting: A Campus Vote Project Perspective,” Campus Vote Project, accessed May 9, 2013, http://fairelectionsnetwork.com/sites/default/files/2013%20Student%20Voting%20Report%20Handout%20DRAFT. pdf 223

Ibid.

224

Martha Moore, “Bipartisan Commission Urges Early Voting, Shorter Lines,” USA TODAY, published January 22, 2014, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/22/obama-election-commission/4771601/.

225 “How Long It Took Different Groups to Vote,” The New York Times, published February 4, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/05/us/politics/how-long-it-took-groups-to-vote.html.

226

Charles Stewart III and Stephen Ansolabehere, “Waiting in Line to Vote,” July 28, 2013, https://www.supportthevoter.gov/files/2013/06/Charles-Stewart-Waiting-in-Line-to-Vote-White-Paper.pdf.

227

“2012 General Election Turnout Rates,” United States Election Project, accessed May 9, 2014, http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 69

228

“2008 General Election Turnout Rates,” United States Election Project, accessed May 9, 2014, http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html.

229

Russell C. Smith and Michael Foster, “It’s Time to Make Election Day a National Holiday (Once Every 4 Years),” Huffington Post, published September 21, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-c-smith/its-time-to-makeelection_b_1898865.html.

230

John F. Kennedy, “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You,” The Guardian, published April 22, 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007/apr/22/greatspeeches.

231

Joe Klein, “Can Service Save Us?,” Time, published June 20, 2013, http://nation.time.com/2013/06/20/canservice-save-us/.

232

Stanley McChrystal, “Lincoln’s Call to Service—And Ours,” Wall Street Journal, published May 29, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324809804578511220613299186.

233

Sabrina Tavernise, “As Fewer Americans Serve, Growing Gap Is Found Between Civilians and Military,” The New York Times, published November 24, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/civilian-military-gap-growsas-fewer-americans-serve.html?_r=0.

234

“Volunteering and Civic Life in America 2012,” Corporation for National and Community Service, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/.

235

“Fast Facts,” Peace Corps, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.peacecorps.gov/about/fastfacts/.

236

“AmeriCorps,” Corporation for National and Community Service, accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps.

237

Curt Tarnoff, “The Peace Corps: Current Issues,” Congressional Research Service, May 10, 2013, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21168.pdf.

The 2014 Agenda for Generational Equity | 70

1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 204-2400 www.bipartisanpolicy.org