Martin Dyckman: As rhetoric descends, up pops evil
John Kasich has taken heat for a web ad that subtly compares Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. Narrated by a former Vietnam POW, retired Air Force Col. Tom Moe, it paraphrases German pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous statement of regret that he did not speak up for the tyrant’s victims until he became one “and there was no one left to speak for me.” Hitler analogies should be rare and expressed carefully lest comparisons to lesser evils trivialize his monstrosities. Too many events have already been compared to the Holocaust, for example. But let’s see what the ad says: You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims should register with their government, because you’re not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says he’s going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you’re not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says it’s OK to rough up black protesters, because you’re not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you’re not one. But think about this: If he keeps going, and he actually becomes president, he might just get around to you. And you better hope there’s someone left to help you. Although Kasich tried Sunday to disclaim the implication as Moe’s words, not his, the candidate’s super PAC produced it and he deserves the responsibility and the credit. That’s right, credit. It would be just as wrong to ignore Hitler’s examples as to trivialize them. History often repeats itself. Bad history should be taken as warning. It does not necessarily trivialize Hitler to observe that Trump’s strategy and tactics recall some of those favored by the one-time Austrian army corporal. Like Hitler, Trump is a demagogue. He demonizes minority targets. He relishes personal insults. He revels in baseless insinuations, as in persistently questioning President Obama’s citizenship. He invents his own “facts,” such as having personally witnessed crowds of Muslims cheering 9/11. He lies with glee – the bigger the lie the better – and then lies again when he denies saying or implying what millions of people heard and saw him say. His fundamental theme is to inflame the suspicions of people who think their country is failing itself, failing them, and riddled with conspiracies. So was Hitler’s. He sold himself as the avenger for all that was wrong and everyone who felt wronged. So does Trump. As Hitler exploited Germany’s economic crisis and inflamed the belief that Germany’s defeat in World War I owed to the country being sold out from within – by communists and Jews – rather than to exhaustion and failure at arms, Trump wants Americans to believe our country is failing. He promises to “make America great again,” as if it no longer is. It’s a witch’s brew of bigotry, paranoia and scapegoating – and it’s working. The more outrageously he behaves, the more devoted his mob seems to become. None of this is necessarily means that a president Trump would emulate how Hitler misused power. But he has said – and should be taken at his word – that he would try to round up and expel an estimated 11 million people without any care for the staggering consequences to them or to the industries – agriculture, construction, and hospitality in particular – that would collapse in their absence. How this could be done without concentration camps taxes the imagination. When he talks loosely about surveillance of mosques and identity cards for Muslims, the image that comes to mind is of yellow stars on clothing and passports stamped “Jude.” We have already shown a vulnerability to forfeiting our freedoms in the name of “security.” As the columnist Leonard Pitts wrote recently, Sept. 11 not only destroyed lives and buildings: … It also shredded the Constitution and made America unrecognizable to itself. The government tortured. It disappeared people. It snooped through innocent lives. It created a secret ‘no-fly list’ of supposed terrorists that included many people with zero connection to terrorism … it also gave the president unilateral power to execute American citizens suspected of terrorism without trial or even judicial oversight. And here comes Trump, who calls for waterboarding, which is torture. Where would that stop? Establishment, politicians, journalists, and campaign contributors still have some trouble believing that Trump could secure the Republican nomination, let alone win the White House. But it bears remembering that Hitler never won an election either. He used his strong showing in German’s 1932 election, and the unrequited passion of his followers, to blackmail an aging President Paul von Hindenburg into appointing him chancellor. Hindenburg’s death a year later sealed Germany’s doom. When Trump demands “respect,” is it the vice presidency he has in mind? Or some other lever of power? The truly tragic side to this is that Americans have many rightful complaints. The middle class is marginalized and floundering. Young people can’t afford homes and can’t envision a bright future. The government is unable or unwilling to admit and rectify its responsibility for widening income disparity. Wall Street remains much too unaccountable. Health care reform is incomplete and out-of-pocket costs continue to spiral. But there’s an anti-establishment presidential candidate who speaks to all these concerns without the bigotry, bombast, boorishness and bullying that characterize Trump. He is Bernie Sanders, whose additional virtues include the experience and judgment that Trump so boastfully lacks. He’s a reformer but he’s not a demagogue. He’s not a racist. He’s a humane, decent man. He’s everything that Trump is not. And if Trump doesn’t like being compared to Hitler, let him stop sounding like him. Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the St. Petersburg Times. He lives near Asheville, North Carolina.
Email Insights: Richard Shelby defends second amendment rights
Thursday Senator Richard Shelby took to the Senate floor to honor those who were killed in the tragic shooting that took place on Wednesday and to praise first responders for their efforts and sacrifices. In the speech, Shelby decried President Barack Obama‘s calls for further gun restrictions as well as echoed sentiments he recently made about an executive order that resulted in fewer resources for local law enforcement officers. U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) today spoke on the Senate floor to defend the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. The text of Senator Shelby’s remarks, as prepared, is below. “Madame President, the tragic murders that occurred in California yesterday are unthinkable and horrific. My thoughts and prayers go out to all of the victims, their families, and the entire community. I would also like to take a moment to thank the brave first responders who selflessly and honorably risked their own lives in order to protect the lives of others. “Following the tragic events of yesterday, President Obama – unsurprisingly – called to limit the Second Amendment rights of the American people through stricter gun control. This is yet another example of the President using tragic events to push his political agenda. “Madame President, infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is not the answer to curbing violent crime in America. Restrictive gun control measures only prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves because criminals, by definition, refuse to follow the law. “In addition to President Obama’s misguided calls for gun control, he recently issued an executive order to remove unarmed military surplus vehicles obtained through the Section 1033 program from local law enforcement. “These vehicles have been valuable to local law enforcement in my home state of Alabama, specifically in Calhoun County. They were also used by the local law enforcement seeking to protect those in harm’s way yesterday in California. I have called on the President to reverse this dangerous decision in which he abuses the authority of his office by making unilateral decisions through executive fiat. “Madame President, during this time of increased uncertainty at home and abroad, the American people are looking to us for certainty that we will do everything in our power to keep them safe. Unfortunately, President Obama has once again chosen to attack and weaken local law enforcement and law-abiding citizens instead of focusing on fighting against criminals and radical Islamic terrorists. “Let me be clear: the President’s calls to increase gun control and remove equipment that local law enforcement uses to keep us safe only undermines the safety and security of American citizens. Madame President, we simply cannot – and must not – continue to let this Administration infringe upon our constitutional rights and put law-abiding Americans in harm’s way.”
Robert Bentley says Obama administration unresponsive, out of line on refugee plans
In another missive by Gov. Robert Bentley aimed at federal officials in Washington, the governor accused the Obama administration of efforts to “circumvent” states on ongoing plans to relocate thousands of refugees from war-torn Syria on Wednesday. “I continue to have great concerns with the refugee vetting process, particularly the lack of state involvement, oversight or knowledge,” Bentley said in a statement. “I cannot help but believe the intent appears to be an effort to circumvent states and our ability to adequately protect our people and ensure the safety of our citizens.” Bentley joined several other primarily Republican governors in declaring their intent to refuse any incoming refugees should the federal government plan to relocate them within their borders. Bentley said last month he “would not stand complicit” with any scheme to move migrants into Alabama, which he said “places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way.” In a letter addressed to White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Bentley excoriated the office for refusing to reply to earlier notes and for creating a “filter” through which governors had to go in order to speak with the administration. “As governor, I take very seriously my responsibility to ensure the safety and security of Alabamians,” wrote Bentley. “The Refugee vetting process, in my opinion, in structured in such a way that excludes states from any oversight and severely limits the amount of information the states may have regarding refugees.” The Obama administration has called their vetting process “the most robust screening process for any category of individuals seeking admission into the United States,” wherein candidates are subjected to the very highest levels of scrutiny. “I must point out the missing element of state government involvement in that process,” Bentley intoned. The federal government has said previously that governors are entitled to quarterly reports, but has indicated they will not process answers to individual inquiries from governors in most cases. McDonough has offered to allow the National Governors’ Association as a go-between with the White House, but Bentley rejected that as a non-starter. “I cannot accept that proposal as a workable solution,” Bentley wrote. “There should be no filter between the federal government and state governments, and especially between the President and Governors regarding an issue of such high importance as national security. “As I expressed in my letter last week, Alabama has not received any refugee reports regarding any refugee of any national origin. I do not believe placing a filter such as NGA between the Administration and the Governor’s Office addresses this current problem, nor does it solve future concerns regarding the vetting process,” said Bentley.
Donald Trump irks Jewish donors with comments on Mideast peace
The Jewish donors gathered Thursday had two demands of the Republican presidential candidates who’d come to speak to them: unambiguous support for Israel and respect. Donald Trump seemed to fail at both. The party’s 2016 front-runner openly questioned Israel’s commitment to the Mideast peace process in his remarks to the Republican Jewish Coalition, echoing comments he made the night before in an interview with The Associated Press. He drew boos after refusing to endorse Jerusalem as the nation’s undivided capital. And he suggested to the influential group simply wanted to install a puppet in the White House. “You’re not going to support me even though you know I’m the best thing that could happen to Israel,” Trump said. “I know why you’re not going to support me — because I don’t want your money. You want to control your own politician.” It was an extraordinary speech to a group used to deferential treatment. And Trump’s comments on Israel — particularly the billionaire businessman’s repeated questioning of its commitment to making a peace deal with the Palestinians — sparked an aggressive backlash from his Republican rivals. “Some in our own party — in the news today — have actually questioned Israel’s commitment to peace,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told the crowd. “Some in our own party actually call for more sacrifice from the Israeli people. They are dead wrong, and they don’t understand the enduring bond between Israel and America.” The primary benefactor of the Republican Jewish Coalition is casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who spent more on the 2012 federal elections than any other donor. Adelson’s willingness to make a huge political investment helps explain why his signature group attracted all of the major GOP presidential candidates to its forum in Washington — even though the man himself wasn’t among the hundreds in attendance. On the eve of the event, Trump weighed in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an interview with The Associated Press. He questioned for the first time both sides’ commitment to peace, adding that he would know within six months of being elected president whether he could broker an elusive peace accord. He doubled down on those comments Thursday in an auditorium packed with Israel’s most loyal supporters. “I don’t know that Israel has the commitment to make it, and I don’t know the other side has the commitment to make it,” Trump said. The comment drew murmurs of disapproval. Later, a smattering of boos broke out after he refused to say whether Jerusalem should serve as the undivided capital of Israel, a priority for many in America’s pro-Israel lobby. Trump shrugged off the criticism. “Do me a favor, just relax,” he told one of the people booing. Perhaps more than any other candidate, he can afford to. The billionaire frequently calls himself a “self-funded” candidate. Compared to his rivals, he has raised — and spent — dramatically less, depending largely on free publicity to drive his campaign. He began his candidacy by loaning his campaign almost $2 million and has suggested a willingness to spend much more of his own money. Yet he hasn’t ignored donors altogether. Fundraising records show that supporters have handed over $4 million, enough to cover his presidential efforts in recent months. Regardless of his relationship with donors, Trump’s comments mark a sharp contrast from his Republican rivals who pledged unconditional allegiance to Israel. Several candidates blasted him from the stage. “This is not a real estate deal with two sides arguing over money” Rubio said. “It’s a struggle to safeguard the future of Israel.” Said Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, “We need a president who will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel.” Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee seemed to target Trump when he mentioned that some in his party support the “head-scratching” proposal that Mideast peace is possible only if Israel and the Palestinians both come to the table. “I want to say where have you been for the last 70 years?” Huckabee charged. Trump’s comments also fell flat among many Thursday’s crowd. Michael Leventoff, a New York businessman and member of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said Trump questioning Israel’s commitment to the peace process is another example of him “just getting it wrong.” “There’s plenty of evidence of Israel’s repeated attempts at peace,” he said. “This is exactly why Trump is what I like to call a brilliant idiot. He should know better, and probably does.” Trump told RJC members that while he doesn’t want their money, he does want their support. He noted he has won several awards from Jewish groups and recently said he has “a very good relationship” with Adelson. The casino magnate has yet to make up his mind how who he’ll support in the GOP primary, said Adelson’s political adviser, Andy Abboud. Each of the candidates is strong on the issues that concern Adelson the most, chief among them protection of Israel, he said. “The Adelsons are generally pleased with all of the Republican candidates and feel that the primary process will work its way out.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Congressman Mike Rogers: Giving back for Christmas
Each year before Christmas, I like to take the opportunity to highlight some of the great things the folks across East Alabama are doing for each other. Our state is filled with people who give back to their communities and towns by helping those who need it the most. The Tuskegee Fire Department collects Toys for Tots, Tuskegee municipal employees adopt families through DHR for Christmas and the Macon County Ministers Council provides for needy families. In Randolph County, the Pilot Club provides toys for the less fortunate. The Christian Service Center in Chambers County provides food, clothing and gifts for the needy. In St. Clair County, a mom who was having a bad day was slipped a $100 bill and a Bible verse. She shared the story on social media in hopes of finding the good Samaritan, but has promised to pay it forward. Pell City police officers have been working hard to help raise money and have toys donated for families in their area. Alabama Childhood Food Solutions which covers Talladega County, helps provide food for children from low income families. These children receive free breakfasts and lunches at school, but don’t know where their next meal will come from on weekends or holidays. In Lincoln, the Toys for Tykes program is underway to ensure needy children in the area have gifts. The Cleburne County Toys for Tots Program has been collecting toys since before Halloween, so there should be some very happy faces Christmas morning. In Pike Road, the town is hosting a supplies drive for Veterans for the sixth year in a row. The items will be delivered to Veterans in the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System (CAVHCS) at both Montgomery and Tuskegee. In Anniston, at the Regional Medical Center (RMC), employees at the hospital are purchasing toys and gifts for the children of needy employees of RMC. This is just a small sampling of some of the wonderful ways East Alabamians are giving back to those less fortunate during the holidays. I wish you all a blessed and Merry Christmas season. I want to hear from you on this or any issue. Please sign up for my e-Newsletter at www.mikerogers.house.gov, like me on Facebook at Congressman Mike Rogers, follow me on Twitter, Pinterest and Instagram at RepMikeRogersAL, on Tumblr and subscribe to my YouTube page at MikeRogersAL03.
With millions on the table, “Sheldon Adelson primary” still up in the air
Republican presidential candidates are locked in battle for more than just votes, they are also running in what is known as the “Sheldon Adelson primary.” Adelson, the multibillionaire casino magnate, is one of the biggest prizes for GOP contenders, through his willingness to spend a lot of money to promote favored candidates. But in 2016, notes Michael Isikoff of Yahoo Politics, the Adelson primary has become a bit more complicated. After being courted by each of the top Republican candidates, Adelson is reportedly close to supporting freshman Senator Marco Rubio, and is expected to announce his selection soon after the next GOP debate Dec. 15. An event is scheduled for the Adelson-owned Venetian Las Vegas hotel. However, the anointment of Rubio as the winner may face one obstacle – Miriam Adelson, his outspoken and equally conservative Israeli-born wife. Isikoff reports that Miriam Adelson, a physician, has gravitated recently toward Ted Cruz, mostly because of the Texas senator’s hawkish national security stance and unwavering support for Israel. “He really likes Marco, but she really likes Cruz,” Isikoff quotes a source familiar with the Adelson family. “And it’s a standoff.” The impasse between husband and wife could go one of two ways – a split decision, or no decision at all. Both Adelsons have been publicly generous with their donations, with more than $98 million spent in the 2012 election cycle, but it has always been as a couple. Roughly half of the checks (about $47 million) were written by Miriam, and were often accompanied by a similar check signed by Sheldon. This standoff could result in the Adelsons’ sitting out the GOP primary season entirely, with the concern over financially supporting someone in the primaries, leading to the couple funding attack ads against another preferred candidate. But this situation comes at a pivotal moment in the race, as both Rubio and Cruz are jockeying for a position as the establishment candidate, a responsible choice compared to self-financed outsider Donald Trump, the current GOP front runner. The next phase in the Adelson primary comes this week during a presidential forum by the Republican Jewish Coalition, a group strongly supported by Adelson, held Thursday in Washington. Although Sheldon and Miriam will be out of town, all 14 current Republican candidates will be speaking – Rubio and Cruz included. As expected, national security will be the top issue. Coincidentally, several candidates will also hold high profile fundraisers during their time in DC, drawing wealthier members of the RJC, including one hosted by Jeb Bush’s Right to Rise PAC and a Rubio event co-chaired by national finance chair and RJC board member Wayne Berman. Bush’s role in the Adelson primary took a hit recently, after former Secretary of State James Baker, one of the former governor’s foreign policy advisers, spoke at an event held by an American Jewish group supporting the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. Baker’s appearance prompted the billionaire to reportedly say Bush was “dead to him,” adding that it will lose his campaign “a lot of money.” According to Isikoff, Bush was compelled to contact Adelson and distance himself from Baker, saying that the former Secretary was only “on a list” and never was considered a top adviser. Rubio saw opportunity in Bush’s gaffe, and aggressively secured the support of the Adelsons, by providing regular updates and attending a private dinner meeting in Washington, with long conversations about family and private lives. This meeting led POLITICO to declare Rubio the “Adelson primary front runner.” Nevertheless, Isikoff says others close to the Adelson’s suggest the pair just might bide their time and see how the race progresses, avoiding the mistake made in 2012, when they sank $15 million in the Newt Gingrich-associated super PAC, only to have the former House Speaker drop out of the race.
Donald Trump calls Mideast peace ‘toughest deal’
Donald Trump says that if he’s elected president, he’ll know within six months whether he can achieve an elusive peace accord between Israelis and Palestinians, one of the world’s most vexing challenges. But the Republican presidential candidate says he has doubts about each side’s commitment to the peace process. “I have a real question as to whether or not both sides want to make it,” Trump said in an interview with The Associated Press. The Republican presidential front-runner said his concerns are greater regarding “one side in particular.” While Trump wouldn’t say whether he was referring to the Israelis or the Palestinians, he said the chances for a lasting peace rest with Israel. “A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal — whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things,” Trump said. “They may not be, and I understand that, and I’m OK with that. But then you’re just not going to have a deal.” “If I win, I’ll let you know six months from the time I take office,” he added. Trump was short on specifics about how he would tackle trying to broker peace in the Middle East, or even whether he supports the longstanding U.S. government goal of a two-state solution — saying he didn’t want to show any bias in favor of one side or the other in case he does become president. “Look, we show our cards too much in negotiations,” Trump said. Still, the billionaire businessman who has made his skills as a dealmaker a key piece of his pitch to voters was visibly enthusiastic about the prospect of tackling the intractable foreign policy challenge. “I think if I get elected, that would be something I’d really like to do,” Trump said during the interview at his golf club in northern Virginia. “Because so much death, so much turmoil, so much hatred — that would be to me a great achievement. As a single achievement, that would be a really great achievement.” Trump said a key to peace negotiations would be meeting early in his presidency with top leaders in the region. He said he planned to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a trip to Israel “sometime after Christmas, probably.” “You know, I’m going to be probably going over there pretty soon and I want to see him, I want to see other people, I want to get some ideas on it,” he said. He added that the trip had been in the works long before rival Ben Carson’s recent trip to Jordan to visit Syrian refugees. Trump said he was a “big, big fan” of Israel. Yet his questioning of Israel’s commitment to a lasting peace with its Palestinian neighbors could still raise eyebrows in some Republican corners. Trump sat down and shared his views on Israel in an AP Conversation — a series of extended interviews with the 2016 candidates to become the nation’s 45th president. ___ During his unexpected five-month run atop the Republican field, Trump’s rivals for the GOP nomination have argued he lacks depth and fluency on foreign policy. At the heart of his campaign is Trump’s argument that his experience in business and real estate would prepare him for negotiations with world leaders. Trump took a similar approach in discussing Israeli-Palestinian peace, saying the only way to resolve the issue is “if you had a real dealmaker, somebody that knew what he or she is doing.” “I’ll be able to tell in one sit-down meeting with the real leaders,” he said. Trump evaded specific questions about whether Palestinian demands in peace negotiations are legitimate and whether Israel should be allowed to build settlements in the West Bank without restrictions, though he said the Israeli housing projects were a “huge sticking point” in talks. “I have my feelings on it, but I’m just not going to discuss it now, because if I end up in the midst of a negotiation, I don’t want people saying, ‘Well, you can’t do it, you’re not going to be good, you’re biased,’ ” Trump said. “I want to be very neutral and see if I can get both sides together.” When asked whether his goal in peace talks would be a two-state solution, he said, “Well, I’m not going to even say that.” The two-state solution envisions an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, with the boundaries negotiated in talks between the parties. The U.S. does not currently recognize the Palestinian territories as an independent state, though the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly voted in 2012 to recognize Palestine as a “non-member observer state.” The Obama administration has hinted that it would be willing to allow Palestinians to seek full statehood recognition at the U.N. if Israel appeared unwilling to seriously pursue peace talks. Several U.S. presidents in both parties have tried to broker a peace accord without success. The White House conceded this fall that an agreement won’t come together during President Barack Obama’s last year in office. Even as Trump avoided spelling out specific conditions for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, he said he understood the seriousness of the matter. “I’m leading in every single poll in every single state, in every single national poll,” he said. “I could be in a position where I want to negotiate that.” ___ For decades, a cornerstone of Republican foreign policy has been unyielding support for Israel. GOP presidential candidates and members of Congress have rallied around Netanyahu this year as he unsuccessfully fought the U.S.-led nuclear deal with Iran, a country viewed by Israel as an existential threat. On Thursday, Trump and 13 other GOP presidential candidates are speaking at a forum in Washington hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition, an influential group and aggressive supporter of Israel. The group and its biggest benefactor — casino magnate Sheldon Adelson — have little tolerance for anything that might be perceived as a criticism of the Jewish state. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was forced to
Daniel Sutter: Mickey Mantle, pensions and safety nets
Employer-provided pensions across the U.S. are changing. The old standard, the defined benefit plan, is rapidly disappearing. I suspect that this change will have significant consequences. Pensions typically take one of two forms, defined benefit and defined contributions. A defined benefit plan guarantees annual payouts in retirement, typically based on earnings and years worked, and employer contributions plus returns on investments pay these benefits. Under a defined contributions plan, employers contribute a specified amount to an employee account, and the accumulated contributions plus investment returns, however much this happens to be, is the employee’s retirement. The proportion of salaried, private sector employees covered by defined benefit plans fell from 38 percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 2008. Over this time, private sector workers with defined contribution plans increased from 8 percent to 31 percent. Most public sector employees currently have defined benefit plans, like the Retirement Systems of Alabama. But this is slowly changing; Michigan and Utah have switched new state employees to defined contribution plans. The form of the plan affects who bears pension risks. One risk is that contributions and investments will fail to yield sufficient funds for retirement. This could happen because of lower than expected investment returns, or because of mistakes in pension accounting, which is described as more of an art than a science. The potential also exists for someone to outlive their retirement funds. Employers bear these risks with defined benefit plans, versus employees with defined contribution plans. Both private and public sector defined benefit plans are often underfunded. Fewer than 10 percent of Standard & Poor’s 500 index firms with defined benefit plans, for instance, have fully funded pensions. Companies must make up the shortfall from an underfunded pension out of current revenues, which can drive an otherwise successful business into bankruptcy. Defined contribution plans avoid pension-induced bankruptcy, but result in people without funds for old age. As more companies and governments shift to defined contributions plans, this problem will only worsen. The life of baseball great Mickey Mantle illustrates the potential danger. I was in diapers when Mr. Mantle retired, but I learned early about his greatness as a player, and later about his famous carousing and drinking. Mr. Mantle often said that if he had known he was going to live so long (he died at age 63), he would have taken better care of himself. The progress and prosperity of our economy have supported modern medicine and a significant extension of life. Life expectation increased by 20 years between 1930 and 2010. Based on how economists estimate the value of years of life, living an extra 20 years is equivalent to a $2 million benefit for the typical American. I hope that progress in life extension continues, and even accelerates it if possible. We form expectations about life based on experience and available information. Mr. Mantle’s expectation was not unreasonable based on life when he was growing up in the 1930s. Before 1930, men did not on average to 60, and men in the Mantle family rarely saw 50. Many Americans never reached retirement age. Progress creates an imbalance between life plans based on yesterday’s world and a different, albeit better, future. For the lengthening of life, this imbalance takes the form of persons without funds for old age. Defined contribution pensions exacerbate this problem by placing the risk on people likely to make mistakes and possessing little ability to afford the consequences. Millions of persons without money for old age could lead to demands for a much expanded government safety net, perhaps an expanded Social Security designed to provide full retirement income. Ironically, defined benefit pensions provide a voluntary, contractual safety net. Pensions allow the sharing of risks involved in planning for old age. These pensions reduced the potential for people to save too little and voluntarily transferred wealth to those who live unexpectedly long lives. I do not know if defined benefit pensions will disappear. But if they disappear, I suspect that we will miss the market-based safety net they have provided for Americans as progress extended our life spans. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. Respond to him at dsutter@troy.edu and like the Johnson Center on Facebook.
