In the new issue of The New Republic I have a short piece on the changing politics around retirement security. I looked at how we got to this crisis, and why things are starting to change — on both the state and federal level.
This didn’t end up making it into the story— but as I was researching I learned how the U.S. government has always provided less for people’s old age than other industrialized nations. Our elected officials simply viewed it as more of a personal responsibility for people to save for themselves. So for example, our social security benefits have always been more modest than other nations. And for a long time, with the booming U.S. economy after World War II, and employers shouldering more of the retiree health costs than they do now, people generally made it work okay. But as pensions began to disappear, and employers scaled back their retiree benefits, and wages stagnated, and health care costs spiked, and people started living long, and the returns on 401(k)s proved less than stellar, the crisis grew and grew.
I think it’s important and very under-discussed given how many people are grappling with the challenges. You can check it out here.
In other news:
I published a story today at The Intercept looking at Beto O’Rourke and his relationship to charter schools. His wife started a charter and now works for a group that aims to expand charter schools in El Paso. Beto has successfully avoided clarifying his views on the publicly-funded, privately-managed schools to this point, but teacher unions say they plan to press him on the issue during the presidential primary, in a way they didn’t when he was running against Ted Cruz in the Senate. (His campaign did not return multiple requests for comment.) He might come out and just say the same general things as other Democratic candidates, but given his wife’s role, and the intense politics around this issue within the party, he’ll likely have to deal with it sooner than later.
I also wrote another piece recently at The Intercept that followed-up a story I reported last year about HUD cracking down on alleged emotional support animal fraud. Under the Fair Housing Act, individuals are able to live with an emotional support animal free-of-cost if a trained professional certifies that the animal can help them cope with mental or physical issues. But many landlords suspect people are abusing this civil right to bypass “no pets” rules, or to avoid monthly pet fees. As a result, the housing industry has been lobbying HUD to crack down and make it harder to get approved. I talked to disability rights groups who have been worried about this potential crack down. Compared to a year ago they are more hopeful it won’t be as bad as they feared, but HUD’s been vague and they do expect there to be some restrictive guidance issued soon.
Thanks for reading!