Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Valuing the future

Valuing the future
Getty Images

Kevin Frazier will join the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University as an Assistant Professor starting this Fall. He currently is a clerk on the Montana Supreme Court.

How much would you pay to save someone’s life? Would you pay any less if you learned that person would die tomorrow rather than today? What if the person wouldn’t die for five days? Five years? Or five decades?


As unpleasant as it may be, the above is a customary exercise every federal agency goes through when reviewing regulations. Pursuant to an executive order from the Clinton administration, agencies must select the regulation that maximizes net benefits. Agencies perform a Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) to do just that—they tally up the forecasted benefits and costs over time and see if the latter exceeds the former.

And, though you may want to never think about BCAs again, now’s the time to do so. The Office of Management and Budget is accepting public comment on its regulatory review process, including the ins and outs of BCAs, but that comment window closes tomorrow (June 20), so we must talk about this difficult, complex topic now.

Usually BCA calculations are pretty dry. For instance, a BCA of a five-year tax on marshmallows would likely only include economic variables. The analysts would first calculate the economic benefits and costs for each year and then adjust those yearly estimates to bring them into present value. This adjustment—determining the present value of future benefits and costs—is known as discounting.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Discounting reflects the fact that $1 today is worth more than $1 tomorrow. If you had that dollar today, then you could put it in the bank and earn interest, invest in the stock market, and all other sorts of stuff that would leave you with more than a dollar tomorrow. Duh, right? The comparative value of a “today” dollar versus a “tomorrow” dollar depends on a great deal of factors—are the banks providing a high interest rate? Is the stock market crashing or thriving? Do you have urgent needs or would waiting another day be no big deal? All of those factors shape your “discount rate.” The higher the discount rate, the more weight you assign to benefits and costs in the short-term, and vice versa. A discount rate of zero would mean you assign equal weight across time.

But what if the regulation in question isn’t as fluffy as a marshmallow tax? What if you’re regulating the proper level of a known toxin in household paints: at level A, you anticipate that one death will occur in year one and nine will occur in year two; at level B, no deaths will occur in year one and ten will occur in year two.

In both cases, ten people die in the span of two years. So there’s no difference, right? Wrong…at least under a traditional BCA using a positive discount rate. Under any such a rate, the deaths that occur in year two would “cost” less. So, assuming levels A and B achieve the same total benefits, level B would have fewer total costs because all of the deaths occurred in year two. Now imagine a harder case: level A results in 100 million deaths tomorrow, but no deaths beyond that; level B results in no deaths tomorrow, but 101 million deaths in ten years.

Some people would have no problem going with level B – they might justify their decision by claiming that society can use the intervening nine years to come up with a way to save some lives or they might say that our complex, interconnected world requires assigning lives monetary value that can be integrated into a quantitative analysis.

I’ll address the second argument first – it is, to quote my grandma, “full of baloney.” I get that you can invest “today’s dollar” and earn more, but you cannot put a human life in the bank. Future lives should not be treated as investment vehicles.

The first argument is a little tougher – humans have time and again exceeded our own expectations and developed technologies beyond our wildest dreams. In some cases, it seems likely that we can innovate our way out of worst-case scenarios and save future lives. However, in many cases, regulations and their likely effects are very hard to reverse or actually irreversible. In those cases, no amount of innovation will save future Americans. In those cases, agencies should be obligated to use a discount rate of zero and equally value current and future lives.

This critical process informs the most important regulatory actions taken by the federal government. If you’d like to share your own perspective, now is the time. Visit here to find out more.

Read More

Meet the change leaders: Scott Klug

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

After a 14-year career as an Emmy-winning reporter, Scott Klug upset a 32-year Democratic House member from Wisconsin in 1990. Despite winning four elections with an average of 63 percent of the vote, he stayed true to his term limit pledge and retired in January 1999.

But during his time in office, Klug says, he had the third most independent voting record of any member of Congress from Wisconsin in the last 50 years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump at a podium

Former President Donald Trump recently said Vice President Kamala Harris is mentally impaired.

Howard Schnapp/Newsday RM via Getty Images

We should not denigrate the mentally impaired

Schmidt is a columnist and editorial board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Ableism, the social prejudice and discrimination of people with disabilities based on the belief that typical abilities are superior, is just plain wrong and it is also un-American.

At a recent campaign rally in Prairie du Chien, Wis., former President Donald Trump disparaged Vice President Kamala Harris, suggesting she was mentally disabled and called her “a very dumb person.”

Keep ReadingShow less
"Danger PFAS" Caution Warning Barrier Tap

Heavily Hispanic areas near Chicago are home to environmental racism.

filo/Getty Images

Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago suffer unequal exposure to chemicals

Sharp is chief financial officer at Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., a law firm based in Birmingham, Ala., that assists individuals and communities injured by toxic exposure.

The predominantly Hispanic populations in Rosemont, Schiller Park and Bensenville, near Chicago, have long been exposed to toxic chemicals known as PFAS originating from the neighboring O'Hare Air Reserve Station, which was closed in 1999. The phenomenon of environmental racism is not new to Chicago. Sites and facilities hazardous to the environment and human health have been placed near communities predominantly populated by Hispanic and Black people in the city for years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerald Ford

Republicans, including Gerald Ford in 1976, held the White House on the occasion of each of America's milestone birthdays.

Bernard Charlon/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

America at 250, and the Fourth of July presidents

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

An odd pattern has emerged in the history of presidential politics. Every time the United States celebrates a major birthday milestone, a Republican sits in the White House.

When America celebrated its golden jubilee in 1826, Democratic-Republican John Quincy Adams was enjoying his second year as the country’s chief executive. When the nation rejoiced that it had reached its centennial 100 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Ulysses S. Grant was our president. At America’s sesquicentennial in 1926, Calvin Coolidge occupied the White House. And during the bicentennial almost 50 years ago, Gerald Ford was completing his one and only term at the helm.

Keep ReadingShow less