economic policy

I just read a fascinating column from the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson about what politicians can do to mess up the American economy, such as failing to have a national industrial policy beyond "Leave the businesses alone, and they'll do what's best for America."

In the late '90s, unions and liberals opposed permanently normalizing trade relations with China. But orthodox economists and even more orthodox editorialists heaped scorn on all these ideas, which died quiet deaths -- even as the governments of nations that have supplanted us as the world's manufacturers (most notably, China) adhered to domestic content regulations and invested heavily in strategic industries, to the betterment of their citizens.

Today, 20 years after we decided not to have an industrial policy, we have an industrial base that employs an ever-smaller number of Americans. What has kept us afloat during the current decade hasn't been our productive capacity but the inflation of our assets -- the rising value of our homes, against which we've borrowed to purchase the things we could not afford out of our stagnant paychecks. To the extent that the United States had a macro-economic strategy, it was Shop Till You Drop.

So we've shopped. And now we've dropped.

Read the entire column

Obama has suggested boosting America's economy with "green collar" industry, by having the government invest in that much the way it once invested in steel and other heavy industry. It makes sense to me.

conservatism and liberalism

Here's a news flash for everyone: Liberal is GOOD. Conservative is GOOD.

Simply put, liberalism looks to move us forward to a better future, a better world for our children and for ourselves, and it looks to right the wrongs that exist in our society and in ourselves. It is not a philosophy of bedwetters and crybabies as some have claimed it.

Also simply put, conservatism is a desire to hold onto what is good within our world and our society, to uphold our traditions and values, and to hold onto what makes us who we are. It is not a philosophy of heartless people who are fearful of change, as some have claimed it.

Both liberals and conservatives are concerned with justice and with fairness. Both groups want peace, prosperity, and on and on. Both groups want to have what our parents did: the belief that tomorrow will be a better day than today was.

Where we disagree in is where the problems are and how to fix them. Conservatives in the U.S. at times have had an appalling desire to hold onto things that should be got rid of, and at times liberals have been too eager to throw out the baby with the bathwater and excuse new injustices in their rush to correct old ones.

I don't believe either philosophy is inherently wiser, better, or godlier than the other, though I've met, talked with and even been related to a number of people, both conservative and liberal, whom I've wanted to ask, "How do you breathe with your head shoved that far up there?"

One of the things that I've admired about Senator Obama is that I think he's going to help us get past the last 20 years of self-righteous posturing about how The Other Side is ruining all that's Good, Decent and Righteous in America. Our national leaders have been fighting the battles of the Sixties way too long now.

possible consequences of an obama victory

1) "Soaking those of us who earn our money (by raising taxes on higher-income families)." Let's say that this is what happens as the result of any changes in the tax code an Obama administration pushes through Congress. How exactly does this differ from what the Bush administration has done for the past eight years, or what the previous Bush and Reagan administrations did not long before that?

Reagan's tax plan, widely celebrated through the Republican Party as the best form of taxes ever enacted, was originally called "voodoo economics" by his vice president before the name "trickle-down economics" caught on. It involves giving tax cuts to the wealthy -- during the last eight years, some very generous tax cuts -- forcing the tax burden downward, onto the working class and other people who "earn their money," yet I can't recall much outrage from you over that when the subject's come up. Quite the opposite, actually.

So if all Obama could accomplish would be to perpetuate the status quo, because the wealthy find loopholes and ways out of shouldering the share of the tax burden, and as a result he continues to soak the same people that the GOP has targeted, how is that a problem, when it's the approach conservatives have told us repeatedly works best?

My understanding is that Obama would prefer a trickle-up model, where money goes to the people who need it, allowing them to reinvest it in the economy directly, fueling new growth and creating jobs in sectors where the neediest members of our society stand to benefit the most from it.

2) "show international weakness." Again, I believe this is something the Bush administration has been doing already. Ever since that ill-advised invasion of Iraq, the United States has been remarkably impotent on the world stage. North Korea was able to jerk our chain with its nuclear program, essentially asking, "What are you going to do about it? You're already overextended in Afghanistan and Iraq." Iran has been able to flex its muscles and defy the United States repeatedly over its uranium enrichment program, because its leaders have known that we're already in too deep and overextended in Iraq to do anything about it.

What lesson has the Bush administration shown the world with its swiftness to invade Iraq before we had settled the situation in Afghanistan? That we're impotent to work our will anywhere else in the world too, whether working toward any chance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, or contending with rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran. (To say nothing of the mess we made in trying to influence elections in Central America.)

Drawing down our troops in Iraq arguably would leave us ready to deal with actual, rather than imagined, threats. All getting bogged down there accomplished was showing everyone that we're quick to go to war with leaders we don't like, but slow to have a plan for what to do next.