Michael Lind & Joshua Freedman: Value Added: America’s Manufacturing Future: The Keys to Long-Term Economic Growth

Posted on July 18, 2013 by Erik Schneider

“Manufacturing matters. That is the rapidly emerging consensus in the United States, after a generation in which leading policymakers, economists and journalists dismissed the importance of the U.S. manufacturing sector to the American economy. Transcending partisan divides, there is a deepening appreciation for the many ways in which a world-class, dynamic manufacturing sector contributes to innovation and American prosperity.

Manufacturing’s contribution to the economic recovery and long-term economic growth extends to other economic sectors, including commodities and professional services, through forward and backward linkages and spillover effects. America’s manufacturing companies also anchor America’s innovation ecosystem, providing demand for American researchers and a supply of investment in R&D in the U.S. Innovation in the U.S. cannot be severed from domestic production; the two belong to an innovation system whose elements benefit each other and flourish or fail together.

But manufacturing is changing, and the contribution of manufacturing to the American economy makes it all the more important for the U.S. to capture the gains of the next generation of manufacturing innovation. Advanced manufacturing encompasses the wave of revolutionary technologies that includes robotics, nanotechnology, photonics, biomanufacturing, the synthesis of new materials and additive manufacturing or rapid prototyping, which promises to replace mass production with customized production in many industries. New kinds of business organization, made possible by advanced communication and information technology, are transforming the way manufacturing firms operate. Servitization is the process by which a product-centered firm adopts a product-service strategy in which revenues from services throughout the product’s lifecycle are as or more important than the sale of the original product. While some companies have long pursued product-service strategies, that business model is becoming available to many more firms in industries ranging from aerospace to medicine.

To remain competitive, the U.S. needs a strategy to ensure that breakthroughs in technology and their diffusion and commercialization continue to take place in America. Public policy needs to focus on the imperative of revitalizing and upgrading America’s manufacturing base, by methods that include:

R&D and Technology Diffusion. Public policy needs to encourage private sector R&D, including through a permanent R&D tax credit. Public investment in R&D and support for manufacturing should be financed in part by new federal development banks and federally-favored municipal bonds. Breakthroughs in R&D must be followed by development at scale and the diffusion of new transformative technologies across sectors, with the help of government procurement, credit and technology extension programs.

Infrastructure and Energy Strategy. In addition to these forms of direct assistance, infrastructure and energy policies can indirectly retain or onshore manufacturing in the U.S. by lowering the costs of energy and chemical feedstocks and by reducing bottle-necks in the transportation and communications infrastructures. In addition to lowering the costs of manufacturing, the energy sector, revitalized by natural gas, and the construction of new, more efficient transportation and communications systems can provide sources of demand for domestic manufacturing firms.

Tax and Regulatory Reform. Tax policy should encourage investment in American manufacturing by foreign and domestic firms alike. Legacy regulatory systems need to be updated as cutting-edge technology blurs or destroys the boundaries among kinds of manufacturing or between manufacturing and services.

Training Workers for Advanced Manufacturing Jobs. Rapid technological change in manufacturing means that the U.S. needs a new social contract in education which rationally allocates responsibility for learning and upgrading skills among government, employers and individuals.

Promoting Mutually Beneficial Rather than Adversarial Trade. The U.S. needs to do a better job of defending its industries against predatory policies by mercantilist nations, without sacrificing the benefits of access to foreign markets and foreign talent.”

From the New America Foundation

Posted in New America Foundation, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Washington Post: Harold Meyerson: ‘Washington D.C. Council Stands For Fair Wages & Against Wal-Mart’

Posted on July 17, 2013 by Erik Schneider

“For Republicans who want to cut the number of food stamp recipients, here’s a helpful suggestion: Support the ordinance passed last week by the D.C. Council, which required big-box stores like Wal-Mart to pay their employees at least $12.50 an hour.

On average, Wal-Mart pays its workers $12.67 an hour — which means that a huge number of its 1.4 million U.S. employees make a good deal less than that. By paying so little, the Bentonville behemoth compels thousands of its employees to use food stamps to feed their families and Medicaid to pay their doctor bills. It compels taxpayers to pick up a tab that wouldn’t even exist if the company paid its workers enough to get them out of poverty.

How many such workers go on the public rolls? Some states occasionally survey where those employees work, and Wal-Mart almost invariably tops their lists. An Ohio tally in 2009, for instance, found that 15,246 Wal-Mart workers were Medicaid recipients and 12,731 were on food stamps. (McDonald’s came in second in each category.)”

From The Washington Post

“Harold Meyerson, editor at large, American Prospect; columnist, Washington Post; board member, Alber”

Harold Meyerson, editor at large, American Prospect; columnist, Washington Post; board member, Alber (2015) - Google Search

Source:Albert Shanker Institute– left-wing political columnist and political activist Harold Meyerson.

From the Albert Shanker Institute

I like this move involving Wal-Mart that the Washington City Council made for these reasons:

Washington is already one of the most expensive and wealthiest big cities in the United States. Not just the metropolitan area but the city itself with a very high cost of living. And Wal-Mart coming in which is the largest low-paying employer in America, would make that situation even worst not just for its employees in Washington but for others.

If you were to work at lets say a downtown Washington Wal-Mart, you are probably going to need to live in the city to work there especially if that is your main job. Good luck doing that making eight bucks an hour with very little if any benefits with your job. And this would also affect other Washington service industry employers who would feel the need to cut their benefits and wages in order to compete with Wal-Mart. But having a $12.50 minimum-wage in Washington, keeps the Wal-Marts out of there. And prevents workers from having to go on public assistance to support themselves and their families. And saves tax payers that money as a result.

I know raising the minimum wage or creating what I would prefer to do which is a living-wage comes with a price. Which is a price I’m willing to pay and believe we should pay as a country. Workers should be paid based on the work they do and the skills they bring to the table. But seven dollars and hour or eight dollars an hour is still underpaying for even service workers. Who are pretty valuable and make their companies successful and wealthy.

So I’m not looking to pay low-skilled service workers twenty or thirty bucks and hour as a living-wage. But pay them for the work that they do that saves tax payers money on public assistance. But do it in away that doesn’t make employers especially small business’s payrolls too expensive and forces them to layoff their low-skilled workers. Which is why I support increasing the minimum-wage or living-wage for workers to 10-12 bucks and hour Federally and allow for those employers to deduct part of those costs from their taxes.

But we should be doing more than just raising the minimum-wage or creating a living-wage for our low-skilled workforce and invest more in job-training by empowering employers and private non-profits to train our low-skilled workforce. Empowering our low-skilled workers to go to community college so they can get the skills that they need to not have to work in a service industry to support themselves which would be a good investment for tax payers. Because they would have to pay less for public assistance in the future as a result.

Posted in Originals, The Washington Post | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Senate Democrats: Leader Harry Reid: ‘A New Normal For the Senate’

Posted on July 16, 2013 by Erik Schneider

Senate Democrats_ Leader Harry Reid_ ‘A New Normal For the Senate’ _ FRS FreeStateSource:Senate Democrats– U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senators Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall in the background.

“Senate Majority Harry Reid, speaking to reporters in the Capitol, said today there is now a new normal in the Senate: “qualified executive nominees must not be blocked on procedural supermajority votes.”

From Senate Democrats

Looks like the United States Senate avoided the so-called nuclear option as cooler heads prevailed. And the Senate will not become the House where the majority runs over the minority and votes quickly with very little if any input from the minority. And the Senate will remain the upper chamber of Congress and not become another House of Representatives.

With this deal, President Obama will get most if not all of his executive administration nominees. With the minority now and in the future still able to block legislation if they have at least forty-one votes and controversial judicial nominees but the minority and in this case the Republican minority led by Mitch McConnell, won’t just be able to block nominees just to prevent offices they believe shouldn’t exist in the first place because big business in this case doesn’t like them, because they regulate them and qualified nominees will get their votes in the future. And these offices will be filled.

Posted in Congress, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Heritage Foundation: Video: The Nuclear Option: The Filibuster Power Grab in the Senate

Posted on July 15, 2013 by Erik Schneider

Senator Jeff Merkley

Senator Jeff Merkley

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

The Nuclear Option: The Filibuster "Power Grab" in the Senate – YouTube.

I have no doubt that Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell would be trying to eliminate or at least limit the Senate filibuster. Even just for executive nominations if they were in the majority and Senate Democrats were successfully blocking them. But that doesn’t make it right for Leader Harry Reid to be doing this right now just because. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would be trying to do the same thing if he were Leader rather than Minority Leader. Because even though this might be about ending gridlock in the Senate in the short-term. So President Obama can get his appointments through and perhaps even allowing for. Senate Democrats to move their legislative agenda right now but this is really about having power. We are in the majority we decide what comes up and what can be voted on and what amendments can be voted on. And the job of the minority is to vote and shut up or go home. But as long as we are in power the minority doesn’t have much of say in what goes on in the Senate. And if this happens there will be a long-term price for Senate Democrats to pay next time. Senate Republicans are in the majority which would happen in eighteen months.

Posted in Congress | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Associated Press: Texas Senate Passes New Abortion Restrictions

Posted on July 13, 2013 by Erik Schneider

Texas Senate Passes New Abortion RestrictionsSource:Associated Press inside the Texas State Senate.

“The Texas Senate passed sweeping new abortion restrictions late Friday, sending them to Republican Gov. Rick Perry to sign into law after weeks of rallies that made the state the focus of the national abortion debate.”

From the Associated Press

Texas taking a stand for big government and involving big government into the lives of women’s health care in Texas.

I’m not pro-abortion, as much as the Religious-Right might want to label people who are pro-choice as pro-abortion. And I hate that term pro-abortion, because it doesn’t exist. There aren’t people who are pro-abortion. What I am is pro-choice and pro-choice generally and not just as it relates to abortion, but I’m in favor of individual choice and freedom broadly as long as people aren’t hurting innocent people. People being those of us who’ve been born and not waiting to be born.

Now, I do not want to be forced to pay for someone else’s abortions and I’m not in favor of public funding of abortion. We do not have a constitutional right to that. But we do have the right to privacy and the freedom to live our own lives and govern ourselves. Not other people, but govern ourselves. Which is why this Texas abortion law will be ruled unconstitutional as inconsistent with Roe V. Wade.

You can also see this post on Blogger.

Posted in AP Video, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Foreign Affairs: Opinion: Michael J. Koplow: Officers and Democrats: The Future of Egyptian Democracy

Posted on July 12, 2013 by Erik Schneider

Egyptian Democracy

Egyptian Democracy

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Officers and Democrats | Foreign Affairs.

There are two opponents and factions that are standing in the way of Egyptian Democracy at least as I see it. The leftovers of the Mubarak regime that want to continue to see Egypt as a military dictatorship where a lot of the power of the state rests with the military. But a Moderate regime by Middle Eastern standards. And the Islamic-Theocrats that want to see Egypt become an Arab Iran the faction that ousted President Muhammad Morsi came from. Where life if the had their way would become very restrictive for Egyptians especially for women. Because the whole country would be under an interpretation of Islamic law. One of the things that former President Hosni Mubarak was successful at was containing the Islamic-Theocrats in. Egypt through torture and police roundups and holding them in prison indefinitely. But now that Egypt is functioning somewhat as a Democracy with people able to move around and speak. Out the Islamists are getting and having their say as well.

Ideally for Egypt to be a truly functioning Democracy with Egyptians able to live in freedom. Some type of federal republic needs to merge there. Whether that means changing their constitution if that is not already there. Where there are checks and balances. An executive branch that the President would oversee. And legislative branch that the Egyptian Parliament would make up. A judicial branch that a federal court system would make up including a Supreme Court. As well as state or provincial as well as local governments that would have similar systems. With all of these branches and governments all part of the same country but independent of each other. Rather than most if not all power in the country resting in one authority or one part of one government. Like in Iran where most of the power of the whole country and society rests with its Islamic Council that the Supreme Leader oversees.

Egypt does have a Democratic Party a Liberal-Democratic Party either. And when new national elections are held in Egypt this party will have the opportunity to emerge and hopefully. Form a government there and perhaps Egypt will have a real constitution that backs these Liberal-Democratic values. And once something like this were in place, Egypt would then have a system in place that promotes Democracy with checks and balances. And an opportunity to move past dictatorial rule.

Posted in Arabia | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Senate Democrats: ‘It’s Time to End Gridlock In Washington’

Posted on July 11, 2013 by Erik Schneider

Senate Democrats: It's Time to End Gridlock In WashingtonSource:Senate Democrats– Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls on Republicans to end their obstructionism of President Obama’s nominees.”

From Senate Democrats

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid talking about Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and blaming the Minority Leader on the Senate Republicans obstruction of President Obama’s nominees.

Posted in Congress, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brookings Institution: Ron Haskins & John Podesta: ‘Making Work Pay Again This Time For Men’

Posted on July 10, 2013 by Erik Schneider

ron haskins & john podesta_ making work pay again this time for men (2013) - Google Search

Source:Brookings Institution– working in America.

“Congress is expected to take up comprehensive tax reform later this year or next year. As we prepare for a potentially bruising partisan battle, it is incumbent upon leadership of both parties to ensure that the tax code incentivizes work for American families, many of whom have seen their fortunes decline as wages for low-skill workers continue to stagnate. Strengthening the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which provides a wage supplement to many low-income workers, should be part of that agenda.

New York City’s Center for Economic Opportunity – Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s antipoverty shop – just announced an experiment to test whether a more generous EITC would make work pay for single adults. The Mayor’s plan to coax more single adults into the labor force by supplementing their earnings is a superb if all too rare example of what government can do to encourage personal responsibility while also strengthening local economies and striking a blow for economic opportunity. The Mayor’s newest experiment will test whether a more robust EITC will increase employment, financial support of children, and even marriage rates of men and thereby reduce child poverty.

The EITC is widely considered to be one of the most successful antipoverty programs, and has significantly increased employment and earnings for low-income families. The credit lifted 6.6 million people out of poverty in 2011 alone, and substantially increased employment among single mothers. Expansion of the EITC in the 1990s and since has served to make the earnings of low-wage work a much more attractive option than welfare for single mothers and their children.

But what about the men? The employment rate and wages of single males have fallen greatly over the past few decades. For example, in 2007 one in four workers earned less than $10 per hour, a wage that even for full-time workers would still leave many of them and their families poor or near poor. Skill-building and education can help many workers attain better paying jobs, but low-wage jobs will continue to make up a significant fraction of all employment. The federal EITC for single tax filers – including non-custodial parents – today offers a maximum of $475 for an entire year. At this low level, the credit has done little to drive gains in employment or earnings among single men.

Let’s take a page from Mayor Bloomberg’s playbook and test whether our tax code truly makes work pay. What would we propose? Federal funds should allow up to five states to experiment with a much more substantial noncustodial parent EITC and test its impact on employment, particularly among young men. Federal dollars would pay the benefit and also fund research on whether the EITC is increasing work rates and improving the financial status of these young men. In addition, research should examine whether increased work participation will have secondary effects such as reduced crime, increased payment of child support, and increased marriage rates.”

From Brookings

I completely agree with what Ron Haskins and John Podesta are saying here, but perhaps I would go further. The EITC (or Earned Income Tax Credit) is an excellent program to fight poverty in America. But we need to do a lot more to encourage work, education, opportunity, and economic independence, over Welfare. If you think income inequality in America is a problem, (or it even exists) then we need to encourage work, education, opportunity, and economic independence over Welfare.

The way to encourage work, education, opportunity, and economic independence over Welfare, is fairly simple, but a lot harder to make law. No one on Welfare, Unemployment, or even Disability, should be getting more money, that someone who works hard everyday and every week, just to put food on the table for themselves and their families, keep the lights on, pay the rent, etc. So we need a real living wage in America (whatever that number is) and that living wage needs to pay more than not working at all.

There also needs to be work and education requirements for everyone that is on any public assistance program, including Disability, whose not currently eligible to retire yet. And we need child care and perhaps even transportation assistance for single parents who are mostly mothers, who are going back to school and even work, because they’re now required too by law, but also because they want a better life for themselves and their kids.

Again, what I’m talking about here, is a lot easier to do, but a lot harder to make law. As long as the Democratic Party has a left-wing in it that doesn’t believe in work, education, opportunity, and economic independence, over Welfare and says that government should just give people bigger and more Welfare checks and we should discourage economic wealth and independence to fight what they call income inequality and a Republican Party with a Libertarian-Right that says government, or at least the Federal Government has no role here, the status quo when it comes to Welfare in America, will always exist.

Posted in Brookings Video, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Josh Freedman: ‘Big Business Isn’t Investing in People Anymore, so Big Government Has To’

Posted on July 9, 2013 by Erik Schneider

Quartz: Josh Freedman: Big business isn’t investing in people anymore, so big government has toSource:Quartz– President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

Productive investments and social spending are essential to a healthy advanced society. Yet US president Barack Obama’s proposal to cut Social Security benefits and the bipartisan idea that social programs are “crowding out” investment set up a false choice between the two.

If we look at the federal budget in isolation, it appears that the government is growing in size. In the context of the US economy, however, the government is playing a role that large corporations have abandoned. The private sector has shed responsibility for both productive investments in areas like research and training and in providing social benefits to workers. To compensate, the government needs to be bigger than before. We cannot set an arbitrary limit on government spending without looking at the broader historical picture.

A generation ago, large corporations formed the backbone of the industrial economy. Many of these corporations were “vertically integrated,” in which they controlled all stages of production from more basic research through commercial development into marketable products. Companies had their own internal research labs, such as AT&T with Bell Labs and Xerox with PARC. While the research they conducted did not show up as government spending, it provided an important public benefit in spurring innovation that drove growth throughout the economy. These corporations also provided widespread on-the-job training to unskilled workers that led to stable employment and middle-class wages.

At the same time, many of these large industrial companies acted as “welfare capitalists” that provided benefits to their employees, such as retirement pensions and health insurance. Employers formed a crucial part of the social contract. National social policy since the New Deal has been designed to supplement these established employer-based programs and preserve their existence.

Yet as corporations have moved away from vertical integration, they have reduced their roles in generating research and providing social supports. Businesses have increased their funding of overall R&D, but most of that emphasis has been on development and improvements to existing products or ideas rather than on more fundamental research that can create new technological breakthroughs. A National Research Council survey found that across a range of industries, firms are relying more on direct and indirect government-sponsored entities, including universities and federal laboratories, for research in science and technology. At the same time, fewer companies are willing to train unskilled workers, which has led companies to cite a shortage of qualified workers while unemployment remains high.

Companies also have moved away from providing benefits to their employees. Defined-benefit retirement pensions, which guarantee a fixed payout to employees after they retired, have diminished. The number of private sector workers at medium or large companies with access to a defined-benefit pension plan has dropped from 84% in 1980 to 35% today. Employer health insurance coverage has declined from 70% to 60% in the last decade alone.

Another institution needs to take the place of corporations to make up the shortfall in all of these areas. Businesses, individuals, and society at large will benefit if the public sector fills this role.

In many ways, increased responsibility for the government is an improvement over the previous welfare capitalist system. The public sector can provide social programs more equitably and efficiently than can private businesses. For example, public health insurance is able to provide wider access to medical care at a lower cost than a private system. And nearly all of the benefits of the current system of private tax-favored retirement savings go to the highest earners, while public programs like Social Security have done a better job of supporting most retirees.

The public sector also has always had a hand in spurring productive investments. Even in funding innovation—an area that provokes political questions of “winners” and “losers”—the government has been an important player in supporting new technologies and spurring economic growth. The government has been investing in technological advancement for military purposes since the country was founded. Even during the era of vertical integration, government investment was crucial. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, founded in 1957, is responsible for major components of the information technology revolution, including the foundations of the Internet.

A larger role for the public sector will not inhibit economic growth; rather, it will enhance it. Increased investment in research, infrastructure, education, and training will stimulate the economy in the short term and provide the necessary foundations for growth in the long run. And research of European countries by economist Peter Lindert has shown that higher levels of social spending (and taxation) do not hurt GDP.

As long as health prices are brought under control, government should be spending more money on both social benefits and on growth-enhancing investments including infrastructure, research, education, and training. If it does not, the federal budget might appear smaller but the country will be far worse off.”

From Quartz

Posted in New Left, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

David Warsh: ‘Will Hillary Clinton Be Our Dwight Eisenhower?’

Posted on July 8, 2013 by Erik Schneider

David Warsh: Will Clinton Our Eisenhower?Source:Economic Principles blogger David Warsh.

“It’s inviting on the Fourth of July to speculate a little about the next presidential election. Thus Politico last week asked, What Happens If Hillary Clinton Passes in 2016? At The New York Times, Jonathan Martin reported Republicans Paint Clinton As Old News for 2016 Presidential Election.

I was traveling last week; as one who had been deeply opposed to her candidacy in 2008, I found myself wondering what a Clinton presidency might mean. The former Secretary of State is, after all, pretty old. She began political life in 1964 as a Goldwater girl, was formed in the crucible of the Vietnam War, and was First Lady for eight years, senator for eight more. She will be 69 by the next presidential election.

Moreover, the nation didn’t fare well when one Bush succeeded another. Why would his-and-her-presidencies be expected to produce a better result?

In 2016, the majority will be looking for a veteran commander who can be expected to steer a steady course and consolidate the gains made since the country turned right after 1980, along with the rest of the world, and, if I am correct, left again after 2008.

That’s probably Hillary Clinton. She may turn out to be our age’s Dwight Eisenhower.

This is a view that takes for granted 1932 and 1980 as fundamental turning points in American political life, part of the inescapable zigzag of history. The outlines of the New Deal and the Reagan Revolution seem clear enough. It is the evolution in which we are swept up now that is still hazy, perhaps even in the mind of Hillary Clinton.

As a matter of course, many different narratives are unfolding together at the same time in our lives: war and peace, gender equality and civil rights, the international division of labor, the growing responsibility we take for nature, the sources to which we ascribe ultimate meaning. What is required to cause a “turn” in something as complicated as the life of a nation?

On this definition, it takes an economic crisis and a decisive response, some part of which quickly commands a substantial majority. Thus Franklin Roosevelt tried a wide variety of measures to cope with the bourgeoning Great Depression, some of which, such as the planning-oriented National Recovery Administration, were quickly repudiated. Among the reforms that stuck were extensive regulation of markets, commitment to union power and income equality, and mobilization for war.

Ronald Reagan expressed confidence in markets, in tax cuts and tax simplification, in monetary stability, and, in his 1983 Social Security rebalancing, a reaffirmation of the social contract undertaken by the New Deal (FDR had been his political hero). George H. W. Bush succeeded him, promising a “kinder, gentler” conservatism but was swept away in 1992 in the generally unanticipated end of the Cold War.

Bill Clinton proved to be one sort of conservator of the Reagan legacy, George W. Bush another. Each strayed significantly from its basic themes, but each operated within its broad framework. The economic policies of the Clinton administration must be judged a great success from beginning to end, while Bush sobered up only after 2006, with surprising success, beginning with the nomination of Ben Bernanke to succeed Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve chair.

I opposed Clinton in 2008 because I believed Barack Obama stood a much better chance of successfully leading the country in a different direction. I think it turned out to be the case. My hunch is that Obama will come to be seen as having charted another new turn in the zig-zag, less startling than those of 1932 or 1980, but no less durable, precipitated by the financial crisis of 2008, but directed mainly at fundamental regulatory problems that had little to do with the recession the crisis caused.

After some initial confusion, Obama decided in his first term to concentrate on the reorganization of health care, and to leave the economic recovery mainly to the Fed (in this he had plenty of help from the Republican-led House of Representatives); in the second, on climate change. He probably has charted the course of government action for the next thirty years. True, he hasn’t yet put his knack for storytelling to work, but it’s not too late.

Three years to the next election is a long time in this fast-paced world. If it turns out to be Clinton’s turn to carry on after 2016, as now seems likely it will, her job likely will be to take over an agenda set by others and broaden its acceptance, much as Eisenhower took over the New Deal reform from Harry Truman and governed peaceably long enough for the divisions to work themselves out – Roosevelt-hating, anti-communist fear-mongering, and the fear of return to depression. Finally above the fray, it would be a very different role than the one she imagined for herself, a lifetime ago, as a trailing spousal newcomer to the White House, channeling Eleanor Roosevelt!

There’s going to be plenty of action between 2017 and 2025. At the top of the domestic agenda will be paying for various promises that have been made. Hillary Clinton seems well-suited for the task of budget-balancing, which this time surely involves tax reform as well as a certain amount of growth. I decided I was at peace with the prospects, and, after the holiday, set out to get back to work.”

From Economic Principles

Posted in Democratic Party, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment