In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Fatal Distraction" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/opinion/the-fatal-distraction.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Paul Krugman fantasizes over Obama's forthcoming speech on the economy:
"I find it useful to think in terms of three questions: What should we be doing to create jobs? What will Republicans in Congress agree to? And given that political reality, what should the president propose?
The answer to the first question is that we should have a lot of job-creating spending on the part of the federal government, largely in the form of much-needed spending to repair and upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. Oh, and we need more aid to state and local governments, so that they can stop laying off schoolteachers.
But what will Republicans agree to? That’s easy: nothing. They will oppose anything Mr. Obama proposes, even if it would clearly help the economy — or maybe I should say, especially if it would help the economy, since high unemployment helps them politically.
This reality makes the third question — what the president should propose — hard to answer, since nothing he proposes will actually happen anytime soon. So I’m personally prepared to cut Mr. Obama a lot of slack on the specifics of his proposal, as long as it’s big and bold. For what he mostly needs to do now is to change the conversation — to get Washington talking again about jobs and how the government can help create them."
Now unlike Krugman (and Obama), I have never won a Nobel prize nor will I, but Paul's three questions have set me wondering:
We need a lot of job-creating spending by the federal government? On what -- roads, bridges, railroads, airports and teachers? We've seen and heard this before, but notwithstanding China's grand infrastructure projects undertaken with slave labor, a new bullet train between New York and Washington is not going to cure the nation's ills. Ultimately, someone will have to pay the bill after it is discovered that fares alone do not cover the costs of such a boondoggle. Potholes? Sure, they can be filled, but they're not going to fire up today's economy. Money for teachers? This might win over the teachers' unions, but bankrupt states will tear through the money in less than a year and will not be able to sustain these programs on their own.
Will the Republicans try to torpedo anything the president proffers? I don't think so. Not if Republican legislators hope to retain their seats in Congress. Unlike Paul, I don't think Americans are stupid, and if Obama comes up with a sensible plan to reignite the economy, they're not going to tolerate such negativism.
Obama should propose something "big and bold"? Fabulous! While he was playing golf in Martha's Vineyard before the hurricane, I'm certain the president's White House elves were busy hammering together a proposal that will knock our socks off. I can hardly contain my excitement . . . not.
You see, I still believe in the productivity and power of American corporations. Sure, they can be mean and greedy, but they are also capable of startling innovation capable of changing lives, e.g., Apple, Intel, Microsoft and thousands more. Washington can't create by itself a sustainable recovery, whereas American corporations, if properly motivated by Washington, are capable of doing this.
Motivation? Use taxes as a carrot and a stick to allow American industry to foment growth. Obama should be meeting with the likes of Steve Jobs -- I'm confident he'll have answers that the bureaucrats and financial wizards from predatory financial institutions have yet to imagine.
Think about it: Jobs for jobs, or better still, Jobs for president. He's head and shoulders above anything else out there . . . .
Indeed, it's all about imagination, something in short supply in Washington, something that takes us far beyond a "cars, trains and planes" solution with a few teachers temporarily thrown into the bargain.
No comments:
Post a Comment