All too often I hear laments from left-leaning friends along the lines of, "if only we were more like Europe, we wouldn't be run by the backwards savages we know to live between the coasts."
It drives me crazy when European commentators and leaders take such sentiments for gospel. There is an implicit assumption in this talk that they have some special understanding of American culture because they watch us on TV, or that they have absolute moral authority over us because of the superiority of their social safety net.
Take this quote today from French President Sarkozy welcoming us to the "club of states which do not let sick people down."
Sarkozy was also sure to remind his American audience that:
"The idea that we have such a violent debate so that the poor are not left on the streets without a cent when they are sick ... Excuse me, but we've solved this problem more than 50 years ago (in France)."
Standard protocol would call for Mr. Sarkozy to congratulate us on what was a difficult achievement and be done with it. Instead, he opted for a pollyannish teachable moment, choosing to belittle something many of us fought hard for. Such statements are the diplomatic equivalent of calling someone who's ugly "ugly" in front of all their friends and then saying, "hey, I'm just being honest." It may be accurate, but it makes you into a jerk. Would Sarkozy have spoken this way to an Asian or an African audience?
Look, a lot of good things have come from Europe. Art, food, culture, the fundamental underpinnings of democracy. I like a lot of things about life there, and wouldn't mind if some of those ideas came to be on this side of the pond. But we're not Europeans, nor should Europeans expect us, or anyone else in the world to be.
Someone should remind Mr. Sarkozy that we're allies. We buy a lot of cheese and wine from him and if it weren't for us, Mr. Sarkozy would either be speaking German, or dead for having a Jewish grandparent. Hackneyed and jingoistic as those reasons may be, they make a good case for showing a bit more deference towards an ally in the afterglow of a major domestic achievement.
I have been lectured by Europeans on many occasions about our social inequalities. Many are the times I've been told of the shock and amazement at the homelessness, poverty and sickness, and in such a rich country. But it's far more often that I've witnessed these deficiencies first-hand. It's a daily occurrence and has been for most of my life, one for which I will offer no excuse. I just don't understand why they think they have license to bring it up in any circumstance.
But just look at Europeans' general approach to the rest of the world from the 16th through the 20th centuries. It is a long story of colonization at best, and gross expropriation of human and natural resources at worst. Now that they do nothing but vote in the UN and send a few troops to Afghanistan, they seem ready to put their past behind them in favor of the banal negligence of EU foreign policy.
We have our problems, but Mr. Sarkozy could stand a moment of self-reflection before making observations of others. Consider how intimidated and appeasing the European journalistic and intellectual classes are towards Islamic fundamentalists. Consider the ghettos outside of Paris, teeming with unemployed and radicalized immigrants, or the difficulties a third-generation German of Turkish descent has when trying to become a citizen. Consider the unAmerican-ness of the French ban on headscarves in public places. Consider Europeans' easy willingness to ban speech for the sake of some allegedly universal propriety. We have different problems, and different values.
And despite this, the 21st century European view towards the rest of the world has ascended from that of a zookeeper to a zoologist. Congratulations on the Ph.D. Now shut up.
There is a larger point in play here. When I hear progressive voices cheering this sort of talk on, all I can think of is the degree that they have internalized the belief that we're just plain inferior to Europeans.
We're American. We still use Fahrenheit. Maybe it's not the most rational or parsimonious way to do things, but it's our way, and any changes should be done our way as well. That is, kicking and screaming and all too slowly.
The bottom line is this: Americans who care about our inequalities should fight the moral battle tooth and nail to improve the lot of our fellow citizens. They should work just as hard to convince those who don't care about inequality that doing something about it is the right thing to do. But they should not countenance for one second this sort of talk from Europe or anyone else. They should not be made to think that America will be better off if it were more like Europe. America will be better off if it were more like America.
America will be better off when we are more like the America that we all hold in our hearts and minds. That's the America that the rest of the world wishes we were, the one that causes people from around the world to go to desperate measures to become a part of.
Our vision as progressives must come from our own uniquely American beliefs or it will never take root. We can't just borrow policy ideas from others and expect them to be plug-and-play. We can't wish our moral culture to somehow become amenable that of Europe's. We have different values and must respond to our problems within the structure we're given, not the one we wish we had.
Finding evidence for or against something is the easy part. The thinking that changes people is around the values supporting that evidence. Are they progressive or conservative? Problem-oriented or vision-oriented?
I would wager that most people would rather fight for a more perfect union than be called backwards rednecks who need to get better. It's hardly a secret that pride in our country is the emotional operating system of the culture wars, and that the culture wars are really about who has the moral authority in this country. There was a time when people were ashamed to protest against interventions to help the poor and sick. What happened?
As far as the voting public is concerned, when progressives ceded their pride for America, they also ceded the right to judge what's right and wrong.
No one should expect people to buy into a national code of ethics when all they have to offer are rational, parsimonious solutions without a hint of vision or a modicum of patriotism. Modern American progressivism will never get anywhere if their message is always related to the endless resolution of problems. People get behind inspiration, not rational arguments. You have to work towards something, not just away from something else.
If we are to win as progressives, we must work to shape America's moral culture on American terms, neither ceding morality to religious fundamentalists, nor transplanting it from outsiders who are somehow supposed to know better. These are our battles, not Mr. Sarkozy's.
Progressive ascendancy will happen when progressive thinkers know not only when to take criticism but also when to take offense.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
It's On
With the CBO coming out with the scores the Democrats needed, there's very little that can stop this thing now. This is really, really good news for people who care and/or obsess over the details of this thing.
A lot of the conversation will shift to smarty-pants independent predictions of costs and savings. People will try and one-up the CBO, which is constrained by innumerable rules on how to score something. But it's important to remember that whoever's talking about costs and savings, it'll be an estimate until it's history. My hunch is that right now, health reform's costs and its potential savings are both underestimated.
First, costs. Working in rural health, I talk to a lot of desperate, sick people. I see a lot of uninsured people. I also see a lot more people with crumby insurance that only does you any good if you get diagnosed with cancer on a Wednesday. I also talk to enough people to understand that if there's a federal subsidy for something, they'll do anything to get a piece of it. More people will sign up for subsidized plans than predicted, and those plans will cost more than we thought. In short, people will be free to demand more services, and some of those services will be paid out of the treasury. To be sure, services cost money, taxpayer money. But it's money well-spent.
Second, savings. Under the rules of reform, everyone will have a stake in saving money. Insurance companies won't be able to turn away sick people who cost a lot, so they'll put pressure on doctors and hospitals to make that care (and everyone else's) cheaper so they can offer competitive pricing for their plans. Providers and hospitals will have to compete for your business, and for the reimbursements they negotiate with insurance companies. They may further integrate their information systems, and follow more evidence-based treatment protocols than today. They may colocate under one roof to save money on rent. People will have more information on who provides the best value for their dollar, and they will have to pay premiums and out-of-pocket expenses that encourage them to shop around for the best insurance plans and the best care.
All of that implies at least moderate competitive pressure on everyone to lower the costs of care while improving quality. Not a thing is socialist about this. In fact, it's exactly what capitalism is supposed to be good for. It just turns out that it doesn't happen on its own, at least with health care. If that's socialist, I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
The missing piece is revenue. It's been really bad. Everyone's revenue estimates from fortune 500 companies, to state government are understandably conservative. A CFO or state treasurer would be crazy to predict 5% sustained growth in these times, even in the longer term. But for bloggers free to speculate on the secondary impacts of such a policy change, the situation can look very different.
One of the most important elements of health reform to me is the shot in the arm it gives to small businesses. Helping small businesses to be more competitive in the labor market is good for workers and good for American innovation. For existing businesses, making it easier and cheaper to cover employees means there's money to be spent on other things, like more attractive pay or capital investments. For people thinking about leaving their job in middle management in order to be an entrepreneur, having a decent system to get benefits for themselves, their families, and any employees could make the difference between being a working stiff, and striking out on their own to grab a piece of the American Dream.
Then there is are the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts of health care spending on economically depressed areas. First, direct impacts. Among other investments, the reform bill has funds to quadruple the Community Health Center program, bringing high-quality medicine to America's underserved areas. Those people spend money locally on local things, like groceries. Second, indirect and induced impacts. Imagine a steel town with an unemployed, but skilled workforce. A Community Health Center brings in good-paying jobs, a chance for career advancement, and, like good schools, something for the local Chamber of Commerce to boast about for prospective employers. It makes much of unemployed America look like a much better place to invest in.
Quality, affordable, accessible health care is as important to America's labor force as roads and bridges are to goods and capital. For those reasons, and many more, health reform points to increased revenues for local, state and federal government.
Every capitalist believes that it takes money to make money. Not everyone believes that it takes federal money to make money. I think that's wrong, and there's a long track record of public investments in private enterprise to prove it, from the railroads, to the GI Bill, to the Internet. None of that would have been possible without significant public investment.
Unless you're fine with America becoming a third world country, we can't cut our way out of debt or deficits. The rich do very well in the third world. Low taxes, they write the rules. They can buy security or health care with cash. For everyone else, it's terrible to cut services. Even for the rich, they'll just take their investments elsewhere when the roads get to gnarly, or people are too sick and expensive to employ here. I want to be rich too, I just think that paying more in taxes makes it much easier for me to spend my money here in America on quality American goods and services.
Cutting spending sounds good until you have to choose between defense or social security. Most government spending is in fact not waste. It's stuff people want, stuff their elected officials voted for. Nobody wants to choose between guns and butter. We want both. We need both. To get out of this hole, our economy must be more productive, our government spending more efficient, and yes, our taxes might need to be higher, maybe even to the level Clinton had them at when the Dow broke 10,000 and we were running a surplus.
It seems that every generation needs to be reminded that public investment leads to private prosperity. Let's hope that lesson gets driven home by these reforms.
A lot of the conversation will shift to smarty-pants independent predictions of costs and savings. People will try and one-up the CBO, which is constrained by innumerable rules on how to score something. But it's important to remember that whoever's talking about costs and savings, it'll be an estimate until it's history. My hunch is that right now, health reform's costs and its potential savings are both underestimated.
First, costs. Working in rural health, I talk to a lot of desperate, sick people. I see a lot of uninsured people. I also see a lot more people with crumby insurance that only does you any good if you get diagnosed with cancer on a Wednesday. I also talk to enough people to understand that if there's a federal subsidy for something, they'll do anything to get a piece of it. More people will sign up for subsidized plans than predicted, and those plans will cost more than we thought. In short, people will be free to demand more services, and some of those services will be paid out of the treasury. To be sure, services cost money, taxpayer money. But it's money well-spent.
Second, savings. Under the rules of reform, everyone will have a stake in saving money. Insurance companies won't be able to turn away sick people who cost a lot, so they'll put pressure on doctors and hospitals to make that care (and everyone else's) cheaper so they can offer competitive pricing for their plans. Providers and hospitals will have to compete for your business, and for the reimbursements they negotiate with insurance companies. They may further integrate their information systems, and follow more evidence-based treatment protocols than today. They may colocate under one roof to save money on rent. People will have more information on who provides the best value for their dollar, and they will have to pay premiums and out-of-pocket expenses that encourage them to shop around for the best insurance plans and the best care.
All of that implies at least moderate competitive pressure on everyone to lower the costs of care while improving quality. Not a thing is socialist about this. In fact, it's exactly what capitalism is supposed to be good for. It just turns out that it doesn't happen on its own, at least with health care. If that's socialist, I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
The missing piece is revenue. It's been really bad. Everyone's revenue estimates from fortune 500 companies, to state government are understandably conservative. A CFO or state treasurer would be crazy to predict 5% sustained growth in these times, even in the longer term. But for bloggers free to speculate on the secondary impacts of such a policy change, the situation can look very different.
One of the most important elements of health reform to me is the shot in the arm it gives to small businesses. Helping small businesses to be more competitive in the labor market is good for workers and good for American innovation. For existing businesses, making it easier and cheaper to cover employees means there's money to be spent on other things, like more attractive pay or capital investments. For people thinking about leaving their job in middle management in order to be an entrepreneur, having a decent system to get benefits for themselves, their families, and any employees could make the difference between being a working stiff, and striking out on their own to grab a piece of the American Dream.
Then there is are the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts of health care spending on economically depressed areas. First, direct impacts. Among other investments, the reform bill has funds to quadruple the Community Health Center program, bringing high-quality medicine to America's underserved areas. Those people spend money locally on local things, like groceries. Second, indirect and induced impacts. Imagine a steel town with an unemployed, but skilled workforce. A Community Health Center brings in good-paying jobs, a chance for career advancement, and, like good schools, something for the local Chamber of Commerce to boast about for prospective employers. It makes much of unemployed America look like a much better place to invest in.
Quality, affordable, accessible health care is as important to America's labor force as roads and bridges are to goods and capital. For those reasons, and many more, health reform points to increased revenues for local, state and federal government.
Every capitalist believes that it takes money to make money. Not everyone believes that it takes federal money to make money. I think that's wrong, and there's a long track record of public investments in private enterprise to prove it, from the railroads, to the GI Bill, to the Internet. None of that would have been possible without significant public investment.
Unless you're fine with America becoming a third world country, we can't cut our way out of debt or deficits. The rich do very well in the third world. Low taxes, they write the rules. They can buy security or health care with cash. For everyone else, it's terrible to cut services. Even for the rich, they'll just take their investments elsewhere when the roads get to gnarly, or people are too sick and expensive to employ here. I want to be rich too, I just think that paying more in taxes makes it much easier for me to spend my money here in America on quality American goods and services.
Cutting spending sounds good until you have to choose between defense or social security. Most government spending is in fact not waste. It's stuff people want, stuff their elected officials voted for. Nobody wants to choose between guns and butter. We want both. We need both. To get out of this hole, our economy must be more productive, our government spending more efficient, and yes, our taxes might need to be higher, maybe even to the level Clinton had them at when the Dow broke 10,000 and we were running a surplus.
It seems that every generation needs to be reminded that public investment leads to private prosperity. Let's hope that lesson gets driven home by these reforms.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Human, Jew, American
I've been watching the diplomatic back-and-forth between Israel and the United States over Israel's announcement to build 1600 new homes in East Jerusalem. In many ways, that's nothing new. What's new is that the announcement was made on the same day as talks between Israel and Palestine were supposed to be hosted in good faith by the Americans. That's not an oversight. That's an arrogant and insulting move on the part of the current Israeli government.
In diplomatic terms, making an announcement that ruins the credibility of a benefactor's efforts at helping a situation is the equivalent of raising a pair of middle fingers with sparklers tied to them so the whole world can see them flicked at you from miles away.
I like to say that first I'm a human, then I'm a Jew, then I'm an American. This time, it's the American part of me that's insulted, and insulted enough to override at least the second part of that triad. But not the third.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more often used as a justification for victimhood than as a claim of justice on the part of one side or another.
The most constructive message you get from groups like AIPAC are claims that there is little or no geopolitical justification for solving this dilemma; that Al Qaeda will still threaten the West even if a peace agreement is reached between Israel and all its neighbors. Why not wait until there is a viable representative of Palestinian interests? In the meantime, why not build Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem on their land?
Such a stance could be construed as good for me as an American, bolstering Israeli militarism in order to ensure a strong ally in a tough neck of the woods, or that it's good for me as a Jew, supporting settlements on highly disputed land to achieve expanded vision of a Jewish homeland.
As an American and a Jew, this could all be well and good, but as a human, it turns my stomach. Endless occupation and siege of a people is no way to run a state born out of such a crisis, with high ideals of its own. A solution must be found.
Then again, as Americans, I really don't under stand our diplomatic motivation for endless talks. Are we afraid Israel will become a client state of someone else if we abandon them or threaten their interests? Do we depend on Israel for significant resources? Israel needs America far more than America needs Israel, yet the game is played as if we were equals.
And as a Jew, I don't believe that expansion of settlements into Palestinian territory is good policy for Jews. There's the sticky issue of denying a vote to people based on their race. There are the endless moral dilemmas that come from endless occupation. There is the unknown amount of prosperity from regional and global trade foregone due to instability, insecurity, or ill will.
And as a human, enough said.
I've heard all the arguments. Israel cannot guarantee its security once a border is established. Palestinians must have sovereignty over their land before they will even come to the negotiating table. All of the arguments are rational. If they weren't, this conflict could have been solved long ago. But there is an underlying assumption that pervades both sides of the discussion. It's in what a final agreement will look like.
Everyone imagines two nations side-by-side, honoring treaties with one another, ensuring each other's security. But with increasing radicalism on both sides, who can imagine a scenario in the near term where either entity could ensure the security of the other? How can Fatah negotiate knowing that Hamas wants to take over? How can Likud or Labor negotiate, knowing that Shas and the settlers stand ready to fight their own nation to the death?
Defining borders and coming up with the agreements would be a lot easier if both sides could honestly negotiate in good faith. Just follow the logic. They cannot negotiate in good faith until their mutual security is ensured. Their mutual security cannot be ensured between the negotiating parties alone. A third party must ensure security at the same time as brokering a binding agreement between the negotiating parties. It could be America, it could be NATO, it could be something else.
After numerous attempts, diplomatic humiliation, billions in aid, and geopolitical difficulty, I don't understand why America allows Israel to do whatever it wants. I just don't get it.
If America, and the world want peace between two sovereign states, they must demand that security be handled by an outside, mutually agreed upon, neutral force. First peace, then sovereignty. On both sides.
In diplomatic terms, making an announcement that ruins the credibility of a benefactor's efforts at helping a situation is the equivalent of raising a pair of middle fingers with sparklers tied to them so the whole world can see them flicked at you from miles away.
I like to say that first I'm a human, then I'm a Jew, then I'm an American. This time, it's the American part of me that's insulted, and insulted enough to override at least the second part of that triad. But not the third.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more often used as a justification for victimhood than as a claim of justice on the part of one side or another.
The most constructive message you get from groups like AIPAC are claims that there is little or no geopolitical justification for solving this dilemma; that Al Qaeda will still threaten the West even if a peace agreement is reached between Israel and all its neighbors. Why not wait until there is a viable representative of Palestinian interests? In the meantime, why not build Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem on their land?
Such a stance could be construed as good for me as an American, bolstering Israeli militarism in order to ensure a strong ally in a tough neck of the woods, or that it's good for me as a Jew, supporting settlements on highly disputed land to achieve expanded vision of a Jewish homeland.
As an American and a Jew, this could all be well and good, but as a human, it turns my stomach. Endless occupation and siege of a people is no way to run a state born out of such a crisis, with high ideals of its own. A solution must be found.
Then again, as Americans, I really don't under stand our diplomatic motivation for endless talks. Are we afraid Israel will become a client state of someone else if we abandon them or threaten their interests? Do we depend on Israel for significant resources? Israel needs America far more than America needs Israel, yet the game is played as if we were equals.
And as a Jew, I don't believe that expansion of settlements into Palestinian territory is good policy for Jews. There's the sticky issue of denying a vote to people based on their race. There are the endless moral dilemmas that come from endless occupation. There is the unknown amount of prosperity from regional and global trade foregone due to instability, insecurity, or ill will.
And as a human, enough said.
I've heard all the arguments. Israel cannot guarantee its security once a border is established. Palestinians must have sovereignty over their land before they will even come to the negotiating table. All of the arguments are rational. If they weren't, this conflict could have been solved long ago. But there is an underlying assumption that pervades both sides of the discussion. It's in what a final agreement will look like.
Everyone imagines two nations side-by-side, honoring treaties with one another, ensuring each other's security. But with increasing radicalism on both sides, who can imagine a scenario in the near term where either entity could ensure the security of the other? How can Fatah negotiate knowing that Hamas wants to take over? How can Likud or Labor negotiate, knowing that Shas and the settlers stand ready to fight their own nation to the death?
Defining borders and coming up with the agreements would be a lot easier if both sides could honestly negotiate in good faith. Just follow the logic. They cannot negotiate in good faith until their mutual security is ensured. Their mutual security cannot be ensured between the negotiating parties alone. A third party must ensure security at the same time as brokering a binding agreement between the negotiating parties. It could be America, it could be NATO, it could be something else.
After numerous attempts, diplomatic humiliation, billions in aid, and geopolitical difficulty, I don't understand why America allows Israel to do whatever it wants. I just don't get it.
If America, and the world want peace between two sovereign states, they must demand that security be handled by an outside, mutually agreed upon, neutral force. First peace, then sovereignty. On both sides.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Out of a Hole
John Maynard Keynes, the guy who reminded us that, "in the long run we are all dead" also had some useful advice for reviving an economy in freefall. Keynes' view of the Great Depression can be summed up in a few bullet points:
2. Giving people jobs so they'll buy stuff
Today, we're in a not altogether different position. After a $1 Trillion rescue of the banks that had us all overleveraged, and after $787 Billion's worth of Keynesian demand creation, things are stirring somewhat. With how unpopular the bank bailout is, and how uneasy the stimulus has made people, it's no wonder that it took a war to see this policy bare fruit last time around.
And I tend to agree. $787 billion in cash helps, but in a $14 trillion economy, it's hardly a substitute for people with good jobs demanding expensive things. The bank bailout was ugly and maddening, but the alternative would have been far, far worse.
Metaphor Time!
Like a doctor performing a quadruple bypass on an obese patient who smokes, drinks and eats meatlover's pizzas for breakfast, the government should have demanded better terms on their agreements with bankers. But tasked with saving an economic life, we really had no choice in whether we'd keep our nation's (and the world's) heart unclogged and pumping. That said, now is the time to address diet and habits, not pre-op.
This economy is turning around, but I worry about the long run more than Mr. Keynes seemed to. Our education system, our transportation system, our tax system, our health care system and who knows what systems I'm missing all confront a problem that Keynes didn't have.
After the Second World War, the rest of the world was either poor to begin with, or newly poor through the ravages of war. Today, those places are mostly doing well, in large part thanks to our aid after the war, and our ongoing demand for their products long after. We may consume more than any other people on Earth, but in the process, we've been giving all those people much, much more than we get credit for.
The rest of the world no longer needs our help as they did then. We need to help our own system of production. We need to help our own citizens to play ball with the competitors that we created. After Keynes' demand problem abated, and thanks to many of its policies, it was American dynamism, inventiveness, and openness that took over. That has not changed. What has is the rest of the world is a much better place to do business, and we are the same or marginally worse than before. To maintain our standard of living in this century, it will require some new investment. It'll take some thinking for all sides of American political ideology.
First, universal health care is far more than a moral imperative. Think of all the would-be inventors and entrepreneurs who keep a job because they need the benefits. Think of all the untapped potential wasting away in cubicles across the county. Ensuring coverage for all is not a hand-out. It is an essential investment in our future productivity. Read this for more.
Second, it is not enough to help people. We must also help businesses. The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Making even a small reduction in that rate could mean the difference between firms locating their operations here, or in some other place. Read this for more. We can make up the lost tax revenue somewhere else.
Health care increases for corporate tax decreases. A decent ideological trade-off, nice and neat.
In both instances, the incomes of the wealthy would be a good start. They pay less than half what they did back when we were doing well. Surely they would trade a lower tax on their corporate investments or a higher tax on the wealth that could grow unimaginably in the decades to come as a result. A value-added tax isn't a bad idea either. Everyone else does it, and while it is essentially regressive, it curbs consumption, keeping money invested in local endeavors.
Tax the wealthy for taxing consumption. Another ideological trade-off to pay for it all.
We can do this. We can fix today's problems. It just takes a little vision and some moxie on the part of our leaders. This time, it is the public that must induce demand for change.
- Job losses were unimaginably severe, meaning that demand for goods was extremely limited.
- Because demand for stuff was limited, there was little reason to make more stuff.
- The government should therefore step in and create demand by:
2. Giving people jobs so they'll buy stuff
- Debt can be worried about when there's money again, because after all, in the long run, we're all dead anyway.
Today, we're in a not altogether different position. After a $1 Trillion rescue of the banks that had us all overleveraged, and after $787 Billion's worth of Keynesian demand creation, things are stirring somewhat. With how unpopular the bank bailout is, and how uneasy the stimulus has made people, it's no wonder that it took a war to see this policy bare fruit last time around.
And I tend to agree. $787 billion in cash helps, but in a $14 trillion economy, it's hardly a substitute for people with good jobs demanding expensive things. The bank bailout was ugly and maddening, but the alternative would have been far, far worse.
Metaphor Time!
Like a doctor performing a quadruple bypass on an obese patient who smokes, drinks and eats meatlover's pizzas for breakfast, the government should have demanded better terms on their agreements with bankers. But tasked with saving an economic life, we really had no choice in whether we'd keep our nation's (and the world's) heart unclogged and pumping. That said, now is the time to address diet and habits, not pre-op.
This economy is turning around, but I worry about the long run more than Mr. Keynes seemed to. Our education system, our transportation system, our tax system, our health care system and who knows what systems I'm missing all confront a problem that Keynes didn't have.
After the Second World War, the rest of the world was either poor to begin with, or newly poor through the ravages of war. Today, those places are mostly doing well, in large part thanks to our aid after the war, and our ongoing demand for their products long after. We may consume more than any other people on Earth, but in the process, we've been giving all those people much, much more than we get credit for.
The rest of the world no longer needs our help as they did then. We need to help our own system of production. We need to help our own citizens to play ball with the competitors that we created. After Keynes' demand problem abated, and thanks to many of its policies, it was American dynamism, inventiveness, and openness that took over. That has not changed. What has is the rest of the world is a much better place to do business, and we are the same or marginally worse than before. To maintain our standard of living in this century, it will require some new investment. It'll take some thinking for all sides of American political ideology.
First, universal health care is far more than a moral imperative. Think of all the would-be inventors and entrepreneurs who keep a job because they need the benefits. Think of all the untapped potential wasting away in cubicles across the county. Ensuring coverage for all is not a hand-out. It is an essential investment in our future productivity. Read this for more.
Second, it is not enough to help people. We must also help businesses. The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Making even a small reduction in that rate could mean the difference between firms locating their operations here, or in some other place. Read this for more. We can make up the lost tax revenue somewhere else.
Health care increases for corporate tax decreases. A decent ideological trade-off, nice and neat.
In both instances, the incomes of the wealthy would be a good start. They pay less than half what they did back when we were doing well. Surely they would trade a lower tax on their corporate investments or a higher tax on the wealth that could grow unimaginably in the decades to come as a result. A value-added tax isn't a bad idea either. Everyone else does it, and while it is essentially regressive, it curbs consumption, keeping money invested in local endeavors.
Tax the wealthy for taxing consumption. Another ideological trade-off to pay for it all.
We can do this. We can fix today's problems. It just takes a little vision and some moxie on the part of our leaders. This time, it is the public that must induce demand for change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)