Obama's stimulus plan is about investments that can make the US more competitive in a global economy: investments in education, science and technology, and energy independence.
Simply put, he wants America to compete in a 21st century global economy.
I have two young kids still in public elementary school, and a high school senior who is about to embark on her college studies and career with an interest in international relations, foreign language and political science.
The impact of this stimulus bill, how we embrace it and attempt to implement it will impact our kids' futures significantly. I have hope that we can make necessary improvements - that we can take these ideas that he and congress have put out there and do something to pave the way for a better future for our children, and for generations to come.
As others have pointed out, the devil is in the details, and it will be messy. It's a daunting task, and I hope that at various levels, Americans can step up to the plate, that key people at all levels can recognize the needs we face and be involved in the decision-making processes that Obama has laid out. His broad plan includes bringing all kinds of ideas to the table - ideas that do not necessarily include traditional Democratic ideas or ideology. On the contrary, he challenges us to look at ideas that work - whether they are Republican ideas or Democratic ideas is less important to him. He just wants it to work.
This challenges the status quo on both sides of the table, and I sense from many of the posts here at DU that it makes many progressives/liberals/Democrats very uncomfortable with Obama.
For those who have not read Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, I'm referring to Chapter Five,
Opportunity. (pp 137-194) Most of what I summarize comes from the first part of the chapter.
He begins by discussing globalization, and how it has impacted the US and US consumers - how it has caused economic instability for millions of ordinary Americans, but how it has also brought significant benefits to American consumers.
He then provides a brief summary of how various economic agendas of both Democratic and Republican administrations attempted to deal with these issues. This leads to a discussion about how our market system has evolved over time, and the need to build a consensus around the appropriate role of government in the marketplace.
He states, "...in each and every period of great economic upheaval and transition we've depended on government action to open up opportunity, encourage competition, and make the market work better. In broad outline, government action has taken three forms. First government has been called upon throughout our history to build the infrastructure, train the workforce, and otherwise lay the foundation necessary for economic growth."
He then goes into historical examples (e.g., Lincoln "laid the groundwork for a fully integrated national economy but extended the ladders of opportunity downward to reach more and more people. He pushed for the construction of the first transcontinental railroad. He incorporated the National Academy of Sciences, to spur basic research and scientific discovery that could lead to new technology and commercial applications ... Homestead Act of 1862 ... land grant colleges ... etc.")
He states, "Hamilton's and Lincoln's basic insight - that the resources and power of the national government can facilitate, rather than supplant, a vibrant free market - has continued to be one of the cornerstones of both Republican and Democratic policies at every stage of America's development. The Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the interstate highway system, the Internet, the Humane Genome Project - time and again, government investment has helped pave the way for an explosion of private economic activity."
He then discusses market failures and the government's historical and vital role in regulating the marketplace - how regulatory structure was implemented to help limit the risk of economic crisis.
Lastly, he discusses how government has helped structure the social compact between business and the American worker: unions, FDR and safety net of Social Security, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, etc.
He writes, "For a while this seemed to be where the story would end - with FDR saving capitalism from itself through an activist federal government that invests in its people and infrastructure, regulates the marketplace, and protects labor from chronic deprivation. And in fact, for the next twenty-five years, through Republican and Democratic administrations, this model of the American welfare state enjoyed broad consensus ... There was only one problem with this liberal triumph - capitalism would not stand still..."
He then again refers to "competitive global environment..."
Obama briefly discusses Reagan's and Clinton's approaches, noting that when Clinton left office, "it appeared that some equilibrium had been achieved ... "
Obama concludes this point with,
"Except capitalism is still not standing still. The policies of Reagan and Clinton may have trimmed some of the fact of the liberal welfare state, but they couldn't change the underlying realities of global competition and technological revolution. Jobs are still moving overseas - not just manufacturing work, but increasingly work in the service sector that can be digitally be transmitted, like basic computer programming. Businesses continue to struggle with high health-care costs. America continues to import far more than it exports, to borrow far more than it lends.
Without any clear governing philosophy, the Bush Administration and its congressional allies have responded by pushing the conservative revolution to its logical conclusion - even lower taxes, even fewer regulations, and an even smaller safety net. But in taking this approach, Republicans are fighting the last war, the war they waged and won in the eighties, while Democrats are forced to fight a rearguard action, defending the New Deal programs of the thirties.
Neither strategy will work anymore. American can't compete with China and India simply by cutting and shrinking government - unless we're willing to tolerate a drastic decline in American living standard, with smog-choked cities and beggars lining the streets. Nor can America compete simply by erecting trade barriers and raising the minimum wage - unless we're willing to confiscate all the world's computers.
But our history should give us confidence that we don't have to choose between an oppressive, government-run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. .... Like those who came before us, we should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic and free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility. And we can be guided throughout by Lincoln's simple maxim: that we will do collectively, through our government, only those things that we cannot do as will or at all individually and privately.
In other words, we should be guided by what works.
What might such a new economic consensus look like? I won't pretend to have all the answers ... Let's start with those investments that can make America more competitive in the global economy: investments in education, science and technology and energy independence."
He then launches into detailed discussion about schools, the US education system, energy infrastructure, science, technology, and how investments in these will go a long way in making America more competitive but "all will be subject to controversy. Investment in R & D and education will cost money at a time when our federal budget is already stretched..."
He states, "If we fail to act, our competitive position in the world will decline ..."
He notes, "We can try to slow globalization, but we can't stop it. The US economy is now so integrated with the rest of the world, and digital commerce so widespread, that it's hard to even imagine, much less enforce, an effective regime of protectionism."
~~~~~
We are at a crucial point in our history. I, for one, have a great deal of respect for Obama's courage and wisdom to implement a broad, innovative program that attempts to address the needs of our country's future. I may not agree with everything he says, or his positions on various matters, but I give him credit for taking on this bold undertaking.
I wonder where it will lead us.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
