David Brooks delivers a campaign manifesto for someone, or perhaps a Contract for 21st Century America:
Moreover, there’s a straightforward way to revive innovation. In an unfairly neglected white paper on the subject [link], President Obama’s National Economic Council argued that the U.S. should not be in the industrial policy business. Governments that try to pick winners “too often end up wasting resources and stifling rather than promoting innovation.” But there are several things the government can do to improve the economic ecology. If you begin with that framework, you can quickly come up with a bipartisan innovation agenda.
First, push hard to fulfill the Obama administration’s education reforms. Those reforms, embraced by Republicans and Democrats, encourage charter school innovation, improve teacher quality, support community colleges and simplify finances for college students and war veterans. That’s the surest way to improve human capital.
Charter schools? Some Democrats may get behind this but many won't.
Second, pay for basic research. Federal research money has been astonishingly productive, leading to DNA sequencing, semiconductors, lasers and many other technologies. Yet this financing has slipped, especially in physics, math and engineering. Overall research-and-development funding has slipped, too. The U.S. should aim to spend 3 percent of G.D.P. on research, as it did in the 1960s.
Third, rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. Abraham Lincoln spent the first half of his career promoting canals and railroads. Today, the updated needs are just as great, and there’s widespread agreement that decisions should be made by a National Infrastructure Bank, not pork-seeking politicians.
No pork? No chance. Congress won't be putting itself out of business.
Fourth, find a fiscal exit strategy. If the deficits continue to surge, interest payments on the debt will be stifling. More important, the mounting deficits destroy confidence by sending the message that the American government is dysfunctional. The only way to realistically fix this problem is to appoint a binding commission, already supported by Republicans and Democrats, which would create a roadmap toward fiscal responsibility and then allow the Congress to vote on it, up or down.
A Deficit Closing Commission, sort of like the Base Closing Commission? I like it, but again, I don't see Congress surrendering this power, especially to a President with an approval rating in the 40's. And if the Republicans engineer Newt II in 2010, they double-especially won't be surrendering this power.
Fifth, gradually address global imbalances. American consumers are now spending less and saving more. But the world economy will be out of whack if the Chinese continue to consume too little. The only solution is slow diplomacy to rebalance exchange rates and other distorting policies.
Sixth, loosen the so-called H-1B visa quotas to attract skilled immigrants.
Seventh, encourage regional innovation clusters. Innovation doesn’t happen at the national level. It happens within hot spots — places where hordes of entrepreneurs gather to compete, meet face to face, pollinate ideas. Regional authorities can’t innovate themselves, but they can encourage those who do to cluster.
Eighth, lower the corporate tax rate so it matches international norms.
Reduce taxes on evil corporations? I thought this was supposed to be a bipartisan agenda!
Ninth, don’t be stupid. Don’t make labor markets rigid. Don’t pick trade fights with the Chinese. Don’t get infatuated with research tax credits and other gimmicks, which don’t increase overall research-and-development spending but just increase the salaries of the people who would be doing it anyway.
Don't be stupid? That would free up about 23 hours a day for the Washington set. Over to Jennifer Rubin!
David Brooks is a cancer.
Posted by: bgates | December 08, 2009 at 06:38 PM
I guess "the Won" has been too busy on his Nobel Speech and such to go through the budget line-by-line as he promised during the campaign
Posted by: Neo | December 08, 2009 at 06:42 PM
Reading Brooks is a sure way to rot your mind.
Here's some cool news:
Oh, and speaking of JPMorgan:
Half a billion here, half a billion there, pretty soon...you're up to $1.4 billion.
Posted by: anduril | December 08, 2009 at 06:54 PM
Sixth, loosen the so-called H-1B visa quotas to attract skilled immigrants.
We have lots of unemployed, so hey .. bring in more foreigners.
This makes as much sense as spending our way to prosperity
Posted by: Neo | December 08, 2009 at 06:55 PM
Couldn't agree more ,bgates, but I'm biased after all.
Posted by: narciso | December 08, 2009 at 06:58 PM
I'm back on the desktop, hallelujAK
Posted by: narciso | December 08, 2009 at 06:59 PM
Congrats narciso. Sorry I wasn't able to help more, but that sort of thing is hard to do from a distance.
Posted by: DrJ | December 08, 2009 at 07:03 PM
Ninth, don’t be stupid.
I think the EPA did a shirtload of that yesterday.
Posted by: Neo | December 08, 2009 at 07:04 PM
Sixth, loosen the so-called H-1B visa quotas to attract skilled immigrants.
Article Two of the Neocon Creed. Or somewhere way high up there.
Posted by: anduril | December 08, 2009 at 07:06 PM
Has David Brooks been watching the same govt that I've been watching? I wanna know, because, rather than encouraging anything, they pretty much seem to be stifling everything. Big Govt Republicans. Ay, yea, yea.
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 08, 2009 at 07:08 PM
Ninth, don’t be stupid.
Words Brooks might be unable to live by.
Posted by: Extraneus | December 08, 2009 at 07:13 PM
Don’t make labor markets rigid.
Not sure how that squares with this:
Solis Pushes Agenda to Bolster Labor
Yeah, that'll work.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 08, 2009 at 07:27 PM
Don't be stupid! Well let's see how many at the jobs summit took that advice:
Well, state and local government jobs cost about 35% more than private sector jobs to fund, so that would seem to be pretty inefficient. Of course, Reich's paycheck comes from the state of California....
Thereby violating Say's Law (i.e. supply is implicit demand) and restricting foreign demand for American produce.
Uh huh. Tell ya what, Bob, get back to us when you've made up your mind which it is.
Of course, Germany's unemployment rate didn't have all that far to go to reach 10% did it, Dean? Sorta like a pre-payment unemployment strategy.
Pay people to not work. Brilliant.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | December 08, 2009 at 07:29 PM
Brooks should stick to his forte', creases in pant loads.
Posted by: daddy | December 08, 2009 at 07:41 PM
Has David Brooks been watching the same govt that I've been watching?
He's mesmerized by the crease of the pant leg, so his observational skills are a bit off.
Posted by: PD | December 08, 2009 at 07:51 PM
Ah, daddy beat me to it.
Posted by: PD | December 08, 2009 at 07:51 PM
Funny there was a speech out of HK some months back that focused on many of these points
Posted by: narciso | December 08, 2009 at 07:53 PM
To try to reduce the deficit now would be crazy.
Recessions, surpluses -- it's quite a coincidence that Dem economic theory is to spend no matter what, isn't it?
Obama said the U.S. has had to "spend our way out of this recession."
An amazing coincidence, really.
Posted by: Extraneus | December 08, 2009 at 08:02 PM
No, Dr. J, you did everything but an exorcism, and the virus would block the signal
anyways
Posted by: narciso | December 08, 2009 at 08:05 PM
what is left unsaid is that shipments always peak in October for the combination Christmas rush/end of year budget blowout. Now they are panicking again.
I wonder if Obama saw the SNL parody with Chairman Hu. "What is crunker, Mr. Obama?". Now it's cash for microwaves, big screen TV's etc....all of it made offshore. These people are incredible morons.
Posted by: matt | December 08, 2009 at 08:27 PM
PRS-
They already codified the "no work=pay" when they repealed the "Clinton" welfare reforms. Only have to show up for their kob once a year, in November, on a Tuesday, the first one, or sign off on the absentee form and some helpful soul will do it for them.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | December 08, 2009 at 08:31 PM
TM reads David Brooks so the rest of us don't have to... or purely to antagonize us.
Tell me again... why does anyone read David Brooks. Just out of sheer audacity I read the Wikipedia entry on Brooks. Nothing stands out except that nothing stands out as reason to pay any attention to him.
Hey, here's an idea for Brooks to munch on: Why doesn't government just get out of the way.
Posted by: sbw | December 08, 2009 at 08:32 PM
Jennifer Rubin beat me to it:
"But the list of stupid things that are likely to retard innovation, growth, hiring, and investment and act as a drag on a robust recovery is longer than that. Honestly, it includes the key priorities in Obama’s domestic agenda.
What could stifle hiring more than a bevy of new taxes and cap-and-trade regulations (coming from either Congress or the EPA)? What’s likely to stifle medical innovation and new drug development more than federal panels of “experts” dictating treatment options and taking a whack out of pharmaceutical companies? Really, the entire point of the Obama agenda is to drain resources from the private sector, where jobs, innovation, creative destruction, and growth come from, and dump them into the public sector, where the wealth can be mushed around and spread to favored constituencies. It’s hard to be supportive of the Obama agenda and a dynamic free-market economy. After all, the former is at odds with the latter."
Posted by: clarice | December 08, 2009 at 08:39 PM
"Has David Brooks been watching the same govt that I've been watching?"
Not since he got called to the WH woodshed.
Good news, narciso. We've been holding our collective breath for you.
We heard it here first from clarice. He's a Dummkopf! Obama has no clue about how things really work. Alinsky never had to meet a pay roll.
Posted by: Frau Nebenan | December 08, 2009 at 08:49 PM
Oh, yes, congratulations, narciso.
Posted by: clarice | December 08, 2009 at 08:57 PM
everything but an exorcism
i have some good contacts...
Posted by: anduril | December 08, 2009 at 09:09 PM
And then Barack told Pharaoh, "Let My People Spend!"
LUN
Posted by: matt | December 08, 2009 at 09:16 PM
"there’s widespread agreement that decisions should be made by a National Infrastructure Bank, not pork-seeking politicians."
This is hysterically funny!
Who would run this magic bank? People who don't look after their own interests? Where do we find these people?!!!
Posted by: qrstuv | December 08, 2009 at 09:20 PM
Wonder of wonders, Wesbury and Stein seem to be getting it, finally...
Here they are re the Government Bubble:
Posted by: anduril | December 08, 2009 at 09:23 PM
I wasn't kidding long ago when i said I think the NYT has a machine they keep in the office of the resident "conservative" columnist that sucks his brains out. This article by Brooks proves his have been vacuumed up and discarded.
Posted by: clarice | December 08, 2009 at 09:32 PM
Was there a time, Clarice, when he exhibited the presence of brains? I am not being as facetious as I may sound, since I have never, ever read the NY Times, I have no point of comparison.
I am out here in Cahleeforneea land, where Pelosi, and Boxer, and Waxman, and the Sanchez sisters et al, rule because of stupid district maps that are designed for the purpose of re-electing them, over and over again.
Posted by: centralcal | December 08, 2009 at 09:40 PM
Why 1991?
I started reading the column after seeing Tom's post, and ran into this cheerful paragraph:
"The American model remains an impressive growth engine, even allowing for the debt-fueled bubble. The U.S. economy grew by 63 percent between 1991 and 2009, compared with 35 percent for France, 22 percent for Germany and 16 percent for Japan over the same period. In 1975, the U.S. accounted for 26.3 percent of world G.D.P. Today, after the rise of the Asian tigers, the U.S. actually accounts for a slightly higher share of world output: 26.7 percent."
Most of this I had known before, but it is still fun to see it in a New York Times column.
But his choice of a starting date puzzles me. I could understand round numbers or numbers tied to a presidential term, but why 1991? Because it was a recession year? But there were others before and have been others since.
(Oh, and for his overall argument, here's my tentative conclusion: Almost everything he advocates is impossible as long as Pelosi and Reid are running Congress. And there are significant implementation problems with most parts of his plan, even if we can get a Republican majority next year or in 2012.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | December 08, 2009 at 09:41 PM
We have enough damn fools in our lives. Won't David Brooks just go away? Good God...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 08, 2009 at 09:48 PM
Except Saffire was fairly immune to that syndrome, except when he got the fever over
Poindexter and TIA. Then again he started in public relations with Tex McCrary so he wasn't subject to the same ideological straightjacket
Posted by: narciso | December 08, 2009 at 09:51 PM
DoT-
They keep payin' him...
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | December 08, 2009 at 09:56 PM
Someone please read this interview w/Al Gore about the climate emails.
Q: What's your view on the medieval warm period and the charge that the East Anglia e-mails suggest data was manipulated to "contain" that anomaly?
A: I haven't read those e-mails in detail but the larger point is that there are cyclical changes in the climate and they are fairly well understood and all of them are included in the scientific consensus. When you look at what has happened over the last few decades the natural fluctuations point in the opposite direction of what has actually occurred. When they run the models and plug in the man-made pollution, the correspondence is exact. Beyond that, the scale of natural fluctuations has now been far exceeded by the impact of man-made global warming.
Posted by: MayBee | December 08, 2009 at 09:57 PM
I am sorry, but I am getting really pissed off. Our country is going down the drain and all the media can salivate over is Tiger fng Woods.
omg. We are in bad straights.
Posted by: centralcal | December 08, 2009 at 10:15 PM
When you look at what has happened over the last few decades the natural fluctuations point in the opposite direction of what has actually occurred. When they run the models and plug in the man-made pollution, the correspondence is exact. Beyond that, the scale of natural fluctuations has now been far exceeded by the impact of man-made global warming.
Well, I don't have to really read the article, considering that all that is, well, pretty much wrong.
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 08, 2009 at 10:22 PM
centralcal - if we can toss Boxer under the Bay bridge in 2010, "Cahleeforneea land" may stand a chance. I can look past any number of political and personal warts to insure that she will go back where she came from. IMO it means taking Horowitz's The Art of Political War to heart.
Posted by: Frau Nebenan | December 08, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Maybee, you really must check out Thayer Watkins
There is a TON of info there, smartly derived.
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 08, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Gret post by Lindgren at Volokh:
http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/the-homogenized-data-is-false/
Posted by: clarice | December 08, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Who would the Times pay 300K to otherwise, DOT, I know that is a number that suggests
nothing good, except the sound of burning
cash, you can put Redstone's reorganizing
the 'chairs on the Titanic, in order to keep
perky Couric as a similar vanity project, as
their audience keeps getting 'more and more
selective'
If the truth are no object Po, (where did I
ever come to that conclusion) than of course
the science makes sense, not, Hence an agitprop piece by Emerich, like Day after Tomorrow, seems as totally ludicrous as we originally suspected
Posted by: narciso | December 08, 2009 at 11:06 PM
I'm trying to remember the last time I disagreed with Jennifer Rubin. It hasn't happened very often. The only Brooks column worth reading in years was the one he did on iPods.
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 08, 2009 at 11:18 PM
I agree. So why is Jennifer working herself to death trying to make a living online when Brooks is sitting in a big office being grossly overpaid?
Come to think of it, I do not think there's a single big paper columnist who I do not think is almost completely or at best largely ridiculous.
Posted by: clarice | December 08, 2009 at 11:34 PM
She was naive about Obama in the early part of the year, from the looks of some of her Pajama Media and even Contentions posts, but that is understandable,up to a point. "Hope over experience' was really catching like the bird flu around that time.
Posted by: narciso | December 08, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Sixth, loosen the so-called H-1B visa quotas to attract skilled immigrants.
AKA the "let's undercut the skilled workers, too" plan.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 08, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said her agency will seek to enact an array of 90 rules and regulations next year aimed at giving more power to workers and unions.
A Depression redux in full manifestation.
Posted by: Neo | December 08, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Sixth, loosen the so-called H-1B visa quotas to attract skilled immigrants.
Don't get me work here, I work with some folks who have H-1B visas, so there is a purpose to them, but only a person living in the rarefied air of the Boston-NYC-DC cocktail set would think that opening this up in the middle of a recession is a good idea.
H-1B is really designed for conditions of full employment. Right now, loosening H-1B visas would be salt on the wounds of many unemployed tech workers.
Posted by: Neo | December 08, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Well Ignatius is not totally useless on the foreign policy front, at the Post. Applebaum despite two big blindspots, that would side swipe an eighteen wheeler, does some interesting work. Tierney in some aspects of the times. Samuelson is good on economics,Garvin who does mostly TV commentary for the Herald, although he has done good pieces on the misalocated stimulus, and the insanity of civilian trials for 'unlawful enemy combatants'. But it's kind of a 'wasteland' to cite Newton Minow in another context.
Posted by: narciso | December 08, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Does anybody else find it incredibly sad that the best way we have to solve intractable problems is to farm them out to the commission du jour? I suppose that there are lots of things that are less democratic than an up/down vote on a reasonably well-selected commission recommendation, but isn't this what we pay our representatives for?
I know, I know--hopelessly utopian. But don't you ever get the feeling that maybe the only reason they act like boobs is because, deep down, we want them to act like boobs?
Posted by: TheRadicalModerate | December 09, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Well they have eventually chosen not to actually be part of the actual role of the legislature, to actually debate the bills, come up with appropriations on time.so the czars cut them out of the responsibility to do so, The Apollo Alliance and SEIU, seems to have cut them out of actually writing or apparently reading the bills. The EPA, don't get me started on them
Posted by: narciso | December 09, 2009 at 12:39 AM
This ought to induce a round of wrist-slitting on the Left ...
Posted by: Neo | December 09, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Let's try the Opposite Day game:
The unwritten assumption is that skilled immigrants==more innovators. A shaky assumption, but let's grant it for the sake of argument.
We have a need for innovation and high general unemployment. Doesn't that suggest we should increase skilled worker visas, at the same time we decrease the number of unskilled workers coming in? Surely, in the middle of recession and double digit unemployment, even Congress can't scrape together a reason to allow excess workers to hit the labor pool!
Brooks is making a qualitative claim here. If he sees value in having more innovation, he is assigning higher social value to a certain kind of work by instituting a national policy to encourage it. But doesn't that mean we can also assign lower value to other kinds of work, and make a decision that encouraging more of the same is not worth the national cost?
How about we poke some Congresscritters and get them to put together a simple package with exactly three parts:
(1) Ironclad border security
(1.5) Strictly enforce expired visas and visitors who overstay their alloted time.
(2) Increae the H1-B quotas.
I know, I know, it's unreasonable for me to expect something simple out of Congress. But a voter can dream...
Posted by: The Unbeliever | December 09, 2009 at 01:07 AM
"But don't you ever get the feeling that maybe the only reason they act like boobs is because, deep down, we want them to act like boobs?"
No.
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 09, 2009 at 03:33 AM
There are so many links now to AGW fraud story's that its hard to keep up, but">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/"> this one from Watts Up With That, titled "The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero", is good in showing very specifically how they lied about the data in Australia.
The actual honest temperatures taken showed an actual decrease of .7 C over the last century, whereas the manipulated untrue data showed a decrease over the last century of 1.2 C.
Very straight forward evidence to the eye of intentional lying.
Posted by: daddy | December 09, 2009 at 04:15 AM
Excuse my typo in the above.
The date was manipulated to show an Increase of 1.2C over the last century as opposed to the actual .7C decrease.
Very easily evident when you look at figure 7.
Posted by: daddy | December 09, 2009 at 04:18 AM
Just heading up to bed when I heard a top of the hour radio news report on CBS that scared me.
The reporter said that a handbook of how the Airport Screening Process is done has been leaked and posted on the Internet.
Then he said "The leaked information is still available on some websites that the Government doesn't control."
That second bit is the part that scared the carp out of me.
G'night.
Posted by: daddy | December 09, 2009 at 05:09 AM
TheRadicalModerate and JMH, whether or not we want them to act as boobs, we generally tolerate them acting that way.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 09, 2009 at 06:44 AM
From MayBee's link to the Gore interview with Slate:
He says this twice, allowing him to portray anyone citing the emails as a crank.Actually, the most recent email was dated 12 Nov 2009, and there are 209 email files from 2009. Here, AL Ron.
Posted by: Extraneus | December 09, 2009 at 06:49 AM
“So what is all this going to cost?”
“The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades.”
“It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the world’s total economic output.”
Really, it's a small price to pay to save the human race.(Have we ever needed a new president more than we do now?)
Posted by: Extraneus | December 09, 2009 at 06:59 AM
Posted by: Neo | December 09, 2009 at 07:40 AM
Federal funding of research is NOT productive. In fact it crowds out innovation and as we see with climate change, breeds politically correct awarding of largess.
The DNA sequencing example is a good one for the opposite of Brooks allegation. Private sequencing kicked the ever loving stuffing out of the federal grant effort.
Posted by: lonetown | December 09, 2009 at 07:42 AM
Davis Brooks is a man baby!!
Posted by: bunky | December 09, 2009 at 08:32 AM
I just saw some guy (I think an elected democrat) on Fox saying neither Cap and Trade or Healthcare will cost one job!
Michael Steele's rebuttal:
DO they think we are stupid?
That's going to be my next tea party sign.
Oh and I'm delightfully snowed in.
Posted by: Jane | December 09, 2009 at 09:22 AM
Collapse In Tax Withholdings Refutes Improvements In Either Unemployment Or Corporate Profitability
By Tyler Durden
Created 12/08/2009 - 12:40
Even as the BLS and the administration are trying to cover up the real state of unemployment affairs using assorted semantic gimmicks of just what it means to be unemployed, and as companies provide adjusted EPS numbers, while actual earnings continue to collapse, the true barometer of spending, provided by the Financial Management Service, tax withholdings (net of refunds), continues to paint the truest picture of just what is really happening with both America's consumer and the corporate world. And it ain't pretty. On a rolling 12 month basis, individual tax withheld has dropped by nearly 8% YoY, from $1.42 trillion to $1.31 trillion, while company witholdings are down a whalloping 64%, from $274 billion to just under $100 billion! This is money that will never be used to pay down the skyrocketing US deficit, because both the US consumer and average US company are simply not collecting the required cash to line the Treasury's pockets with the one traditional way to pad the deficit: taxes. Expect much, much, much more debt issuance in America's short, medium and long-term future.
Posted by: anduril | December 09, 2009 at 09:41 AM
Jane, it's wind swept icy rain turning to wind swept cold rain in the Financial District, but it was sticking snow in the southwest 128 'burbs.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 09, 2009 at 09:47 AM
If you agree that a picture can be worth a thousand words, follow this link: What Recovery? Behold The Amazing Ghost Shipping Fleet Of Singapore. What the picture shows, if you scan the horizon, is simply a vast armada of empty container ships off the coast of Singapore.
Posted by: anduril | December 09, 2009 at 09:58 AM
The actual honest temperatures taken showed an actual decrease of .7 C over the last century, whereas the manipulated untrue data showed a decrease over the last century of 1.2 C.
Daddy
I've spent some time going through the MO records. If you go through the records individually, you can't find a trend in any of it from the turn of the last century. University of MO shows the same thing. It's only after the "adjustments" are applied, that the trends show up. Convenient that. BTW, you can look up temperature stations from anywhere in the world via Nasa GISS
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 09, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Hey TC - I just read that one of the places Scott Brown did the best is your home town.
WE have about a foot of snow it looks like. That is probably an exaggeration.
Posted by: Jane | December 09, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Hillary's pollster, Mark Penn got $6 m in Stimulus funds..(Her debt to him was over $5--maybe the extra was interest.). At most a couple of jobs were saved there for this dough.
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 10:34 AM
3 jobs according to Rush. So each apparently makes $2m.
Posted by: Jane | December 09, 2009 at 01:06 PM
Yes, I re-read the piece in The Hill and three jobs were involved..And what did these three do for the money--public service announcments telling people tvs were going from analog to digital.
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2009 at 01:13 PM
We should sue.
Posted by: Jane | December 09, 2009 at 01:38 PM