A bicycle highway like they are doing on the Netherlands.

Yes I know it won't happen here, but man that would be awesome indeed.

Democrats should promote a return to the American School of Economics

The... "American System,"  [a term] ... coined by Clay to distinguish it, as a school of thought, from the competing theory of economics at the time, the "British System" represented by Adam Smith in his work Wealth of Nations.

 

The American School included three cardinal policy points:

 

1. Support industry: The advocacy of protectionism, and opposition to free trade - particularly for the protection of "infant industries" and those facing import competition from abroad. Examples: Tariff of 1816 and Morrill Tariff

2. Create physical infrastructure: Government finance of internal improvements to speed commerce and develop industry. This involved the regulation of privately held infrastructure, to ensure that it meets the nation's needs. Examples: Cumberland Road and Union Pacific Railroad

3. Create financial infrastructure: A government sponsored National Bank to issue currency and encourage commerce. This involved the use of sovereign powers for the regulation of credit to encourage the development of the economy, and to deter speculation. Examples: First Bank of the United States, Second Bank of the United States, and National Banking Act

 

Henry C. Carey, a leading American economist and adviser to Abraham Lincoln, in his book Harmony of Interests, displays two additional points of this American School economic philosophy that distinguishes it from the systems of Adam Smith or Karl Marx:

 

1. Government support for the development of science and public education through a public 'common' school system and investments in creative research through grants and subsidies.

2. Rejection of class struggle, in favor of the "Harmony of Interests" between: owners and workers, farmer and manufacturers, the wealthy class and the working class.

 

In a passage from his book, The Harmony of Interests, Carey wrote concerning the difference between the American System and British System of economics:

 

"Two systems are before the world;... One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it. One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world."

Michael Lind, an historian who has a column at Salon, is a contemporary proponent.

Inadvertently, from my thread on Cousin Eddie, I got a semi-big idea, so I'll lob it in.

Remove the SS earnings penalty for those retiring at age 62. I'll get back to you when I've crunched the numbers.

We're screwed anyway

so have some fun for a change

and a part time job. 

I don't think the conclusion follows in this analysis but will try to do a separate post on that:

I don't hear Democrats whispering about the great big bills they would pass if only the voters would give them a new majority. If they had 'em, they would be talking about 'em. Occam's razor says that the reason Obama and the Democrats aren't promoting big ideas is because they haven't got any.

Robert Reich's just-out Beyond Outrage nicely pulls together many frequently suggested ideas for improving our country, along with a few I hadn't seen elsewhere.  I'll mention a few of them that I think are well worth consideration and add a few others at the end that he did not mention in his book.

No Congressional action required

Announce a new, expanded investigation into mortgage abuses that could lead to a broader package of relief.  Most of the banks' wrongdoing has yet to be fully investigated.  [This part is my take--mortgage relief is far more likely to have a chance of being done if it is explicitly connected to a more developed picture of the mortgage abuse practices which did so much to create the need for broader relief.] 

Congressional action required

Require full public disclosure of all donors to super PACs and other organizations that engage in political advertising.

Institute a system of public financing for federal office campaigns (many options out there)

Pass a constitutional amendment making clear that Congress has the power to set limits on campaign spending by corporations

Reinstitute a 21st century version of Glass-Steagall to prevent banks from gambling wtih taxpayer-insured depositors' money. (Dodd-Frank did not fix this; the Volcker rule is too weak.)

Deal with too big to fail by breaking up the megabanks and capping maximum bank size.  Earlier this year the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve bank, one of most conservative of all the Fed branches, came to this conclusion.  The too big to fail banks are bigger now than before the crash.  20 years ago the 10 largest banks on the Street held 10 percent of America's total bank assets.  Now the 6 largest hold over 70 percent.  They get special financing privileges other banks don't get, giving them an unjustifiable competitive advantage that seems likely only to exacerbate this dangerous hyper-concentration trend.

Make the tax code more equitable.  Tax income over $1 million at the pre-1981 70 percent rate.  Create more tax brackets at the top.  Reich thinks it's absurd that the top bracket is now set at $388,350 (35%), with the 2nd highest starting at $178,650 (33%), since the big money is way higher.  Treat all sources of income the same, including capital gains.  The 400 richest Americans on average paid 17 percent on their incomes, a rate lower than that paid by many in the middle class.  He would keep capital gains low for owners who have held their assets for at least 20 years in the name of not penalizing true entrepreneurs.  Sixty years ago Americans earning over $1 million in today's dollars paid 55.2 percent in income taxes, after taking out all deductions and credits--if taxed at that rate today that would generate at least $80 billion/year, which would reduce the deficit (and/or fund things we should be funding without further net increasing it) by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years.  Put a 2% surtax on the wealth of the wealthiest 1/2 of 1% (each with assets over $7.2 mill).  This would generate another $70 billion/year.  Institute a 1/2 of 1% tax on all financial transactions (the Tobin tax, discussed now for going on 40 years) to slow down the hyper-speculation that leads to wild gyrations in global financial markets and dysfunctional high vulnerability to regional if not global economic destabilization. 

Put much more federal money into infrastructure, including expanding high-speed internet and modernizing the electricity grid.  The percentage of the national economy going to infrastructure, 1 percent in 1960, is barely 0.3% now.  [My comment--there are many jobs proposals out there that are well worth serious consideration--by the Economic Policy Institute and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, to take just two.  Both of them include but go beyond public job-creating infrastructure projects and would have bigger impact on the employment situation.]

One I have long liked that Reich does not mention in his book is anathema to libertarians: Require a year of community or national service, including as one option serving with the military.  Most of these proposals conceive it as something young people would do before entering college.  But with many people foregoing or delaying marriage and/or opting not to raise children, and doing postsecondary schooling later in their lives, tying service to major help with financing or debt relief could have some GI-bill type benefits for individuals and society as well as for those who head directly to college out of high school. 

As an alternative to another try at labor law reform, amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so it prohibits discrimination against workers trying to organize a union.  See Why Labor Organizing Should be a Civil Right, by Richard Kahlenberg and Moshe Arvit.

Offshore tax havens.  I haven't researched what might be done but see if there are worthy proposals out there for how to shut down, or at least greatly scale back, tax avoidance through parking assets in the Caymans and other "treasure islands" (the title of author Nicholas Shaxson's just-out book on this topic, which probably does have at least some thoughts on what might helpfully be done about it, haven't gotten to it yet).  

Climate change legislation.  Is it really a given that this would hurt the employment situation?  I'm interested in what credible analyses project on this question.  If it might have some net negative effect on jobs, does that mean we should not do it? 

Just a few comments on "big new ideas".  Genghis had asked what were the big new ideas coming out of the Democratic convention (the answer, it seems to me, is what he implicitly suggested: none).

Big new ideas are in my experience primarily of interest to people who write about politics, who understandably are on occasion looking for something, well, new and interesting to write about.  I am thinking of the George Will thread DDay started in which a couple of folks noted how difficult it must be to come up with something fresh to say 2 or 3 times a week for 40 years.  Indeed. 

In conversations I have with people day-to-day about politics I have yet to have someone tell me they are looking for big new ideas coming out of either party or presidential candidate. 

In 1984, Colorado senator Gary Hart challenged the heavy favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination, Walter Mondale.  His campaign theme was about what he saw as a need for "new ideas" in our government and politics.  He put a scare into Mondale when he won the New Hampshire and then a few other primaries but his bid fell short.  Along the way, in a debate, Mondale delivered the soundbite line of the night when he pointedly asked Hart (paraphrasing): "Whenever I hear you talk about these new ideas, I think of that Wendy's commercial where someone says 'Where's the Beef?'."  

What counts as a "new" idea in our politics?  Is "new" necessarily "good"?  Many members of the public, when they hear that some politician has a new idea, are more likely to respond with concern or even alarm than delight.  There is a kind of skepticism which can be sensibly conservative (in the old-fashioned sense of the term that means something closer to skepticism than reaction) in my view so long as it does not lead to close-minded rejection of thought.  

In the face of new challenges, new realities, or even seemingly familiar challenges in different times, there is a great need for engagement and good thinking about what might be done (and not done).  "New", per se, should not be considered an automatic plus.  I enjoy hearing and thinking about and discussing fresh public policy ideas and ways of thinking.  But in the end what seems to matter most to the people politics is supposed to serve is not whether an idea is "new" but whether it is "good" and whether it works to deliver results they value.   

To people I've known who will sometimes criticize a politician or candidate for not being "radical" enough for their tastes I sometimes respond (where I think the candidate is on the right track) that to my way of thinking the most radical [in the desirable sense of coming closer to the root of a real problem] idea in the world is the idea that works. 

It seems to me there are plenty of good and workable progressive policy ideas that are out there (not saying that Obama offered anything specific going forward in his convention speech, new or not--he didn't), ones that if adopted would help move us towards becoming a healthier, better functioning society.  The major barriers right now are how to overcome political opposition to the point where they can become adopted.  

To the degree that good and workable policy ideas suffer from relative inattention or less enthusiastic support on account of their not counting as, or not being perceived as new, that seems counter-productive to me.  Sometimes a tried and true idea turns out to be the one that works best under particular circumstances.  If we are open to it.  

As a specific example I would note various public infrastructure proposals that would lead to direct job-creation.  Our society has done this before.  Such measures have contributed much of value enduring to this day as a result of such initiatives undertaken during the Great Depression.  These efforts had a significant impact reducing the widespread misery that resulted from mass unemployment.   

The employed middle-class people I talk to whose lack of enthusiasm for a 21st century public jobs proposal is evident typically do not offer alternative suggestions--whether new or old, tested or unproven.  It might not be a particularly sexy idea, to many.  And it isn't new (and if it was, many would then ask why we should think it could work, or even assert in opposition that it's too risky and we shouldn't do it on that account.) 

But for the millions of our fellow citizens who are suffering on account of they or a family member having lost their jobs, I somehow doubt that they care about whether a jobs program that offers them a chance at income, work and a renewed sense of dignity is new or not.