Job Creation

I mostly agree. However, if a flat tax system is advocated, then there should not be any incentives from a tax perspective. If we allow one tax incentive then there will be others and we defeat the purpose of the flat tax system.

In contrast, an incentive program is a good idea except that it should come by way of some other method rather than taxes.

~peike

I agree with the comment above regarding tax incentives, and I believe incentives should not be a part of this platform.

I won't disagree with either of you. For any political party to put complete solutions up on their web page would be odd. First, the two corporates parties actually control the system and they can't find solutions "live" creating a credibility gap, and secondly, MWP is all about defining processes to come to collaborative solutions, and not the solutions themselves.

When you see potential presidential candidates talking about 7 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, you quickly realize that pols are literally throwing manure at a wall and seeing what sticks with the public in order to get them elected. There is no way any of those types of thoughts were thoroughly ratiocinated out. This is the sort of "marketing" that has gotten us to where we are today! If we don't catch them NOW, at that same game, we are dooming ourselves to many more years of "failure".

And it points to a problem of epistemology, or how we view ourselves and how we engage ourselves in the political system.

Citizens should not look to MWP to give you all the answers to every problem out there, but to give you a framework and data, ( truth and perspective) to start a process of working to solutions. Some find this concept hard to grasp, and I personally belive this is due to the two corporate parties having brainwashed citizens into thinking they will provide solutions. They have not. Most importantly, a Modern Whig would argue that they physically CANNOT provide the best solutions because of the poor methodology they employ( if it is that at all) and the perversion of what "rational actors" do to advance themselves in politics today. It is that basic and simple. So basic and simple, that many miss the "zen" of it as it is sitting at the end of thier noses and is very easy to look right past.

I am not citing either of the commenters on this "fallicy" or oversight. I am simply using this opportunity to define MWP's role as an "un-party".

For their edification, I might suggest they visit www.prosperousamerica.org for some interesting thoughts on job growth and selective "incentives".

Also, in the future we would ask you to not simply say "I don't beleive in X", or "X stinks", but please provide at least one valid reason why you beleive that. Only then can we collaborate and learn from one another.

Thank you for participating.

My I suggest repealing NAFTA and lowering of the corporate tax rate. The U.S. has become extremely unfriendly to corporations. Our corporate tax rate is nearly triple that of some other developed nations.
I would also support tariffs. The U.S. should not reward America companies for jumping ship.
In my opinion, the horrid trade imbalance between the US and Asia has a lot to do against job creation and the national debt. We need to put Americans to work and help keep that money here. U.S. businesses need to pay U.S. taxes. We need to stop sending all our money to China.

Although in theory I like the idea of repealing NAFTA and imposing new tariffs, but is anyone worried about retaliatory tariffs on our goods and the US becoming an isolationist state. The world is too small for us to go sticking our heads in the sand...we'll likely get left behind.

Agreed on all points Andrew, but Robert has a very valid "postioning" point. MWP would rather say "review NAFTA", as we simply do not want to start a retaliatory trade war - even though most countries have been eating our lunch for decades.
Even the Founding Fathers weren't isolationists, but advocated non preferential treatment of our partners. As we exit the American Century, we might revisit this notion with an eye towards redefining our international role. ( something we will be forced to do in the face of multiple rising regional hegemonies, so why not be proactive).

Andrew, I truly think that many free trade advocates dont really understand it implicitly, only on a cursory basis. I'd love to debate one, nationally, for all to see. Nothing like stripping the emperors of all their clothes in public!

To give you all the same ammunition to strip them naked I have, I might suggest a book by Ian Fletcher. It's available somewhere on the web chapter by chapter, although I'd prefer to pay Ian for his good work! Check the "required reading" forum for the full reference.

My "baliwick" is to begin assembling the core elements of America's first true industrial policy of the last century and incorporating that into our holistic domestic agenda called the Renewed American System. Ian and his collegues will help provide excellent intellectual underpinnings for our "rationalized trade policies".

The RAS is really a massive citizens' expert mind trust enabled by MWP.

We are so entangled with trade agreements and the WTO that it is likely nothing can be done about tariffs. But just possibly we can impose FICA taxes on the labor component of imports.

European countries impose VAT fees on purchases made by Europeans online of American goods and services. If they can do that, maybe we can collect FICA on the same theory.

Being able to do so would have two benefits that I can see: 1) The boost to Medicare funds would help its long-term position and 2) it could help level the cost of labor playing field, making American goods more competitive in some areas.

This needs a great deal more study, of course.

I mostly agree but, with these additions:

A worldwide trade agreement should be cobbled together that has identical tariffs for each country. That's the only way to level the playing field. If countries violate the agreement, their products don't get imported - anywhere. If they devalue their currency, their products don't get imported - anywhere.

We desperately need to rebuild our infrastructure. We also need to invest heavily in green technology as opposed to allocating what, in the larger scheme of things, amounts to chump change.

We need to outlaw trading in commodities like food, oil, energy, etc. The major financial institutions, rather than lending money, are trading in futures because they can make a lot more money. Unfortuantely, that trading is also responsible for harming individual people - worldwide, through the artificial pumping up of the prices of food, oil and gas. A gallon of gas should cost less than a dollar but for those traders.

Finally, I feel that the definition of TREASON should be expanded to include political corruption. Over the years, politicians have involved our country in wars without reason, sold their votes to members of the military-industrial complex and pretty much anyone from any industry that waved an envelope with money in it. Those politicians have harmed us more than the Russians or the Chinese ever did.

Rather than outlawing commodities trading, we just need to regulate it a bit better.

1. Require the seller of a futures contract to actually have the commodity physically on-hand.

2. Require the buyer of a futures contract to be physically capable of taking delivery.

Basically, return commodities trading to reality, instead of trading wet dreams.

Let's not be foolish and kneejerk by speaking of outlawing commodities trading. That's is utterly ridiculous, and not very well thought out.

Commodities reform could be as simple as margin requirements. You saw the CTFC take this step on silver back in mid summer; they raised the margin requirement and it washed the specs out of the silver market, dropping the price from $47 to $34 over a few weeks time. Isn't rocket science, and most of the regs we need had already been on the books for years. Wall Street's huge PAYOLA scam, frankly, has kept existing rules from being implemented , imho.

So the "leaders" in power now keep taking Wall Street money and throw the public a diversion with some cockamamie financial consumer protection agency. They keep the money flow intact, APPEAR to be doing something, and raise the overall cost of governance to taxpayers. Kicking the empty can....

Does this pattern seem vaguely familiar? It should. It is the manifestation of dysfunction that we've been witnessing over and over again.

THE CHARADES ARE OVER!

Renegotiating free trade agreements to protect American jobs may be a popular notion, but it is protectionism and that will hurt us in the long run. We saw what happened to the U.S. automotive industry. Unions protected the workers' high levels of compensation, which made it impossible for Detroit to compete with imports. While workers might have saved their jobs by accepting lower pay and benefits, instead they lost their jobs entirely when companies went under because they could no longer compete. We have to learn how to compete at the global level. That's the only thing that will protect us in the long term.

Very true Sharon. Yet, in recent history the US has blindly allowed all our strategic industries to be outsourced, or become dependent on foreign sources. The only ones holding the line on this travesty have been unions, and that is only tangential to their main mission.

All this is fine as the world accepted the US dollar without question. Allowing us to import anything and everything we wanted, without having to have the GDP to support it. Witness our continually growing deficit, which our "leaders" tend to downplay. ( I would argue most have no clue as to its real ramifications).

But what happens when the rest of the world wakes up and realizes that there are NO LEADERS in Washington DC? What happens when the world stops accepting unlimited dollars for their goods? If you've been paying close attention , this is already beginning to take form. There are numerous data points pointing to the growing unease with the US dollar, and moves to supplant it as a international reserve currency. Did not OPEC already talk of trading oil in a basket of currencies rather than the USD? Can you fathom the consequences of that?

So, why should we not frame our discussion with this potential disasterous calamity in mind?

Imagine job creation, in the context of such a scenario. That's right, there would be NONE. In fact, many producers would simply stop producing. Unemployment would soar, at the same time that the price of all commodities would do the same.

But our "leaders" give us the same darn useless stimulus package they gave us two years ago, with a different marketing spin. They are not leaders, and they are seemingly devoid of anything approaching creative thought, blinded by petty self- and party-interests.

So what I am supposed to say Sharon? That I have no doubt in my military mind our Modern Whig movement will succeed, if only due to the fact that the two entrenched corporate parties have mucked up the works so pitifully poorly, that only a cathartic event with rectify it? Killing themselves and the middle class at the same time?

Because there is a probability, ever slight, that is where we are today. In fact, the Renewed American System, which we are endeavoring to draft up, takes much of this as a given or assumption. Yet unlike the ones that call themselves leaders, MWP would prefer to act proactively, rather than Washington's customary SOP, which may in fact lead to the demise of a way of life.

A VERY long-winded way of saying, before we get dogmatic and label an Industrial Policy/jobs policy as protectionist, we may want to really define the context we're in, and whether adhering to any absolute position is recommended.

The President's proposal clearly is not protectionist at all, focusing on public sector jobs we can ill afford. It is, therefore, of little efficacy near run ( as evidence by the last stimulus plan), and of NO positive consequence long run.

So , what kind of jobs should we be creating? Is there anything we really should be protecting?

I agree with this though I think it needs to be expanded upon. I think alternative energy has great potential but I also think that the areas in which the current political parties and energy interests are investing resources are misguided.

Research into real, sustainable fusion energy - where more energy is created than expended - has been showing great promise and there is credible evidence that - unlike the fusion promises of the 20th century - it's just a matter of time and money. It's no longer an "if" but "when". Fusion energy is safe and promises to create enough essentially renewable energy for the entire planet's needs for millions of years.

If we took the money wasted on companies like Solyndra and put it into fusion research and development I think it's possible we could have a real, working fusion reactor in 10-15 years... not 50 or 100.

I agree with a lot of this, actually. Although the infrastructure plank gives me pause because it sounds a lot like another keynesian 'stimulus' scheme and not simply repairing what we have. I do think there's one big plank missing though: stop regulating so much. Contrary to popular belief, we haven't had serious 'deregulation.' The federal register has continued to expand every year since the '70s. Then there's the endless list of local ordinances, EPA regulations, etc. that you have to contend with if you want to set up any business. Between all that it's a miracle anything ever gets done. I know people that are self employed (mostly restaurant industry..) and the maze of red tape they have to work through truly is nightmarish. It's not like regulations are written for our benefit either. Otherwise the HMOs wouldn't be lobbying now to protect Obamacare and companies like Altria wouldn't be lobbying for tobacco regulations and all the people that got screwed over in towns like Dimock the oil companies would be suing. Terms like "rent seeking" and "regulatory capture" exist for a reason.

"Keynesian 'stimulus' schemes" generally worked, when they were focused on infrastructure and other useful projects. Some of the more recent 'stimulus' schemes haven't actually been Keynesian, but more like wholesale raids on the Treasury.

As for regulation, as I've mentioned previously, I'd like to see permanent commissions set up to review all law and regulation, specifically looking for obsolete, redundant and useless items and making recommendations for change.

I don't see the value of deregulation for deregulation's sake. I do see the value of cleaning the mess up, and only keeping what is actually doing some good.

In many states, they have "Sunset" provisions. Many laws, regulations, agencies, etc. have to be reviewed on a regular basis to see if they need to be changed, eliminated, or kept. If the agency or law is not renewed, it automatically dies. This is an idea that the federal government could benfit from.

I suggest that we propose a "Sunset" provision for all federal laws, agencies, and regulations. Starting from 2014, Congress must reauthorize everything every 20 years. A schedule would need to be suggested so that some parts of the Federal government "Sunset" each year.

The state I am in has it on a 10 year schedule. The Feds would do well if they could get it down to 20 years. 20 years is more than most Congress people are in Washington which means that pork projects would have lost their protector by then.

On the broad topic of "job creation": This is far more a local issue than a federal issue. Detroit and Silicon Valley have had the same federal system for the last 40 years, but one has done quite well while the other has not.

"The Land of Opportunity"?
Unions: While I am non-union type of person, I do believe Americans should have the right to form or join a union. I hear a lot of blame being thrown at the unions as far as companies not being able to compete in a global economy while CEO’s are making 40 times that of the average worker, the excuse being that “they put all of the time in building that company, they deserve it”. How many CEO’s in today’s business environment built the company they run? We will find that a vast majority of them were appointed by a board of directors. Basically, they were hired like the rest of us.

Business: If we take pause and look at the difference of the business environment (as far as manufacturing) compared to 20 to 30 years ago we will find that less we find far less privately owned business. International megacorps have bought up these smaller, privately owned businesses. Some were shut down to decrease the competition and some were integrated into the megacorp. There are two main problems with this model. 1) Community: Entrepreneurs who put their blood and swear into building the company most likely comes from and cares about the local community. Although these individual do have an interest in return on investment, return on investment is all that the megacorp cares about. 2) Competition: We are no long the land of opportunity because entrepreneurs’ can no longer compete with the buying power of the megacorps.

Conclusion: The solution to these problems rest on the edge of a razor. We cannot stifle the entrepreneur’s ability to be a Bill Gates but we have to level the playing field to where entrepreneurs can start a business and compete. In this environment we would see more local businesses creating jobs for people in the community. Instead of focusing on how to get the megacorps to bring jobs back, why not focus on how to create an environment where the millionaires and entrepreneurs once again have the interest in starting businesses to fill the gap that the megacorps left when they shipped out? Maybe incentives for private business owners rather than incentives for megacorps would help to create jobs here in the US.

As Far as the excuse that companies shipped out because of expensive labor cost in the US, I do not completely buy it. Think about the massive executive pay and bonuses and then the massive payout to investors. Privately owned business does not have these expenses therefore reducing the cost of business. A possible way to change the change the business model is though tax. Taxes are not just for revenue but also for regulation much like what happened to the industrial hemp industry in the 30’s. However this change is made, I believe the focus should be on changing the business model back to more like it was 20 to 30 years ago rather than attempting to appease the “to big to fail” companies the are responsible for our employment problems. By restoring the ability of an entrepreneur to compete we are opening the door for what I believe could be massive job creation. Is there a way to create a balance?

GM and Chrysler have announced natural-gas powered versions of the full-size pickups made by both companies. The trucks will be released later this year. Resource for this article: GM and Chrysler launching natural gas trucks.Getting natural gas for your car can save you a lot of money instead of buying a branded gasoline.Also, natural gas is known to be environment friendly than those other types of diesels.

That link is just for the GMC brand, and says nothing about natural gas. Try this one.