How to Fix What Ails Us

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Intel's CEO, Paul Otellini, had some fairly harsh words for the folks in power this week:

Otellini singled out the political state of affairs in Democrat-dominated Washington, saying: "I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they're flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working."

Since an unusually sharp downturn accelerated in late 2008, the Obama administration and its allies in the U.S. Congress have enacted trillions in deficit spending they say will create an economic stimulus -- but have not extended the Bush tax cuts and have pushed to levy extensive new health care and carbon regulations on businesses.

...

As a result, he said, "every business in America has a list of more variables than I've ever seen in my career." If variables like capital gains taxes and the R&D tax credit are resolved correctly, jobs will stay here, but if politicians make decisions "the wrong way, people will not invest in the United States. They'll invest elsewhere."

Take factories. "I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States," Otellini said.
The rub: Ninety percent of that additional cost of a $4 billion factory is not labor but the cost to comply with taxes and regulations that other nations don't impose. (Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers elaborated on this in an interview with CNET, saying the problem is not higher U.S. wages but anti-business laws: "The killer factor in California for a manufacturer to create, say, a thousand blue-collar jobs is a hostile government that doesn't want you there and demonstrates it in thousands of ways.")

"If our tax rate approached that of the rest of the world, corporations would have an incentive to invest here," Otellini said. But instead, it's the second highest in the industrialized world, making the United States a less attractive place to invest--and create jobs--than places in Europe and Asia that are "clamoring" for Intel's business.

This is similar, as CNet reports, to what Carly Fiorina had to say on the matter, with the difference being that Otenelli isn't running for office. But clearly the business class is less concerned about speaking up right now.

We do need to think ahead to what's going to fix the problems, though. "Unexpectedly," unemployment claims are increasing again, home sales are in decline, and the stimulus, which was supposed to save us all, has "done exactly as we expected it to", which is to mean not performed as intended at all.

So let's see - we have a failed stimulus, a looming tax hike, new costs associated with health care and financial reforms, and businesses are not spending money in anticipation of this uncertainty. What's the way out? How do we fix this problem? Where do we go from here?

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Maybe if the Democrats didn't fight with themselves so much when they had a filibuster-proof majority, you might have a point.

There's not a single piece of major Democratic legislation that the Democrats needed Republican help on save the financial bill that the Democrats essentially got everything they wanted on. They won the stimulus (and we lost as a result), they won health care reform (and we lost as a result), they won financial reform (and we lost as a result).

Maybe the Democrats should consider moving their agenda closer to the mainstream so they don't have to do so much infighting, and then pass bills that will actually help people.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

When have the Dems ever had a filibuster-proof majority?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

From the time when Franken was sworn in until the time Brown was sworn in.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

They had a man missing with Kennedy for a while and Liebermann is hardly reliable for the Dems. They never had a super majority.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

They were wheeling Kennedy in for the important votes, and when he passed Kirk held the seat in the interim.

Lieberman, like Sanders, caucuses with the Democrats. That's a filibuster-proof majority. Lieberman is very reliable for the Democrats overall, just not on foreign policy issues.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Or health care reform. Or pretty much any major issue where his vote really matters.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Lieberman voted for health care reform. He, along with other Democrats, balked at the public option, not the major reforms on a whole.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

The fact is he still resisted. Like I said, he's not reliable. Same caucus =/= same party.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So because he went along with only 99% of the health care bill, he becomes unreliable?

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

The fact that he's resisted that vote and others makes him unreliable. Do you really think he goes along with every major Democratic bill?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

He goes along with nearly all of them. He's the textbook case of a reliable Democratic vote. The most reliable? No, I wouldn't say that. But reliable? Absolutely. If the leadership didn't think so, they wouldn't have allowed him back in the caucus.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

If you say so.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Don't take my word for it. Here was his record as of 2006 (http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/truth-about-liebermans-voting-record.html) - he hasn't moved further right since then.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I never said he's moved right. I'm saying his recent history with the Dems has made him more adversarial. He's resisted on health care, a jobless benefit package, etc. He doesn't deserve to be counted in the super majority.

If Republicans had 60 senators it would be different because they tend to tow the party line more. Dems by their nature are more independent so even if they had 60 senators (which they never had) it wouldn't necessarily mean anything, especially with the recent influx of blue dogs.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

If my memory of politics isn't failing completely, it seems to me, that both parties, when they are in the minority seem to vote more as a block, depending on the issue.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

It's easier to unite in opposition than to unite to get something done.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If Republicans had 60 senators it would be different because they tend to tow the party line more. Dems by their nature are more independent so even if they had 60 senators (which they never had) it wouldn't necessarily mean anything, especially with the recent influx of blue dogs.

Ooh boy.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I don't have the heart to tell him that on partisan voting(likelihood to vote by party) the Democrats hold the first 2 dozen or so spots.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I started writing out my whole thing about the ideological difference with Democrats being almost entirely priority-based, that they all believe the same thing, but just rank them differently, but how the Republicans constantly have to fight between the theocons and the fiscalcons and the socialcons, and I dunno.

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

balked at the public option

I believe this might be part of that "infighting" you were talking about.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

The Democrats are pretty diverse, hence the infighting. It's inherent to conglomerate formations like this. Moving to the mainstream in their case would require a very tough definition.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Moving to the mainstream would be easy if the Congressional Democrats realized that they're not the mainstream. It's getting them to understand that which is the problem.

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

What exactly is the mainstream? I hope you don't think it's the republicans.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

We're a center-right nation ideologically, so...