Liberals are used to being misunderstood and having their ideas misrepresented.  Still, one can forgive them if they remain befuddled about the strength of opposition to their proposals even as circumstances appear to validate their views.

There’s an old truism in politics that you cannot tell the voter he’s made a mistake.  It’s human nature to push back from the table of responsibility when things go horribly wrong.  And even when reality rears its head before ill designed policies, there will be groups of citizens who benefitted from those same policies. 

Consider the current state of affairs in the former Soviet Union, a communist state that collapsed more than 30 years ago.  Although a democratic form of government replaced the communist model in Russia and in former Soviet states that became independent due to the collapse, strong minorities yearn for a return to communism.  And they have made significant headway in weakening democracy the past 30 years.

The current great recession in the United States and Europe revealed deep flaws in policies that resulted from darwinian economics.    Laissez faire regulators and their political bosses who believed in untrammeled capitalism, unleashed a wild west free-for-all form of capitalism that nearly destroyed itself.  Only trillions of dollars in taxpayer money prevented a total collapse.

This series of events were all too clear to the public.  In an historic election, they put the first man of color, Barack Obama, in the President’s office, and they gave his Democrat party majorities in both houses of Congress.

But if Democrats were expecting contrition from Republicans and some bi-partisan mending of the economy, they were hopelessly naive.  Two years after his election, Obama faces a tightly knit and determined Republican party that still believes in all the policies that created trillion dollar losses of wealth and millions of people thrown out of work.  To a man, members of this party take absolutely no responsibility for their role, and the role of their policies, in producing such a collapse.

In fact the opposite resulted.  Republicans are more convinced than ever of their winner take all philosophies.  They are more convinced than ever that government is the problem creator, and that the cure for all economic ills comes first from tax rate cuts.

This might cause most citizens to scratch their heads in wonder.  And many do ask why doing the same thing would result in a different outcome.  After all, isn’t that one definition of insanity?

But that misses the reality.  The reality is that it is human nature to push back when asked to shoulder responsibility for bad results.  Even if Democrats did acknowledge a government role in helping to produce bad results, Republicans would not acknowledge a private sector role in causing the bad results.  And Republicans have to use a very selective memory about government roles simply because they were in the majority and were implementing their darwinian economic philosophies as the nation hurtled to disaster.

And so the nation muddles forward, in fits and starts.  The minorities that benefitted under the Republican philosophies circle their wagons in opposition to any reform efforts, whether it be financial reform, or energy reform, or health care reform.   Everywhere they see Indians who threaten their good fortune.

That they do so while millions of their fellow citizens remain unemployed, and trillions of dollars remain lost by public and private pensions, seems insane.  But it is not.  It is human nature to deny responsibility for bad results, and human nature to try and avoid consequences.  Particularly if your personal experience throughout has been unaffected.

Democrats must remember this.  Their opposition is by those who benefitted from the past policies.  Nothing more.  That is the principal at work here.  Democrats must understand that any reform will come almost entirely from their efforts.  And those efforts will be opposed unanimously by Republicans, whose membership contains all citizens who prospered from past policies.

One of the most astonishing things about the Great Recession is how it has exposed to what degree the public gets lied to.  It’s no wonder we thrash about.

The most recent example of this comes from Mitch McConnell, US Senate Republican leader from Kentucky.  He recently stated:

“The last year of the Bush administration, the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 3.2 percent, well within the range of what most economists think is manageable. A year and a half later, it’s almost 10 percent.”

The point McConnell wished to make was that it was all Obama’s fault the deficit soared.

To which New York Times columnist and Princeton economist, Paul Krugman, replied:

“They really do think that we’re idiots.

So, that 3.2 percent number comes from here (pdf). Where’s the bamboozle? Let me count the ways.

First, they’re hoping that you won’t know that standard budget data is presented for fiscal years, which start on October 1 of the previous calendar year. So this isn’t the “last year of the Bush administration” — they’ve conveniently lopped off everything that happened post-Lehman — TARP and all.

Second, they’re hoping you won’t look at what was happening quarter by quarter. Here’s net federal borrowing as a percentage of GDP, quarter by quarter, since 2007:

BEA

Source

Can we agree that the deficit in the first quarter of 2009 — Obama didn’t even take office until Jan. 20, the ARRA wasn’t even passed until Feb. 17, and essentially no stimulus funds had been spent — had nothing to do with Obama’s polices, and was entirely a Bush legacy? Yet the deficit had already surged to almost 9 percent of GDP. Even in 2009 II, Obama’s policies had barely begun to take effect, and the deficit was already over 10 percent of GDP.

What this chart really tells us is what you should have known already: the deficit is overwhelmingly the result of the economic slump, not Obama policies. But the usual suspects want to fool you.

I’d like to think that the raw dishonesty of this latest Bush defense would be obvious to everyone. But after the past decade, I’ve stopped believing such things. They think we’re idiots — and they may be right.”

Beezer here.  I’m not as depressed about this as is Krugman, but the bald faced lying is a real problem.  And it is a real problem not because some people will knowlingly lie, but because the watchdogs we depend upon in a Democracy, the media, are completely clueless.  It appears they don’t know enough to spot a lie, and as a result the lie goes unchallenged.  What’s the old saying?  “A lie travels around the world before the truth gets out of bed.”

McConnell knowingly lied.  Shame on him.

But sometimes it’s not so much a lie, as it is someone just not understanding the underlying facts.  Even well know authors and economists (well, in this case economic historian) can be uninformed.

In this case it’s Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson.  Ferguson maintains that the real stimulus spending that made a difference for the Great Depression wasn’t from the 1930s, but came about because of the World War II spending.  This has been an argument all along from conservatives who maintain stimulus spending by FDR in the 1930s wasn’t all that great and had little or no positive effect on unemployment or boosting the staggering economy.

Here, it’s economist Brad DeLong who points out Ferguson makes a very rudimentary mathematical mistake.

“Niall Ferguson writes:

Today’s Keynesians have learnt nothing: When Franklin Roosevelt became president in 1933, the deficit was already running at 4.7 per cent of GDP. It rose to a peak of 5.6 per cent in 1934. The federal debt burden [in the United States] rose only slightly – from 40 to 45 per cent of GDP – prior to the outbreak of the second world war. It was the war that saw the US (and all the other combatants) embark on fiscal expansions of the sort we have seen since 2007. So what we are witnessing today has less to do with the 1930s than with the 1940s: it is world war finance without the war…

Could we please have some acknowledgement of the fact that the reason the debt-to-GDP ratio did not rise across the 1930s was because GDP rose, not because debt didn’t rise? Debt more than doubled from $22.5 billion to $49.0 billion between June 30, 1933 and June 30, 1941. But nominal GDP rose from $56 billion in 1933 to $127 billion in 1941.

And could we please have some acknowledgement that our 9.4% of GDP deficit in fiscal 2010 pales in comparison to the 30.8% of GDP deficit of 1943, or the 23.3% and 22.0% deficits of 1944 and 1945?

Niall Ferguson should not do this. The Financial Times should not enable Niall Ferguson to do this.”

And then Krugman follows up on DeLong’s observations.  As per usual, Krugman offers further explanation, and charts, to make sure the reader understands Ferguson’s errors.  (even the math challenged like Beezer)

“Brad DeLong does the necessary on Niall Ferguson; no need for me to pile on. But I think there’s more to be said about Depression-era debt. To get the full picture, you need to go all the way back to 1929.

If you were ignorant of basic facts about the Depression — or if you didn’t know that movements in a ratio can reflect changes in the denominator as well as the numerator — you might think that it’s possible to summarize fiscal policy by looking at the federal debt-GDP ratio, which looks like this from 1929-41:

Clearly, then, Herbert Hoover was a wild deficit spender, while FDR was much more cautious. Right?

OK, we know that’s wrong. Here’s what nominal debt, the numerator in the debt ratio, looks like:

So Hoover ran up very little debt — only about 6 percent of 1929 GDP. FDR, on the other hand, ran up a lot of debt, about 47 percent of 1933 GDP. But Hoover presided over a shrinking, deflationary economy, while FDR presided over a rapidly growing (from a low base) economy with rising prices.

I’ve been careful to use the term “presided over”: you don’t want to attribute all the differences in the two sub-eras to policy, let alone fiscal policy. Nonetheless, the fact that virtually all the deterioration in the US debt position from 1929 to 1939 took place under the tight-fisted Hoover rather than under FDR is an object lesson in the crucial importance of growth in dealing with debt. And the Hoover experience also provides a nice illustration of self-defeating austerity — not only didn’t austerity produce economic recovery, it didn’t even improve the fiscal position.

It’s too bad that people who don’t understand any of that seem to have the upper hand in policy.”

Beezer again.  It’s no wonder the public at large cannot figure out what’s really going on.  Even an economist can get it wrong.  McConnell’s statements were intentionally mis-leading.  His is a worst case example of what’s wrong with our leadership.

We must have a better educated and better informed media.  The average citizen simply doesn’t have the time to sift the chaff from the wheat.  Particularly when there’s as much chaff as wheat being blasted out over the airways.

Both former President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama are center left in the political spectrum.

Two obvious differences are that Clinton came from a Governor’s office, one that is primarily administrative and executive, whereas Obama came from the US Senate which is legislative; and Clinton came to the Presidency just as the internet boom began, whereas Obama won the Presidency during the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.

The real comparison is more striking, however.  Clinton came to office just as a tremendous economic engine started to hit on all cylinders.  He was lucky.  He enjoyed the benefit of a tremendously positive “Black Swan:”  A surprising and powerful fortunate event that lifted all economic boats pretty much around the world. 

Obama came to office when the country’s economic engine nearly stalled out completely.  Bad luck in extremis.  He inherited the first result of a powerfully negative “Black Swan,” that’s been marshalling its forces for more than 30 years.

That said, both men’s approach to problem solving derives primarily from the political center.  Both men supported health care reform aimed at insuring more Americans.  Clinton failed.  Obama succeeded after a long, divisive battle.  Opponents labeled Obama as a socialist, someone from the political extreme.  Yet a major goal of Obama’s with the reform, possibly THE major goal, was to control out of control medical costs.  That’s a conservative goal.  He wanted to reduce the rate of government spending on health care.  But he also wanted to insure more Americans, considered a liberal goal.  

As a legislator, particularly one from the US Senate, Obama desires compromise, the mother’s milk of legislation.  He wants bi-partisan legislation.  It’s what he understands best.  But this impulse ran straight into a headwall called the Great Recession and an ideological divide that began under President Reagan in the early 1980s.  This is the negative “Black Swan” bedeviling Obama and the nation. 

That divide is best explained as one where many Americans believe the government is totally ineffective and cannot actually improve economic vitality.  The more it tries, this ideology goes, the worse things get.  Reagan famously said “Government isn’t the solution.  It’s the problem.”

This attitude is relatively new in American history.  The academic economic thought it relies upon (loosely attributed to economist Milton Friedman and dubbed the “Chicago School”) is relatively new, as well.  Previously, Americans believed their government could be an engine for progress and often supported large government programs aimed at boosting the private economy.

So Obama takes office as one of the most spectacular failures in the private economy begins it’s economic damage.  And he does so at a time when many, if not most, Americans believe the government can’t help anyway.  Unforseen events are suddenly descending on America.  There is a negative Black Swan at work here.

Give Obama credit for soldiering on despite the storm he is trying to help the American economy sail through.  He inherited a total economic mess when his opposition, informed by the Chicago school, firmly believes that the government can’t help.  That the private markets two years ago pretty much left the field of battle and decamped somewhere on the plains of Long Island haven’t shaken this crowd’s belief of ascendent private markets in the slightest.

Further complicating Obama’s challenge is that the dynamics of this Black Swan have been at work in other industries besides finance.  Despite the Chicago School’s academic constructs, private industry appears to depend very much on the government. 

Oligopolies have developed in most of the country’s vital industries as a result of this, not just in finance, but in energy, health care and agriculture too.  The paradox is that the “government can’t do anything to improve the private economy,” attitude is obviously not shared by the private economy itself.

The political ideology derived from the Chicago School and crystalized by Reagan recommended a laissez faire government.  Less regulation, not more.   Less government goal setting, not more.  Flat tax rates instead of progressive ones.  Stay away from private enterprise, this ideology demands.  Unfettered private industry will provide.

The result.  Oligopolies built up as the American public embraced the new ideology, ignoring previously understood truths about the importance of governance.  Rather than distancing government from private industry, this ideology led straight to the capture of governance by industry winners.  Oligopolies always capture the government to insure their dominance.  They don’t encourage competition, they destroy it with the help of a captive government.

Income inequality built up to unheard of levels in America.  It wasn’t “trickle down” economics, it was a steady river of money going “trickle up” the economic income ladder.

Serious problems such as the country’s addiction to foreign petroleum were not addressed. Now Obama must make the effort.  But it’s hard to solve an obvious problem when so many corporations are making good money the way things are.  Industrial agriculture has systematically destroyed America’s previously diverse, and thus more stable, farming system.  It has been replaced by the manufacturing model of concentration and production.  Like Ford said “You can have any color model T.  As long as it’s black:”  Today you can have any food you prefer, as long as it’s corn. 

Still Obama does not directly attack these oligopolic industries for what they are:  non competitive industries whose profits derive primarily from government tax and subsidy support.   Unlike Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president during the Great Depression, Obama cannot call upon a public’s belief in the important role of government because that sense has been greatly diminished and compromised.

Clinton, frankly, had none of this to face.  A new innovation that positively affected the entire economy (a positive Black Swan event no one really saw coming) swept through his entire time as President, only collapsing after he left office.  This boom masked the corrosive attitudes that were at work, unseen from the public eyes–the negative Black Swan that had been building up since Reagan brought the Chicago School economic philosophy into dominance.

That Black Swan resulted in our financial recession.  And it will result in a number of other disasters (try food and energy) in the relatively near future.

Clinton and Obama.  Other than their centrist approach to problem solving, have about zero in common.  Clinton enjoyed a positive Black Swan.  Obama fights a negative one.

Back in January the US Supreme Court, dominated by Republican appointments, made what is probably one of the worst decisions in the history of the court.

The decision overturned a century of court rulings that said the government could put some limits on corporate expenditures aimed at influencing political elections.  As a result of this incredibly stupid ruling, based on the concept that a corporation was a person and thus had all the rights of individual citizens (can’t wait for a corporation to run for President!), the money floodgates were put in wide open position for corporate treasuries to spend whatever they wanted to influence political campaigns.

Incredible.  Not that industry titans on Wall Street, in Industrial Ag, Big Oil, or in health care needed any help because they already spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the President, as well as filling their campaign bank accounts.

In a previous post, beezer wrote:

“The only cure for this idiocy is new laws, or re-written laws.  The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret laws.  But only Congress can write the laws.  Congress needs to respond to this problem quickly.  Otherwise, in direct contravention to what the Supreme Court says, the vast majority of Americans will have their voices drowned out.  This is a prescription for abuse, and it will disenhearten many who will give up any hope of real change because they will now have no reason at all to believe our governments reflect their desires.”

Which President Obama’s administration intends to do; write some new legislation making an attempt to at least minimize the incredible attack made on democracy by the US Supreme Court.  It got buried under the news about Greece’s debt problems and the BP Gulf Oil disaster, but the President made his announcement May 1.  Here it is.

“Over the past few weeks, as we’ve debated reforms to hold Wall Street accountable and protect consumers and small businesses in our financial system, we’ve come face-to-face with the great power of special interests in the workings of our democracy.  Of course, this isn’t a surprise.  Every time a major issue arises, we’ve come to expect that an army of lobbyists will descend on Capitol Hill in the hopes of tilting the laws in their favor. 

That’s one of the reasons I ran for President: because I believe so strongly that the voices of ordinary Americans were being drowned out by the clamor of a privileged few in Washington.  And that’s why, since the day I took office, my administration has been taking steps to reform the system.  Recently, however, the Supreme Court issued a decision that overturned decades of law and precedent – dealing a huge blow to our efforts to rein in this undue influence.  In short, this decision gives corporations and other special interests the power to spend unlimited amounts of money – literally millions of dollars – to affect elections throughout our country.  This, in turn, will multiply their influence over decision-making in our government.

In the starkest terms, members will know – when pressured by lobbyists – that if they dare to oppose that lobbyist’s client, they could face an onslaught of negative advertisements in the run up to their next election.  And corporations will be allowed to run these ads without ever having to tell voters exactly who is paying for them.  At a time when the American people are already being overpowered in Washington by these forces, this will be a new and even more powerful weapon that the special interests will wield. 

In fact, it’s exactly this kind of vast power that led a great Republican President – Teddy Roosevelt – to tackle this issue a century ago.  He warned of the dangers of limitless corporate spending in our political system.  He actually called it “one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.”  And he proposed strict limits on corporate influence in elections.  “Every special interest is entitled to justice,” he said.  “but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office.”

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling, we face a similar challenge.  That’s why it’s so important that Congress consider new reforms to prevent corporations and other special interests from gaining even more clout in Washington.  And almost all of these reforms are designed to bring new transparency to campaign spending.  They are based on the principle espoused by former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis – that sunlight is the best disinfectant. 

Shadowy campaign committees would have to reveal who’s funding their activities to the American people.  And when corporations and other special interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and claim responsibility for it – like a company’s CEO or an organization’s biggest contributor.  This will mean citizens can evaluate the claims in these ads with information about an organization’s real motives. 

We know how important this is. We’ve all seen groups with benign-seeming names sponsoring television commercials that make accusations and assertions designed to influence the public debate and sway voters’ minds.  Now, of course every organization has every right in this country to make their voices heard.  But the American people also have the right to know when some group like “Citizens for a Better Future” is actually funded entirely by “Corporations for Weaker Oversight.”

In addition, these reforms would address another troubling aspect of the Supreme Court’s ruling.  Under the bill Congress will consider, we’ll make sure that foreign corporations and foreign nationals are restricted from spending money to influence American elections, just as they were in the past – even through U.S. subsidiaries.  And we’d keep large contractors that receive taxpayer funds from interfering in our elections as well, to avoid the appearance of corruption and the possible misuse of tax dollars. 

Now, we can expect that these proposed changes will be met with heavy resistance from the special interests and their supporters in Congress.  But I’m calling on leaders in both parties to resist these pressures.  For what we are facing is no less than a potential corporate takeover of our elections.  And what is at stake is no less than the integrity of our democracy.  This shouldn’t be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is an issue that goes to whether or not we will have a government that works for ordinary Americans – a government of, by, and for the people.  That’s why these reforms are so important. And that’s why I’m going to fight to see them passed into law.”

In my previous post I recommended reading “13 Bankers,” written by Simon Johnson (a former IMF Banker) and his partner at the blogsite Baseline Scenario, James Kwak, a PhD, soon to be lawyer, and successful software entrepreneur.

In the introduction to that book, the authors repeated reports that the President, during a private meeting with the CEOs of America’s 13 largest banks, told them “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”  The time was Friday, March 27, 2009.  The stock market had fallen 40%, the economy had lost 4.1 million jobs (on its way to losing more than 8 million) and the public was pretty sure these big bankers had a lot to do with all the misery.  Everything that’s transpired since has solidified the public opinion of who the bad guys are.

Figuratively if not literally the pitchforks were definitely out.  And they still are.

At bottom, reducing the size of so-called too big to fail (TBTF) banks is a political problem.  It’s time the President step aside and let loose the pitchforks.  The political will to do what is right has arrived (watching the Senators skewer Goldman Sachs last week should leave no doubt) and the President should no longer stand in the way. Better, he should grab a pitchfork himself.

From “13 Bankers:”

“In the long term, the most effective constraint on the financial sector is public opinion.  Today, anyone proposing to end the regulation of pharmaceuticals or to suspend government supervision of nuclear power stations would not be taken seriously…The best defense against a massive financial crisis is a popular consensus that too big to fail is too big to exist..The megabanks used political power to obtain their license to gamble with other people’s money; taking that license away requires confronting that power head-on.  It requires a decision that the economic and political power of the new financial oligarchy is dangerous both to economic prosperity and to the democracy that is supposed to ensure that government policies serve the greater good of society.”

TBTF banks are not only not necessary for economic prosperity they are demonstably bad for the nation’s economic prosperity.  They stifle competition with more than half their profits coming from a 78 basis point advantage in borrowing costs over competitors:  An advantage created by their bailout which confirmed investor beliefs that the administration simply won’t allow them to fail–no matter how poorly they invested other people’s money.

We don’t need TBTF banks, we need more competition at the top of the food chain.  We need to dismember TBTF holding companies, separating safer, more stable commercial banks from their riskier investment bank brethren.  That’s the way it was for more than 40 years of terrific economic growth in America.  Forty years of growth without a single financial crisis.

Obama wants to walk a fine line of regulatory reform without disturbing the near monopoly enjoyed by these 13 banks.  The public wants much more.  It wants to eradicate TBTF and it senses the nation’s economy, far from being circumscribed, would better flourish without the obvious mal-investment TBTF banks made.  Mal-investment made with complex, risky securities that hid from regulators the huge leverage being made by TBTF bankers, magnifying a housing slump into the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Stand aside, Mr. President.  Once again, the public is ready to lead the politicians.  As FDR replied to a woman badgering him to do more to fight the Great Depression “Miss.  You must force me to do it!”

So do it, Mr. President.

Economics professor Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, observes that our economy has become too dependent on “paper entrepreneurs” as opposed to “product entrepreneurs.”  We need both, Reich admits, but we’ve become unbalanced.

A new idea?  Hardly.  Reich made his observations 30 years ago.

“Paper entrepreneurs — trained in law, finance, accountancy — manipulate complex systems of rules and numbers. They innovate by using the systems in novel ways: establishing joint ventures, consortiums, holding companies, mutual funds; finding companies to acquire, “white knights” to be acquired by, commodity futures to invest in, tax shelters to hide in; engaging in proxy fights, tender offers, antitrust suits, stock splits, spinoffs, divestitures; buying and selling notes, bonds, convertible debentures, sinking-fund debentures; obtaining government subsidies, loan guarantees, tax breaks, contracts, licenses, quottas, price supports, bailouts; going private, going public, going bankrupt.

Product entrepreneurs — engineers, inventors, production managers, marketers, owners of small businesses — produce goods and services people want. They innovate by creating better products at less cost……

If we are to increase the economic pie, we will need to redress the balance of entrepreneurial effort. Which strategies will stimulate more paper, and which more product?”

Good question.  How do we re-balance?

Finance regulatory reform is a help.  Wall Street represents one of those “paper entrepreneurs.”  It grew exponentially, so much so that it went from about 7% of national Gross Domestic Product to a high of more than 20% of GDP just prior to its collapse in 2007.  Regulatory diligence, as opposed to laissez faire “look the other way” non-regulation, will pull back this particular imbalance.  It should, because this lopsided growth of what is a service provider, is a perfect example of malinvestment.

Health care reform is another example.  It too has grown exponentially and a great percentage of this growth has come, not in product innovation (there has been some of that, certainly), but in the “paper entrepreneur” part of the health care system:  In the service and administrative part as opposed to the part that actually delivers the service.   Like finance on steroids, health administrative and legal cost growth is another perfect example of malinvestment.

Rethinking what “fair trade” means.  Taking a tougher negotiating position with our trading partners would help immensely.  Warren Buffett likes the idea of having “import certificates” where partners could import to us only up to what they buy from us.   Whether this is a practical idea or not, the underlying attitude is that we should not be running huge foreign account deficits.  We’re learning that one negative impact of running those deficits moves our “product entrepreneurs” overseas.  And that aggravates the imbalance Reich describes.

Target tax cuts and subsidies to industries offering future, productive, growth.  Even a blind man can see where we’re all headed here.  We need to transfer more of our power needs to the sustainable, clean energy industries.  Obama’s $50 million matching grant to Celgard in North Carolina is an excellent example.  Celgard makes membranes for lithium ion batteries, a critical component for our transition to hybrid, and eventually all electric transportation.  This industry is already starting to explode and Obama has a goal of the US supplying 40% of these batteries worldwide in two years.  That’s an example of supporting “product entrepreneurs.”

Keeping America’s auto industry alive in the meantime, is another effort to support “product entrepreneurs.”  Chrysler and General Motors were forced to go through bankruptcy, assisted by the taxpayer, and are now producing competitive products worldwide.   American made cars and trucks running on American made lithium ion batteries are two related and worthwhile goals. 

There are many such examples of what needs to be done to redress the malinvestment made the past 30 years.  Here’s another.  We subsidize corn to the tune of between $4 billion to $7 billion annually.  It’s been marvelously successful at producing cheap corn, and as a result of the corn being fed to cattle, hogs and chickens, it has produced cheap meat protein in abundance.  Problem is this has crowded out many, many diversified farms.  Fewer people work in agriculture than did before.  A less diverse product selection is another negative result.  And finally, the product itself is turning out to be unhealthy for Americans.  It is severely damaging the nutritional value of our diets.

So subsidize healthy food instead.  If the effect of corn subsidies is any example, subsidizing healthy foods should be a boon to the entire nation.  And food definitely isn’t “paper entrepreneur.”  It’s all product.

Energy transformation.  Environmental transformation.  Transportation transformation.  Industrial agriculture transformation.  The simple truth is that targeted tax breaks and/or subsidies can help produce “product entrepreneurs” all over the country.  And produce billions in private industry profits along the way.

Who can complain about that?  Apparently Republicans can.