The other day I wrote some reflections on "Hope for a Better
World." Today, the day after the second debate between presidential
hopefuls, Obama and Romney, I reflect on "How can we invest in the
future?"
Here we are, and together with a handful of economically important
nations in Europe, with more national debt than we can afford to pay. We are
spending more, as a nation, than we are earning: not just in governmental
coffers, but in far too many corporate and private lives as well.
Our presidential candidates are sparring off with two basic and
opposite approaches: Barack Obama wants to pull ourselves out of our economic
doldrums saying the government must lead the way with continued deficit
spending. This was the now famous approach of FDR during the Depression which I
believe originated the term "deficit spending" under the heading of
Keynesian economics. It is debated to this day whether it this approach is what
took the U.S. out of the Depression, or whether it was World War II itself.
(During the War the government was able to control the economy in ways far
beyond anything even the Depression could justify.) I can't possibly weigh in
on this debate that professional economists themselves can't agree on. Yet, how
much more debt can our government possibly take on before our currency
collapses under evaporating consumer and global confidence in our sanity and
economic common sense?
The Republicans seem to say that we must bring out spending under
control. In its simplest terms, this is a good policy and is reasonable when it
comes to a family or a business. They seem to indicate that we need to cut
government spending to reduce the deficit while also reducing taxes to spur the
economy. But unless the tax reductions or other causes spur the economy to
increase tax revenues to cover most if not all of the tax cuts, it will
backfire. And, in the meantime as we wait for it to succeed, we might find that
massive spending cuts in the federal budget could put a lot of people out of
work and a lot of others out in the street. Easy to imagine social unrest and a
very short four-year term for Governor Romney!
Either way, then, we are in a pickle. Whether we cut our way back
to prosperity or spend our way there we could be doomed never to arrive. This
is why it could also be said it doesn't really matter much which party wins the
election because neither solution can float over the tsunami that's building
and running rapidly towards our financial shores.
Is there, perhaps, a third alternative? If spending, both
government and private, were re-directed towards investing in our future, it
wouldn't be fast or an easy cure, but it could be a solid boost to confidence
in the future. We could  INVEST IN OUR OWN FUTURE! Society and economists are beginning to realize that expectation and confidence are more important than so-called financial reality in determining economic activity and decision making. Creating a culture of innovation and optimism can do more for our current problems than paralyzing debates.
Now if that sounds a little bit like the same snake oil the
politicians are selling, well, I would sympathize with your skepticism. But
let's explore it, anyway. We've little to lose.
When I go to college, or start a business, or move "out
west," or embark on a new career, in each case I am investing in my future
with pluck, luck, vim and vigor. This inborn optimism to launch ahead into a
new direction attracts to itself opportunity and success. By contrast, belt
tightening is boring and a downer and continued excessive spending feels like
one is coming apart at the seams. But an investment strategy is bound to
inspire much more confidence and support than either slash and burn deficit
reductions or spend and borrow towards currency collapse. In fact, this
investment-in-the-future campaign would combine elements of each in order to
work. That's what makes it so magnetic and potentially successful.
Under current conditions consumers are necessarily cautious. But
what if we find incentives to encourage home improvements, energy cost savings,
better diet and health maintenance, higher education, job retraining, and new,
small (family and home-based) businesses? Get people going in new and
interesting directions.
What if government re-directed some of its funding for social,
farm, and military subsidies and entitlements (by attrition, delay of projects,
cost reductions or holding back cost of living adjustments) and, instead, moved
funds towards infrastructure repair and improvements, mass transit development,
broadband highways, job retraining, higher education support, and research
& development in emerging or much needed fields and technologies? I
know none of these specifics are new but if we consciously re-direct funds this
can inspire confidence rather than deflate it. Those areas being asked to pare
down would be making a sacrifice for a greater good and a better future.
Here is a more or less random collection of incentives and
dis-incentives we could consider to encourage investment in our national
future:
- Higher taxes on consumption of food and other
     goods or services which are unhealthy or energy consumers or otherwise
     unhelpful economically or socially. For example, if there was a way to
     increase the cost of fast food (some kind of national excise tax on
     ingredients or removal of farm subsidies?) and at the same time create
     incentives for healthier meals and foods and education, then we all could
     benefit. Sacrifices would be for the common good. An increased gas tax
     that directed the proceeds to areas of new investment (road improvements,
     research in fuel and driving efficiencies, and mass transits, esp in low
     tech solutions). Luxury goods, resorts, and services should pitch in an extra share to help the nation invest in its future.
- A new program to re-direct big business
     agricultural to healthier foods and sustainable farming techniques.
     Support re-training and experimental farming techniques that preserve and
     improve soils and expand farmland through micro-farms. A whole new and
     younger generation of people would rise to the occasion to start a new
     industry and reform one in much need of long-term changes.
- Liberal investment tax credits or write-offs
     for investments in research and development, energy efficient equipment
     and related facilities.
- Creation of a national public service network
     operated at state and local level but guided by national goals and broad
     principles. Service could earn participants credits toward higher
     education while simultaneously providing skills training to participants
     and providing services to local needs. Sacrifices from existing unions or
     employment interests that would make provision for enrollees to serve in
     schools, municipal services, elder care, or farming would be, again, seen
     for the greater good. People of all ages could obtain new opportunities
     for service and skills, sacrificing by way of subsistence earnings but
     serving both a public need and their own future.
- How about offering student loans for higher
     education that are repaid back, in whole or part, by the simple fact that
     such students become taxpayers by virtue of their skills and higher
     earning capacity? We'd be investing in taxpayers which are needed for
     reducing national debt. The student loan reduction would be tied to level
     of taxes paid on salaries earned in the future.
- Too much emphasis and value is placed upon monetary
     wealth as a measure of personal worth. Research is taking place around the
     world for measuring happiness and success in ways more important than
     money. An active national dialogue and research is needed to help people
     understand that what we seek is happiness, not just things, consumption,
     or pleasure. A new culture and emphasis on sustainability in energy and
     resources, health, diet and exercise, the value of serving one's family
     and community, and other time tested social values needs to be developed
     for our schools, families, entertainment and culture.
- Short-term financial speculation erodes the
     underlying value and utility of the financial markets to provide jobs and
     goods and services to society. Speculation, therefore, needs to be curbed.
     Holding periods for financial instruments should be lengthened, regulated
     and restricted to valid business purposes. Restricting or eliminating
     short sales, complex derivative instruments whose real value is all but
     entirely speculative....all of these require a tough stance to help focus
     the financial markets on serving the greater good of society at large and
     not just personal financial greed or self-interest. 
- Guidelines for reasonable executive
     compensation should be established by industry-wide analysis and representative
     participation of stake holders, including with government oversight.
     Industry guidelines should establish how boards of publicly traded
     corporations can more fairly represent all major stakeholders (employees,
     public, vendors, customers, creditors and stock holders.)
- As referenced above, a form of voluntary
     national service, complete with training, can help utilize the energies of
     young adults, perhaps even older adults, for basic subsistence pay and
     credit for future higher education, pension benefits, or even health care
     benefits.
- If America is to remain both true to its
     founding principles of freedom and a strong leader of nations, we must
     recognize the importance of acting cooperatively with other nations for
     the common good. Unilateral actions, especially military, are corrosive to
     our political, social and moral influence and, most importantly, to our
     own moral standards at home. Therefore...
- Commitments to size and readiness of armed
     services needs to be reviewed with intent to scale back our tendency to
     intervene unilaterally in conflicts abroad. 
- Participation in U.N. should be scaled back in
     favor of working cooperatively with nations of like mind in programs and
     policies that provide aid, education, protection, investment, or relief to
     other nations. Why argue all the time with negative nations and leaders. Work with people who share a broader and more expansive outlook!
- More resources and dialogue should go to work
     and support emerging economies, cultures, and governments who are moderate
     and forward thinking rather than just fighting those who are stuck in narrow
     mindedness and tribal politics. Freedom and democracy is a direction, not
     a goal or a mere fact. It exists only in a cultural context not a vacuum.
     Work with positive leaders and nations and peoples. Nothing succeeds like
     success, cooperation, and strength in numbers. Active cultural exchanges should be encouraged and funded with creative partnership strategies between business, government and NGO's.
- Investment in future technologies and cleaner
     energy should be encouraged by tax incentives which are put into place for a long enough term that businesses and individuals can depend on them and can make pragmatic investment decisions.
- Instead of deducting home mortgage interest,
     what about deducting (e.g. via depreciation allowances) home improvements
     for weatherization, energy efficiency, and other valuable improvements
     (rather than luxuries like spas and pools etc.). Subsidies for home
     ownership seem excessive and thus have bred misuse. A fast changing
     economy and culture can benefit by greater mobility and flexibility,
     especially among younger people. Home ownership is surely a good social policy but it has become excessive and obsessive in a time when mobility and flexibility are the hallmark of success and creativity. 
- Limit travel and meal deductions for business
     to 50% of the amount paid. This would approximate eliminating a tax deduction for the personal,
     non-deductible aspect of such expenditures.
- Eliminate statutory depletion allowances for
     extraction industries (oil, gas, etc.). Let extraction industries use
     their actual costs like other industries as expenses or as amortized or
     depreciated in accordance with standard accounting and tax principles.
- Eliminate depreciation allowances for passenger
     vehicles used for business. Personal aspects of such expenses render their
     fair business use difficult to monitor and why subsidize it?
- Establish national guidelines for encouraging
     use of mass transit in high density environments. Evaluate the energy and
     fuel (and time and cost) trade off in short inter-city flights with
     inter-city high speed transit. Set guidelines for premium charges for
     short flights with proceeds to support the more efficient ground
     transportation (assuming it is more fuel and other efficient!) Private auto usage should help subsidize or make local mass transit free at least in high density environments.
- Help homeowners who are financially "under
     water" by allowing a reduction of their mortgage payment in
     proportion to the reduction in value based on the ratio of their current
     assessed value to their original purchase cost. Crude but simple. At the
     same adjust mortgage interest rate to current 30-year fixed rate by
     national average. Allow the banks to "bank" the resulting
     write-off as a kind of future second mortgage which would stay on the
     books and stay on the deed (separately) for a contingent and future
     recovery, sharing in future value increases with the homeowners in
     proportion.  Banks would be allowed to carry these contingent assets
     at book value for tax and financial accounting purposes. Would be allowed
     to bundle for sale such instruments under certain conditions. Each sale of
     the property in the future would determine a fair paydown of the deferred
     debt.
- Citizens abroad resent paying double taxes to
     resident country and U.S. Review policies to be more fair and equitable to
     our citizens working abroad. Same with corporations. It's important to at
     least be neutral in regards to incentives or penalties for working or
     operating overseas. 
- The health care debate is stuck on a theme of
     "socialism" vs. free enterprise. But neither fit the reality of
     human health care needs. Health insurance should be a mutual savings
     rather than a private company so all policy holders benefit or not
     according to their own participation. People of shared interests or
     healthy lifestyles should be allowed to pool resources and benefit
     thereby. Most hospitals should be run not for profit but for the benefit
     of those served. We need to look honestly at health needs, balancing
     individual initiative and responsibility with compassion and social
     benefits at large. 
- A three-tiered health care system might provide
     a bridge between the extremes: We need basic health care free for all,
     better health care for those who participate in funding their care and
     make the effort to take care of themselves, and room, too, for private
     health care for those with greater resources. Let's make allowance for
     genuine charity from individuals, faith groups, or NGO's for those for
     whom the basic free care is insufficient or at least beyond what the
     society can reasonably afford to or at least agree upon to provide.
     Perfect? Heck no. But is it now? One size does not fit all.
- Phase out social security benefits to those who
     really don't need them based on their assets and retirement income. Sure
     they earned them but gee whiz, they are lucky not have to have to draw on
     them and to let others have their share.
- Reinstitute more dignified levels of asset
     retention for those who have to spend down to receive gov't assistance for
     health care or retirement. Don't make liars or paupers out of people. If
     they choose to enhance the level of basic care they receive by using what
     remains of their assets then let them.
- Whenever possible, and when national policies
     make the most sense, let the states or other smaller entities handle the
     details subject only to broad guidelines and goals.
- Get the federal government out of primary
     education except for research and development and for giving general broad
     guidelines for public education that fairly benefits all citizens.
- Nothing beggars a person more or creates more
     resentment than to live on the crums of society. Handouts, as a way of
     life, demean both giver and recipient. Give recipients the opportunity and
     hold out the expectation that there are services they can render to
     society in return for their support until such time as they no longer need
     some or all of it. Dependency breeds contempt and discontent. Along with a
     handout, lend a hand to help a person stand up and give back. Being
     engaged and active can bring dignity and self-worth, while being idle is
     degrading. This will take some skill and tact but it is both fair and
     reasonable. Employment related vested interests will have to be convinced
     that for the greater good such recipients can be integrated into the
     workforce and all will benefit.
- Recipients of workmens compensation and
     unemployment should also, as and where appropriate, be expected to pitch
     in with community service.
- Re-structure tax deductions for charity
     "above the line" so that we encourage citizens (including lower and
     middle income) to participate financially in helping others around them.
- A comment about labor provided by national
     service or by welfare recipients: federal, state, and local governments
     are sorely pressed to meet service levels and this workforce can provide
     some measure of relief. Further, provision should be made for businesses
     (all sizes) to have access to this workforce. This will require
     re-aligning our attitudes and employment boundaries towards a more
     flexible paradigm. Community service should be seen as not merely limited
     to public services but as a way to help businesses get back to
     business. 
 Well, I've said enough, surely.
Nayaswami Hriman
 
