The Seventy Percent Solution

Whoever is elected president on November 4th faces a "honeymoon" so troubled that he may sue for annulment before it's over.

Politicians seldom relish dealing with harsh realities, let alone dire economic straits. More often than not, they make tough choices only grudgingly, like the equivocating character in a Woody Allen short story who "hated reality - but knew it was still the only place to get a good steak sandwich."

The toughest reality the next president may face is rallying the support necessary to advance a national investment strategy that restores the long-lost wage growth of American workers -- especially with both parties still paying lip service to balanced budgets.

Unemployment is rising rapidly, and with output in America's basic industries plummeting, the possibility that it may reach double digits is growing. The most recent statistics from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve reveal the steepest decline in manufacturing output in 20 years.

Many manufacturers' order books are literally bare, a situation one industrial labor leader describes as "disastrous." Layoffs in the steel, auto and tire industries have already begun; more are inevitable.

But there is one statistic, seldom cited, that may say more than any other about what the future portends - and what is needed to improve the nation's prospects. That figure is 70 percent.

Economy's Twin Evils

Of late, 70 percent of America's economy has been dependent on consumer purchasing to sustain economic growth. The portion of workers in America who do not have a college education is also 70 percent.

The relationship between these two statistics is more consequential than coincidental; indeed, the declining purchasing power of the average worker and Washington's failure to develop meaningful employment policies to address the flat lining of real wages are the twin evils of a looming economic decline.

Recent administrations, Republican and Democrat alike, have been complicit in selling the public a bill of goods -- namely that globalization, in the form of unfettered "free" trade, would keep buying power on the rise by lowering the cost of imported goods enough to sustain a middle class increasingly dependent on service sector employment.

The approach of promoting global speculation served two purposes, neither of which has served the public interest of broadly shared income growth.

First, it provided incumbent candidates for federal office with a steady stream of Wall Street contributions to their reelection campaigns. Second, it whitewashed the speculative excesses of these contributors by claiming their global investments were lowering the cost of consumer goods.

Free Trade's Flaw

The flaw in this formula is that the consumer savings -- evident on the sales racks of any department store -- fall short of offsetting the constraint on wages being induced by U.S. corporations systematically exporting the nation's value-added manufacturing base.

As the rising costs of health care, food and energy have outpaced wage gains, personal debt has inevitably been substituted as a source of purchasing power, with unfortunate but predictable results. Today, credit card defaults are rising almost as fast as consumer confidence is heading for the exits - down nearly 20 percent in September - striking evidence of what happens when nearly five million family-supportive jobs, the lion's share of them in manufacturing, are sacrificed to the god of cheaper goods.

Credit card defaults are already on the rise, with some credit card companies charging default rates as high as 31 percent!

The manufacturing workers who are losing their earning power in this maelstrom are by and large among the 70 percent of the workforce without advanced educations and are unlikely to find their way into the elite ranks of knowledge workers alleged to be the nation's "bridge to the future." Thus, by turns, the preoccupation of policy makers with aggrandizing free trade to the detriment of domestic manufacturing is inadvertently paving the way toward an economic Bridge to Nowhere.

Renewing Job Growth

America didn't turn from production to speculation solely because of free trade. Globalization is a fact of contemporary life and couldn't be dismantled without doing serious harm. But the flat-lined incomes of American workers argue for reforms that focus investments on our natural and human resources right here at home, where there's more than enough work to be done and more than enough profit to be garnered investing in it.

The plight of an aging infrastructure and the plague of global warming argue for federal tax strategies that encourage public and private partnerships aimed at rebuilding America by pursuing clean energy economy and, in the process, restoring badly-needed domestic wage growth.

The Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor, environmental, business and community groups now headed by former California State Treasurer Phil Angelides, has called for just such a strategy: a 10 year, $500 billion, "Make It In America" clean energy plan that the Alliance projects will result in the creation of five million jobs, many of them paying quality wages to the crucial 70 percent of the workforce in need of better earnings.

The advocates of such strategies are not limited to the usual progressive suspects. Presuming an Obama victory, Bill Gross, head of Pimco, the nation's largest bond firm, dismisses the "magical powers" of foreign governments buying Treasuries as a means of restoring the economy and urges, instead, "fiscal spending and lots of it.

"No ordinary Starbucks [stimulus] will do," Gross concludes, "you need a six-pack of Red Bull."

Funding infrastructure projects, says Eric Janszen, former venture capitalist and CEO of technology startups, "would enable thousands of new private companies, whether bootstrapped by entrepreneurs or backed by venture capital, to develop new technologies...Such new American technologies would be in demand worldwide, exports would boom, and within ten years the U.S. current-account deficit would reverse.

"Instead of creating new asset bubbles," he said, "the nation that invented the Internet - with the help of the government, one must always remember - would finally invent a New Economy deserving of the name."

Sounds like a real good steak sandwich, doesn't it?

Comments

[Earthmover08]

I was concerned with the record mergers of 1999-2000 that reduced "duplicated" jobs. (Those who espouse unregulated enterprise do not adequately address inherent problems including layoffs, two sets of books, and mismanaged restructuring.)

Another problem was the unregulated financial realm, irresponsible borrowing/loaning (The so-called push for homeownership was not the problem since it only rose 2%.) Free trade is elusive and uneven, especially when you pit one workforce or currency against another.

We lack business acumen. The number of MBAs has not led to better business or diversity. There is overdependence on accounting solutions of cutting employees and not enough on the management approach of people as potential.

We talk about "small" businesses taking the risk of enterprise, but we do not take risk on employees. Businesses should receive full tax credit for expanding the labor force domestically and perhaps half credit internationally.

This would also be reflected in taxing investors (one year or longer investment) at one rate, taxing speculators a little higher (one quarter or longer), and gamblers (any investment less than one quarter) even higher. This would reflect the value to the economy and remove the greedy Vegas mentality.

Every government expense would be posted online. Mass transit would be encouraged starting at the high school level. All businesses would have a public safety, turnover, and benefits rating. This would allow potential employees more power to screen employers rather than giving inordinate power to some inept or vindictive HR representative.

[musselmanm]

Marco, I have noticed you have checked in and are continuing to participate in the thoughts posted here. Thank you.
I have always been both a Union man and a populist. I have come to the opinion that we must start to inject money into the bottom of our economics in order that we may support our business structure. Free trade, like communism is a fair idea but does not work, as the countries we are buying from, like our own citizens, cannot purchase the products made by these outsourcing giants.
We can best help our country with the immediate start in rebuilding our infrastructure. This alone will not fix all but we can begin to purchase the products in our stores again.
I do not need another 300 dollars or less!
In a short way of explaining my thoughts, we need a bottom up recovery. Not a top down recovery with taxpayers giving obscene amounts to failed business. and financial institutions that have a policy of greed at the expense of the people that buy the products from all over the world.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

in essence, what you are describing is the democratization of economic policy, roughly 180 degrees opposite the view being enforced by the rentier class of Prescott Bush and his progeny. Common sense, as much as political ideology, argues for empowering workers' real earnings in a consumption-based economy. That, in the short term, argues for the kind of policies you and I are advocating. The larger issue may be how long the earth can endure, let alone survive, the model that Western societies have created and that is now being emulated and advancing rapidly under the hand of command economies in Asia. It's not an especially promising prospect.

[proudem]

yes yes yes

[newshawk14]

Paul Volker's article on needing fewer "financial engineers" was dead on. Most venture capital
firms see only a 20% success rate in the firms that they fund. A number of years ago, myself
(an electronics engineer) and one of the best manufacturing engineers I've ever met, were
loaned to a very prominent medical products company to evaluate, from a technical viewpoint, a
medical electronics firm, that a couple of bright MBAs were considering adding to their portfolio.
In one day of analyzing their schematics and manufacturing processes, we were able to tell
the MBAs not to touch this turkey with a 10' pole. My feeling is that getting the success rate to
50% or better, means a lot more job creation

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

How public policy can, or should, play a role in getting the success rate up is often the defining question in determining people's political proclivities.

[robbie44]

It takes a bunch of economic geniuses to cause an economic crises.............it only takes one intelligent wise man to fix it........Obama 08.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

And a committted village of engaged citizens to make sure he pulls it off.

[drkazmd65]

Exactly Mr. Trbovich - he can't lead us anywhere unless 'we' chose to actually follow. We have a lot of work to do AND a President Obama (or however unlikely McCain) can't get us there.

All a President can do is use the power available to him/her to set the gears in the right directions. Congress has to get behind it, and the people need to supply the engine power to make the system run again.

[walk0nwalls]

You're leaving out the rising cost of international transactions and placing a lot of weight on the perpetuation of the system of globalization.

The fact is, fuel is running out, globalization is about to burn itself into the ground. The very idea of revamping our current infrastructure is going to be immense. It's going to be a gigantic and unprecedented transformation of the country and it's going to cost a whole lot of money but we need to brace ourselves for the eventual runout.

Which means: a return to small-scale economies based on fair trade and decent wages. Wow, what a novel concept.

Also: eat it speculators I fund no gamblers with my livelihood.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree, especially with regard of the relevance of energy costs to international transactions and their impact on the environment.

[AngieMom57]

'Act local, Think Global"

Any community on this planet right now, be it a city, a township, a village, should be able to sustain itself for at least 30-days! Another novel concept!

This is my list of solutions for those of you still grabbing for some solutions:

1. Ethical Leaders.
2. Sustainability is its own check and balance economic system.
3. Irresponsible Capitalism, Socialism, and/or government breeds CORRUPTION.
4. Education empowers the powerless.

We seem to be taking our eye off the ecological problem and concentrating on the economical crises; and if you think about these two ever looming challenges they both require the same set of solutions; see above... all suggestions and all interpretations are welcome and encouraged.

[aofh]

Two things on spending: First, I think what is overlooked in this type of argument is the importance of business-to-business spending in the economy. When business spends to produce, the economy flourishes; when business cuts back, the economy shrinks. If business isn't spending, the consumer won't be either.

Second, the notion that we are a nation of bargin hunters masks the true reason for moving everything from manufacturing - to technical support - to engineering off-shore. The true reason for doing this is to increase the profit margins. Of course, when there is a significant enough savings then you can undercut your competion forcing them to move off-shore, too, to stay competitive.

At one time, there was a notion of "a reasonable profit," and businesses were concerned that their suppliers would gouge them. That notion is MIA, and it is the suppliers who are getting squeezed.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Amen. If Obama is elected, his elevated rhetoric needs to argue for a new patriotism that aspires to a common economic purpose for the American people.

[Mugzi]

That is one of the reasons I feel so hopeful for Obama...there is so much opportunity with the new ET - Energy Technology, which will not be utilized by jm. They want to continue "drill, baby, drill" instead of "invent, baby, invent". We are on the cusp of E.T. and not pursuing it is like buying typewriters and carbon paper when we going into computers and the internet age.

[MuchMadness]

No modern nation can be economically successful without a strong manufacturing base.
Any modern nation that is unable to teach its young people by age 18 what they need to know to get a job that pays a living wage is a nation with dim prospects. There is no reason why our education system should not be able to train young males to be productive workers at age 18. College should be only for those few professions that truly require higher education.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Several years ago I spoke to a large audience of cream of the crop high schools. I asked how many had had relatives who worked in manufacturing; lots of hands went up. When I asked how many had plans to pursue careers in manufacturing, albeit in management, one hand went up. Our kids have been oversold the singular virtues of a dot.com economy, and the "knowledge economy" mantra is an overstated panacea.

[tops]

It seems to me that you make a point similar to a idea that I have been thinking about. In today's society you often here the mantra that every young person should, or needs to be able to get a college degree to be successful in todays work world. The idea being that if we if all students simply have a college degree they will instantly attain the "middle class American dream". This is somewhat deceptive.

The problem is that their simply aren't enough highly skilled jobs for the highly skilled/ educated work force. I know a lot of people with college degrees who work at Starbucks, or other service industry jobs that have nothing to do with their college degree. It seems that most of the jobs today are service industry jobs. While I support education, I think it's dishonest to give students the idea that a four year college degree is going to make them financially secure, especially when you factor in the rising cost of school, and that education is largely funded by student loans.

Young people need good high school educations that prepare them for the real work world they will be entering. Many will need to go to a trade school, or community college to gain specific skills they need for there career. Some will need to get a four year degree, and beyond. But, in the end the jobs have to be there for them, which today is sadly not the case.

[Mugzi]

Maybe if the jobs stayed here instead going of overseas..this is why I feel Obama is better for the job. He is SMART, and it going to take someone with intelligence to get us on the right track!

[Beachrunner]

Here's a reality check for you from the Cato Institute:

"The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.

Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance plans, or doubling foreign aid, or any of the other 175 programs he's promised to expand. Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short."

We're screwed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html

[cavegal]

Interesting that the percentages referenced by the WSJ article you are quoting add up to a total of 59% of the taxes collected which would lead readers to assume that the remaining 41% of the taxes collected are paid by the remaining 26.7% of the population that makes between $50K and $199K annually. The 3.3% of the population that makes over $200K are paying a much smaller % of their income in taxes. If we are to believe Mr. Warren Buffett, which I am inclined to do, then his secretary pays a whopping 16% more of her income in taxes than he does. Mr. Buffett has stated publicly that his effective tax rate is 17% of his income. Wish I could get that deal.

[heal57]

If we got the hell out of Iraq we could start there for $$$$.

[aofh]

How are we screwed if taxes are raised on the 3.3% already paying 58% of the total tax? If they are able to pay that much of the tax, then what % of the income pie are they taking home? These numbers make America look like a third-world country.

[GingerB]

Here's a reality check for you. The Cato Institute is not reputable in any way, shape, or form. That the always right-wing WSJ would run an article by one of it's propagandists shows how low it fell under Murdoch. It's a rag.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Reports of our death in an Obama administration are premature, and handwringing over the wealthy paying in a progressive tax structure in the wake of historic tax cuts begs credulity.

[proudem]

I agree and remember the we also had economic growth under Clinton's tax increases.

I heard Whoopi Goldberg allude to the idea recently that to not pay taxes in order to benefit all of society was truly "Anti-American!" Many take for granted good roads, bridges (even those to nowhere), schools, court houses, police, fire, EMT's, etc. are paid for with tax dollars. Services and infrastructure benefit all and to decrease taxes is to impart a great injustice on the whole of our society (even the rich).

[TRYKER]

Every state should have a solar energy factory and a wind generator factory. We should have home units to install...that would lessen that need for giant multi-billion $ arrays and the new electrical hubs. It will buy us time while we build the big operations.
A lot of small businesses could sprout up quickly, Americans are ready.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

More than ready.

[drkazmd65]

Exactly TRYKER - I am more than ready to install some rooftop solar (I have a great unobstructed Southern exposure) and a small vertical turbine would be a bit unsightly, but I could work with it.

Most of us are ready IF we could get a hand-up getting the initial capital to get diffuse wind/solar installed.

In the long run it would definately pay for itself both personally, and nationally. Maybe kick a billion or so dollars into a low-interest loan program to cover the costs over 10 years or so, with an agreement to sell the excess individual power back to the grid at cost?

Cost neutral in the long run would be my guess.

[proudem]

Instead of bailing out the top and hoping that it will trickle down, which it doesn't , let's try expanding outward from the middle. If middle class incomes can afford to buy products, everybody makes money. However that means paying a decent wage. Here's a thought...let's not pay the top executives such obscene salaries and invest in the workforce. This includes health-care, retirements and employer incentive investment. If companies give to their workforce, they see an increase in production and profits because it is the workforce that purchases their products and services. In other words you sell a whole lot more Ford Tauruses to the middle 80% than to the top 1 or 2 or 5%. Furthermore, when the middle class is making money then more taxes are paid which allows the government to invest in infrastructure and institutions. Everybody wants good roads, schools, hospitals, etc. and that costs money. The top 5% are not paying for it...they don't want to pay taxes and they have the means to actually decrease their tax burden. My issue with that is that they are getting the lion's share while giving nothing back to the society that allowed them to make their exorbatant salaries. It is pure, unadulterated greed and it doesn't work.

Now is the time to fix what the Bushies and republicans have broken. So if they will just step aside, we will, once again fix the problems that they have created.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Youre right. There is definitely a burgeoning consensus out there.

[Opus007]

Interesting post. The fact that 70% of Americans do not attend college is so depressing. Even more shocking 25% never complete high school. We have to raise awareness of this issue.

[texastrixie]

Let me clue you in. While many blue collar jobs need some sort of a technical training background if you are to make good money, college is not the be-all and end-all of financial security. Ask any English Lit major - or Poli Sci - or Psychology major.

If we really wanted to bring back a decent wage in this country, we would be working around the clock to organize workers in unions. People who work in offices don't realize that most blue collar jobs to this day have no accompanying sick time, or in some cases, vacation. So, if you don't work, you don't get paid. PERIOD.

I think college is a great idea for lots of people. I have a degree but do not think it is essential for many jobs. Many people do not have the stomach for four years of college because they are totally uninterested in much of what is taught there. For them, a good 1-yr or 2-yr technical program is best.

Construction workers, mechanics, secretaries and other sectors of the economy could prosper if they had the ability to organize nationally and force wages up, and at least the benefits of common decency - at least a week of sickleave (which could be banked so older workers had enough days to cover the inevitable illness/operation) and at least a week of paid vacation.

[WASanford]

When I graduated from high school in 1953, I went to work in the Santa Fe diesel shops as an electrician's apprentice. I received my journeyman's papers four years later. That experience set me on the path of a very rewarding career. Whatever happened to the concept of apprenticeship?

In 1963, I passed an exam for the state of California as a highway electrician and since then I was able to rise up through the state's merit system. Why can't we offer something like that to our children? Why does anyone need to go to an expensive school and end up deeply in debt just to get a job with a living wage?

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

I've spent much of my adult life either working in union organizing campaigns or for unions, so I could hardly agree with you more.

[JBS]

Seventy percent of Americans may not have a college degree, but that's not the same as 70% don't attend college. More than half of today's high school graduates will manage to get some college. The problem for most of them is they won't be able to make it all the way through because they're going to run out of money, and there's not enough financial aid any more.

Not that there ever really was. But even the GI bill won't pay your way now.

The article makes good points, but I question why this mess has been going on for months now and this is the first real article I've seen that addresses the fundamental cause of the problem - falling wages.

And another point ... those *elite ranks of knowledge workers alleged to be the nation's "bridge to the future."* They were always a chimera.

Community colleges turned them out by the tons in the 80s & 90s, only to have them shut out of the jobs because "American" companies like IBM & Microsoft could hire software developers a lot cheaper by importing west Asians on H1B visas.

And then the corporations figured out they didn't need the H1B visas; they could could have them "tele-commute" from wherever they were. You can build code modules anywhere.

Those "knowledge worker" jobs are easier to EXPORT than factory jobs. When you export manufacturing jobs, somebody's still got to build a factory SOMEWHERE.

Not so "knowledge" jobs. ANYBODY, anywhere can plug in

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Having helped four kids get through college I can attest to just how staggering the costs are. They contribute mightily to those of us in our 60s needing to continue working into our 70s.

[AngelaQuattrano]

The idea that lots more Americans should go to college to get better jobs is based on the myth that there will be jobs for them where they can utilize this education. The unfortunate fact is that the number of knowledge base jobs out there is unrelated to the supply of college graduates. The job market will not change one bit if 90% of Americans get college degrees. There will just be many more Americans with crushing college debt working jobs they are overqualified for.

College debt is what separates the wealthy from the rest and keeps new college graduates from becoming successful business owners and investors. You can't break into the upper class if it takes you until you are 35 to pay off your college loans.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Interestingly, one of the harshest critics of the myth you refer to is Reagan's former Undersecretary of Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, who details the 10 year projections of job categories issued by the Labor Department. The overwhelming majority of these jobs are in low- to modest-wage categories, factual information that puts the lie to the myth which you refer to.

[hypnotoad72]

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=6&threadID=179848&start=0

Interesting read.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Given the staggering costs of college in this, the wealthiest nation in the world, there's little wonder those attending is limited.

[hypnotoad72]

And, certainly by now, the effect of offshoring. Return on Investment.

[Paul]

Good point.

One way to spend stimulus money is on a mass transit system. It would employ large numbers of people and create an asset that stays in the US. Operating the finished system would also employ thousands. It would replace the automobile as the transportation paradigm. Americans can no longer afford to go $30K into debt just to get around.

When the system is built it will provide a real service to the average person and all that money spent buying cars and foreign oil will go back into the economy. We could reduce the military because the troublesome middle east would not longer be in the national interest.

The same argument might be made for a new government-backed healthcare system.

[KillTheMessenger]

The only problem with the "mass transit" future is that it took Europe 150 years to build it. And the result of that effort is a system that still can not and probably never will be able to replace cars completely. It simply makes their use somewhat less necessary. It is also only affordable because cars are very much more expensive to keep than in the US. So the very first step to drive people to public transportation is to raise the gas tax. In this country that is equivalent to raising hell.

[proudem]

It doesn't have to be that way. We can do it better. We now have nothing to lose.

[Paul]

Congress does not have the guts to tax imported oil - they have proven this ever since the first oil crisis in the 70s.

High oil prices did work - but these are cyclical and already coming down.

Looks like it will come down to simple affordability. We blew our credit faster than a gambling addict in Las Vegas. Now there is simply not enough money in this society to afford automobiles.

It may take longer, but the credit crisis will have an effect.

[cavegal]

Actually the "problem" you foresee with mass transit is a hidden solution to better jobs, strengthening our infrastructure and diminishing or dependence on foreign oil. Regardless of how long it takes to build an effective mass transit system, the jobs it creates are jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Although mass transit will not replace cars completely, current US use is up 50% since 1995. In addition so far in 2008 we have seen 2 to 3 % increase in mass transit usage over the same quarters for the previous year.

Strengthening and building upon the already existing infrastructure is a great common sense solution for growing and keeping US jobs.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-01-mass-transit_N.htm

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/us-use-of-publi.html

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Which is why raising the possibility of investing in job growth in a clean energy economy is a more desirable step than, as you call it, "raising hell." Even in a worse case scenario, 150 years is preferable to never -- not that we have anywhere near that much time. The system that has been built and is thriving in metropolitan DC speaks volumes to the possibilities, though.

[proudem]

I agree. And if we remove oil as the strategic commodity, think of the wars that will NOT be fought. We can utilize new technology to refit our entire society and usher in a new age. But first we have to remove the old guard that got us into this mess.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes; it's getting increasingly difficult for reactionaries to argue that peace and prosperity isn't preferable to war and recession.

[Marlyn]

"We could reduce the military because the troublesome middle east would not longer be in the national interest." ???

You are forgetting about Israel.

[vegas9999]

Believe me, Obama is going to forget about Israel real quick.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Protecting Israel is a valid national interest. There are scores of other military expenditures abroad that could be withdrawn without any harm to either Israel's security or ours.

[JBS]

Mass transit works in urban areas where the jobs are concentrated. They don't work so well where suburban sprawl enters the picture.

People won't use it. Why? Because it won't take them where they need to go, when they need to go there and in a timely manner.

I'm in favor of mass transit, but it's got to be:
Universal - go everywhere
Fast - take no more time than driving would
Timely, 24 hour service with minimal waiting
Cost less than operating a car.

Or it's just a boondoggle, and we're saddled with the cost on top of the cost of our automobile dependency.

I don't see us cutting the military. Even pulling out of Iraq, people over there are going to be pissed off for a long time. Bring 'em home, but hang on to them. We may need them again before it's all over. We do need to re-organize and re-orient our military, recognize that our people are more important than all those complicated high-tech do-dads.

Single payer, universal health care on the British/European model would actually make U.S. Industries more competitive. But don't expect the FOR PROFIT "health industrial complex" to go down without a fight. And it will to be a very dirty fight at that.

[Antifascist-08]

Good points. I would put rebuilding the infrastructure and the electric grid as the first priority over mass transit. Mass transit will work in some areas and be unnecessary in many others.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

This plan, combined with offshore wind turbines would create jobs all over the country, stop our dependence on oil and move us towards electric transit of all sorts. Our current grid will not support this, so it needs to be rebuilt for the future green economy.

The jobs needed for the conversion to a green economy will employ people of all education levels. These jobs will be done here by Americans for a fair wage and supported by investment from banks owned by the people.

If this is Socialism, so be it. Private companies would still do the work, but they would have to negotiate fair contracts that fit the model of a working middle class. Enlightened countries around the world are going this route, and it is the only way to make sure that this work gets done and that our economy becomes one based on production and investment rather than debt. The fallacy of a debt based economy has been exposed by this current crisis.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Universal policies always work better, whether in economic development or social programs. If mass transit had the universal reach that Social Security does, for example, it would meet the needs that you correctly cite it currently fails to. The cost is not inherently prohibitive, just limited by our nation's "investment" in 761 active military bases in more than 150 countries around the world.

[Marco Trbovich - Huffpost Blogger]

Transit investments are part of the Apollo Alliance's plan. Go to ApolloAlliance.org for more info.