Las Vegas Sun

July 4, 2015

Currently: 101° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account


How to put America back together

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Until we fully understand what turned two brothers who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers, it is hard to make any policy recommendation other than this: We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger and healthier so it remains a vibrant counterexample to whatever bigoted ideology may have gripped these young men. With all our warts, we have built a unique society — a country where a black man, whose middle name is Hussein and whose grandfather was a Muslim, can run for president and first defeat a woman in his own party and then four years later a Mormon from the opposition, and no one thinks twice about it. With so many societies around the world being torn apart, especially in the Middle East, it is vital that America survives and flourishes as a beacon of pluralism.

Rebuilding our strength has to start with healing our economy. In that regard, it feels as if our budget drama has dragged on for so long that it has not only been drained of all emotional energy but nobody even remembers the plot anymore. It’s worth recalling: What are we trying to do?

We’re trying to put America back on a sustainable growth track that will expand employment, strengthen our fiscal balance sheet to withstand future crises and generate resources to sustain the most needy and propel the next generation. That requires three things: We need to keep investing in the engines of our growth — infrastructure, government-financed research, education, immigration and regulations that incentivize risk-taking but prevent recklessness. We need to reform Social Security and Medicare so they can support all the baby boomers about to retire. And we need to raise more revenues, in the least painful way possible, because we can’t just cut everything. You can lose weight quickly by cutting off both thumbs, but that will be a problem at work.

It was good to see President Barack Obama put out a budget proposal that addressed all three needs. The attacks on him from the left are unfair because, ultimately, we will need to do all three even more. As Bloomberg News reported last week: “Typical wage-earners retiring in 2010 will receive at least $3 for every $1 they contributed to the Medicare health-insurance program, according to an Urban Institute study.” That’s unsustainable. The Republican budget plan, though, would cut so much so fast — including taxes —that it would leave virtually nothing for investing in our growth engines. That’s irresponsible.

So what to do? We need a more “radical center” — one much more willing to suggest radically new ideas to raise revenues, not the “split-the-difference-between-the-same-old-options center.” And the best place to start is with a carbon tax.

A phased-in carbon tax of $20 to $25 a ton could raise around $1 trillion over 10 years, as we each pay a few more dimes and quarters for every gallon of gasoline or hour of electricity. With that new revenue stream, we’d have so many more options. One, preferred by Republicans like the statesman George Shultz and the Nobel laureate Gary Becker, is to make the carbon tax “revenue neutral.” It could be offset entirely by a rebate or by cutting tax rates for every U.S. citizen and corporation, which would increase spending. Another option, the one I’d prefer, would devote half the carbon-tax revenues to individual and corporate tax cuts, use a quarter for new investments in infrastructure, preschool education, community colleges and research — which would create jobs now and tomorrow — and then use a quarter on deficit reduction.

In short, if you added such a carbon tax to Obama’s budget, you’d have the makings of a radical grand bargain: Republicans would have the income tax cuts they want; Democrats would get the additional infrastructure stimulus they want, plus a new revenue stream to start gradually addressing the deficit, while reducing the amount that we’d have to bite from entitlements now; and the country would have a vehicle to address climate change and to drive clean-tech innovation (and to take money away from people who fund jihadist hate sites on the Internet).

However we divide the money, a carbon tax would enable a radical grand bargain that would be more fiscally responsible for the long run and more stimulative in the short run, paving the way to more sustainable growth. (Yes, a carbon tax is not painless. We would have to, and easily can, cushion the poor from its impact.) We’d be serving the present and the future. Here’s one example how: Today states are slashing budgets for community colleges, just when every good job requires more skill. That is truly cutting off our thumbs to lose weight. I recently interviewed Gary Green, the president of Forsyth Technical Community College, in Winston-Salem, N.C., with 10,000 students.

“We have a labor surplus in this country and a labor shortage at the same time,” Green explained to me. Workers in North Carolina, particularly in textiles and furniture, who lost jobs either to outsourcing or the recession in 2008, often “do not have the skills required to get a new job today” in the biotech, health care and manufacturing centers that are opening in the state.

If before, he added, “you just needed a high school shop class or a short postsecondary certificate to work in a factory, now you need an associate degree in machining,” a two-year program that requires higher math, IT and systems skills. In addition, some employers are now demanding that you not only have an associate degree but that nationally recognized skill certifications be incorporated into the curriculum to show that you have mastered the skills they want, like computer-integrated machining.

I know: If we can’t get some simple gun control, how do we get a carbon tax to pay for all of this? With both, you have to try and keep trying, until the unimaginable becomes the inevitable. Our goal is not just balancing the budget. It’s generating the resources in the most intelligent way possible to renew America for the 21st century. I hope the president swings for the fences. It’s the only way to revive the country and a moribund Republican Party.

“Margaret Thatcher’s big ideas set the context for the creation of New Labour,” said Don Baer, the former Clinton administration communications chief. “Ronald Reagan’s big ideas did the same for the New Democrats.” Maybe only big ideas from Obama can give birth to New Republicans — and the revival of the country. Competition works. But if we treat every good big idea as “dead on arrival,” then so are we. We cannot allow that. An interdependent world desperately needs an America at its best.

Thomas Friedman is a columnist for The New York Times.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 6 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Very good strategy for rebuilding Mr. Friedman. BUT,... sadly it lacks one key element for success: A national leader. President Obama has constantly and consistently shown, first as a junior Senator from Illinois [and never really getting past that political stage], and then as President, and now with all his political capitol exhausted, he is not a national leader. He was, and still is, not up for the job as President. America will not get back on the road to recovery until President Obama is out of the Oval Office. The Democratic party, the President's base, and even moderate Democrats are jumping ship and distancing themselves from the President. It's only less than 4 months into his second term. It will just get worse leading up to the midterm elections and 2016. I opine the Republican party can put up anyone in 2016 and the candidate will have a cake walk into the White House. Even if that will be the dynamic female duo of Hillary and Michelle with either/or in the first and second place positions on the ballot.

    Carmine D

  2. It lacks two things, Carmine. Yes, we really COULD use a national leader. BUT we could also use a Republican't Party that can actually present some doable ideas rather than working so hard to "Make Obama a one-term President (and the h--L with what that does to the country!)" and rejecting Democratic ideas. A good place to start is to make the Congressional oath of office supreme, above any other - especially such as the one Norquist and his ilk put out.

  3. Gee Robert I wonder if you said the same when Bush was president. He could have used Democrat support too from Pelosi and Reid. He didn't get it, did he?

    Carmine D

  4. Robert:

    Listen carefully. This is the 5th year of Obama's Presidential term. He can't blame all the current evils and ills on Bush any more. It's Obama's economy and his world affairs now.

    Carmine D

  5. Why should I have, CarmineD? Did Democrats place more emphasis on upholding an oath to a private individual than to their oaths of office? Did either Ms Pelosi or Mr Reed vow that their single most important job in the ensuing 4 years was to insure that W became a one-term President and then actively work to pursue that goal? There's little data on how many times a filibuster has been invoked. Data on cloture, used specifically to cut off a filibuster, is widely available. I suggest you review it. During W's first term, there were 133 votes of cloture filed - probably by Democrats (the majority rarely uses the filibuster as a lever). During Obama's first term there were 252 clotures motions filed, probably by Republican'ts. Look further and you will notice that the USE of the filibuster also changed. The Republican'ts have used filibuster increasingly not to evade a vote on an item, but to prevent items from even being brought to the floor for debate. Is it your position that Republican'ts were, in fact, using the filibuster to somehow HELP the President?

    Carmine: Listen carefully. Obama rarely now blames W except for the issues, like the recession, that clearly began during W's administration. He justifiably blames Republicant's for actively working to sabotage his efforts to build our economy. True, however, W was/is a Republican't...

  6. Robert: Principled opposition is Congress' job. Especially when there is a President like Obama who refuses to lead by building alliances and forging common ground.

    Carmine D