It's the kind of fawning media treatment any politician would die for -- in any normal election year. But it might just be the kiss of death for Sen. Michael Bennet, given the angry, anti-Washington mood that prevails.
I'm talking about the swooning coverage Bennet recently received not from one, but from two Washington Post columnists; first from Dana Milbank, then from Richard Cohen. True, Milbank's column was as much an attack on Andrew Romanoff as a valentine to Bennet (Milbank seems to be holding some grudge against Romanoff, dating back to their days as Yalies, sniff, sniff), and Cohen's piece was also a pompous elegiac to the golden days when "elites" (like Cohen, presumably) ruled Washington. But no matter. Given the distance most members of Congress are trying to put between themselves and the Potomac River, having columnists at the capital city's company paper singing your praises might as well be a funeral dirge.
Especially damning is Cohen's scolding of Bennet for the senator's attempt to pass himself off in campaign ads as a commoner, when he's really one of the chosen people, according to Cohen -- and thus someone who belongs among the "elite" in Washington. Don't be afraid to put yourself up on a pedestal, Cohen tells Bennet; stop trying to pass yourself off as a yahoo. All this slumming with the stooges is unseemly.
Here's an excerpt from a column so insufferably arrogant -- so typically Washington -- that it has to be read to be believed:
"Bennet's reticence about his stellar qualifications represents something sad: the collapse of the elite. People who should know better -- who, in fact, do know better -- slum with political primitives, thinking they can be wallflowers at the tea party and still go home with their integrity intact. The elite -- often wrong, often unwise -- are scorned not for their mistakes but for their very credentials. It is somehow better to know a little than a lot. In this way, the average person gets a government in his own image -- a standard no one would seek in a dentist."
What fun campaign ads a smart challenger could turn this into. Let's call the following spot "Love Affair":
Voice over:
"Michael Bennet wants you to think he's a Washington outsider. But for an outsider, Michael Bennet sure has a lot of fans at the ultimate insider newspaper, The Washington Post. One liberal Post writer calls Michael Bennet "one of the good guys." Another says he's "the perfect senatorial candidate." If the liberal Washington Post thinks so highly of Michael Bennet, how much of a Washington outsider can Bennet be? If the liberal media elite want to keep Michael Bennet in Washington, isn't that one more reason why we in Colorado shouldn't?"
Not bad for an old political hand, if I may say so. I'll sell any Bennet rival the rights for $45.00 and a lotto ticket.
But here's the point: If Michael Bennet really is friendly with folks at The Washington Post, he ought to call them up and tell them to knock it off. Any more damning praise from that newspaper will be the kiss of death for his political career.
Showing posts with label Washington Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington Post. Show all posts
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
A "Baton" or a Bludgeon?
"Healthcare reform "baton" passes to states" is how The Washington Post headlined today's article about the ObamaCare mandates Washington is expecting states to implement -- which makes it sound as if we're all one big happy team, sprinting toward an agreed-upon finish line. But that "baton" looks more like a bludgeon to many states, judging from the resistance they're showing.
This isn't a foot race; it's a forced march, in a direction most Americans just don't want to go. Uncle Sam isn't the pace-setter; he's the cruel mule-driver, with a lash at the ready for any who dig in their hooves. But leave it to The Washington Post to spin the situation as a relay race in which a few of the runners are reluctantly falling behind.
That's the view today from WashingtonWorld. We now return you to more reality-based content.
This isn't a foot race; it's a forced march, in a direction most Americans just don't want to go. Uncle Sam isn't the pace-setter; he's the cruel mule-driver, with a lash at the ready for any who dig in their hooves. But leave it to The Washington Post to spin the situation as a relay race in which a few of the runners are reluctantly falling behind.
That's the view today from WashingtonWorld. We now return you to more reality-based content.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Dionne's Double Standard
Stop the presses!
Put out a bulldog edition!
The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne says today that there's now "overwhelming" evidence that the most boisterous people at the most raucous town hall meetings got too much media attention during the August recess. This distorted the picture of the nation's real mood, he says. Unbalanced coverage might be influencing policymakers! All the focus on the naysayers may have derailed ObamaCare.
But why so surprised? Of course the cameras tended to focus on the screamers and fist-shakers. Of course microphones get shoved in the mugs of people who mouth-off. That's the way it's been since the advent of television news. And the electronic media's attraction to loudmouths has been something the left has used to great political advantage since the 1960s, when a relative handful of radicals -- people far out of the American mainstream -- learned that they could dominate the news and political debate just by throwing a public fit.
Funny that Dionne only takes note of this, or finds something untoward about it, when those grabbing the spotlight aren't on the left. Dionne has been in the news biz for decades. Surely he's noticed how it feeds on conflict and controversy. He must have noticed how it paints a distorted picture of America.
Six hippies chain themselves to a logging truck, to protest the end of old growth forests. Cameras are there. Politicians take notice. No complaints from E.J.. Nine nuns gather at the gates of an air force base, praying to end the nuclear arms race. Cameras are there. Politicians take notice. No complaints from E.J.. A pair of animal rights protesters splash blood on a celebrity, found guilt of wearing a fur. Cameras are there. Politicians take notice. No complaints from E.J.. One overwrought and unbalanced mother, grieving the loss of a soldier-son, stalks the president wherever he goes. Cameras are there. Politicians pile on. No complaints from E.J..
Then comes August, 2009. Thousands of people begin mobbing congressional town hall meetings, anxious about the direction the country is going. Apathy turns to anger. Normally easy-going Americans begin jeering the political platitudes. Cameras are there. Politicians take notice. But only now do we hear objections from E.J.. Only now does he ask whether the media is being manipulated. Only now does he wonder whether a vocal minority is wielding too much influence.
The tree-huggers, the nuns, the PETA people, the Cindy Sheehans: none of these lunatics represent "mainstreet America." Yet for decades they've held the media spotlight, almost at will, exercising more influence than they deserve, with nary a peep of protest from left-wingers like Dionne. But when the "silent majority" from real mainstreet America is finally pushed to the point of rebellion by a radical in the White House, and starts raising its voice in protest, people like Dionne want to dismiss the phenomenon as a right wing media creation.
I have a three word response. Un. Fing. Believable.
Put out a bulldog edition!
The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne says today that there's now "overwhelming" evidence that the most boisterous people at the most raucous town hall meetings got too much media attention during the August recess. This distorted the picture of the nation's real mood, he says. Unbalanced coverage might be influencing policymakers! All the focus on the naysayers may have derailed ObamaCare.
But why so surprised? Of course the cameras tended to focus on the screamers and fist-shakers. Of course microphones get shoved in the mugs of people who mouth-off. That's the way it's been since the advent of television news. And the electronic media's attraction to loudmouths has been something the left has used to great political advantage since the 1960s, when a relative handful of radicals -- people far out of the American mainstream -- learned that they could dominate the news and political debate just by throwing a public fit.
Funny that Dionne only takes note of this, or finds something untoward about it, when those grabbing the spotlight aren't on the left. Dionne has been in the news biz for decades. Surely he's noticed how it feeds on conflict and controversy. He must have noticed how it paints a distorted picture of America.
Six hippies chain themselves to a logging truck, to protest the end of old growth forests. Cameras are there. Politicians take notice. No complaints from E.J.. Nine nuns gather at the gates of an air force base, praying to end the nuclear arms race. Cameras are there. Politicians take notice. No complaints from E.J.. A pair of animal rights protesters splash blood on a celebrity, found guilt of wearing a fur. Cameras are there. Politicians take notice. No complaints from E.J.. One overwrought and unbalanced mother, grieving the loss of a soldier-son, stalks the president wherever he goes. Cameras are there. Politicians pile on. No complaints from E.J..
Then comes August, 2009. Thousands of people begin mobbing congressional town hall meetings, anxious about the direction the country is going. Apathy turns to anger. Normally easy-going Americans begin jeering the political platitudes. Cameras are there. Politicians take notice. But only now do we hear objections from E.J.. Only now does he ask whether the media is being manipulated. Only now does he wonder whether a vocal minority is wielding too much influence.
The tree-huggers, the nuns, the PETA people, the Cindy Sheehans: none of these lunatics represent "mainstreet America." Yet for decades they've held the media spotlight, almost at will, exercising more influence than they deserve, with nary a peep of protest from left-wingers like Dionne. But when the "silent majority" from real mainstreet America is finally pushed to the point of rebellion by a radical in the White House, and starts raising its voice in protest, people like Dionne want to dismiss the phenomenon as a right wing media creation.
I have a three word response. Un. Fing. Believable.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Talk About a "Crash Course"
The Washington Post reports that House Democrats went back to school Monday afternoon, sitting still, without talking or interrupting, while congressional staff led a tutorial on what's in the 1,000-page overhaul of the American health care system that's been floating around the chamber for weeks.
This way, when they're home for August recess, members can speak coherently about the bill -- almost as if they understand it.
Explains the Post:
"The rough draft of the bill ("America's Health Choices Act") runs more than 1,000 pages, with amendments yet to come. Last week the Democrats decided that they needed to know more about the legislation before they go back to their constituents for the August recess. Hence the teach-in, an unusual basement seminar that lasted five hours with one break for procedural votes on the House floor."
But shouldn't members of the majority party have undergone this tutorial before, rather than after, the bill was written and introduced? And what does this say about the cluelessness (and sheer recklessness) of the people ostensibly in charge; and about the power wielded by unelected staff (and the lobbyists they're chummy with), who draw-up legislation first and educate their bosses about the details later, weeks after the bill is introduced?
More from the Post:
"Some members had a printout of the entire bill. Others used a 34-page cheat sheet . . . . To make matters somewhat easier for members, the packet of information handed out at the door included a glossary of health-care terms, including:
Actuarial
Equivalent
Adverse Selection
Capitation Comparative
Effectiveness
Cost Shifting
Duel Eligibles"
What a scary story. What an alarming situation. The county is being run by a gang of morons -- and their nameless assistants. Congress is about to attempt an overhaul of the American health care system -- based on a "cheat sheet."
Time to head for the lifeboats.
This way, when they're home for August recess, members can speak coherently about the bill -- almost as if they understand it.
Explains the Post:
"The rough draft of the bill ("America's Health Choices Act") runs more than 1,000 pages, with amendments yet to come. Last week the Democrats decided that they needed to know more about the legislation before they go back to their constituents for the August recess. Hence the teach-in, an unusual basement seminar that lasted five hours with one break for procedural votes on the House floor."
But shouldn't members of the majority party have undergone this tutorial before, rather than after, the bill was written and introduced? And what does this say about the cluelessness (and sheer recklessness) of the people ostensibly in charge; and about the power wielded by unelected staff (and the lobbyists they're chummy with), who draw-up legislation first and educate their bosses about the details later, weeks after the bill is introduced?
More from the Post:
"Some members had a printout of the entire bill. Others used a 34-page cheat sheet . . . . To make matters somewhat easier for members, the packet of information handed out at the door included a glossary of health-care terms, including:
Actuarial
Equivalent
Adverse Selection
Capitation Comparative
Effectiveness
Cost Shifting
Duel Eligibles"
What a scary story. What an alarming situation. The county is being run by a gang of morons -- and their nameless assistants. Congress is about to attempt an overhaul of the American health care system -- based on a "cheat sheet."
Time to head for the lifeboats.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Stimulus and Response
If there's going to be an orgy of federal "infrastructure spending," as a means of stimulating the economy, let's at least spend the money smartly, argues Joel Kotkin in this sensible piece in today's Washington Post. "Don't just stand there, spend something" seems to have become the consensus economic recovery strategy in Washington, all too conveniently. "Subsidy-side economics" might best describe Obama's program. But Kotkin argues that we should forego flashiness and fads, opting for practicality over pie-in-the-sky, if we want to get the most bang for our bucks.
I hope some of president-elect Obama's advisors are reading The Post this Sunday.
Make Sure All That Spending Is Well Supported
By Joel Kotkin
It's the new buzzword: infrastructure.
President-elect Barack Obama has promised billions in infrastructure spending as part of a public works program bigger than any since the interstate highway system was built in the 1950s. Though it was greeted with hosannas, his proposal is only tapping into a clamor for such spending that's been rising ever since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005 and a major bridge collapsed in Minneapolis last year. With the economy now officially in recession, the rage for new brick and mortar is reaching a fever pitch.
But before we commit hundreds of billions to new construction projects, we should focus on just what kind of infrastructure investment we should -- and shouldn't -- be making. More important, we should think beyond temporary stimulus and make-work jobs and about investments that will propel the economy well into this century.
After all, it's not that we stopped spending on infrastructure over the past decade. It's that mostly, we haven't spent on the right things.
New York City, for example, has wasted billions on its bloated bureaucracy and on constructing new sports stadiums and other ephemera deemed necessary to maintain Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "luxury city." Meanwhile, many of its subway and rail lines have deteriorated. Over the decades, brownouts and blackouts, caused in part by underinvestment in energy infrastructure, have become common during periods of high energy use in the summer.
Similarly, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has extolled the Golden State as "the cutting-edge state . . . a model not just for 21st-century American society but the world." Yet California's once envied water-delivery systems, roadways, airports and schools are in serious disrepair.
Many even more hard-pressed communities -- Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore
and New Orleans -- have similarly wasted limited treasure on spectacular new convention centers, sports arenas, arts and entertainment facilities and hotels while allowing schools, roads, ports and other critical sinews of economic life to fray.
Convention centers and other tourist attractions create reasonably high-paying construction jobs in the short term, but over time, they create an economy dominated by lower-wage service jobs. Take New Orleans. It was once one of the nation's great industrial and commercial centers. But then the city turned its back for decades on its diverse economic base and invested not in levees, port development and basic infrastructure but in the arts, culture and tourism. The tourism and convention business surged, but the result was a low-wage economy. Nearly 40 percent of New Orleans households, or twice the national average, earned less than $20,000 a year in 2000.
Other places have followed a similar trajectory of folly, heavily subsidizing luxury condominiums, restaurants and other amenities to help lure the so-called creative class. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm's 2003 plan to turn her state around focused on creating "cool cities" aimed at attracting hip, educated workers to Detroit and other failing urban centers. Instead of sparking an economic revival, Granholm has presided over a mass exodus of younger workers who can't find jobs in her state.
Perhaps no place epitomizes misplaced priorities better than Pittsburgh. Widely hailed in the media as a poster child for the urban "renaissance," Pittsburgh has suffered a precipitous decline in population: Its 310,000 residents are less than half its 1950 peak. It now shares with parts of the former East Germany the gloomy demographic of having more residents die each year than are born.
Like other cities, Pittsburgh has sought to revive itself with billions in new stadiums, arenas and cultural facilities. Meanwhile, its roads and bridges are in a constant state of disrepair. Most recently, the city embarked on a scheme to create a 1.2-mile, $435 million transit tunnel under the Allegheny River to connect downtown's heavily subsidized towers with taxpayer-funded pro sports stadiums and a new casino. This "tunnel to nowhere," derided by a local columnist as the nation's "premier transit boondoggle," will no doubt be the sort of thing many states and localities will seek federal infrastructure funds for, justifying them on the basis of both short-term economic stimulus and some kind of "green" agenda.
Although some new spending on efforts such as developing alternative fuels could improve efficiencies, many "green" projects seem destined to devolve into little more than expensive boondoggles. A recent program passed by the Los Angeles City Council, for example, calls on the city-owned utility's ratepayers to subsidize installing solar panels on office buildings. This plan, heavily promoted by labor lobbyists, mandates that the project be carried out by the
Department of Water and Power, whose employees are among the most well-paid public workers in the nation. By some estimates, it would raise the price of electricity by as much as 8 percent. But it will do nothing to slow the continued flight of industrial and other employment from Los Angeles or its suburbs.
A "red-green" tilt to infrastructure programs -- essentially marrying the labor and environmental lobbies -- also seems sure to raise spending on public mass-transit projects. Some transit or rail spending can, of course, promote efficiency and productivity. A significant incentive to increase rail freight, for example, could boost productivity in the critical manufacturing, agriculture and energy industries because rail can generally carry far more goods on less fuel than long-haul trucking.
Spending on upkeep of transit systems in older centralized cities such as New York, Washington and Chicago also seems logical. But with few exceptions -- the heavily traveled corridor between downtown Houston and the Texas Medical Center, for instance -- ridership on most new rail systems outside the traditional cities has remained paltry, accounting for barely 1 or 2 percent of all commuters. Such projects are almost absurdly expensive on a per-capita basis; the Allegheny Institute, a Pennsylvania think tank that pursues free-market solutions to local questions, estimates that the cost to the taxpayer of each trip through the new Pittsburgh tunnel could be as much as $15.
Infrastructure investment requires a strong litmus test. Where the cash goes should be determined chiefly on the basis of how the spending will enhance the nation's productive capacity and raise incomes across the board. This also means looking beyond traditional brick and mortar investments to critical skills shortages. Businesspeople nationwide complain repeatedly of a chronic shortage of skilled blue-collar workers and technicians. More than 80 percent of 800 U.S. manufacturing firms surveyed in 2005 reported "a shortage of qualified workers overall." Nine in 10 firms said that they faced a "moderate-to-severe shortfall" in qualified technicians.
In sharp contrast to sports stadiums and convention centers, programs in skills training for U.S.-based industries such as aerospace, energy, machine tools and agricultural equipment tend to create high-wage jobs, which have expanded over the past decade even as the overall number of industrial positions has declined. Many industrial companies are increasingly desperate for skilled workers and often consider locating wherever they can be found. These companies also produce many jobs that, though not located on the factory floor, are critical to the nation's competitive edge. For example, the Manufacturing Institute estimates that manufacturers employ one-fourth of all scientists and 40 percent of engineers.
A forward-looking infrastructure program would also target places that would most benefit from new roads, bridges, ports and other critical facilities, including underperforming regions such as the Great Plains, Appalachia and rural Pennsylvania, as well as the depressed Great Lakes area.
These areas offer cheaper labor and housing, prime locations and access to natural resources. Making them more accessible to markets and more energy efficient could replicate the great New Deal success in modernizing much of the South and West.
Perhaps most critical, we need to look at how to combine new physical investments with new initiatives in skills training, incubating small companies and promoting better ties with local universities and research facilities. This "infrasystems" approach has been implemented successfully in places as diverse as North Dakota's Red River Valley, the area around Wenatchee, Wash., and in various Southern locales such as Charleston and Savannah.
The call for more spending on infrastructure represents a unique opportunity to rebuild our productive economy and create long-term middle-class jobs. But if the effects are going to last, the trick is to concentrate on the basics and forget the flashy, feel-good kinds of projects that have characterized many "infrastructure" investments in recent years.
Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and executive editor of newgeography.com. He is finishing a book on the American future.
I hope some of president-elect Obama's advisors are reading The Post this Sunday.
Make Sure All That Spending Is Well Supported
By Joel Kotkin
It's the new buzzword: infrastructure.
President-elect Barack Obama has promised billions in infrastructure spending as part of a public works program bigger than any since the interstate highway system was built in the 1950s. Though it was greeted with hosannas, his proposal is only tapping into a clamor for such spending that's been rising ever since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005 and a major bridge collapsed in Minneapolis last year. With the economy now officially in recession, the rage for new brick and mortar is reaching a fever pitch.
But before we commit hundreds of billions to new construction projects, we should focus on just what kind of infrastructure investment we should -- and shouldn't -- be making. More important, we should think beyond temporary stimulus and make-work jobs and about investments that will propel the economy well into this century.
After all, it's not that we stopped spending on infrastructure over the past decade. It's that mostly, we haven't spent on the right things.
New York City, for example, has wasted billions on its bloated bureaucracy and on constructing new sports stadiums and other ephemera deemed necessary to maintain Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "luxury city." Meanwhile, many of its subway and rail lines have deteriorated. Over the decades, brownouts and blackouts, caused in part by underinvestment in energy infrastructure, have become common during periods of high energy use in the summer.
Similarly, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has extolled the Golden State as "the cutting-edge state . . . a model not just for 21st-century American society but the world." Yet California's once envied water-delivery systems, roadways, airports and schools are in serious disrepair.
Many even more hard-pressed communities -- Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore
and New Orleans -- have similarly wasted limited treasure on spectacular new convention centers, sports arenas, arts and entertainment facilities and hotels while allowing schools, roads, ports and other critical sinews of economic life to fray.
Convention centers and other tourist attractions create reasonably high-paying construction jobs in the short term, but over time, they create an economy dominated by lower-wage service jobs. Take New Orleans. It was once one of the nation's great industrial and commercial centers. But then the city turned its back for decades on its diverse economic base and invested not in levees, port development and basic infrastructure but in the arts, culture and tourism. The tourism and convention business surged, but the result was a low-wage economy. Nearly 40 percent of New Orleans households, or twice the national average, earned less than $20,000 a year in 2000.
Other places have followed a similar trajectory of folly, heavily subsidizing luxury condominiums, restaurants and other amenities to help lure the so-called creative class. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm's 2003 plan to turn her state around focused on creating "cool cities" aimed at attracting hip, educated workers to Detroit and other failing urban centers. Instead of sparking an economic revival, Granholm has presided over a mass exodus of younger workers who can't find jobs in her state.
Perhaps no place epitomizes misplaced priorities better than Pittsburgh. Widely hailed in the media as a poster child for the urban "renaissance," Pittsburgh has suffered a precipitous decline in population: Its 310,000 residents are less than half its 1950 peak. It now shares with parts of the former East Germany the gloomy demographic of having more residents die each year than are born.
Like other cities, Pittsburgh has sought to revive itself with billions in new stadiums, arenas and cultural facilities. Meanwhile, its roads and bridges are in a constant state of disrepair. Most recently, the city embarked on a scheme to create a 1.2-mile, $435 million transit tunnel under the Allegheny River to connect downtown's heavily subsidized towers with taxpayer-funded pro sports stadiums and a new casino. This "tunnel to nowhere," derided by a local columnist as the nation's "premier transit boondoggle," will no doubt be the sort of thing many states and localities will seek federal infrastructure funds for, justifying them on the basis of both short-term economic stimulus and some kind of "green" agenda.
Although some new spending on efforts such as developing alternative fuels could improve efficiencies, many "green" projects seem destined to devolve into little more than expensive boondoggles. A recent program passed by the Los Angeles City Council, for example, calls on the city-owned utility's ratepayers to subsidize installing solar panels on office buildings. This plan, heavily promoted by labor lobbyists, mandates that the project be carried out by the
Department of Water and Power, whose employees are among the most well-paid public workers in the nation. By some estimates, it would raise the price of electricity by as much as 8 percent. But it will do nothing to slow the continued flight of industrial and other employment from Los Angeles or its suburbs.
A "red-green" tilt to infrastructure programs -- essentially marrying the labor and environmental lobbies -- also seems sure to raise spending on public mass-transit projects. Some transit or rail spending can, of course, promote efficiency and productivity. A significant incentive to increase rail freight, for example, could boost productivity in the critical manufacturing, agriculture and energy industries because rail can generally carry far more goods on less fuel than long-haul trucking.
Spending on upkeep of transit systems in older centralized cities such as New York, Washington and Chicago also seems logical. But with few exceptions -- the heavily traveled corridor between downtown Houston and the Texas Medical Center, for instance -- ridership on most new rail systems outside the traditional cities has remained paltry, accounting for barely 1 or 2 percent of all commuters. Such projects are almost absurdly expensive on a per-capita basis; the Allegheny Institute, a Pennsylvania think tank that pursues free-market solutions to local questions, estimates that the cost to the taxpayer of each trip through the new Pittsburgh tunnel could be as much as $15.
Infrastructure investment requires a strong litmus test. Where the cash goes should be determined chiefly on the basis of how the spending will enhance the nation's productive capacity and raise incomes across the board. This also means looking beyond traditional brick and mortar investments to critical skills shortages. Businesspeople nationwide complain repeatedly of a chronic shortage of skilled blue-collar workers and technicians. More than 80 percent of 800 U.S. manufacturing firms surveyed in 2005 reported "a shortage of qualified workers overall." Nine in 10 firms said that they faced a "moderate-to-severe shortfall" in qualified technicians.
In sharp contrast to sports stadiums and convention centers, programs in skills training for U.S.-based industries such as aerospace, energy, machine tools and agricultural equipment tend to create high-wage jobs, which have expanded over the past decade even as the overall number of industrial positions has declined. Many industrial companies are increasingly desperate for skilled workers and often consider locating wherever they can be found. These companies also produce many jobs that, though not located on the factory floor, are critical to the nation's competitive edge. For example, the Manufacturing Institute estimates that manufacturers employ one-fourth of all scientists and 40 percent of engineers.
A forward-looking infrastructure program would also target places that would most benefit from new roads, bridges, ports and other critical facilities, including underperforming regions such as the Great Plains, Appalachia and rural Pennsylvania, as well as the depressed Great Lakes area.
These areas offer cheaper labor and housing, prime locations and access to natural resources. Making them more accessible to markets and more energy efficient could replicate the great New Deal success in modernizing much of the South and West.
Perhaps most critical, we need to look at how to combine new physical investments with new initiatives in skills training, incubating small companies and promoting better ties with local universities and research facilities. This "infrasystems" approach has been implemented successfully in places as diverse as North Dakota's Red River Valley, the area around Wenatchee, Wash., and in various Southern locales such as Charleston and Savannah.
The call for more spending on infrastructure represents a unique opportunity to rebuild our productive economy and create long-term middle-class jobs. But if the effects are going to last, the trick is to concentrate on the basics and forget the flashy, feel-good kinds of projects that have characterized many "infrastructure" investments in recent years.
Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and executive editor of newgeography.com. He is finishing a book on the American future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)