Two Polarizing Policies That Would Expand And Stimulate Our Economy

Two Polarizing Policies That Would Expand and Stimulate Our Economy

President Barack Obama's January 20, 2015 State of the Union speech hit on many policy points. Two of them drew my focused interest due to the fact that they are policies that I have advocated for in some of my previous Hubs. A further point of interest struck me during the post speech spin delivered by both Democrats and Republicans. The two parties are very supportive of one policy and strongly opposed to the other. Of course they are on opposite sides of both of these issues.

I will attempt in this Hub to show why each side should support both of these policies and alter their economic and political orthodoxies. Each issue will achieve economic expansion in an important and similar aspect. The first issue concerns the increased inequality of wealth in this nation. The President proposed several new initiatives to address this problem during his speech. Democrats support them and Republicans strongly oppose them.

Secondly, the President argues for the passage of "Fast Track" status on two trade negotiations that are reaching fruition. He feels that these two trade agreements would greatly expand trade between ourselves and Asia and Europe. The Republicans are generally supportive of this policy while most Democrats have expressed extreme reservations regarding these negotiations.

I will delve further into these two issues and show why and how both of President Obama's policies regarding them will greatly expand the economy. My summary will show how both policies will accomplish this by expanding buying power domestically and expanding markets abroad.

The President had finally begun to sound the alarm about wealth inequality after the 2014 elections and now during the State of the Union speech. He highlighted this new emphasis with a few policies that would help narrow the widening wealth gap. President Obama announced that he would propose a rise of the top income tax rate, raising the capital gains tax, and eliminating an inheritance tax break.

He further proposed using this added revenue to give middle and lower class families tax breaks. A tax credit for two worker families was proposed for families with incomes less than $210,000 up to $500 a credit. The earned income tax credit will receive a raise as will the child care tax credit. He also proposed easier access to tax free retirement accounts.

College students will also benefit by way of a proposal to allow for two years of free tuition at a public community college. These students would have to maintain a 2.5 GPA or higher. Furthermore the schools they attend must be fully accredited and their credits must be fully transferable to a four year college.

Finally he reiterated his proposal for a minimum wage hike to $10.50 an hour. This proposal is vital for strengthening the bottom income level for our wage earners and hopefully it reverberates its way up the wage chain. It is an important first step yet hardly a living wage.

Democrats argue that these policies to expand the wealth base and shrink the wealth gap are much fairer to all Americans and they will stimulate the economy. Republicans argue that they are job killers that will increase unemployment, destroy small businesses, and increase the budget deficit.

The second area that the President emphasized that I would like to examine is his request to Congress for "Fast Track" authority for his trade negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment (TTIP). The most controversial of these two negotiations is the TPP. The reason for this is that the Pacific Rim nations have historically undercut our trade with cheaper labor and onerous trade restrictions.

Developing countries inherently have cheaper labor rates due to their relatively recent rise out of poverty. Nations have also imposed protective tariffs to aid their fledgling industries as they struggle to gain a foothold in the world economy.

The United States took this protectionist track throughout its early history and throughout the Nineteenth Century. In fact, our government generated the bulk of its revenues by way of these protective tariffs. This practice did not end until the national income tax was instituted through the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1913.

The time has now come where the trade interests of developed and developing countries have begun to merge. The Asian countries involved in these negotiations have developed to the extent where they no longer have a massive wage advantage in their manufacturing sector. The developed countries want their trade barriers lowered before they give them wider access to international trade.

Lowering trade restrictions is now in the national economic interests of all of these nations. Both sides are now strong enough economically to seek a less restrictive trade environment as a way to access as many foreign markets as possible.

The main sticking points holding up TPP at this time center around assuring product quality standards as well as providing mechanisms to detect and punish cheating nations. The developed nations fear that the sparse or non-existent regulatory agencies within developed countries will result in shoddy and dangerous products being imported into their countries. The developing countries must prove that they will require their industries to ramp up to proper international standards so that they can become respected international trade partners.

The increase of high quality imports into developing nations by way of these trade treaties should enable this process because their citizenry will now expect higher quality products. An example of this was the forced improvement of American car companies in the face of superior quality imports beginning in the 1970s especially from Japan.

The TTIP is considered to be a significant but lower impact negotiation because the trade barriers between the United States and Europe are already low. This is still an important negotiation because it encompasses a third of total global trade. Its major goals are to increase further market access for all nations involved, create specific regulations, and formalize trade rules between the United States and the European Union. Opponents believe that this trade agreement could erode national sovereignty as well as enabling and protecting corporate predatory actions.

What then are the similarities in these two policies that will greatly expand our economy? What are the differences that cause such huge polarization?

The similarities lie in that both policies expand the total wealth of the nation. The lower and middle classes must spend this additional wealth. Saving or offshoring these additional funds is not an option for them. Thus transferring some wealth to the lower and middle classes instantly raises economic activity which stimulates business and creates wealth for all involved.

Trade liberalization treaties reduce tariffs and other barriers increasing trade activity. This policy increases economic wealth due to the expanding trade playing field. This policy also expands wealth for workers because this increased economic wealth leads to a greater level of higher quality jobs.

Yes, some jobs will be lost to nations with lower cost labor. It is the duty of all nations to increase the skills of its citizenry by investing in a top rate educational system for both its children and its adults. This will help them adapt to a changing global work environment. Investing for a knowledge based and technology heavy economy is critical. It is also their job to prevent nations from dumping shoddy products into their markets as well as ensuring that trade barriers remain lowered.

The differences that cause polarization regarding these two policies reside in the blind ideologies within both the liberal Democrat and conservative Republican camps. Wealth and income gap lowering strategies are Democrat ideals but are considered class warfare in most Republican circles. Trade liberalization treaties are libertarian Republican ideals but are anathema to most Democrats because they feel that they destroy American jobs.

The key for all political players is to drop their hardened economic ideologies and search for policies that actually deliver economic growth. A search for common ground as I have written about within this Hub is also key. Political polarization has led to legislative gridlock and economic myopia.

Our politicians also need to focus on policies that are best for the majority of their citizens and not on what policies best serve their political aspirations. In other words, where have all of our statesmen gone? There still are some around but far fewer than in the past. Political partisanship now rules the day over making the lives of their constituents better.

Our economy is currently on a path of steady and growing recovery. Unemployment is down to 5.5% but there are still problems. There are many structurally unemployed people out there who are no longer seeking employment and are resigned to this lot in their lives. Wages are rising anemically causing people to fall behind in their standard of living.

The time is now for our political leaders to bury their past ideologies and take a strong new look at the policies I have outlined and come up with legislation that will maximize wealth in this country and robustly grow our economy. Adopting legislation to shrink the wealth gap and free up international trade will definitely achieve real and sustained growth. This will quickly raise up all boats in this economy and put the United States on the road back to being the preeminent economy in the world and a model for what other countries should do with their own economies.

More by this Author

Comments 19 comments

FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 23 months ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

Well done. Many of us are tired of hearing individual issues be expressed in terms of 'the Democrats have one view', 'the Republicans have another'. Every time we see that discussion, it reinforces the notion that there are only two sides to the story, and you have to choose a side. Most thinking people do not agree with any other person 100% of the time, much less with any other group of people.

Concur when you write “Political partisanship now rules the day …” and when you write “Political polarization has led to legislative gridlock and economic myopia.” I feel you are expressing a desire for change when you write “The key for all political players is …” and “Our politicians also need to focus …”, but experience has shown that asking a politician to do something out of the goodness of their heart is doomed to failure, they have to gain prestige or power in return before they will help. That is especially the case if it means going against the will of the party that got them to their position of prestige and power.

We all know partisanship IS the problem, the question is what do we do to undo partisanship and develop a more functional system of governance?

profile image

HSchneider 23 months ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

My hope is that our politicians will look at the issues first and develop a viable solution before they examine their party position. It sees to me that this spate of hyper partisanship began with the late Lee Atwater who ran George H.W. Bush's Presidential campaign in 1988. Divide and conquer was and has become the rule. We, the citizens, then suffer. It is a shame and I don't see a cure on the horizon. Thank you for your comments, FitnezzJim.

lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 23 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

Very informative. I can see a lot of good points here but there are some pitfalls

(1) The widening gap between the rich and poor. He's taking Warren Buffets line in increasing the top tax rate while giving tax breaks to middle and lower income earners. This only works so far as its not what you earn that makes the difference but what you do with it. To borrow a line from Dickens 'annual income twenty pounds annual expenditure twenty pounds and six results in hardship. Annual income income twenty pounds with expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and sixpence results in bliss'

(2) Trade agreements. Europe itself is an economic basket causeway the moment with real danger the eurozone could actually fall apart

America built her wealth because she was more technologically advanced. She can gain with trade agreements but needs to stay ahead of the pack as well

Really enjoyed this hub

Larry Rankin profile image

Larry Rankin 23 months ago from Oklahoma

Very thought provoking stuff!

profile image

HSchneider 23 months ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

I agree with your point thoroughly, Lawrence, that it is what you do with your additional wealth and income that counts. The wealthy and corporations have been sitting on hoards of funds that our economy has desperately needed for growth. We need more of this money in circulation. Our strongest economies have occurred when income tax rates are more progressive and wealth gaps subsequently slimmer. I also agree that America must keep up its technological edge or else these new trade treaties will spell doom for us. This should never happen with the wealth we have available for education. Thank you for our comments, Lawrence01.

profile image

HSchneider 23 months ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

Thank you very much for your kind comments, Larry.

lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 23 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

It's interesting to look at these policies and see how some of the smaller 'city state' nations have created their wealth. many of them don't have the social security nets that the bigger nations have but they do have the idea of extended families working together

profile image

HSchneider 23 months ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

Strong family ties are very important to the creation of a strong society. Unfortunately larger countries become so far flung and complex that people often fall through the economic cracks. Sometimes its their fault but often it is not. That is why the social safety net is usually essential. Thank you again for your further comments, Larence01.

lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 23 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

I agree with you. Just trying to look at it from another perspective. All are important but it's what with them. Thanks for the ideas after all 'If America sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold '

profile image

HSchneider 23 months ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

That is certainly true, Lawrence. Thank you for your comments.

RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 23 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

I certainly agree that what's needed is for politicians to "drop their hardened economic ideologies and search for policies that actually deliver economic growth." But I'm not sure that's possible in this era of our national politics. Ideological purity has become a necessity on both sides if a politician wants to keep the support of the most fervid and active members of the party's base. And politicians, being human, are quite committed to self preservation. The electorate has become tribalized, and strict adherence to a particular ideology is now used as a shibboleth to determine whether you are part of our tribe or not. Until that changes, politicians will continue to stridently attempt to impose the most extreme interpretations of their ideology rather than searching for compromises that actually work.

profile image

HSchneider 23 months ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

I agree with what you are saying Ron. Unfortunately it is a sad state of affairs. The things that are needed to be done to improve the lives of Americans remain stuck in gridlock. Maybe if more people with moderate, common sense views became engaged in the process, things might change. I doubt it will happen any time soon. Thank you for your comments.

Randy Horizon profile image

Randy Horizon 23 months ago from Philadelphia

Very well thought out hub. You seem to have some very good insight into these issues. They are over my head, as I don't have all the data to fully comprehend this stuff and usually don't like to think about these kinds of issues. But, I've watched my standard of living decline as the years go by and do not like it. I learned much reading your page. Thanks and great job.

profile image

HSchneider 23 months ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

Thank you very much for your comments, Randy. These issues are very complex but the bottom line is that our political leaders must start to think about what is best for their constituents and not what is best for their campaign war chests. These policies expand our economy and they need to get behind them. Thank you also for your follow and kind fan mail.

lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 22 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

All I can say is 'good luck trying to get them to work together' all we hear from our parliament is they have to be 'polarized' because that's the way democracy works!! We hate it too!!

profile image

HSchneider 22 months ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

I agree with you Lawrence. It appears to be impossible at this time and that is truly infuriating. The people who they work for deserve better. No matter what country is involved. Thank you again for your comments.

Kristen Howe profile image

Kristen Howe 20 months ago from Northeast Ohio

Great hub. It was informative on your take on Obama's policies for our economy. It would be better with ad capsules and photos to drive more traffic to your hub--and all of them. Voted up!

profile image

HSchneider 20 months ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

Thank you very much for your comments, Kristen.

Kristen Howe profile image

Kristen Howe 20 months ago from Northeast Ohio

My pleasure HSchenider.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article