Elizabeth Warren Proposes Aggressive Intervention to Create Jobs – The New York Times

Elizabeth Warren Proposes \Aggressive Intervention\ to Create Jobs - The New York Times

Elizabeth Warrens latest big idea is Economic Patriotism

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts on Tuesday proposed an economic program of aggressive intervention on behalf of American workers, suggesting that as president she would invest $2 trillion in climate-friendly industries over a decade, create a new cabinet-level Department of Economic Development and even manipulate the dollar to promote exports.

Unveiling a campaign theme of economic patriotism, Ms. Warren promised to announce further plans under that banner over the next several months, on issues like trade and Wall Street regulation.

By pledging to intervene in markets to support American manufacturing and promote job creation, Ms. Warren laid out a goal that President Trump has also pursued, albeit by different means, like imposing tariffs on imports from China and Mexico.

The new proposals were further evidence that Ms. Warren believes that her policy-first message is helping her stand out in the Democratic presidential primary. Her announcement was timed to coincide with a trip to Indiana and Michigan, where she will hold campaign events this week as she tries to extend her recent political momentum.

To give you a better overall experience, we want to provide relevant ads that are more useful to you. For example, when you search for a film, we use your search information and location to show the most relevant cinemas near you. We also use this information to show you ads for similar films you may like in the future. Like Oath, our partners may also show you ads that they think match your interests.

Still, challenges remain in Ms. Warrens bid for the nomination. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. remains the races pacesetter in polling and fund-raising, and Ms. Warren must still shake the perception that her nomination would pose problems for Democrats in the general election.

If China can commit its national resources to promotion of domestic industry, through plans such as Made-in-China 2025, and even democratic Germany can commit a great deal more economic planning than we do, says Warren, its time for America to start planning a future of cutting edge industries and good jobs. Every four years, the Department of Economic Development would produce a National Jobs Strategy, and all trade-related policies would fall under the new department.

The centerpiece of Ms. Warrens program, a $2 trillion spending package over 10 years for environmentally sustainable research, manufacturing and exports, is intended to help achieve the ambitious targets of the Green New Deal, Ms. Warren wrote in a policy paper.

For several months, Ive been arguing with the naysayers who tell the usual story of Warren being too much the shrill schoolmarm who will never reach working class voters, or being politically vulnerable as Pocahontas. Ive watched Warrens stunning success talking candidly about race, and observed skeptics crediting her political, rhetorical, and policy acumen, as she keeps slowly moving up in the polls, benefiting from those lowered expectations.

The climate crisis demands immediate and bold action, Ms. Warren wrote. Like we have before, we should bank on American ingenuity and American workers to lead the global effort to face down this threat — and create more than a million good jobs here at home.

In addition, she values these new tools of domestic economic development for regional development potential as well, so that good jobs can be spread to the nations regions that have been left behind by the bi-coastal shift of capital. And she wants government procurement to be used explicitly for domestic production and job creation. Warren also proposes a dramatic expansion of worker training to rendezvous with the anticipated new jobs. 

The proposal contains echoes of President Barack Obamas $840 billion stimulus law, passed during the first year of his administration, which pledged over $90 billion for so-called green jobs in the installation of wind, solar and energy efficiency projects. That spending came under attack after the failure of Solyndra, a solar company that went bankrupt after burning through $527 million in federal loans. But economists have noted that most of the projects and companies funded by the stimulus survived and contributed to the economic recovery.

As this remarkable plan is debated, the usual suspects in the political center not to mention the orthodox economists are going to go nuts. Just wait for the editorials and columns. Warren will be damned as a protectionist and worse. We will see claims of a false symmetry between left economic patriots and rightwing ultra-nationalists. But the supposed gains of free trade are among the most overrated free-market myths.

Democratic hopeful Warren proposes $2 trillion green manufacturing plan

Many of Ms. Warrens spending proposals rely on instituting tax hikes on Americas richest individuals and corporations, and some critics have said she is promising voters things that are undeliverable. At the same time, the tolerance for larger federal deficits has been increasing among political leaders and economists on both sides of the aisle.

The new Department will replace the Commerce Department, subsume other agencies like the Small Business Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office, and include research and development programs, worker training programs, and export and trade authorities like the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The new Department will have a single goal: creating and defending good American jobs. 

The investment plan includes a Green Apollo Plan that would create a National Institutes of Clean Energy, a Green Industrial Mobilization that would push federal spending toward American-made renewable energy technology, and a Green Marshall Plan that would promote those products abroad. The programs would largely be paid for through corporate tax increases, a campaign aide said, and would include provisions that prioritized investments in historically marginalized communities and provided benefits for fossil fuel workers.

Government contracts issued under the initiatives would include more stringent criteria than are currently mandated, by requiring that federal contractors offer a minimum wage of $15 an hour, more than twice the current federal minimum, as well as 12 weeks of paid parental leave.

And against others in the Democratic field. Joe Biden may be the candidate working class voters would rather have a beer with, but what will he have to say about this proposal? Let his constituents eat free trade? Having supported NAFTA, extending permanent normal trade relations to China, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Bidens pro-worker bona fides leave a good deal to be desired.

Mr. Biden also issued a plan to combat climate change on Tuesday, including a pledge to invest $1.7 trillion in green energy programs over 10 years.

As another element of her plan, Ms. Warren proposed more actively managing our currency value to promote exports — a reference to measures that could weaken the dollar. Mr. Trump has also complained that the dollar is too strong.

To give you a better overall experience, we want to provide relevant ads that are more useful to you. For example, when you search for a film, we use your search information and location to show the most relevant cinemas near you. We also use this information to show you ads for similar films you may like in the future. Like Oath, our partners may also show you ads that they think match your interests.

The announcement on Tuesday, as Ms. Warren visited states with major manufacturing industries, continued her habit of connecting new policy proposals to her campaign stops. In West Virginia, for example, she touted an idea to invest in curbing the opioid addiction crisis.

As part of this proposal, Warren would require companies selling to the federal government pay their employees at least $15 an hour, that employees receive 12 weeks paid family and medical leave and be able to form unions. Labor practices were included in Green New Deal proposals.

By introducing her economic patriotism series in the Midwest, Ms. Warrens campaign is zeroing in on the working-class voters who soured on Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential contest. She is also courting many of the voters who, in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, backed Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who made his support of a more protectionist trade policy a key campaign issue. Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren are now racing to lock down support from the liberal wing of the party.

We encourage you to use comments to engage with users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind: 

While Ms. Warrens sprawling jobs, energy and environmental plans have stirred enthusiasm among left-wing activists, they also draw on ideas that have attracted strong bipartisan support in the past. A push to scale up apprenticeship programs and the mandate that the federal government buy American-made goods when possible echo efforts by the Trump administration.

The apprenticeship model, though successful in Germany, has often been viewed skeptically by high school students and parents who have been bombarded by the message that a college education brings the greatest economic rewards.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren proposed on Tuesday spending $2 trillion on a new "green manufacturing" program that would invest in research and exporting American clean energy technology.

The federal Government Accountability Office found in a December 2018 report that the effect of existing Buy American initiatives, some of which date to the Great Depression, was relatively minor because of waivers, exemptions and treaty constraints.

"We need other countries to slash their emissions, and that means we need to supply the world with clean energy products (at low enough prices to displace dirty alternatives) to put us on the right path," Warren wrote on Medium.

In another proposal aimed at American workers, Ms. Warren said the Commerce Department under her administration would be revamped and renamed the Department of Economic Development, and would be required to create a national jobs strategy every four years. The new department would also be responsible for all trade programs.

Such long-term economic planning would be akin to efforts in countries like China and Germany, Ms. Warren said. Some Republicans, including Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, have also talked about the need for the United States to have an economic plan.

"Like we have before, we should bank on American ingenuity and American workers to lead the global effort to face down this threat," Warren, referring to climate change, wrote in a post on the website Medium.

In a post on Medium, Ms. Warren criticized previous administrations, Republican and Democratic, for putting the interests of corporations above the American people.

The newest proposal from Warren, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, outlines how she would carry out some of the policy goals outlined in the Green New Deal, which has the backing of liberal members of her party.

We should put all of these offices and programs in the same place, she wrote, to make it clear that the unified mission of the federal government is to promote sustainable, middle-class American jobs.

Elizabeth Warrens Higher Education Plan: Cancel Student Debt and Eliminate TuitionApril 22, 2019Image

Donald Trump fused his anti-immigration politics with his love of tariffs to create a politics of nationalism that worked well for him in some traditional Midwestern states. One possible response to that would be for Democrats to embrace a new role as the party of cosmopolitan globalism. But Warren wants to essentially redouble on themes that previous high-profile Democrats have only dabbled in.

The specific policy initiative is about green manufacturing (shes unveiling the plan ahead of a campaign trip to Michigan and Indiana) and its just one plank in a larger economic patriotism platform. Shes describing the vision in broad outlines today and her team says she will flesh out with more specific initiatives in the weeks to come.

Warren puts it this way: American companies show only one real loyalty, to the short-term interests of their shareholders, a third of whom are foreign investors. If they can close up an American factory and ship jobs overseas to save a nickel, thats exactly what they will do — abandoning loyal American workers and hollowing out American cities along the way.

One specific bullet point on Warrens policy agenda is to create a unified Democrat of Economic Development that would combine the functions of the Commerce Department with the Small Business Administration, the Patent and Trademark Office, various job training and R&D programs scattered around the bureaucracy, and the export and trade agencies including the Office of the US Trade Representatives.

The bureaucratic reorganization, however, is basically just to set the stage for a mission statement — the new Department will have a single goal: creating and defending good American jobs.

Warrens specific idea is that economic policy should be more oriented toward trying to promote domestic manufacturing and domestic export-oriented industries.

The prevailing view in Washington — from both political parties — has been that our government should not aggressively intervene in the markets to boost American workers, she writes, before proclaiming that this approach has failed spectacularly.

She calls instead for a multifaceted economic development policy approach thats loosely modeled on Germany, Japan, and China.

This is all broadly speaking whats known as industrial policy, a concept that (largely under the influence of academic economists) went out of fashion in policy circles but thats been making a comeback in recent years largely thanks to the success of a number of East Asian countries. The IMF even recently released a paper called The Return of the Policy That Shall Not Be Named: Principles of Industrial Policy as if to officially mark industrial policys return to mainstream orthodoxy.

The fundamental concept of industrial policy, as economist Noah Smith described in a recent Bloomberg column, is that by pushing private companies to increase exports of sophisticated products — semiconductors and aircraft instead of soybeans and oil — governments can stimulate productivity gains.

Fans of Hamilton will recall that Alexander Hamilton favored setting a fairly high tariff on imported manufactured goods in order to encourage Americans to set up their own factories rather than relying on imports from Britain. Thomas Jefferson, more in line with what youd read in an economics textbook, argued that this would senselessly raise the cost of living for most Americans (who at the time were farmers) in order to enrich a relatively small cabal of industrialists and bankers. Hamiltons view was that to become a really rich and successful country, the United States had to be at the forefront of global cutting edge technology — which meant building factories — and not just a complacent bunch of plantation owners.

Her desire for monetary policy thats more attendant to the needs of American manufacturing implies that most Americans (who these days work in local services like health care, education, restaurants, and other retail locations) will on balance pay higher prices for stuff. The case for doing this is that globally competitive manufacturing industries can breed national wealth over time in a way that non-tradable things like hair salons and child care centers cant.

Similarly, imposing more stringent buy American rules on the federal government will raise costs — implying either stingier services or higher taxes. But in exchange we could be creating the globally competitive industries of the future. Due to the unique sensitivities of the defense industry, the United States already implicitly does this in the realm of aerospace. The Pentagon isnt going to just let the market decide whether or not the United States has an airplane manufacturing industry. And that commitment to American aerospace helps explain why the United States has a globally competitive industry building and exporting civilian airplanes as well as military ones.

Thats the good and the bad — short term costs in the form of higher prices balanced against long-term gains in the form of nurturing the industries of tomorrow.

The ugly is that in a practical sense industry policy can devolve into narrow interest group politics. One example is the way America treats domestic procurement rules for passenger trains. While Japan, China, and Europe have built up their domestic train industries into globally competitive exporters, the United States has not and we dont use or make passenger trains on remotely the kind of scale that would make that viable. But we also dont take advantage of European and Asian proficiency to just use their good trains. Instead our domestic procurement policies encourage Amtrak to buy trains that cost double what European railroads would pay but then politicians send out press releases celebrating the local job creation. Even more alarmingly, you can get a situation like the 737 MAX fiasco where it appears that the relevant agencies were so committed to the success of a major American manufacturing company that they turned a blind eye to safety problems.

Warrens pitch, obviously, is that she wants the good kind of economic patriotism where you promote forward-looking economic development. And the subject of green manufacturing is a promising place top start.

The specific Warren proposal on this score has three parts, a Green Apollo Program, a Green Marshall Plan, and a Green Industrial Mobilization.

In these terms the Apollo Program is a ten-fold increase in clean energy R&D funding, the Marshall Plan is a $100 billion program to help foreign countries buy American-made clean technology, and the Industrial Mobilization (which it would perhaps be more natural to call a Green New Deal were that name not already taken) proposes a massive $1.5 trillion federal procurement initiative over 10 years to buy American-made clean, renewable, and emission free products for federal, state, and local use and for export. Thats roughly the scale of federal spending on defense acquisition and would of course turn the federal government into a huge player in this market.

As a target for industrial policy, clean energy and clean technology make a lot of sense. The threat of climate change and other forms of air pollution gives people around the world a strong motive to want to shift energy production in this direction in a way that is knowable by policymakers. Similarly, because climate change has a global impact the American people have an interest in seeing foreign countries shift to cleaner modes of power production so subsidizing their consumption of American-made clean energy is a very reasonable way of subsidizing American manufacturing. And most of all, this is clearly about trying to push the frontier forward rather than trying to help politically connected incumbents hang on.

Still, the basic tensions around cost remain. In her Green Industrial Mobilization, Warren specifies that contracts will go to companies that meet a $15/hour wage floor with a minimum of 12 weeks paid family leave and maintaining a neutral posture in union organizing drives.

Thats all in line with standard progressive economic policy priorities but it means, in effect, that Warren is proposing to buy less with her $1.5 trillion procurement drive than could otherwise be obtained. And that in turn underscores some of the differences for industrial policy in a developing country context — where the idea is generally to move peasants off the farm and into the factory regardless of how little the factory job pays — and trying to make it work in a rich country like the United States where good jobs and not just industrialization are the goal. But the nature of these big bets is that if they do pay off and give birth to a series of next-generation industries that sustain communities all across the country, then down the road nobody is going to be complaining about the cost.

Trump is angry he cant watch Fox News in the UK He had to watch CNN instead but then “turned it off.” Larry the Cat, UKs chief mouser, causes headache for Trumps security team A cats gotta nap when a cats gotta nap. James Holzhauers Jeopardy winning streak has come to an end The Jeopardy champion came this close to beating Ken Jennings earnings record, but he still made history. 2 epically cringeworthy moments from Jared Kushners Axios interview It illustrated why Kushner rarely talks to the press. Day 1 of Trumps state visit to the UK, in 21 photos Trump and the first lady visited Westminster Abbey and attended a state banquet hosted by the Queen at Buckingham Palace. vox-mark Vox Sentences The news, but shorter, delivered straight to your inbox.

Posted in Warren