Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 3:05 PM

In a post last week, I asked why America's new strategy is to "pivot to Asia-Pacific" when America itself needs so much attention. Last night the president replied by making it clear that his real pivot is indeed going to be to America.
In a paraphrase of John F. Kennedy's famous "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask rather what you can do for your country," Barack Obama called on business leaders to reconsider the off-shoring of production and jobs and to "ask what you can do to bring the jobs back." What a beautiful response to the attitude recently expressed by an Apple executive who told the New York Times that Apple has no obligation to fix America's problems.
No, no. Not true, the president emphasized. "We're all in this together. There's nothing America can't accomplish if we all work together."
Sweet words. I've been waiting nearly 30years to hear a president say things like this. Perhaps sweetest of all were his comments on manufacturing.
In a White House meeting a year and a half ago, the president asked me why Americans can't make things like high speed trains, batteries, flat panel computer and television displays. I said we could if we imitated the policies and attitudes of trading partners like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and China. But Larry Summers, who famously argued that America doesn't need a manufacturing sector, was then the president's top economic adviser and that year's State of the Union speech contained nothing on manufacturing or bringing jobs back from abroad.
Now that Larry is gone, it seems the president realizes not only that he was asking the right questions all along but that an "economy built to last" must have a robust manufacturing base. In that earlier White House meeting, I argued that as long as foreign tax holidays and U.S. tax provisions made the tax load lighter for American companies if they off-shored production, they would do so. I urged the president to reverse those incentives. His proposals on corporate taxes last night are a big step in the right direction. Especially important was his statement that production overseas should not be advantaged over U.S. based production by special financial provisions. His proposals to make it easy for foreign students to stay in the United States after finishing their degrees, to massively upgrade U.S. infrastructure, to enforce U.S. and international trade rules, to turn the unemployment system into a re-employment system, and to drive for energy independence, are all very welcome.
To be sure, the speech was not perfect. The president should not hold his breath until U.S.-made cars roll on the streets of Seoul, as he suggested they will as a result of the recently concluded U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement. He failed completely to mention currency manipulation, one of the most important practices negatively impacting U.S. and global trade. And his goal of doubling exports may be met but will not matter in the face of the fact that U.S. imports are more than doubling, so that the trade deficit is growing larger.
But these concerns should not obscure the importance of the fundamental shift in U.S. economic thinking that the speech represents. Heretofore, the policy of Republican and Democratic administrations alike has been unilateral free trade, unconcern with the structure of the U.S. economy and what it produces and provides, disdain of industrial policy that supports specific economic sectors like the auto and green energy industries, and emphasis on services and financial industries as the future of the U.S. economy. This speech represents an about face.
Less clear, but implied, is the possibility that it also represents a major reordering of national priorities. In contrast to most previous state of the union speeches, this speech hardly mentioned foreign affairs, national security, war, or terrorism. Does this mean that Washington has shifted from a focus on the priority of geopolitics to the priority of rebuilding America's productive base and reclaiming the American dream? Let's hope so.
Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images
energy independance? lol...can you say keystone?
unemployment into reemployment? really? how? magical words?
as for reducing taxes for mfg domestically so that mfg stays in the US, you can forget about that...foreign countries who need the work and who have lower labour rates will just drop the floor out from underneath any new legislation in order to keep US mfg's from moving...
clyde; what dont you get? this was another in a long line of empty speeches full of lofty words and zero factual solutions.
the biggest joke of all of the energy independance! LOL...how? solyndra? he wont drill, his former energy czar was ok with gasoline at 8 bucks a gallon....and you think obama really and truly has a plan for energy independance? I mean, come on man, could you be more daft? as for keystone...there are already thousands of pipelines all across the US and all across the aquifier...so what the hell is that all about? POLITICS....whih he promised he wasn't going to put ahead of sound economics...he is clearly pandering to his left/green/environazi base...keystone is good policy, good energy, it helps mitigate the need for saudi oil, not elliminate, but reduce dependancy....which of course is a national security issue...and yet what does he do? he shoves keystone into the hands of the chinese.
way to go obama...way to support america!
Obama's Plan on Energy etc. is Sound
The president laid out a good, balanced, and practical approach to achieving energy independence in his speech: Increasing domestic oil production to reduce dependence on foreign oil in the short term; ramping up natual gas production and improving/commercializing clean energy and energy efficiency technologies for the long term.
He cited relevant facts on this that I don't think he would have presented if they weren't easily backed up: US oil production is at highest levels in 8 years and the share that imports hold of total US oil consumption is at its lowest rate in 16 years. His administration has opened millions of new acres for oil & gas exploration and is now directing it to "open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources."
As for the XL Pipeline, his official response last week noted the decision was based on concerns resulting from a "rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans" that didn't allow for a full assessment of the project's health and environmental impact. He added that the decision was "not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline." Given his efforts to increase US oil & gas production, XL may not be entirely off his table.
I agree that what happened with Solyndra is concerning because I don't like seeing our money get wasted when reasonable evidence was at their disposal to not approve that loan. It wreaked of corporate-level favoritism when government industrial policies should be company-neutral, but advance the broader development of strategically important industries. As a taxpayer, I want my money to be used wisely to produce new technologies in federal & university labs that can be utilized by our military & entrepreneurs (as we've always done).
The re-employment policies he mentioned were also sound ideas. He called for improving the capacity of community colleges to give high school grads not interested in college the chance to learn the skills that businesses are looking for. This will help close the 2 million gap in this country between skilled job vacancies and available talent. The multitude of info on workforce support programs are likely to be consolidated soon on a singular website, just as the Obama administration is doing for businesses/entrepreneurs (www.businessusa.gov) and has done for foreign companies looking to invest in America (www.selectusa.gov).
I also found his focus on reforming taxes and pursuing other policies to make America the most attractice place for advanced manufacturing refreshing. We're facing a structural recession and need to make structural adjustments to get ourselves going again.
Pity you have nothing positive to say about anything.
I always enjoy reading Prestowitz's common sense take on the economy and manufacturing. It's refreshingly positive, and invariably filled with sound advice on the way forward to restore the nation's manufacturing base, after 40 years of neglect and "free market" ideology that has sold off our factories and beggared our nation's economy.
Given the findings of climate science, Keystone XL is a huge investment in an especially dirty technology that the planet cannot afford. Neither the pipeline nor the production of oil from the sands makes any kind of sense when viewed in this light. I suspect a real cost/benefit analysis of tar sands would show this. The fact the Keystone XL is seriously proposed as both a jobs plan and a route to "energy independence" reflects the power and the short-sightedness of the energy lobby. It's nuts. We desperately need a carbon tax to transition away from last-ditch projects like this, into low and no-carbon technologies.
In the 10,000 Republican debates so far, foreign affairs has almost never been mentioned in any depth if at all. In my 50 years of watching presidential debates I have never seen any with so little emphasis as this year. Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, Latin America, Africa barely get a mention. Romney talks about spending more money on the military, but never ties it to any specific strategy. Santorum wants to bomb Iran. Paul wants to withdraw every where. That's it, end of discussion. No wonder Obama didn't emphasize foreign affairs.
Foreign affairs?
There are many reports of oil being increasingly traded in currencies other than the dollar. The likely end of the old petrodollar system and the dollar as a reserve currency will reduce its value in foreign exchange. This alone should automatically improve the competitiveness of US manufacturing.
Clyde Prestowitz is the president of the Economic Strategy Institute and writes on the global economy for FP.
Read More
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE