My Point of View
A New Economic Agenda
Small changes won't do the trick. Here are eight bold initiatives we need.
By Knight Kiplinger, Editor in Chief, Kiplinger publications
November 2008
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
In my long career as an economic journalist and forecaster, I've become known for my steadfast optimism about America's future.
In times of deep public gloom -- such as the severe recession of 1981-82 and the months following the trauma of September 11, 2001-my Kiplinger colleagues and I reminded our fellow Americans of the fundamental strengths of our society and its long tradition of adapting to changing economic circumstances.
"This too shall pass," I would say, if America just made some minor course corrections and built on its strengths. My confidence in America has been validated by our nation's remarkable record of rising productivity, output and standard of living.
Bold actions. That progress isn't over, but it is now threatened, I believe, by daunting challenges that we Americans are not taking seriously enough. I am not referring to the current financial crisis and the emergency measures being taken to combat it. There's no doubt that some of the challenges I address here are interwoven with the issues that are claiming the headlines today. But the $700-billion rescue package, although necessary, is not transformative. The most daunting challenges facing our nation must be addressed with bold, creative measures-a total rethinking of what Americans and government must do to prosper in this new century.
We will soon have a new president and many new members of Congress. As candidates, they may have felt limited in their boldness by fears of alienating key constituencies. I'm not running for office, so I don't have to worry about that.
Here is my list of the America's eight toughest economic problems:
-
Overconsumption and undersaving by individuals and the federal government, as evidenced by rising personal debt, budget deficits and the resulting dependence on foreign capital.
-
Soaring old-age entitlements, which, if not reined in as the baby-boomers retire, will crowd most other public priorities.
-
Addiction to fossil fuels (petroleum for our vehicles and coal for electricity), which contributes to dirty air and global warming.
-
Dependence on imported oil, which aggravates the U.S. trade deficit and impairs national security.
-
An overly ambitious foreign policy of promoting democracy by forcible regime change. However idealistic the intent, America cannot afford it.
-
Failing public schools and inadequate vocational training, which leave many youths unprepared for tomorrow's high-tech jobs.
-
Uneven access to health care. Medical care should be preventive, universal and delivered in lower-cost settings-not hospitals.
-
A broken immigration system, which should be replaced with a broad guest-worker program and improved border controls.
Now, here are my proposals for fixing these problems. Please note they are a mix of public and private remedies -- governmental policies and behavioral changes that we Americans must make ourselves.
Increase savings. Everyone in America-from the super-rich to the middle class-would benefit financially and emotionally from trimming spending and boosting savings, anywhere from 10% of gross income for average folks to a third or half for the very wealthy. Simple living reduces energy consumption, and it lowers the stress of managing complex lives, in which we sometimes feel like a captive of our possessions.
A robust savings rate would boost the capital available to American business, reduce the need for consumer credit and provide savers with future retirement income. Some of Americans' lower spending on consumer goods should be diverted to more charitable giving -- to schools and colleges, social-service agencies, cultural organizations and overseas charities.
Reduce spending. Voters should insist that Congress begin reducing the federal budget deficit, starting first with spending restraint. Tax hikes could come later--but only if proved to be needed.
My nominees for frozen or gradually reduced federal spending: military hardware; a wide array of subsidies to business, especially energy and agriculture; and health care for the elderly and poor (not less care, but more efficiently delivered).
My candidates for higher federal spending: support for elementary and secondary education, basic scientific research, and infrastructure (bridges, airports, harbors and parks).
Bringing the federal budget into balance will slowly reduce Washington's rising need for foreign loans. It will help firm up the dollar and keep interest rates low.
Reform the tax code. The best thing Washington could do to supercharge private savings would be to tax consumption rather than income. The Byzantine U.S. tax code (all 60,000 pages of it) should be scrapped. All present federal taxes -- on personal and corporate income, capital gains, estates, even payroll taxes (FICA) -- should be gradually replaced by a new, national consumer sales tax, collected by the states at the point of purchase and forwarded to Washington.
At every income level, big spenders would pay a lot of taxes, super savers much less. Poor people would get all their sales taxes rebated. (For more information on one version of a consumption tax, visit www.fairtax.org.)
Restrain entitlements. Washington should be honest with us that future senior citizens will have to finance more of their own retirement needs for income and heath care. Congress should reform Medicare and Social Security accordingly.
With regard to Social Security, some simple fixes would suffice: raising the benefits age to 70, flattening future payments and subjecting more current earnings to the payroll tax. Ditto for Medicare.
But it would be better for the U.S. economy and for today's younger workers if Washington allowed them to divert some of their Social Security taxes to private retirement accounts, which are likely to yield them a higher retirement income than Social Security will 30 or 40 years from now.
Curb fossil fuels. We should simultaneously develop more of America's oil reserves (offshore, in Alaska, everywhere) and radically decrease our need for all petroleum, whether imported or domestic, by practicing conservation and shifting to alternative fuels as rapidly as possible. That means more ethanol in our tanks-made not from corn, but from wood chips, sawgrass and other cellulosic biomass. And more biodiesel, too, made from used cooking oil.
Plug-in electric cars will lessen our foreign-oil addiction and help trim the trade deficit, but they won't clean up our dirty skies and warming earth if their juice is generated by coal-fired power plants.
Sure, we should also learn to burn coal more cleanly, but America's electricity future should focus on atomic power, wind farms, photovoltaic panels and hydrogen fuel cells.
America's total carbon emissions should be limited -- in a sense, taxed -- in a "cap and trade" marketplace. Meanwhile, conservation made possible by new energy-saving technologies and the simple-living trend will flatten America's demand for electricity from all sources, whether fossil or new age.
Limit foreign intervention. There are too many tyrants in the world for the U.S. to undermine or overthrow even a few of them -- and some of them, regrettably, are U.S. allies. The primary responsibility for regime change rests with the oppressed citizens of those autocracies, occasionally helped financially and militarily by the western democracies.
The U.S. should embrace the limited goal of joining with other nations in deterring and combating genuine international aggression and terrorism, as when we expelled Iraq from Kuwait in the first Gulf War, intervened in the Balkans, and overthrew the Al Qaeda-sponsoring Taliban regime in Afghanistan after 9/11.
A modern, muscular U.S. military-accompanied by increased nonmilitary aid to poor nations-will still cost America vast public funds. But it won't cost nearly as much as our noble but ill-advised nation-building experiment in Iraq. The money saved should be diverted to U.S. domestic needs and balancing the budget.
Improve public education. America's economic future lies with our children, period. We must spend more to improve their schools, but we can't keep relying on local property taxes, which are woefully inadequate in poor communities.
We should equalize educational opportunity across America by shifting more of the cost to the states and the federal government, which is not at present a major funder of local education.
We should offer more tuition assistance to high school graduates to continue their education, but not necessarily at four-year colleges. Many high-paying jobs -- for example, in health care, high-tech manufacturing, maintenance and repair -- can be filled with workers who get vocational training at community colleges.
Provide universal health care. Everyone in America should have access to health-care coverage, either through an employer, individual policy or government program. Uncle Sam should help subsidize the cost but not run the whole system. The emphasis should be on prevention and healthful living, and more care should be provided at low-cost clinics by nurses and medical assistants, overseen by physicians.
Reform immigration. Workers who are genuinely needed by American employers and were law-abiding citizens in their home countries should be registered as guest workers. This will reduce illegal immigration and enable workers (but not their whole families) to move freely across our borders in response to changing U.S. labor needs.
Our government will know who is here, and be able to track their movements and collect more taxes. Guest workers who play by our rules can work toward citizenship by learning English and studying civics.
Meanwhile, we should better protect our borders against illegal crossing. That is our national right.
There it is, my agenda for America's bright economic future. It includes good ideas from the right, left and center, from private enterprise, academe and government. It gores the oxen of many special interests. With political courage, hard work and some luck, it just might work.
Topics:
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy



Reader Comments (37)
Posted by: William Stuhr at 10/07/2008 01:42:18 AM
Mr. Kiplinger, I've been a fan of your informative website and magazine for years now. I have to say, that after reading your article, "a new economic agenda", I'm sorely disappointed in your world view, especially coming from a person whom I've grown to respect and trust (via your website) over the years. Although I agree with some of your points, I strongly disagree with you on your issues with our foreign policy. Sir, protecting our nation is our top priority (and has been)... I believe the solution is less government. People have to be able to calculate the processes of solving their own problems, and not relying on the government to do it for them. If someone wants good medical care and retirement benefits, then they need to get off the couch, get off welfare, and go out and get it done. Universal health care for all would be a disaster! You know as well as I, that America was not founded on made great by people leaching off of Uncle Sam. America was made great by people working hard for a living, and tenaciously demanding minimal government intervention in their lives. What you propose is nothing short of socialism......communism.
Posted by: Tim Toddy at 10/07/2008 10:57:29 AM
How do you encourage people to cut consumption when they are raised with the expectation that this generation should be better off than the previous? Our mantra as a country has always been to "increase the standard of living." That almost always means a higher material standard. To fulfill that end requires more resources, time and money and people seem willing to strive for it to exhaustion. Until we realize that our standard of living is already more than can be reasonably expected there will be no change in our consumption. The vast majority of the world live on much, much less and quite often are happier than we are besides.
Posted by: RZZ at 10/07/2008 11:19:14 AM
We need to create good jobs in this country by attempting to purchase American made products.
Posted by: SalvadorDali at 10/07/2008 11:32:07 AM
How did we get to the point where having compassion and providing for the less fortunate is communism? I thought as a country we might have gotten past the fallacious ideas that "poor people are just lazy," and, "folks just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps." This is the worst kind of victim-blaming. No one *wants* to be poor, but many are born into situations where the deck is stacked against them from the beginning. The simple fact of the matter is that people without healthcare coverage now still do receive care, but only by waiting until a real emergency arises, when they're treated at emergency room prices. Then, not only are they financially destroyed, but if they cannot pay, the hospital will pass the cost on to all other patients, raising the cost of care across the board. Universal health care coverage would increase the amount of preventative care that they receive, and drastically improve the overall health of the population. This could be done at a *lower* total cost, and individual cost to those currently paying for coverage through private companies. UHC would enable the kind of healthy, productive workforce that could get out and build the society we want to live in. Sadly, the idea of doing things for the common good has become a reason for people to cry, "COMMUNISTS!" Do people really believe that we're still living in the McCarthy era? We are all already paying for other peoples' healthcare, just in hidden fees and price increases. Bring coverage to all, increase the overall health of the US, and lower the individual's cost for healthcare.
Posted by: GI Joe at 10/07/2008 01:25:32 PM
Why should we bailing out other countries when we can't sustain our own economy? Foreign policy funding needs to be cut by 100%. We need to stop feeding the world and start to feed our own citizens. The Bush Agenda in Iraq is a farce. Pakistan gets $10 Billion in aid, yet Pakistan harbors terrorists cells...
Posted by: nehushtan at 10/07/2008 01:40:42 PM
William Sturh is voicing a typical, but mistaken point of view: minimal government equals freedom. Government is necessary to secure freedom, not only by defending against foreign invaders but also by defending citizens from one another. This aspect of government is often reduced by conservatives to protection of public safety and private property. However, since we all have to share a public space, other government actions are required such as regulation of environmental and food safety, as well as setting rules for the shared financial markets. Don't try to scare us with words like socialism. You already believe in socialism if you rely on the local police force and fire department instead of hiring your own security firm and fire service. We already have a mix of socialism and capitalism in the US, and the correct question is not how to "minimize" one or the other, but how to create a proper public order where each problem in society is matched by the right mix of solutions. Don't be dogmatic about government, all governments are different. Individualism cannot solve every problem... sometimes we have to work together.
Posted by: Larry Gutwill at 10/07/2008 01:41:18 PM
Supporting the Fair Tax is excellent! If this alone was done, many of our problems, both private and government, would evaporate
Posted by: SalvadorDali at 10/07/2008 02:22:17 PM
Another point -- the Fair Tax program is a regressive tax that would massively increase the tax burden on the middle class. President Bush's own committee on tax reform examined it, and found that it would require a sales tax rate of at least 34%, would still have problems with evasion, wouldn't reduce bureaucracy, and would make millions dependent on prebate checks from the government. I can't post URLs here apparently, but google for "tax reform panel final report" for the full analysis. Chapter 9 is the one that deals with the Fair Tax specifically, and shows why it will increase the tax burden on anyone making below $200,000
Posted by: Larry Gutwill at 10/07/2008 02:24:42 PM
Re education, how about making it private...no government. Return the taxes collected and let families choose their schools based on each school's performance. Those parents interested in educating their kids would have to become involved by shopping for and monitoring their local schools. If a parent elected not to educate their kids, it should also be their choice. As for immigration: Build the wall; issue a national ID card to everyone legal; stop all support to illegals, like education, medical, and welfare; prosecute employers who hire illegals; send incarcerated illegal criminals back to their home country. Re health care: Also privatize it. Give us back our taxes and let us choose where and when to go for care. Medical facilities would have to compete and that would lower costs and raise service. Re Iraq, only one reason for invading was nation building. Remember of the 19 items in the congressional decree, only one was to replace Hussein. The main reason was because of the treat of WMD. When Iraq becomes a functioning democracy, it will pay us great dividends by having an ally in that region. If a nation is a threat to us, we should defend ourselves with or without support from foreign nations. And to do this, we need to maintain a modern military.
Posted by: Maria at 10/07/2008 02:57:56 PM
...great article. It should be sent (to) the the presidential candidates.
Posted by: C. Lambeth at 10/07/2008 08:08:58 PM
This is the most poignant and honest letter I've read of Kiplinger's. Job well done. Have YOU considered running for office? The politicians simply chase whichever way the wind is blowing. Like (Knight) Kiplinger suggests, it's time we (as the committed public) change the direction of that wind. Enough is enough. But will we put our sense of entitlement aside? That remains to be seen.
Posted by: SalvadorDali at 10/07/2008 09:42:18 PM
Regarding privatization of education (proposed by a commenter, not the article), what of the people who suffer low or no tax burden currently? Do they receive no money to send their children to private schools? This is the *entire point* of the public schooling systems -- to enable students from lower-income families to have a chance at education. Besides this, it is in our national best interest to have an educated citizenry. Total privatization of schooling will *ensure* a widening rift between the children of the wealthy and the children of the poor. If anything, we should be providing more money to underfunded public schools. The current performance problems with public schools can be directly traced to underfunding, not government control. Total privatization of the educational system would condemn millions of children to little or no education at all, which would lock entire social groups into endless poverty.
Posted by: Brent LaFrenz at 10/07/2008 10:57:11 PM
While everyone will agree they want a change and want these problems fixed, it will never happen because people fear the unknown. A lot of these ideas, while very good, are a drastic change from the "normal" life people have been living. It would require a major culture shift to achieve anything like this, but things always get worse before they get better and any President would have to deal with the criticisms and unpopularity until any idea would begin to hold. Something needs to get done as we cannot continue spending more than what we take in and building huge deficits. Does anyone think that the US Government will come into a situation like the current credit market? How long will other countries and investors continue lending us money? No one thought that would happen to Wall Street firms, so what is different about the US Government? We could always print money to pay bills off but that would just lead to major inflation and make the dollar devalue against every other currency out there. How dire is the situation we are in?
Posted by: John Anderton at 10/08/2008 03:35:27 AM
I agree with many of the points listed...I don not agree with universal healthcare at all. Sure, it sounds wonderful, everyone getting access to healthcare fairly etc. But where is the money going to come from? ...straight from the pockets of the already over-taxed American public. Raising taxes is the worst thing to do in this economy. We need lower taxes and cut wasteful government spending i.e. farming subsidies. True, those farmers need federal help, but what about the majority of farms that qualify as farms, some celebrity owned, that do not produce food etc.? More money for people to spend = better business all around = better markets and a revamped economy. It is that simple, yet everyone wants to pay more taxes but don't realize it will make the problem even worse. (On) Immigration- Illegal immigrants are really, really, draining money paid in taxes reserved for American citizens. They get medical, welfare, and free education even though they are illegal in this country...They are stealing. This problem needs to be addressed asap. Cut taxes, get rid of wasteful spending by the government, and more strict anti-illegal alien programs are just the tip of the iceberg in improvements. Thank you.
Posted by: Kevin Brady at 10/08/2008 08:53:02 AM
Great article that sums up all that should be blatantly obvious to our politicians, except for the influence of special interests. Privatization would be wonderful, but to me, is as unlikely as socialism is to actually work in a functioning society. Parents would choose not to send their kids to school and keep the money, leaving us with a large uneducated population to support. And unfortunately for us, medical care is a need by the time you're going to a hospital, not a desire....competition will not be the hospitals' primary thoughts no matter who pays the bills. Well done Kiplinger!
Posted by: Ken Veit at 10/08/2008 10:57:57 AM
Many thoughtful and informed people have written similar articles. What is tragic is that the only ones who don't get it are the pack of jokers who we elected to represent us. Throw them all out!
Posted by: Eglantine at 10/08/2008 11:29:14 AM
I am in favor not only of universal health care but of having one payer--the federal government. When you consider how much money is siphoned from health care dollars to insurance companies--executives, employees, and shareholders--and how most doctor's offices employ people whole sole job is dealing with insurance companies you realize how much of a health care dollar is spent on dealing with insurance companies. Having one payer would save that amount and allow it to be spent on actually providing health care. It is possible that a universal health care, single payer system would be less expensive than what we have now.
Posted by: Steve Wheelock at 10/08/2008 03:09:48 PM
I'd replace #5, a policy of this administration that is not likely to continue, with infrastructure recovery, which I believe could lead to an economic boom. There's overlap, to be sure, with energy issues.
Posted by: Rodger Malcolm Mitch at 10/08/2008 03:13:44 PM
A couple of Knight Kiplinger's "eight toughest problems" are wrong. For instance: "1. Overconsumption and undersaving by individuals and the federal government, as evidenced by rising personal debt, budget deficits and the resulting dependence on foreign capital." Individuals are totally different from the federal government. Ever since 1971, the federal government has had the unlimited ability to create money. Thus, the federal debt has not been, and never will be, a problem. Taxpayers never will pay it so long as taxes are not raised (Taxpayers pay taxes, not debt). There is a relationship between federal deficits and economic growth, because deficits add money to the economy. Today, our economy is starved for money, so needs deficits more than ever. "2. Soaring old-age entitlements, which, if not reined in as the baby-boomers retire, will crowd most other public priorities." The government should roll Social Security (and Medicare, too) into the general fund and pay for them exactly the same way it pays for the military, Congress, the Supreme Court and the other 400+ federal agencies....Rather than starving our older people, the government has unlimited funds to pay for these valuable programs. And oh, please no complaining that "turning on the presses" causes inflation. It doesn't, never has and never will. What causes inflation? Cutting interest rates. What cures inflation? Raising interest rates.
Posted by: Joe Berger at 10/08/2008 05:49:11 PM
Privatize healthcare? Yeah-right. Didn't work with our banking system... won't work with healthcare. Reason: You can't trust greedy execs to do the right thing. We should learn our lesson here, as this same thing happens over and over.
Posted by: ted rees at 10/09/2008 12:54:36 AM
I like all of those suggestions. But I would add we need to find ways to keep people employed vs. importing labor or shipping jobs overseas. The root of financial problems is a lack of production. For production, I don't see anything comparing to renewable energy. We have reached peak oil production while demand increases. This means a sea change in how the world must to run. We get triple benefit with renewable: jobs at home, energy at home, expanded clean energy consumption as the fossil fuels dry up. Any fossil fuels should be left for future generations.
Posted by: Kevin W. Ferere at 10/09/2008 12:57:45 PM
...Everyone knows we need to save, but to many corporations and institutions are making too much money off of other people's ignorance and indiscipline. Let's correlate the education in the schools towards saving and instill healthy financial perspective into our youth for the future....
Posted by: Ken Hoagland at 10/09/2008 01:41:38 PM
The FairTax could save our economy....Because workers take home paychecks without federal withholding, mortgage debts could be met. Eliminating all capital gains taxes would spur investment in securities. The FairTax also eliminates the price disadvantage by domestic producers that the income tax system creates. That makes American producers more competitive and keeps jobs here. Finally, elimination of the corporate income tax would spur expansion and repatriate a lot of American capital. Now if only Congress would get out of the way.
Posted by: Karen Heitman at 10/09/2008 04:39:40 PM
I feel the FairTax would be a huge boon to our economy, especially now. We need simplicity and transparency which the FairTax would give us. The only people against it are Congress and lobbyists. Now, doesn't that tell us something?
Posted by: Aaron at 10/09/2008 07:44:30 PM
To SalvadorDali, the FairTax is only regressive and shifts the tax burden if you change its make up. The tax panel did that by not even including the elimination of FICA taxes. Most Americans pay more in those regressive payroll taxes than income taxes...
Posted by: Charlie at 10/09/2008 09:00:48 PM
...I have an idea.....let's shrink government, reduce taxes, and fend for ourselves. Let's allow a free people to truly be free. Whatever happened to Jefferson's concept of the "pursuit of happiness"?
Posted by: Jeff Locke at 10/09/2008 09:36:29 PM
The Fairtax is the answer to every problem espoused except for cutting spending because it is revenue nuetral in its design....our constitution doesn't allow the development of a nanny state. That distortion began with FDR and we have descended down that slick slippery enabled slope of socialism ever since. And if you read closer Mr. Joe Berger, the author (Knight) Kiplinger was not suggesting the privatization of healthcare...Eliminate No Child Left Behind as a failed government intervention ploy and return education to local control and local oversight.
Posted by: Alex Fisher at 10/10/2008 09:42:00 AM
Kiplinger has it right-- we need to get rid of this insane tax code. The FairTax is the best alternative I've seen so far. ..I read Neal Boortz' book about it and agree it's the way to go.
Posted by: Julie at 10/10/2008 01:10:38 PM
Yes, the fair tax is the remedy for this disaster! Not just short term fix but would strengthen our economy for the long haul.
Posted by: Jim Bennett at 10/10/2008 02:04:26 PM
The four objectives of tax policy are: 1) Transparency, 2) Efficiency, 3) Fairness, and 4) Economic Growth. The Fair Tax is the only tax, existing or proposed, that meets all four policy objectives.
Posted by: Beverly LaCross at 10/10/2008 02:56:23 PM
...THE PEOPLE WANT OUR FREEDOM BACK AND BUSINESS COME BACK TO THE USA!WE CAN BE WORLD LEADERS AGAIN!
Posted by: Don Belk at 10/10/2008 04:35:21 PM
The Fair Tax is the way to go. Also, start in kindergarden teaching self reliance, a do it yourself attitude and I would rather go hungry and do the best I can than be beholden to anyone or anything else, especially "government".
Posted by: Wes Jones at 10/10/2008 06:26:36 PM
Do me this 1 favor. Add up all of your purchases for the last month or estimate what your average monthly purchases are and add 23% tax to your total...Write down how much the 23% is. As you know, this already includes the tax you paid on the purchase receipts. So now, go to your paychecks for the month and see how much income tax has been removed. subtract the Net from your gross income. Now ask yourself this? Would I be paying more taxes under the Fairtax plan? Would I need to file ever again?...
Posted by: lea at 10/10/2008 08:44:54 PM
Great ideas...the most important being the idea of moving to a consumption tax. I love this idea!!...This may be the only way to turn our economy around and stop our slide toward socialism.
Posted by: UnleashProsperity at 10/11/2008 04:07:35 PM
The FairTax will go a long way toward ensuring our economic recovery, without penalizing those who earn less (via the prebate) ...I am an everyday middle-class American and have been a long time supporter, and many respected economists and Congressmen are backing this solution...
Posted by: Adam Yomtov at 10/13/2008 06:27:26 AM
Very well written article. I especially agree with the section on True Fundamental Tax Reform and abolishing our federal income tax system...Call your congressman and demand the FairTax!
Posted by: howard at 10/18/2008 02:21:24 AM
Knight Kiplinger calling for universal health care? I cannot believe my eyes! Good agenda for energy and foreign policy. If more moderates from both politcal parties could be this pragmatic, this country could regain its prominent role in the world. But it appears that the Republicans would rather call these kind of ideas "socialism" and keep up mired in decline.