From: Our Daily Bread
Our Only Hope
READ: 1 Thess. 4:13-18
We should live . . . godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope. —Titus 2:12-13An anonymous author wrote, “When I was first converted, and for some years afterward, the second coming of Christ was a thrilling idea, a blessed hope, a glorious promise, the theme of some of the most inspiring songs of the church.
“Later it became an accepted tenet of faith, a cardinal doctrine, a kind of invisible trademark of my ministry. It was the favorite arena of my theological discussions, in the pulpit and in print. Now suddenly the second coming means something more to me. Paul called it ‘the blessed hope.’ But today it appears as the only hope of the world.”
From the human standpoint, there is no solution for the struggles of the world. Leaders are naturally frustrated in trying to deal with the increasing problems in society. The only complete and permanent solution is found in the return of Christ to earth. When He comes, He will set up His kingdom. He will rule the nations in righteousness, and “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Hab. 2:14).
As we await our Savior’s return, let us keep on praying, working, and watching, while “looking for the blessed hope”—our only hope for this world. — Richard De Haan
And for the hope of His return,
Dear Lord, Your name we praise;
With longing hearts we watch and wait
For that great day of days! —Sherwood
As this world gets darker, the promised return of God’s Son gets brighter.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
What I Read Today - Wednesday April 7, 2010
From: The New York Times - Wed April 7, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
Who’s Up for Building Bridges?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
I’m no expert on American politics, but I do know something about holes. And watching the way the Republican Party is reacting to the passage of health care, it seems to me the G.O.P. is violating the first rule of holes: “When you’re in one, stop digging.”
Yes, I know, the polls show that the G.O.P. is not being hurt by its “just-say-no” strategy. But there is no groundswell moving its way either. Republicans will have to come up with more than “just-say-no-to-everything-except-lower-taxes-and-more-drilling” to field a credible 2012 presidential candidate. Here’s why:
If you step back far enough, you could argue that George W. Bush brought the Reagan Revolution — with its emphasis on tax cuts, deregulation and government-as-the-problem-not-the-solution — to its logical conclusion and then some. But with a soaring deficit and a banking crisis caused by an excess of deregulation, Reaganism has met its limit. Meanwhile, President Obama’s passage of health care reform has brought the New Deal-Franklin Roosevelt Revolution to its logical conclusion. There will be no more major entitlements for Americans. The bond market will make sure of that.
In other words, both major parties have now completed their primary 20th- century missions, first laid down by their iconic standard-bearers. The real question is which party is going to build America’s bridge to the 21st century — one that will strengthen our ability to compete in the global economy, while practicing much more fiscal discipline.
Obama is at least trying to push an agenda for pursuing the American dream in these new circumstances. I don’t agree with every policy — I’d like to see a lot more emphasis on innovation and small business start-ups — but he’s clearly trying. I do not get that impression from the Republicans, and especially those being led around by the Tea Partiers.
Obama-ism posits that we are now in a hypercompetitive global economy, where the country that thrives will be the one that brings together the most educated, creative and diverse work force with the best infrastructure — bandwidth, ports, airports, high-speed rail and good governance. And we’re in a world with a warming climate that is growing from 6.8 billion people to 9.2 billion by 2050, so demand for clean energy is going to go through the roof. Therefore, E.T. — energy technology — is going to be the next great global industry.
So, government matters. It needs to be incentivizing businesses to build their next factory in this country — at a time when every other nation is throwing incentives their way; it needs to be recruiting highly skilled immigrants; it needs to be setting the highest national education standards and funding basic research; it needs to be laying down the right energy regulations that will stimulate more clean-tech companies.
And — something neither Democrats nor Republicans have stepped up to yet — we will need to pay for all this by simultaneously raising some taxes, cutting others and by taking away some services to pay for needed new investments in infrastructure and education. We can’t get away anymore with a G.O.P. that wants to cut taxes but never specifies which services it plans to give up, or a Democratic party that wants to add services by taxing only the rich.
“Health care was the final act of the New Deal,” argues Edward Goldberg, who teaches global business at Baruch College and is writing a book on globalization and U.S. politics. “The 21st-century will require a mix of cutting, investing and innovation and entrepreneurialism beyond anything we have dreamed of.” To simply say that government is not the answer, he adds, “when we are essentially fighting four wars — Iraq, Afghanistan, the Great Recession and the retooling of the American economy” — is ludicrous. Smart government needs to be the leader or silent partner in all of these projects.
One reason the G.O.P. has failed to spawn an agenda for the 21st century is that globalization has fragmented the party. Its Wall Street/multinational corporate wing understands we need immigration, free trade, clean-tech and government support for better infrastructure and the scientific research that is the wellspring of innovation. The Tea Party wing opposes virtually all those things. All that unites the two wings is their common desire for lower taxes — period.
Globalization has also weakened the Democrats’ blue-collar/union base, but the Democrats have absorbed a new constituency created by globalization — what Goldberg calls the “ ‘Newocracy’ — which combines the multinational corporate manager, the technology entrepreneur and engineer, and the aspirational members of the meritocracy.”
These “Newocrats” previously would have leaned Republican, but now many lean toward Obama. They don’t agree with everything he’s proposing, but they sense that he is working on that bridge to the 21st century, while today’s G.O.P./Tea Party is just not in the game. Today, we have no real opposition party with its own pathway to the 21st century. We just have opposition.
Op-Ed Columnist
Who’s Up for Building Bridges?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
I’m no expert on American politics, but I do know something about holes. And watching the way the Republican Party is reacting to the passage of health care, it seems to me the G.O.P. is violating the first rule of holes: “When you’re in one, stop digging.”
Yes, I know, the polls show that the G.O.P. is not being hurt by its “just-say-no” strategy. But there is no groundswell moving its way either. Republicans will have to come up with more than “just-say-no-to-everything-except-lower-taxes-and-more-drilling” to field a credible 2012 presidential candidate. Here’s why:
If you step back far enough, you could argue that George W. Bush brought the Reagan Revolution — with its emphasis on tax cuts, deregulation and government-as-the-problem-not-the-solution — to its logical conclusion and then some. But with a soaring deficit and a banking crisis caused by an excess of deregulation, Reaganism has met its limit. Meanwhile, President Obama’s passage of health care reform has brought the New Deal-Franklin Roosevelt Revolution to its logical conclusion. There will be no more major entitlements for Americans. The bond market will make sure of that.
In other words, both major parties have now completed their primary 20th- century missions, first laid down by their iconic standard-bearers. The real question is which party is going to build America’s bridge to the 21st century — one that will strengthen our ability to compete in the global economy, while practicing much more fiscal discipline.
Obama is at least trying to push an agenda for pursuing the American dream in these new circumstances. I don’t agree with every policy — I’d like to see a lot more emphasis on innovation and small business start-ups — but he’s clearly trying. I do not get that impression from the Republicans, and especially those being led around by the Tea Partiers.
Obama-ism posits that we are now in a hypercompetitive global economy, where the country that thrives will be the one that brings together the most educated, creative and diverse work force with the best infrastructure — bandwidth, ports, airports, high-speed rail and good governance. And we’re in a world with a warming climate that is growing from 6.8 billion people to 9.2 billion by 2050, so demand for clean energy is going to go through the roof. Therefore, E.T. — energy technology — is going to be the next great global industry.
So, government matters. It needs to be incentivizing businesses to build their next factory in this country — at a time when every other nation is throwing incentives their way; it needs to be recruiting highly skilled immigrants; it needs to be setting the highest national education standards and funding basic research; it needs to be laying down the right energy regulations that will stimulate more clean-tech companies.
And — something neither Democrats nor Republicans have stepped up to yet — we will need to pay for all this by simultaneously raising some taxes, cutting others and by taking away some services to pay for needed new investments in infrastructure and education. We can’t get away anymore with a G.O.P. that wants to cut taxes but never specifies which services it plans to give up, or a Democratic party that wants to add services by taxing only the rich.
“Health care was the final act of the New Deal,” argues Edward Goldberg, who teaches global business at Baruch College and is writing a book on globalization and U.S. politics. “The 21st-century will require a mix of cutting, investing and innovation and entrepreneurialism beyond anything we have dreamed of.” To simply say that government is not the answer, he adds, “when we are essentially fighting four wars — Iraq, Afghanistan, the Great Recession and the retooling of the American economy” — is ludicrous. Smart government needs to be the leader or silent partner in all of these projects.
One reason the G.O.P. has failed to spawn an agenda for the 21st century is that globalization has fragmented the party. Its Wall Street/multinational corporate wing understands we need immigration, free trade, clean-tech and government support for better infrastructure and the scientific research that is the wellspring of innovation. The Tea Party wing opposes virtually all those things. All that unites the two wings is their common desire for lower taxes — period.
Globalization has also weakened the Democrats’ blue-collar/union base, but the Democrats have absorbed a new constituency created by globalization — what Goldberg calls the “ ‘Newocracy’ — which combines the multinational corporate manager, the technology entrepreneur and engineer, and the aspirational members of the meritocracy.”
These “Newocrats” previously would have leaned Republican, but now many lean toward Obama. They don’t agree with everything he’s proposing, but they sense that he is working on that bridge to the 21st century, while today’s G.O.P./Tea Party is just not in the game. Today, we have no real opposition party with its own pathway to the 21st century. We just have opposition.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
What I Read Today - Tuesday April 6, 2010
From: Our Daily Bread
For This I Have Jesus
READ: Psalm 66:1-15
I will never leave you nor forsake you. —Hebrews 13:5In an evangelistic meeting in Ireland, the speaker was explaining what it means to abide in Christ and to trust Him completely in every trial. Concluding his message, he repeated several times, “It means that in every circumstance you can keep on saying, ‘For this I have Jesus.’ ”
The meeting was then opened for testimonies. One young woman said, “Just a few minutes ago I was handed this telegram. It reads, ‘Mother is very ill; take train home immediately.’ When I saw those words, I knew that tonight’s message was meant just for me. My heart looked up and said, ‘For this I have Jesus.’ Instantly a peace and strength flooded my soul.”
Three or four weeks later the evangelist received a letter from this woman. It read, “Thank you again for the message you gave that day. Life has become an uninterrupted psalm of victory, for I have come to realize that no matter what life brings, for this I have Jesus.”
That believer in Christ had found in her Savior the One who would be with her “through fire and through water,” and who would bring her “out to rich fulfillment” (Ps. 66:12).
If you are enduring a great trial of affliction, remember—for this you have Jesus! — Henry G. Bosch
I’ve found a refuge from life’s care in Jesus,
I am hiding in His love divine;
He fully understands my soul’s deep longing,
And He whispers softly, “Thou art Mine.” —Christiansen
If every circumstance finds us abiding in Christ, we will find Christ abiding with us in every circumstance.
For This I Have Jesus
READ: Psalm 66:1-15
I will never leave you nor forsake you. —Hebrews 13:5In an evangelistic meeting in Ireland, the speaker was explaining what it means to abide in Christ and to trust Him completely in every trial. Concluding his message, he repeated several times, “It means that in every circumstance you can keep on saying, ‘For this I have Jesus.’ ”
The meeting was then opened for testimonies. One young woman said, “Just a few minutes ago I was handed this telegram. It reads, ‘Mother is very ill; take train home immediately.’ When I saw those words, I knew that tonight’s message was meant just for me. My heart looked up and said, ‘For this I have Jesus.’ Instantly a peace and strength flooded my soul.”
Three or four weeks later the evangelist received a letter from this woman. It read, “Thank you again for the message you gave that day. Life has become an uninterrupted psalm of victory, for I have come to realize that no matter what life brings, for this I have Jesus.”
That believer in Christ had found in her Savior the One who would be with her “through fire and through water,” and who would bring her “out to rich fulfillment” (Ps. 66:12).
If you are enduring a great trial of affliction, remember—for this you have Jesus! — Henry G. Bosch
I’ve found a refuge from life’s care in Jesus,
I am hiding in His love divine;
He fully understands my soul’s deep longing,
And He whispers softly, “Thou art Mine.” —Christiansen
If every circumstance finds us abiding in Christ, we will find Christ abiding with us in every circumstance.
Monday, April 5, 2010
more What I Read Today - Monday April 5, 2010
The Other Individual Mandate: Tax Prep
by Howard Gleckman on Tue 30 Mar 2010 09:00 AM EDT
Where, as they say, is the outrage? For all of the indignation over the new health insurance mandate, I am amazed at the serenity at which we accept another (near) mandate: That we must pay somebody to help us do our taxes.
The government does not specifically require us to hire paid tax preparers or buy commercial software, of course. But it has, in effect, left millions of taxpayers with no real choice. Congress has created a tax code that makes it nearly impossible for many Americans to file returns without paid help. And even those who could (most non-itemizers for instance) are so intimidated by the whole process that they pay people to help them anyway.
Thus, in 2005, 89 percent of individual taxpayers either used commercial software or hired paid preparers to help them do their civic duty. Just 11 percent, according to my colleague Eric Toder, filed returns on their own.
Yet, we just shrug and pay our $59 for commercial software or pony up between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars to paid preparers. No constitutional challenges. No state attorneys general at the barricades. Many of us, in fact, are likely to spend more money hiring a human being to do our taxes than we’ll pay in penalties for refusing to buy insurance ($95 in 2014 increasing to $695 by 2016). Indeed, I’m willing to bet that more of us will pay somebody to prepare a tax return than will purchase medical coverage, despite the insurance mandate.
What’s worse, many of those we trust to do our returns are incompetent or worse. Professor Larry Lokken, a Tax Policy Center affiliated scholar, wrote a couple of nice blog posts last year on this troublesome business. At least the private companies from which we’ll have to purchase insurance are minimally competent.
When you buy insurance, you receive an obvious benefit. What do you get for the dough you put out for tax prep? New IRS data suggest that doing taxes on your own has become so difficult and time-consuming that paying someone actually drives down your compliance costs. A strong case can be made that it is in fact not possible for many of us to file a tax return without paying for help. Don’t believe me? Try to manage the Alternative Minimum Tax on your own.
On April 8, Elaine Maag and Bill Gale of TPC, John Guyton of the Internal Revenue Service, former H&R Block executive Robert Weinberger, and I will be discussing some of the implications of paid tax prep. You’re welcome to register here to join us in person or on the Web (and unlike commercial tax software, it’s free).
There are plenty of ways to fix filing hell. Here are two possible solutions: Simplify the tax code by dumping complex special interest tax breaks (which would also have the benefit of lowering rates); Or, the IRS could make filing a lot easier by automatically filling in the information you get on your 1099s and W2s on an electronic 1040. That could at least help people with very simple returns. I know, Intuit will do everything it can to kill this idea and conservatives will rail about Big Brother—except the government already has all this information.
In the meantime, where is the Tea Party? Where are the whack-a-doodle radio and TV talkers? Where is the mavericky former governor of Alaska? Where is the outcry for a simpler tax system? Where is the outrage?
by Howard Gleckman on Tue 30 Mar 2010 09:00 AM EDT
Where, as they say, is the outrage? For all of the indignation over the new health insurance mandate, I am amazed at the serenity at which we accept another (near) mandate: That we must pay somebody to help us do our taxes.
The government does not specifically require us to hire paid tax preparers or buy commercial software, of course. But it has, in effect, left millions of taxpayers with no real choice. Congress has created a tax code that makes it nearly impossible for many Americans to file returns without paid help. And even those who could (most non-itemizers for instance) are so intimidated by the whole process that they pay people to help them anyway.
Thus, in 2005, 89 percent of individual taxpayers either used commercial software or hired paid preparers to help them do their civic duty. Just 11 percent, according to my colleague Eric Toder, filed returns on their own.
Yet, we just shrug and pay our $59 for commercial software or pony up between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars to paid preparers. No constitutional challenges. No state attorneys general at the barricades. Many of us, in fact, are likely to spend more money hiring a human being to do our taxes than we’ll pay in penalties for refusing to buy insurance ($95 in 2014 increasing to $695 by 2016). Indeed, I’m willing to bet that more of us will pay somebody to prepare a tax return than will purchase medical coverage, despite the insurance mandate.
What’s worse, many of those we trust to do our returns are incompetent or worse. Professor Larry Lokken, a Tax Policy Center affiliated scholar, wrote a couple of nice blog posts last year on this troublesome business. At least the private companies from which we’ll have to purchase insurance are minimally competent.
When you buy insurance, you receive an obvious benefit. What do you get for the dough you put out for tax prep? New IRS data suggest that doing taxes on your own has become so difficult and time-consuming that paying someone actually drives down your compliance costs. A strong case can be made that it is in fact not possible for many of us to file a tax return without paying for help. Don’t believe me? Try to manage the Alternative Minimum Tax on your own.
On April 8, Elaine Maag and Bill Gale of TPC, John Guyton of the Internal Revenue Service, former H&R Block executive Robert Weinberger, and I will be discussing some of the implications of paid tax prep. You’re welcome to register here to join us in person or on the Web (and unlike commercial tax software, it’s free).
There are plenty of ways to fix filing hell. Here are two possible solutions: Simplify the tax code by dumping complex special interest tax breaks (which would also have the benefit of lowering rates); Or, the IRS could make filing a lot easier by automatically filling in the information you get on your 1099s and W2s on an electronic 1040. That could at least help people with very simple returns. I know, Intuit will do everything it can to kill this idea and conservatives will rail about Big Brother—except the government already has all this information.
In the meantime, where is the Tea Party? Where are the whack-a-doodle radio and TV talkers? Where is the mavericky former governor of Alaska? Where is the outcry for a simpler tax system? Where is the outrage?
more What I Read Today - Monday April 5, 2010
The Power Of Praise
READ: Isaiah 61:1-3
The Lord has anointed Me . . . to give them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning. —Isaiah 61:1,3Praise is powerful! When Scottish pastor Robert Murray McCheyne was troubled with a coldness of heart toward the things of the Lord, he would sing the praises of God until he felt revived in his spirit. Those in his household were often able to tell what hour he awoke because he began the day with a psalm of praise.
One day, while he was trying to prepare his heart for preaching, he wrote in his journal: “Is it the desire of my heart to be made altogether holy? . . . Lord, You know all things . . . . I’ve felt so much deadness and grief that I cannot grieve for this deadness. Toward evening I revived. Got a calm spirit through [singing psalms] and prayer.” McCheyne had been uplifted by praising God.
Perhaps you feel as if you are mired in what John Bunyan called the “slough of despond.” Lift a song of praise to the Lord. The psalmist said, “I will sing of the mercies of the Lord forever” (89:1). When we do that, the praise will flow not only from our lips but also from our heart. The Lord delights to give “the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness” (Isa. 61:3).
Yes, “it is good to sing praises to our God”—at all times (Ps. 147:1). — Paul Van Gorder
Praise, my soul, the King of heaven,
To His feet your tribute bring;
Ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven,
Evermore His praises sing. —Lyte
If you find yourself wearing a spirit of heaviness, try on a garment of praise.
READ: Isaiah 61:1-3
The Lord has anointed Me . . . to give them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning. —Isaiah 61:1,3Praise is powerful! When Scottish pastor Robert Murray McCheyne was troubled with a coldness of heart toward the things of the Lord, he would sing the praises of God until he felt revived in his spirit. Those in his household were often able to tell what hour he awoke because he began the day with a psalm of praise.
One day, while he was trying to prepare his heart for preaching, he wrote in his journal: “Is it the desire of my heart to be made altogether holy? . . . Lord, You know all things . . . . I’ve felt so much deadness and grief that I cannot grieve for this deadness. Toward evening I revived. Got a calm spirit through [singing psalms] and prayer.” McCheyne had been uplifted by praising God.
Perhaps you feel as if you are mired in what John Bunyan called the “slough of despond.” Lift a song of praise to the Lord. The psalmist said, “I will sing of the mercies of the Lord forever” (89:1). When we do that, the praise will flow not only from our lips but also from our heart. The Lord delights to give “the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness” (Isa. 61:3).
Yes, “it is good to sing praises to our God”—at all times (Ps. 147:1). — Paul Van Gorder
Praise, my soul, the King of heaven,
To His feet your tribute bring;
Ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven,
Evermore His praises sing. —Lyte
If you find yourself wearing a spirit of heaviness, try on a garment of praise.
What I Read Today - Monday April 5, 2010
From: The New York Times - Sunday April 4, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
Start-Ups, Not Bailouts
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Here’s my fun fact for the day, provided courtesy of Robert Litan, who directs research at the Kauffman Foundation, which specializes in promoting innovation in America: “Between 1980 and 2005, virtually all net new jobs created in the U.S. were created by firms that were 5 years old or less,” said Litan. “That is about 40 million jobs. That means the established firms created no new net jobs during that period.”
Message: If we want to bring down unemployment in a sustainable way, neither rescuing General Motors nor funding more road construction will do it. We need to create a big bushel of new companies — fast. We’ve got to get more Americans working again for their own dignity — and to generate the rising incomes and wealth we need to pay for existing entitlements, as well as all the new investments we’ll need to make. It was just reported that Social Security this year will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes — a red line we were not expected to cross until at least 2016.
But you cannot say this often enough: Good-paying jobs don’t come from bailouts. They come from start-ups. And where do start-ups come from? They come from smart, creative, inspired risk-takers. How do we get more of those? There are only two ways: grow more by improving our schools or import more by recruiting talented immigrants. Surely, we need to do both, and we need to start by breaking the deadlock in Congress over immigration, so we can develop a much more strategic approach to attracting more of the world’s creative risk-takers. “Roughly 25 percent of successful high-tech start-ups over the last decade were founded or co-founded by immigrants,” said Litan. Think Sergey Brin, the Russian-born co-founder of Google, or Vinod Khosla, the India-born co-founder of Sun Microsystems.
That is no surprise. After all, Craig Mundie, the chief research and strategy officer of Microsoft, asks: What made America this incredible engine of prosperity? It was immigration, plus free markets. Because we were so open to immigration — and immigrants are by definition high-aspiring risk-takers, ready to leave their native lands in search of greater opportunities — “we as a country accumulated a disproportionate share of the world’s high-I.Q. risk-takers.”
In addition, because of our vibrant and meritocratic university system, the best foreign students who wanted the best education also came here, and many of them also stayed. In its heyday, our unique system also attracted a disproportionate share of high-I.Q. risk-takers to high government service. So when you put all this together, with our free markets and democracy, it made it easy here for creative, high-I.Q. risk-takers to raise capital for their ideas and commercialize them. In short, America had a very powerful, self-reinforcing engine for growing innovative new companies.
“When you get this happy coincidence of high-I.Q. risk-takers in government and a society that is biased toward high-I.Q. risk-takers, you get these above-average returns as a country,” argued Mundie. “What is common to Singapore, Israel and America? They were all built by high-I.Q. risk-takers and all thrived — but only in the U.S. did it happen at a large scale and with global diversity, so you had this really rich cross-section.”
What is worrisome about America today is the combination of cutbacks in higher education, restrictions on immigration and a toxic public space that dissuades talented people from going into government. Together, all of these trends are slowly eating away at our differentiated edge in attracting and enabling the world’s biggest mass of smart, creative risk-takers.
It isn’t drastic, but it is a decline — at a time when technology is allowing other countries to leverage and empower more of their own high-I.Q. risk-takers. If we don’t reverse this trend, over time, “we could lose our most important competitive edge — the only edge from which sustainable advantage accrues” — having the world’s biggest and most diverse pool of high-I.Q. risk-takers, said Mundie. “If we don’t have that competitive edge, our standard of living will eventually revert to the global mean.”
Right now we have thousands of foreign students in America and one million engineers, scientists and other highly skilled workers here on H-1B temporary visas, which require them to return home when the visas expire. That’s nuts. “We ought to have a ‘job-creators visa’ for people already here,” said Litan. “And once you’ve hired, say, 5 or 10 American nonfamily members, you should get a green card.”
We need health care, financial reform and education reform. But we also need to be thinking just as seriously and urgently about what are the ingredients that foster entrepreneurship — how new businesses are catalyzed, inspired and enabled and how we enlist more people to do that — so no one ever says about America what that officer says to Tom Cruise in “Top Gun”: “Son, your ego’s writing checks your body can’t cash.”
Op-Ed Columnist
Start-Ups, Not Bailouts
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Here’s my fun fact for the day, provided courtesy of Robert Litan, who directs research at the Kauffman Foundation, which specializes in promoting innovation in America: “Between 1980 and 2005, virtually all net new jobs created in the U.S. were created by firms that were 5 years old or less,” said Litan. “That is about 40 million jobs. That means the established firms created no new net jobs during that period.”
Message: If we want to bring down unemployment in a sustainable way, neither rescuing General Motors nor funding more road construction will do it. We need to create a big bushel of new companies — fast. We’ve got to get more Americans working again for their own dignity — and to generate the rising incomes and wealth we need to pay for existing entitlements, as well as all the new investments we’ll need to make. It was just reported that Social Security this year will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes — a red line we were not expected to cross until at least 2016.
But you cannot say this often enough: Good-paying jobs don’t come from bailouts. They come from start-ups. And where do start-ups come from? They come from smart, creative, inspired risk-takers. How do we get more of those? There are only two ways: grow more by improving our schools or import more by recruiting talented immigrants. Surely, we need to do both, and we need to start by breaking the deadlock in Congress over immigration, so we can develop a much more strategic approach to attracting more of the world’s creative risk-takers. “Roughly 25 percent of successful high-tech start-ups over the last decade were founded or co-founded by immigrants,” said Litan. Think Sergey Brin, the Russian-born co-founder of Google, or Vinod Khosla, the India-born co-founder of Sun Microsystems.
That is no surprise. After all, Craig Mundie, the chief research and strategy officer of Microsoft, asks: What made America this incredible engine of prosperity? It was immigration, plus free markets. Because we were so open to immigration — and immigrants are by definition high-aspiring risk-takers, ready to leave their native lands in search of greater opportunities — “we as a country accumulated a disproportionate share of the world’s high-I.Q. risk-takers.”
In addition, because of our vibrant and meritocratic university system, the best foreign students who wanted the best education also came here, and many of them also stayed. In its heyday, our unique system also attracted a disproportionate share of high-I.Q. risk-takers to high government service. So when you put all this together, with our free markets and democracy, it made it easy here for creative, high-I.Q. risk-takers to raise capital for their ideas and commercialize them. In short, America had a very powerful, self-reinforcing engine for growing innovative new companies.
“When you get this happy coincidence of high-I.Q. risk-takers in government and a society that is biased toward high-I.Q. risk-takers, you get these above-average returns as a country,” argued Mundie. “What is common to Singapore, Israel and America? They were all built by high-I.Q. risk-takers and all thrived — but only in the U.S. did it happen at a large scale and with global diversity, so you had this really rich cross-section.”
What is worrisome about America today is the combination of cutbacks in higher education, restrictions on immigration and a toxic public space that dissuades talented people from going into government. Together, all of these trends are slowly eating away at our differentiated edge in attracting and enabling the world’s biggest mass of smart, creative risk-takers.
It isn’t drastic, but it is a decline — at a time when technology is allowing other countries to leverage and empower more of their own high-I.Q. risk-takers. If we don’t reverse this trend, over time, “we could lose our most important competitive edge — the only edge from which sustainable advantage accrues” — having the world’s biggest and most diverse pool of high-I.Q. risk-takers, said Mundie. “If we don’t have that competitive edge, our standard of living will eventually revert to the global mean.”
Right now we have thousands of foreign students in America and one million engineers, scientists and other highly skilled workers here on H-1B temporary visas, which require them to return home when the visas expire. That’s nuts. “We ought to have a ‘job-creators visa’ for people already here,” said Litan. “And once you’ve hired, say, 5 or 10 American nonfamily members, you should get a green card.”
We need health care, financial reform and education reform. But we also need to be thinking just as seriously and urgently about what are the ingredients that foster entrepreneurship — how new businesses are catalyzed, inspired and enabled and how we enlist more people to do that — so no one ever says about America what that officer says to Tom Cruise in “Top Gun”: “Son, your ego’s writing checks your body can’t cash.”
Friday, April 2, 2010
What I Read Today - Friday April 2, 2010
From: Our Daily Bread
Like A Lamb
READ: John 15:9-17
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth. —Isaiah 53:7In 1602, Italian artist Caravaggio produced a painting called The Taking of Christ. This work, an early example of the Baroque style, is compelling. Created in dark hues, it allows the viewer to contemplate Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. Two main elements of the scene depicted in the painting demand the observer’s attention. The first is Judas as he delivers the traitor’s kiss. Immediately, however, the viewer’s focus is drawn toward Jesus’ hands, which are passively clasped together to show that He offered no resistance to this injustice. Although He possessed the power to create a universe, Christ gave Himself up voluntarily to His captors and to the waiting cross.
Long before this scene took place, Jesus told His listeners that no one could take His life from Him—He would lay it down willingly (John 10:18). This heart of voluntary surrender was prophesied by Isaiah, who wrote, “He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth” (Isa. 53:7).
Christ’s lamblike self-sacrifice is a grand indicator of His powerful love. “Greater love has no one than this,” He explained, “than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13). Think of it. Jesus loved you that much! — Bill Crowder
Love sent the Savior to die in my stead.
Why should He love me so?
Meekly to Calvary’s cross He was led.
Why should He love me so? —Harkness
The nail-pierced hands of Jesus reveal the love-filled heart of God.
Like A Lamb
READ: John 15:9-17
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth. —Isaiah 53:7In 1602, Italian artist Caravaggio produced a painting called The Taking of Christ. This work, an early example of the Baroque style, is compelling. Created in dark hues, it allows the viewer to contemplate Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. Two main elements of the scene depicted in the painting demand the observer’s attention. The first is Judas as he delivers the traitor’s kiss. Immediately, however, the viewer’s focus is drawn toward Jesus’ hands, which are passively clasped together to show that He offered no resistance to this injustice. Although He possessed the power to create a universe, Christ gave Himself up voluntarily to His captors and to the waiting cross.
Long before this scene took place, Jesus told His listeners that no one could take His life from Him—He would lay it down willingly (John 10:18). This heart of voluntary surrender was prophesied by Isaiah, who wrote, “He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth” (Isa. 53:7).
Christ’s lamblike self-sacrifice is a grand indicator of His powerful love. “Greater love has no one than this,” He explained, “than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13). Think of it. Jesus loved you that much! — Bill Crowder
Love sent the Savior to die in my stead.
Why should He love me so?
Meekly to Calvary’s cross He was led.
Why should He love me so? —Harkness
The nail-pierced hands of Jesus reveal the love-filled heart of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)