"Our macroeconomic problems require major public investments"

I wrote a fairly positive assessment of Jeffrey Sachs international aid plan, but this post scares me:

He starts with a tour more like a parody of a tour. Even if I wanted to follow his map, it is decidedly lacking in landmarks. It's just a general statement of biases, but go ahead and read them:

"Here is a quick tour of our macroeconomic miseries, with roots that go back 40 years."

Axiomatically, this must follow in Sachs' universe:

"America will sooner or later have to overcome its extreme allergy to taxation at a time when the government is hemorrhaging in deficits and when urgent public needs go unfulfilled."

"Our macroeconomic problems require major public investments in new technologies, infrastructure, public education, and poverty reduction. At some point soon, Americans will have to start paying for these investments themselves, rather than borrowing heavily from abroad. We are experiencing the structural shift from an economy relying on easy money and seemingly endless international borrowing to an economy that is gradually realizing that ultimately we will have to pay our way, especially if the United States wants to be a leading power. There are pressing domestic and global investment needs, and the money has to come from somewhere. The only place it can come from is an increased tax base, which requires abandoning the Reagan-Bush mythology."

So, what bothers me so much about this post? It's light on specifics, which I can handle as I am, and very heavy on a philosophy of high taxes and high government spending, which I need a xanax to handle. That seems to be his main point in this post, he wants higher taxes and more government spending. Period.

He does glancingly address issues and problems, like poverty, the environment, infrastructure, etc., to daringly call them issues and problems. I agree with his list, but have no clear idea to what extent higher taxes or more government spending would help. Show me the programs and needs, then I might be able to address these issues and problems. But as a statement of general principles, I sure hope President Obama ignores him, for the good of the country.

"While Reagan was crudely ideological, Clinton mildly reformist, and Bush simply crude in the application of these small-government doctrines, none of the recent approaches will do. It's time to stop talking about who can give away more to the public in rebates and start talking about investing in our future in a way that can save the poor, sustain the rest, and build a decent world for our children. Those are the real family values."

Come now, you're not talking about anything. Forget mythology, Sachs deals only in nostrums. One way to invest in our future would be to actually offer a specific and assessable plan. Try that next time, and I might not need a xanax.