"Research and development needs permanent tax credits to build the technology that spurs our growth. But no government programs alone can get America's students to study more science and math; parents must push and help their children to meet this goal"
About this Quote
Ernest Istook, a conservative congressman from Oklahoma, ties two levels of economic strategy together: macro incentives for innovation and micro incentives for learning. Calling for permanent tax credits for research and development speaks to the chronic uncertainty that has long dogged American R&D policy. The federal R&D tax credit introduced in 1981 was extended and allowed to lapse repeatedly for decades, making long-term planning risky. Permanence reduces policy whiplash, rewards patient capital, and gives companies confidence to pursue multi-year projects with diffuse, uncertain payoffs. It is a classic supply-side nudge that channels private ingenuity toward broad public gains in productivity and growth.
He pairs this with a claim about the limits of government programs in shaping the talent pipeline. Scholarships, standards, and school initiatives can expand access and improve instruction, but they rarely ignite sustained effort by themselves. The decision to stick with calculus or a difficult physics class is often forged at the kitchen table, not in a statute. By placing parents at the center, Istook leans on an American ethic of family responsibility and civic culture: institutions can scaffold, but homes supply motivation, discipline, and expectations.
The argument also reflects a complementary view of growth. Technology alone does not transform an economy without people who can build, maintain, and adapt it; likewise, a motivated workforce needs a frontier to push. Policy that cultivates both the innovation ecosystem and the human capital pipeline recognizes that ideas and talent are co-dependent. One can question the equity and efficiency of tax credits, which sometimes reward activity that would have occurred anyway, or note that schools, mentors, and employers also shape student choices. Still, the core insight withstands partisan lines: enduring incentives for discovery work best when matched with the daily, personal encouragement that turns abstract STEM goals into real careers.
He pairs this with a claim about the limits of government programs in shaping the talent pipeline. Scholarships, standards, and school initiatives can expand access and improve instruction, but they rarely ignite sustained effort by themselves. The decision to stick with calculus or a difficult physics class is often forged at the kitchen table, not in a statute. By placing parents at the center, Istook leans on an American ethic of family responsibility and civic culture: institutions can scaffold, but homes supply motivation, discipline, and expectations.
The argument also reflects a complementary view of growth. Technology alone does not transform an economy without people who can build, maintain, and adapt it; likewise, a motivated workforce needs a frontier to push. Policy that cultivates both the innovation ecosystem and the human capital pipeline recognizes that ideas and talent are co-dependent. One can question the equity and efficiency of tax credits, which sometimes reward activity that would have occurred anyway, or note that schools, mentors, and employers also shape student choices. Still, the core insight withstands partisan lines: enduring incentives for discovery work best when matched with the daily, personal encouragement that turns abstract STEM goals into real careers.
Quote Details
| Topic | Study Motivation |
|---|
More Quotes by Ernest
Add to List
