Thomas Friedman’s latest column [permanent link] is very good, if somewhat sparse. His argument–that the Bush administration should do more to support science and technology in the US–is sound. His empirical evidence is also persuasive.

The piece first cites the expensing of stock options, “which is going to inhibit the ability of U.S. high-tech firms to attract talent - at a time when China encourages its start-ups to grant stock options to young innovators.” Not to mention that stock options only actually effect financial change upon the company when exercised, and some of them are left permanently idle. His strongest points, however, revolve around the amount of Federal spending being dedicated to science research.

The Bush team is proposing cutting the Pentagon’s budget for basic science and technology research by 20 percent next year - after President Bush and the Republican Congress already slashed the 2005 budget of the National Science Foundation by $100 million.

When the National Innovation Initiative, a bipartisan study by the country’s leading technologists and industrialists about how to re-energize U.S. competitiveness, was unveiled last December, it was virtually ignored by the White House.

The government must fund basic science research because it’s a public good that private sector investment undervalues. Cutting funding for research reduces the pool of university science from which private industry draws innovative ideas. The US economy is powered by technological advancement–it’s one of the key forces in free-market capitalism–and falling behind to Asia will undermine its strength and vigor.

Friedman points to a Foreign Affairs article arguing that the US has fallen behind in broadband adoption rates. The evidence is compelling.

The United States is losing considerable ground to Japan and its neighbors, and they will be the first to reap the economic benefits of these technologies. It is these countries, rather than the United States, that will benefit from the enhanced productivity, economic growth, and new jobs that high-speed broadband will bring. In 2001, Robert Crandall, an economist at the Brookings Institution, and Charles Jackson, a telecommunications consultant, estimated that “widespread” adoption of basic broadband in the United States could add $500 billion to the U.S. economy and produce 1.2 million new jobs. But Washington never promoted such a policy. Last year, another Brookings economist, Charles Ferguson, argued that perhaps as much as $1 trillion might be lost over the next decade due to present constraints on broadband development. These losses, moreover, are only the economic costs of the United States’ indirection. They do not take into account the work that could have been done through telecommuting, the medical care or interactive long-distance education that might have been provided in remote areas, and unexploited entertainment possibilities.

Unfortunately, however, broadband penetration isn’t a very good comparison index between countries. Japan and South Korea have a significant advantage because of the small and compact nature of their societies (and geography). The United States is geographically expansive, diverse, and in many cases spread out. Broadband is very important, as the above cited article makes clear, but, nevertheless, Mr. Friedman could’ve chosen a more applicable empirical study.

The author of the broadband article has a number of sensical recommendations that the White House would be wise to adopt. Mr. Friedman’s policy prescriptions include greater spending on basic science, a renewed commitment to economic competitiveness, and a realistic emphasis on how both business and government are necessary for moving forward.