In other words, follow a command economy. You, or your politician of choice, gets to choose, based on his personal opinion, which industries are "necessary" and which are not. You then change the law to try and socially engineer the success of your pet industry.
Given that this has been tried numerous times in the last 100 years or so, and has never worked as a basis for sustainable long-term prosperity, what makes you think it will work now? The whole reason free markets exist is because over the long-run they work. Unlike central planning, they have a natural corrective to excess and bad decisions in the form of the price mechanism. Wall Street and real estate speculation are already getting royally shafted by the market process, for example.
If manufacturing really is the future of the USA, then there is absolutely no need for you or anyone else to try to socially engineer that situation using central planning. Demand will arise for those products if they are really desired by people, business, and governments - and thus prices will rise and encourage increased production. The sector will boom and become a major player again without a single piece of law needing to be changed. No central planning is required for the economy, that is the beauty of the market system. It tries everything, most stuff fails, and the stuff that works gets rewarded. No central planner could ever have conceived of most of the innovations that have occured in the lat 200 years, let alone successfully orchestrated their emergence. To try to turn the clock back to industrial policy and a command economy would be to ignore 50 years years of economic devastation through the middle of the 20th century in the countries that adopted that policy either fully or in part.
In recent years there was too much unsound lending and speculation by incompetent buffoons. The market is already taking care of them. Whatever sound areas are available for investment, capital formation, growth and future employment is beyond the understanding of almost all individuals (if not, you could become rich by investing in them now), but they will arise. In 1990 how many predicted the tech boom? During that recession I'm sure people were bemoaning the collapse of real estate, banks going under, the S&L crisis. The Buylosellhis of this world were undoubtedly wailing and moaning about how terrible things were - right before the biggest 9 year boom in the history of the world.
The difference this time is people have lost faith in the free market system. You have people like yourself advocating de facto socialism-lite, other people wanting class warfare, all of which flies in the face of 200 years of economic history, proven facts and outcomes as a result of two distinct policies - free market capitalism vs planned economy socialism. The latter has never, ever worked. Why should now be any different?
Other countries have had terrible busts before, pursued (by intent or by accident) a hands off policy, and emerged fairly quickly and stronger as a result. Asia 1998 for example, or Brazil 2002, or the UK and US in the early 80s, or Japan and Germany after WWII. Several of those were MUCH WORSE than our current crisis, yet the recovery was strong, relatively swift (given the magnitude of the crisis), and long-lasting. History shows that hands-off works, works fast, works well, and works long-term. History shows the opposite leads to stagnation at best (Japan), depression at worst (FDR, 1970s UK, Argentina, the communist bloc etc). Call me strange but I vote, based on the historical record and available facts, for a hands-off policy.