Category: Uncategorized

PPI Statement on Historic Nomination of Jessica Rosenworcel to Lead FCC

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Lindsay Mark Lewis, Executive Director of the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement in response to President Biden’s historic designation of Jessica Rosenworcel to serve as the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission and his nomination of Rosenworcel to serve another term:

“The Progressive Policy Institute applauds Jessica Rosenworcel’s designation to serve as Chair of the FCC — the first woman to lead the agency. Jessica Rosenworcel is a pragmatic, common sense leader who will move the agency forward in this pivotal period of recovery from the pandemic. With her help, the FCC and the Biden Administration will ensure every American family, worker, student, and entrepreneur has the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century economy. Once confirmed, we look forward to working with the FCC under Ms. Rosenworcel’s leadership to shape radically pragmatic policies that get our communities connected.”

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

MOSAIC MOMENT: Growing Women-Owned Businesses Through Private Capital

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On today’s episode of Radically Pragmatic, PPI’s Mosaic Economic Project brought together a panel of women to discuss the intersection of access to private capital formation for new and small businesses owned by women and particularly minority women; how the response to the pandemic (government stimulus intervention including PPP) has impacted entrepreneurs and what policies looking forward can and will make a difference in accessing private capital for women entrepreneurs.

Joining Jasmine Stoughton, Project Manager of the Mosaic Economic Project is Emily Egan, a graduate of Mosaic’s Women Changing Policy Working and Director of Strategic Initiatives at the Albert Lepage Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Tulane University; Kim Armor, Chief Financial Officer and Managing Director at Comcast Ventures; and Emily Waldorf, Senior Vice President of Strategic Development at Comcast.

Learn more about the Mosaic Economic Project here: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/project/the-mosaic-project/

Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/

Marshall for The Hill: Remember, Democrats: Business isn’t the enemy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Republicans are following the Pied Piper of Mar-a-Lago down a twisted trail of sedition and anti-democratic extremism. That’s weakening the party’s historically strong bond with U.S. business leaders, who are appalled by former President Trump’s delusional bid to void the 2020 election, as well as a concerted push by red state officials to make it harder to vote, get a legal abortion or protect school children from unvaccinated adults.

In Texas, for example, leading local corporations such as American Airlines and Southwest Airlines are flouting Republican Governor Greg Abbott’s executive order banning private companies from requiring their workers to get COVID-19 vaccines, while iconic Georgia firms such as Coca Cola and Delta Airlines condemned the Republican legislature’s passage of a severely restrictive voting law last Spring.

The growing rift between business and a Trumpified GOP marinating in grievance and paranoia should be opening doors for Democrats. But they’ve got a business problem of their own, namely the high media profile of leftwing activists who are reflexively hostile to our largest and most successful companies.

Read the full piece in The Hill.

Girls Need Better Access to Menstrual Products in School

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Menstrual products are as necessary as toilet paper and soap. Yet, one in four women and girls in the U.S. struggle to pay for them. This lack of access to these products amongst school-aged female students directly impacts the quality of their education and well-being. A 2021 study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania found that 80% of female students have missed all or part of a class or know someone who had to miss class because they did not have access to menstrual hygiene products. Implementing programs that provide no-cost menstrual hygiene products in all public school restrooms will benefit girls’ education, especially for students of color and those with a lower-income background who tend to be more impacted by this issue.

“Period poverty.” or the inability to afford and lack access to menstrual and sanitary products, can also worsen the social stigma around menstruation. Cultural shame attached to menstruation and a shortage of menstrual hygiene resources prevents many women and girls from carrying out their daily routines. Without constant, reliable access to menstrual products at school, students are forced to ask the school nurse or their friends, who might only have a limited supply of products. Some prefer to skip classes entirely because of the discomfort of not having access to these products. All of these disruptions can lead to learning loss and educational barriers for female students.

Beyond impacting education, period poverty can also affect students’ mental and physical health. Roughly 68% of students who experienced monthly period poverty reported moderate to severe depression. Furthermore, researchers found that 50% of students who could ill afford to buy the disposable products, in an effort to stretch their dollars, did not change them out every four to eight hours as recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. This increases the risk of a rare but deadly reaction known as “Toxic Shock Syndrome” and other bacterial infections.

There is momentum across the country to address this issue. Currently, legislation to make menstrual hygiene products available in all public school restrooms has passed in states such as Rhode Island, Nevada, Washington, and California. This past May, Congresswoman Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) introduced the federal Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2021 (H.R. 3614) that would require public elementary and secondary schools to provide free menstrual products for its students by amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

Young women across the country deserve to attend school without fear or shame about how menstruation might impact their education and health. Policymakers at the state and federal level should work to ensure that there are free or affordable menstrual products available in all public school bathrooms so that our most vulnerable female students can go about their school day without interruptions or social stigma.

Understanding the negative impact of the Klobuchar-Grassley bill on tech services

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have unveiled their tech antitrust legislation, entitled The American Innovation and Choice Online Act. At first glance, the goals of the Klobuchar-Grassley bill seem unobjectionable, and the bill is presented as a commonsense solution to an obvious problem. As the Klobuchar press release says, the point of the legislation is to prohibit large digital platforms from “favoring their own products or services” or “disadvantaging rivals,” as well as discouraging a wide array of other discriminatory conduct.

But the bill’s combination of broad language, very high fines, and no safe harbor means that even good faith efforts to adhere to the bill’s intentions could result in a huge financial hit to major American firms such as Apple, Alphabet, and Amazon.  That threat, in turn, will lead these companies to substantially reduce or alter the services they offer to minimize opportunities to be fined.

In order to understand this problem, I’m going to step through one example here in detail related to Amazon. Amazon offers its Prime customers free two-day delivery, which they love.  For a price, it also offers third party sellers Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA), which gives them access to Prime delivery services for their products.

Sounds like a good deal, right? It’s highly unusual for a major retailer to give rivals access to its cutting-edge logistic operations, including handling returns.  But this access was a win-win-win proposition. It was great for consumers, great for sellers, and great for workers, who Amazon has been hiring at a furious rate.

But under the Klobuchar-Grassley bill, regulators would have to ask the question: Does the price that Amazon charges for FBA discriminate against third-party sellers? Amazon has to set the price for FBA taking into account its marginal cost of handling the product, both during normal time and peak season. It also has to factor in the fixed costs of the fulfillment infrastructure—the warehouses, the robots, the trucks and the computer systems.

Setting the FBA price is a complicated calculation with no single right answer. In fact, if I lined up four economists and logistics analysts, they would likely give at least four different answers.  One price might be the average cost of providing the logistic services, including all the infrastructure needed for the e-commerce peaks. Another price might be the price of buying the same fulfillment services on the open market.  A third price might be Amazon’s marginal cost of handling the product during normal season. A fourth price might be zero — because, after all, some people might argue that charging third-party sellers anything for logistics services would “self-preference” Amazon.

There is no language in the bill that guides regulators about which price to use, and no safe harbor. In particular, the usual antitrust presumption in favor of consumer welfare is nowhere to be found.  So as sure as the sun rises in the east, as soon as this bill is passed and signed into law, Amazon will be accused of setting the price of FBA “too high” — that is, greater than zero — exposing the company to fines as high as 15% of revenue.

Facing this threat, Amazon can choose to keep Prime in place, and run the risk of huge, business-killing fines. More likely, it could reduce the quality of its delivery promise, and offer the same lower-quality logistic service to everyone, including Prime customers.  Or it could close down its third-party selling market, so it’s not exposed to fines.

But no matter what Amazon does, the loser would be consumers and workers. The legislation would break a successful business model that makes consumers happy and provides hundreds of thousands of jobs for workers, and for what purpose?

The exact same issues arise for other important services provided by large platform companies covered by the Klobuchar-Grassley legislation. The broad language, lack of safe harbor, and high fines would force them to reduce the services they provide. Consumers will be worse off, and so will be workers.

 

PPI’s Trade Fact of the Week: Liberalism is worth defending – Oct. 20, 2021

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

FACT:

Liberalism is Worth Defending

THE NUMBERS: 

COVID vaccinations per week, worldwide: 150 million
Workers escaping deep poverty, 2000-2019: 440 million
International students in the U.S., 2020: 1.07 million

WHAT THEY MEAN:

PPI re-launches this Trade Fact series under the political equivalent of storm warnings and lowering clouds, in the U.S and worldwide.  Looking abroad, publics abroad appear more tempted than at any time in decades to believe that their country’s gain must entail another’s loss.  Looking inward, they seem increasingly at risk from authoritarian populists and illiberal political parties.  And on a different level of analysis, trust among big-power governments has eroded; and the institutions and agreements built up since the Second World War to safeguard security and promote shared growth – whether NATO, the World Trade Organization, the European Union – accordingly seem ever more fragile.

Against this ominous backdrop, in concert with like-minded policymakers and intellectuals in the U.S. and elsewhere, PPI aspires to help – by (a) offering new ideas and projects for a liberalism besieged and in need of revitalization; (b) rebutting unfounded cynicism and pessimism, which often are more the cause than the reflection of deteriorating ideals and institutions; and (c) highlighting the successes of active government joined with open exchange of goods, services, and ideas.  In this spirit, the first in this new Trade Fact series notes three successes of liberalism-writ-large:

Half the World’s People Have Received COVID-19 Vaccinations This Year:  22 months after the discovery of a previously unknown coronavirus in Wuhan, government, non-profit, and private-sector investment in medicine development, production technologies, and distribution has provided vaccination shots to 47.8% of the world’s public – that is, 3.7 billion people – with 150 million more shots going into arms each week.

Low-Income Work Has Contracted by Two Thirds Since 2000:  The International Labor Organization finds that in 2020, about 8% of the world’s 3.5 billion workers earned ‘extreme poverty’ wages.  That is, for 280 million workers, a day’s labor brought $1.90 or less in constant 2011 dollars.  In 2000, the ILO’s figure was 26% of 2.76 billion workers, or 720 million.  The difference – 440 million people – implies that, on average, every day since the turn of the millennium, 68,000 workers (and along with them, tens of thousands of their children and relatives), have escaped deep poverty.

1.07 Million International Students Are Enrolled in American Universities: Despite Trump-era efforts to close borders, America remains the world’s top choice for study abroad, home to 1.07 million of the world’s 5.8 million international students.  Their tuition and expenses count as an “export of services” in trade accounts; in 2020, this came to $39 billion.  (For context, this is 2% of the $2.13 trillion in total U.S. exports; alternatively, by comparison, U.S. farm exports totaled $150 billion in 2020 and auto exports $59 billion.)  Over the long term, the effects are likely larger.  Surveys from the mid-2010s suggest that about half of foreign grad students take U.S. jobs after their degree, contributing to consumer demand, business creation, and perhaps especially – given that half of them are in engineering, math, and science – to American science and technology.   Despite neo-Maoism and U.S.-China tension, 372,000 Chinese students make up the largest single cohort of the 1.07 million.  After classes and commencements, some will stay on to work, while others return to join China’s next-generation elites in business, civil service, arts and media, and so to help shape these institutions’ role in Chinese domestic policy, daily life, and international affairs.

To ignore storm warnings and lowering clouds is reckless.  The proper response to them is to identify those parts of a roof or a wall that may leak or give way in heavy weather, shore up their weaknesses or replace them with something better.  It is equally important, however, to identify areas of strength, build upon them, and draw on the lessons they offer.  Metaphorical examples appear, in the response of government, non-profit, and private-sector science to a unique medical emergency; in the road out of poverty a still largely open global economy offers the world’s poor; and in the short- and long-term good that can come from education and exchange of ideas.  In such things one can see breaks in the clouds, patches of sunlight ahead, and foundation for PPI’s belief that the liberal project remains vital, successful, and worth defending.

 

FURTHER READING

COVID resources –

Oxford University’s “Our World in Data” project summarizes the state of COVID vaccination, worldwide and by country.  Top performers are Portugal, with 86% of the public fully vaccinated, the United Arab Emirates at 84%, Iceland at 81%, and Spain at 79%.  The U.S. is at 56%, tied with Ecuador and just ahead of El Salvador’s 55%.  The chief challenge in the United States is the galling one of foolish ‘vaccine hesitancy’ and perverse policymaking (e.g. attempts by some state governments to stigmatize or even ban ‘vaccine mandates’, including those of private businesses). The chief challenge worldwide, by contrast, remains lack of access:  in very poor countries, on average, only 2.8% of people are vaccinated.  Our World in Data on COVID-19 vaccinations by country: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

The State Department outlines U.S. donations of vaccines to developing countries:  https://www.state.gov/covid-19-recovery/vaccine-deliveries/

Peterson Institute scholar Chad Bown and CFR analyst Thomas Bollyky examine the multinational supply chains – U.S., France, Switzerland, U.K., Spain, India, South Africa, Korea, etc. – that created the vaccines, production centers, and delivery systems:  https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/how-covid-19-vaccine-supply-chains-emerged-midst-pandemic

The working poor –

The International Labour Organization’s Employment and Social Outlook 2021 examines the world labor market and the impact of Covid, with working-poor figures through 2020.  From 2019 to 2020, the estimate of men and women in extreme low-income work rose from 6.6% to 7.8% of all workers, implying that the Covid pandemic pushed about 35 million workers back into deep poverty last year:  https://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/weso/trends2021/WCMS_795453/lang–en/index.htm

Also from the ILO, a closer look from 2019 at the state of extreme-low-income work, comparing slightly dated with figures up to 2000-2018: https://ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—stat/documents/publication/wcms_696387.pdf

 Students –

For international students, education is a long-term investment; in trade statistics, it is a form of “exports of services” and a source of revenue.  The annual “Open Doors” statistical review looks at international students in the U.S. (and American students abroad) by state and university of study, country of origin, and more: https://opendoorsdata.org/annual-release/

 Principles –

PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project supports American leadership to build a fairer, more stable, more prosperous world economy.  To this end, through publications, events, and commentary, and in concert with likeminded intellectuals and policymakers at home and worldwide, we will advocate open markets, support for scientific and technological innovation, and individual choice; environmental sustainability; and special concern for the poor at home and abroad.  Complementing this future agenda, we will oppose and critique isolationist populism and nativism; call for reform of regressive, antiquated, and ill-conceived elements of the U.S. trade regime; and offer positive approaches to the social stresses of globalization.

 

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007).  He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week

Let’s Talk Tech: How Would Antitrust Legislation Affect You?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

This week, Chief Economic Strategist at PPI, Michael Mandel, and Senior Fellow at AEI, Shane Tews, sit down to discuss the current antitrust legislation in Congress and how it will affect everyday consumers. What happens to Amazon Basics? And what about Kirkland products? Is breaking up big tech really what consumers are concerned about?

Today’s episode is moderated by Jeremiah Johnson, Director of the Center for New Liberalism.

Learn more about the Center for New Liberalism here.

Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here.

Kane for Bloomberg: Medicare Can Cover Dental Care Inexpensively

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As the cost of President Joe Biden’s spending package shrinks from $3.5 trillion closer to $2 trillion, Senator Bernie Sanders’s proposal to add dental, vision and hearing coverage to Medicare has emerged as a sticking point in negotiations. Opposing Sanders are Democrats such as Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina who would like to prioritize spending to benefit low-income people — including by providing health insurance for the poor in states that have refused to expand Medicaid.

There is a way to compromise — to add new benefits to Medicare without spending so much that there’s no room in the budget for helping the Medicaid-deprived.

Rather than simply offer dental, vision and hearing benefits to all Medicare beneficiaries, create an optional, buy-in policy. This would enable seniors to take advantage of the federal government’s purchasing power but still limit the cost to taxpayers. It would keep Medicare solvent longer. And it would provide standardized plans for beneficiaries — rather than the patchwork of coverage now available to those who sign up for Medicare Advantage or supplemental Medicare plans.

Older Americans clearly need affordable dental, vision and hearing coverage. The only question is how best to pay for it. A buy-in program could be structured like the Affordable Care Act and the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, both of which give subsidies to people below a certain income threshold.

Read the full piece in Bloomberg. 

Ritz for Forbes: What Is The Mandate For Medicare Expansion?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

One of the most controversial provisions in the Build Back Better reconciliation bill working its way through Congress is an expansion of Medicare benefits championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Sanders has said that expanding benefits to include coverage for dental, hearing, and vision services at no additional cost to beneficiaries is “not negotiable” for him. But the reality is that the senator from Vermont has no political mandate to demand this costly policy right now. As lawmakers work to trim the bill’s overall size so it can pass Congress, they should prioritize more-pressing public investments from President Biden’s agenda now and pursue a comprehensive plan to strengthen Medicare in the future.

During the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, voters had a choice between President Biden’s vision of expanding the Affordable Care Act and Sen. Sanders’ vision of Medicare for All. They decisively chose Biden. Then, when President Biden offered his American Jobs and Families Plans – which served as the blueprint for the Build Back Better bill – neither included any expansion of Medicare for current beneficiaries. The policy was only added in at the insistence of Sanders who, as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, was responsible for writing the resolution that enabled Biden’s agenda to pass through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process.

Read the full piece in Forbes.

Tech-ecommerce drives job growth in most states

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Based on our analysis of BLS data, the tech-ecommerce ecosystem added 1.4 million jobs between September 2017 and September 2021, the most recent data available from the BLS. The previous job creation leader, the health care sector, added 500,000 jobs, roughly one-third of the tech-ecommerce total. And the rest of the economy lost 900,000 jobs.

On the state level, the tech-ecommerce ecosystem took the place of health care as the main job producer in most of the country. From our analysis, 40 states gained more jobs from tech-ecommerce than health care and social assistance from 2017Q1 to 2021Q1 (our analysis requires detailed QCEW data from the BLS, which currently goes through the first quarter of 2021).*

The top of the list, not surprisingly, was California, which added 310,000 tech-ecommerce jobs over the four year stretch. That made a big difference. In a June 2021 blog item, we estimated that tech-ecommerce accounted for roughly 42% of the increase in California personal tax revenues from 2015 to 2020.

The next four states, ranked by tech-ecommerce job creation, are Texas, Florida, Washington, and New York. New York, in particular, added 73,000 tech-ecommerce jobs over that 4-year stretch. Meanwhile, the number of jobs in the crucial New York finance and insurance sector was flat or slightly down.

Other states with strong tech-ecommerce job growth included Ohio (61,000); Arizona (58,000); Georgia (56,000);North Carolina (56,000); Illinois (56,000); and New Jersey (55,000). Note how tech-ecommerce jobs are well-distributed around the country.

Amazon is currently building its second headquarters in northern Virginia, with a total of 25,000 workers expected over the next decade. But even before the Amazon build-out, Virginia has experienced a surge in tech-ecommerce jobs. Between 2017Q1 and 20201Q1, tech-ecommerce jobs rose by 38,000, while jobs in the rest of the economy, including health care, fell by 53,000.

Virginia’s tech-ecommerce jobs are also well-compensated, earning an average of $109,700 per person in 2020. That’s compared to an average wage of $65,100 for all Virginia workers, and $63,900 for Virginia manufacturing workers.

Nevada had a 76 percent increase in tech-ecommerce jobs from 2017Q1 to 2021Q, the biggest percentage gain among states. Arizona had a 49% increase in tech-ecommerce jobs, the third highest percentage gain. Arizona tech-ecommerce jobs paid an annual wage (including bonuses) of $83,300 on average in 2020. That’s comparable to the average pay for Arizona manufacturing wages($82,400), and substantially higher than average pay in Arizona health care and social assistance ($57,600). Tech-ecommerce pay in Arizona is 43% higher than average pay for the Arizona economy as a whole.

The raw numbers are not so impressive for smaller states, but tech-ecommerce is still important for a state like Delaware, which gained 2,000 tech-ecommerce jobs between 2017Q1 and 2021Q1, while finance and insurance employment stagnated. Average pay for the tech-ecommerce sector in 2020 was $73,000 per year, compared to $58,000 for health care and social assistance jobs.

New Hampshire gains 5,000 tech-ecommerce jobs, while health care was flat in terms of hiring and the rest of the state economy lost jobs. In Vermont, tech-ecommerce jobs were flat but employment in the rest of the economy, including health care, shrank by 20,000.

One interesting note: Minnesota is one of the few states where health care jobs grew significantly more than tech-ecommerce jobs. Perhaps coincidentally, Minnesota is also the home state of Senator Amy Klobuchar, who is the lead sponsor for a tech antitrust legislation in the Senate.

 

Tech-Ecommerce Drives Job Growth in Most States
Change in jobs, 2017Q1-2021Q1 (thousands)
Tech-ecommerce Private healthcare and social assistance Rest of private sector
California 310 173 -796
Texas 165 40 45
Florida 119 51 -4
Washington 84 26 -77
New York 73 79 -725
Ohio 61 -8 -173
Arizona 58 37 61
Georgia 56 24 17
North Carolina 56 17 77
Illinois 56 -2 -318
New Jersey 55 -2 -150
Pennsylvania 54 15 -245
Colorado 44 14 -8
Tennessee 42 10 13
Maryland 41 -8 -127
Virginia 38 5 -58
Indiana 33 9 -54
Nevada 31 15 -65
Michigan 26 -11 -208
Missouri 26 4 -72
Oregon 25 33 -55
Massachusetts 24 -14 -137
Utah 24 18 87
Kentucky 23 8 -46
Oklahoma 22 0 -37
Wisconsin 18 5 -82
South Carolina 15 12 12
Connecticut 14 -1 -98
Kansas 12 4 -44
Mississippi 10 -3 -24
Idaho 10 13 55
Louisiana 9 3 -118
Iowa 7 -6 -41
Minnesota 7 12 -110
Nebraska 5 1 -20
New Hampshire 5 0 -14
District of Columbia 5 -1 -54
Arkansas 4 0 -6
New Mexico 4 0 -28
Rhode Island 4 -3 -20
Delaware 2 0 -12
West Virginia 2 3 -32
Maine 2 -1 -3
Montana 2 2 11
South Dakota 1 4 -2
Wyoming 1 1 -2
North Dakota 1 3 -21
Alaska 1 1 -17
Hawaii 0 1 -89
Vermont 0 -2 -18
Data: BLS (QCEW), PPI. Tech-ecommerce sector includes NAICS 334, 4541, 492, 493, 5112, 518, 519, 5415

 

*Note that the total lost jobs on the state level, outside of tech-ecommerce and healthcare, is much larger because the most recent detailed state level data available is 2021Q1.

Bledsoe and Ritz for The Hill: America needs a climate plan compromise

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda is making its way through Congress via a budget reconciliation bill — a once-in-a-generation opportunity for America to reassert its leadership in combating the climate crisis. But a major part of the effort is jeopardized by disagreements over the Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP), which would subsidize electric utilities that increase the share of clean energy they produce while penalizing those that do not. This provision could be responsible for up to one-third of the emissions reductions in Biden’s climate agenda, so lawmakers must either find a way to compromise on the CEPP or replace it with a policy that can achieve similar emissions reductions.

Negotiators are reportedly considering dropping the CEPP over concerns from Sen. Joe Manchin JOE MANCHIN Overnight Energy & Environment — Presented by the American Petroleum Institute — Democrats address reports that clean energy program will be axed Overnight Health Care — Presented by Carequest — Colin Powell’s death highlights risks for immunocompromised Progressive coalition unveils ad to pressure Manchin on Biden spending plan MORE , (D-W. Va.), who not only holds the crucial 50th vote Democrats need to pass the bill through the Senate but is also chairman of the Senate Energy Committee that has jurisdiction over the CEPP provisions. Manchin says he is concerned that the program would only subsidize transitions that are already taking place rather than encouraging the adoption of new renewable energy sources. He’s also concerned that the program would hurt states like West Virginia that are heavily dependent on natural gas and coal by requiring them to adopt expensive technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) without offsetting the costs. And he has noted the opposition of some major electric utilities over cost and reliability worries, although the industry is somewhat divided on the bill.

Whether climate hawks agree with these concerns or not, the reality is that any climate policy must address them to become law. Because of the work that has already gone into developing the policy, and Manchin’s chairmanship of the relevant committee, we believe the clearest path forward is for Manchin and fellow negotiators to modify the CEPP so that it addresses his concerns while meeting the science-based targets necessary to retain the support of other Democrats.

Read the full piece in The Hill. 

PPI Statement on Senate Anti-Tech Bill  

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today, a bipartisan group of Senators, led by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), announced the imminent introduction of an antitrust bill aimed at a handful of America’s most successful technology companies. The bill, mirroring similarly misguided proposals in the House, would do irreparable damage to the digital ecosystem that has put America in the vanguard of high-tech innovation and entrepreneurship.

Lindsay Mark Lewis, Executive Director of the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement:

“The antitrust legislation sponsored by Senator Klobuchar will do more harm than good to American families who rely on digital shopping, commerce, and communication every day. Though this bill is trumpeted as bipartisan, the reality is that it is just as radical and far-reaching as the House Judiciary Committee bills led by extremists like Rep. Matt Gaetz and lobbied for by Fox News’s parent company News Corp.

“If passed, this bill would weaken America’s ability to compete with China and undercut what has been robust job creation in the high-growth tech and e-commerce industries. Technology and e-commerce companies are major investors in communities and local economies throughout the United States, and as PPI has documented, have provided the most substantial job growth in recent years – including during the pandemic.

“In polling battleground voters across America, we found no public groundswell for breaking up or drastically regulating U.S. technology companies. In fact, just three percent of voters identified changing the way tech companies operate as a top economic priority. When asked about the impact these proposals could have on our everyday relationship with products like Amazon Prime and Marketplace or Google Maps and other Google apps, a strong majority opposed the potential impact of these bills.

“Since 1996, Congress has mostly taken a pragmatic approach to regulating the digital economy, with the result that America is the world’s leader in high tech innovation. This bill reaches for the extreme remedy of breaking up companies whose products are highly valued by U.S. and global consumers, without solid evidence of consumer harm.

“As made evident by last week’s hearing focused on Facebook, there are clear threats to our democracy and the online marketplace posed by certain bad actors to address. These abuses should – and can be – targeted with smart regulation tailored carefully to specific problems. The bills introduced in Congress would not do this, nor would they tackle concentration and competition issues in the U.S. economy. Instead, they are designed to score points with far-left and far-right activists and go to the extreme.”

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

Goldberg for New York Law Journal: Congress Should Enact Antitrust Reforms That Spur Competition, Not Excessive Lawsuits

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

American psychologist Abraham Maslow famously said, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” For state attorneys general, lawsuits are their hammers, and they are constantly searching for additional, bigger hammers.

Right now, state attorneys general, led by New York’s Letitia James, are urging Congress to give them a shiny, Thor-sized hammer for antitrust litigation. The State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021, which is currently under consideration in Congress, would categorically eliminate State antitrust actions from the federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL) system.

For decades, MDLs have centralized pretrial proceedings when large numbers of similar cases, including state antitrust claims, are filed against the same business involving the same set of allegations. Although not perfect, this system provides the parties and courts with a useful tool for resolving disputes.

Read the full piece in New York Law Journal

Marshall for The Hill: Democrats need a win — now

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In politics, success tends to beget success. That truism apparently eluded leftwing Democrats on Sept. 30 when they refused to vote for President Biden’s $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Instead of basking in accolades for having passed a second landmark achievement to go with Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, Democrats are treating the public to an extended exhibition of their inability to forge the internal consensus necessary to govern.

Even as clogged U.S. ports and long delays in delivering goods of all kinds underscore the urgent need for upgrading the nation’s economic infrastructure, the Congressional Progressive Caucus vows to persist in blocking the bill if they don’t get their way on a follow-on reconciliation bill that would spend trillions more on new social entitlements and climate protection.

That’s sewn anger and mistrust among moderate House Democrats, who were promised a vote and stood ready to pass the infrastructure bill last month. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) set a new deadline for a vote — Halloween, fittingly enough. To arrest the administration’s faltering momentum, Democrats need a big political win, and soon.

Read the full piece in The Hill. 

Ritz for The Washington Post: A Build Back Better bill all Democrats can get behind

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute
President Biden is trying to build consensus around a $1.9 trillion to $2.3 trillion reconciliation bill, after several lawmakers in his own party made clear they could not support the full $3.5 trillion proposal working its way through Congress. Although some on the left are understandably disappointed, this package would still be an enormous accomplishment: Combined with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, it would represent the third pillar of the largest and most progressive public investment since the Great Society over 50 years ago. But to get this transformative win across the finish line, Democrats must agree to spend smarter, not bigger and coalesce around a plan to pay for it.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) recently published a report detailing what such a package could entail. Our blueprint includes $925 billion for a permanently expanded Child Tax Credit, universal preschool and a more robust system for non-college-educated workers to acquire marketable skills. To combat climate change, we propose $600 billion for tax credits and other incentives that would encourage the adoption of affordable electric vehicles and technologies such as carbon capture, hydrogen and geothermal energy and advanced nuclear power. Finally, we propose $425 billion to strengthen the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by giving coverage to working families who don’t already have it and pairing that with other measures to control health-care costs.

 

Read the full piece in the Washington Post.

Pankovits for RealClearPolicy: Senate Must Undo House Appropriations Committee’s Discrimination Against Students

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Buried deep in the massive $600 billion “minibus” appropriations package the House passed last month are two discriminatory provisions against 3.3 million school children who attend charter schools. As both Chambers consider this spending bill and other related spending measures this fall, Senators should do away with these provisions.

Democrats on the House Appropriation Committee’s subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies cut $40 million from the federal Charter School Program (CSP), which exists to increase high quality public education options for students whose needs are not being met in traditional public schools. Most public charter school students are minorities and more live in low income households than traditional public school students.

Read the full piece in RealClearPolicy