Uncategorized Archives - Page 11 of 312 - Progressive Policy Institute

Kahlenberg for the New York Post: Here’s why real diversity should focus on class — not race

Posted on March 15, 2025March 17, 2025 by Alex Terr

I’ve spent my career as a center-left thinker and writer, working with people like former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to help promote school integration and Keith Ellison and the late John Lewis to strengthen organized labor. So why did I agree to join a conservative group, Students for Fair Admissions, in its lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina in cases that enabled the Supreme Court to bring an end to racial preferences in 2023?

As I outline in my new book, Class Matters: The Fight to Get Beyond Race Preferences, Reduce Inequality, and Build Real Diversity at America’s Colleges, I testified as an expert witness that racial and economic diversity benefits students, but there is a much better way to accomplish these goals than through racial preferences.

Universities, I testified, should consider ending preferences for the wealthy and instead give an admissions break to economically disadvantaged students of all races, a substantial share of whom would, in fact, end up being Black and Hispanic.

I’d long argued that this approach could work, but I became even more convinced once I had a chance to peek inside the files at Harvard and UNC and see how the admissions process worked.

Continuing Resolutions Are Bad Budgeting

Posted on March 13, 2025April 3, 2025 by Max Sherrill

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

House Republicans voted earlier this week on a continuing resolution (CR) that would continue the previous year’s funding levels through the end of the current fiscal year. If passed by the Senate and signed by the president, this would mark the first time since the establishment of the modern budget process that Congress failed to pass any new appropriations legislation for a full year. Although CRs can be a necessary bridge when lawmakers fall behind schedule in crafting appropriations bills, the increasing reliance on them reflects a broken approach to budgeting that undermines effective governance and leads to more wasteful spending.

The 1974 Budget Act that established the modern budget process requires Congress to pass appropriations bills that fund discretionary spending before the start of each fiscal year on October 1. But lawmakers have only managed to meet that deadline three times in the past 48 years — and not once since 1997. Instead, Congress has come to rely on CRs, often passing multiple in a single year, to keep the government running.

CRs lock spending levels and priorities into the most previously passed budget and limit agencies to current operational expenses — even when they no longer make any sense. This creates dysfunction and waste across federal agencies, as programs that don’t need resources receive them, while others that might need more resources don’t receive them. Under past CRs, these rigid funding levels have threatened a myriad of important programs or policies, including the military’s ability to pay recruitment bonuses to new enlistees, the availability of food assistance for low-income families, and the ability of Customs and Border Patrol to retain their staff. While Congress tries to address this operational inflexibility through multiple small adjustments — known as “anomalies” — it is a far less comprehensive change than a typical appropriations process would entail.

To cope with the constant uncertainty surrounding funding, agencies must repeatedly adjust their work and budget plans to match unclear parameters, wasting valuable time and resources that could be directed toward more productive efforts. In one case, staff for a program that provides energy assistance for struggling households was forced to instead spend their time constantly updating its funding formula — once for every CR that year and again when appropriations bills were actually passed. More critically, because they are bound by outdated funding directives, agencies are unable to plan for future needs or respond effectively to emerging challenges. This is particularly problematic for agencies like the Department of Defense (DOD), where long-term planning is essential to maintaining national security and military readiness.

While CRs create a number of complications for agencies, they also paradoxically empower the executive branch to adjust funding within those constraints. Unlike typical appropriations bills, CRs do not come with an explanatory document from Congress that explains how the budget’s many vague line items are intended to be used. Therefore, the executive branch has far more leeway to adjust spending priorities and interpret vague spending provisions in ways that they see fit. By passing a CR that strengthens the executive branch’s fiscal power, Congress is delegating a key part of its constitutional authority to the already powerful executive branch.

Congressional Republicans, who at every turn seem eager to bend the knee to Donald Trump, may view this transfer of authority from Congress to the president as a feature rather than a bug. But in stark contrast to their rhetoric about restoring fiscal discipline, passing a CR for the full fiscal year instead of any normal appropriations will only perpetuate dysfunction and wasteful spending. Senate Democrats are right to withhold their support and push for a better alternative, even if they ultimately feel forced to vote for the bill as the only viable option Republicans give them for preventing a costly government shutdown.

Deeper Dive

House G.O.P. Passes Bill to Avert a Shutdown, Daring the Senate to Accept It, by the New York Times
What You Need to Know About Continuing Resolutions, by the Bipartisan Policy Center
CR Rightly Avoids Shutdown But Reflects Broken Budget Process, by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Practices, by the Congressional Research Service
Federal Budget: Selected Agencies and Programs Used Strategies to Manage Constraints of Continuing Resolutions, by the Government Accountability Office

Fiscal Fact

Since the modern federal budget process was established in 1974, the federal government has only shut down two times during a period when one party had unified control of the House, Senate, and the presidency. Both those shutdowns occurred when Republicans had unified control during Donald Trump’s first term.

Kahlenberg in Town & Country: How College Admissions Has Changed—and Will Continue to Change—after Affirmative Action

Posted on March 12, 2025 by Max Sherrill

Richard Kahlenberg occupies a unique space amongst higher education reformists. A Harvard-educated progressive whose heroes include Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., Kahlenberg—who is director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute—has spent decades advocating for the rights of economically disadvantaged Americans. But in recent decades, as liberals have prioritized race over socio-economic status when it comes to who gets a leg up in the world, Kahlenberg began to fall out of step with some of his civil rights compatriots. This was never more so than when he became an expert witness for the conservative advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions, which sued Harvard University and the University of North Carolina for allegedly discriminating against Asian American applicants. The group claimed that those institutions, hiding behind the veil of “holistic admissions,” were docking high-performing Asian American applicants for lacking qualities such as leadership and “grit” over other applicants.

The case, of course, went all the way to the Supreme Court and resulted in the 2023 law banning affirmative action in college admissions. The milestone turned the limelight on Kahlenberg, who, however controversial amongst some liberals, nonetheless had pragmatic, left-leaning solutions for universities that suddenly had to come up with new ways to achieve racial diversity on their campuses—among them are banning legacy preference; expanding financial aid programs; and recruiting from community colleges. The case also validated much of what Kahlenberg had been saying all along—that elite schools’ efforts to diversify their classes through racial preference ultimately amounted to virtue signaling. Despite billion-dollar endowments, schools like Harvard have been loathe to dip into financial aid, instead boosting their diversity numbers by tapping wealthy kids from underrepresented ethnic groups, creating what Kahlenberg calls a “multi-racial aristocracy” on campuses.

Two years after the SCOTUS decision propelled Kahlenberg into the national discourse around affirmative action, he has a new book, Class Matters: The Fight to Get Beyond Race Preferences, Reduce Inequality, and Build Real Diversity at America’s Colleges, which chronicles his personal and professional journeys through the increasingly combustible debate over equity in college admissions. He spoke with Town & Country about the current admissions landscape and where he sees things headed in the new world order under President Trump.

Read the full interview in Town & Country.

69% of Americans want their next car to cost less than $50,000

Posted on March 12, 2025 by Max Sherrill

FACT: 69% of Americans want their next car to cost less than $50,000.

**THE NUMBERS: Steel use per $1 billion of U.S. “real GDP,” 2017 and 2024* –**

2024:	3,990 tons
2017:	5,050 tons

*BEA for U.S. GDP adjusted for inflation in 2017 dollars (Table 1.1.6), and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Mineral Commodity Summaries (“apparent consumption”) for steel and aluminum use.

WHAT THEY MEAN:

The Trump administration’s explanations for its tariff binge shift and vary. (“Foreigners ripping us off,” “fentanyl,” “trade balance,” “reciprocity,” etc.) But they often converge on an assertion that higher trade barriers would make U.S. manufacturing grow, and that the harms of higher tariffs –lost wealth, foreign retaliations against American farm products and manufactures, depressed family living standards — are less than this future benefit. (lllustrative comments below from Cabinet Secretaries Bessent & Lutnick.) Outside the administration, Shawn Fain, president of the venerable United Auto Workers union, makes a similar claim, advocating trade collaboration with Mr. Trump in the Washington Post last January on the grounds that higher tariffs would mean fewer imported cars, more U.S. car production, and presumably, more auto-plant hires and dues-paying UAW members.

Autos are very pertinent this month. Despite the financial-market plunges and fading GDP outlook accompanying the Trump administration’s Canada and Mexico fiasco, it still appears to envision putting tariffs on cars — as well as medicines (both prescription and over-the-counter), semiconductors, building materials, and various other things — in April. So is Mr. Fain right about what might happen afterwards? We’ll start with the people who get the final say — Americans thinking about buying cars this year — and draw from recent heavy-industry tariff experience to inform an answer.

The day the Post published Mr. Fain’s article, Deloitte released a January 2025 poll of Americans on car ownership. Two points jump out: (i) 69% of Americans hope to pay less than $50,000 for their next car, and (ii) 44% of Americans aged 18 to 34 years are willing to give up auto ownership altogether in favor of “Mobility as a Service.” (“MaaS,” meaning using a mix of ride-sharing, bicycles, public transit, taxis, and rental cars instead of buying a personal car.)

Now to the recent heavy-industry experience:

In March 2018, the first Trump administration raised tariffs to 25% on most steel and 10% on most aluminum. Between September 2018 and the summer of 2019, it added tariffs of 25% and 7.5% to most Chinese-made products. Both mostly stayed in place during the Biden era. Since then U.S. manufacturing output and job growth have slowed. The average post-financial-crisis, Obama-administration-policy year saw $41 billion in real-dollar manufacturing output growth and a net gain of 125,000 manufacturing jobs. Post-2018, the averages are $31 billion in real output growth and 40,000 net new jobs. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ count of specifically unionized manufacturing workers has dropped by 216,000, and the manufacturing share of U.S. GDP has shrunk by about a point:

Manufacturing share of U.S. GDP, 2024**:	10.0%
Manufacturing share of U.S. GDP, 2017:	10.9%

One can argue — in a miniature version of the broader claim that lost wealth and diminished family purchasing power are prices worth paying for the industrial-sector growth the administration is predicting — that somewhat smaller U.S. total manufacturing output is worth it to get larger steel and aluminum industries. But that didn’t happen either. Instead, steel production in the U.S. has fallen from 87.8 million tons in 2018 to 81 million tons in 2024, and primary aluminum production from 740,000 tons to 670,000 tons.

Why? The reason appears to be that industrial buyers now use less metal. The U.S. Geological Survey’s annual “Mineral Commodity Summaries” reports that from 2012 to 2017 the U.S. economy used 99 million tons of steel and 4.94 million tons of aluminum on average each year. From 2019 to 2024 — the six years since the tariffs, skipping 2018 since the tariffs came halfway through — the comparable averages were 94 million tons of steel and 4.37 million tons of aluminum. The 2024 totals were lower still, at 93 million tons of steel and 4.3 million tons of aluminum. So steel use dropped by about 5% and aluminum by 12%; both fell even faster relative to real GDP; and U.S. domestic production of these metals is down a bit rather than up.

Now back to cars. A 25% tariff on cars in April might raise the cost of a new $50,000 car to $60,000. Meanwhile, tariffs on the many “inputs” that go into a car — metals, semiconductors, Internet routers, wiring, radios, shatterproof and mirrored glass, leather and vinyl for seat covers, etc. — would make it more expensive for U.S.-based factories to make cars, and also raise repair and tune-up bills. Taking Deloitte’s insights on the auto-buying public into account, the likely result is that (a) some of the 69% of Americans hoping to pay less than $50,000 for a new ride wouldn’t buy one, (b) used cars would grow more attractive compared to new ones, and (c) more young Americans would choose not to buy them at all.

In sum, it’s hard to see how Mr. Fain’s hopes could materialize. And it’s easy to imagine the opposite: higher car prices, quieter dealerships, fewer sales, and eventually fewer hourly-wage auto production jobs. So here’s an alternative suggestion for the UAW’s policy shop: rather than work with Mr. Trump to raise tariffs and car prices, ask the members for ideas on how to give young Americans the low-cost cars they seem to want.

* Using the BEA and BLS annual averages, more or less equivalent to the mid-year total.

** BEA’s ‘GDP by Industry’ data. These are complete through Q3 2024; and the manufacturing share was 10.0% in the second and third quarters. The first estimate for Q4 is not yet available until March, so the final annual share may be slightly above or below the current 10.0% estimate.

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.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Europe’s Rude Awakening

Posted on March 12, 2025 by Alex Terr

The news from the U.S.-Ukraine talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on Tuesday brought relief across Ukraine last night. The outcome could have been much worse—in keeping with the brutal negotiating style Washington has favored in recent weeks. The agreement stipulates a 30-day ceasefire in exchange for a resumed flow of the U.S. weapons and intelligence essential for Kyiv’s defense. Now the ball is in Russia’s court. Will Vladimir Putin observe the truce? Is he serious about wanting peace?

Even if he is—a big if—neither Ukraine nor the rest of Europe are likely to forget the way Washington bullied and abused them in recent weeks.

On March 4, just days after Donald Trump’s dressing down of Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, Washington cut off the supply of U.S. arms and ammunition, threatening to incapacitate some 40 percent of the equipment Kyiv counts on to defend itself. A day later, the U.S. restricted vital targeting and intelligence data, endangering the lives of soldiers and civilians by sharply limiting Ukrainian knowledge of Russian troop movements and missile launches. The immediate result was one of the fiercest Russian air attacks in recent months: 67 missiles and 194 attack drones launched overnight on March 6, killing at least 20 people in the front-line city of Dobropillia.

For the first time since the early months of the war, I saw fear in the eyes of my Ukrainian friends. Sources said soldiers’ morale was teetering between despair and defiance. And many still fear there is worse to come: a U.S. push to compel Kyiv to surrender to Moscow’s steepest demands—for demilitarization and a change of government.

PPI Applauds Introduction of Pink Tariffs Study Act to Examine How Tariffs Drive Up Costs for American Women

Posted on March 11, 2025March 11, 2025 by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — Today, Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), issued the following on today’s introduction of the Pink Tariffs Study Act by Representatives Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) and Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.):

“As Representatives Fletcher and Pettersen introduce the Pink Tariffs Study Act today, they are rightly going beyond pure — and fully justified — opposition to Mr. Trump’s tariff increases. By helping alert policymakers to unequal tariff taxation of American women, and tariff rates biased against lower-income families, their bill will help us design a better and fairer system.

“Economists have long known that tariffs are a poor form of taxation. As taxation of purchases of goods, they tax hourly-wage families more than wealthy households, and impose greater cost burdens on goods-using industries like retail, manufacturing, farming, restaurants, and homebuilding than on services- and investment-heavy industries. Even within this context, the U.S. tariff system is far more regressive than those of most of our trading partners — for example, by taxing polyester clothes more heavily than silks, and cheap stainless steel silverware more than sterling silver. And it appears to be unique in the world in taxing women’s clothes more heavily than directly analogous men’s clothes. This gender bias in the two clothing chapters likely costs women at least $2.5 billion per year.

“The Pink Tariffs Study Act directs the Treasury Department to conduct a formal study of the U.S. tariff system for gender bias and regressivity — something neither the Treasury Department nor other trade agencies with tariff powers, such as Customs and Border Protection or the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, have ever done. This would give Congress the data and information it will need as it reasserts its Constitutional authority over tariff policy and begins to undo the harms Mr. Trump’s policies are causing. We are proud to applaud and endorse their work.”

Gresser’s pathbreaking research has repeatedly analyzed U.S. tariff data to explain an opaque system and illuminate inequity in the country’s tariff taxation system, especially on women’s clothes and household consumer goods such as shoes, silverware, and home linens. Most recently, PPI has warned of the economic risks posed by Trump’s tariff policies in a recent report and detailed these concerns in testimony before Congress. PPI outlined four key principles for responding to tariff-driven economic isolationism:

Defend the Constitution and oppose attempts to rule by decree
Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices, family budgets, and living standards
Stand by America’s neighbors and allies
Offer a positive alternative

For further context on the Constitution over tariffs and taxation and how the legislative, not executive branch, has the authority, see the full text of the U.S. Constitution.

Founded in 1989, 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. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Kahlenberg for The Boston Globe: Ending Legacy Preferences is Key to Current Admissions Reforms

Posted on March 10, 2025March 10, 2025 by Alex Terr

Nearly two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down the use of racial preferences in college admissions — a momentous decision that has reverberated through the landscape of higher education and begun to usher in a new approach to diversity.

In response to the ruling, then-President Joe Biden urged colleges to keep their commitment to diversity but adopt a “new standard” in admissions to reward students who had overcome adversity, including a lack of financial means.

How has that worked out?

Old ideologies don’t die easily, and there was initial resistance to the ruling on both the far left and the far right. But most schools have come around to the view that it’s time to find new paths to diversity, centered around addressing America’s great class divide.

Manno for Forbes: Who Needs College Anymore? Creating The Experience First College

Posted on March 8, 2025March 10, 2025 by Alex Terr

A New Book Describes The Experience First College

“For every employer I interviewed for this book, from the largest tech companies to smaller and medium size businesses in cities or rural American, the most important resume signal today for candidates to get hired is not where they went to college, or even whether they went to college, but their experience relevant to the role they’ll be asked to perform. And experts anticipate that this will become even more of a trend if artificial intelligence begins to eliminate more entry-level jobs,” writes Kathleen deLaski, author of the new book Who Needs College Anymore? Imagining a Future Where Degrees Don’t Matter.

The typical college degree does not provide graduates with the experience they need for the work role they will be asked to perform, creating an experience gap for graduates. DeLaski’s solution to this problem is an experience first model of college. This approach prepares students for jobs by integrating elements of what colleges traditionally offer with significant work experiences, especially for the career that interests the student.

Marshall for The Hill: America: Is This What You Voted For?

Posted on March 7, 2025 by Max Sherrill

President Trump is off to a manic start, carpet bombing Washington with executive orders of dubious legality, firing hundreds of thousands of federal workers and souring relations with America’s neighbors and allies.

I get that Trump was elected to shake up a status quo that working-class voters believe stacks the odds against them. But Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) was right: Trump has no mandate to inflict ruinous trade wars on America’s friends, disable the federal government rather than reform it and throw Ukraine to the Russian wolves.

Green’s protest got him ejected from the president’s stemwinder in Congress Tuesday night, during which Trump served up his usual smorgasbord of self-congratulatory fantasies to rapt Republicans and dejected Democrats.

We shouldn’t forget that half the country didn’t vote for Trump and endorses neither his brazen power grabs nor his embrace of old ideas — high trade barriers and isolationism — that failed our country badly in the past. At 45 percent, Trump’s personal approval rating is the lowest for any newly elected president since he set the record low of 44 percent in 2017.

Republicans no doubt are thrilled their hero is “owning the libs.” But what matters now is whether Trump can deliver tangible benefits to the swing voters who put him narrowly over the top — independents, moderate Republicans and Democratic defectors, especially noncollege Blacks and Latinos.

Continue reading in The Hill.

PPI Backs Bill Requiring Congressional Approval for National Security Tariffs

Posted on March 7, 2025 by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — Today, Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), issued the following statement regarding the “Congressional Trade Authority Act,” introduced by Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.)

“Representatives Beyer and DelBene are absolutely right in requiring Congressional approval for any tariff action taken under a ‘national security’ headline. The Constitution gives Congress power over ‘Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises,’ without ambiguity and with good reason.

“As policy, if a president (or any single individual) can use ‘national security’ declarations to create his or her own system of tariffs or other taxes, and impose whatever rates he or she wants on any product or country, Americans will be at constant risk of sudden price hikes in grocery stores, auto dealerships, real estate offices and machinery factories, as well as job loss and business failures in export manufacturing and the farm economy from retaliation and consumer boycotts abroad, and other harms emerging from impulsive and ill-advised decisions.

“As governance, every future president would face temptation to use this novel power in corrupt ways, to punish critics and business rivals or to reward supporters and friends.

“Most fundamentally, personal imposition of tariffs by presidents without any Congressional instruction or approval violates the core Constitutional principle of separation of powers and damages Congress’ ‘power of the purse’.

“If a president makes a valid argument for using tariffs in a national security case – as the Biden administration did in removing Most Favored Nation tariff rates from Russian goods in 2022 – Congress will recognize it and act. If Congress does not see an emergency, then it’s likely the president has not made a persuasive case for tariffs and import limits.

“The Beyer/DelBene bill is good policy and good government. Its passage will prevent further real-world harms and help restore Constitutionally appropriate tax and trade policymaking.”

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Baseline Gimmickry Doesn’t Erase Costs

Posted on March 7, 2025March 7, 2025 by Max Sherrill

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

Senate Republicans and “moderate” House Republicans who are uncomfortable with the $4.5 trillion cost of extending the expiring tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first term are pushing a new strategy: pretend it is free. Normally, the cost of legislation is measured as the amount passing the legislation would increase the deficit relative to a scenario where the legislation did not pass, which is known as a “current law” baseline. But Republicans instead want to score their upcoming tax bill against a “current policy” baseline that assumes every policy in effect today continues in perpetuity.

Although advocates of this approach suggest it would “zero out” the cost of extending expiring tax cuts, the reality is that it would do nothing to change the actual cost. If Republicans pass a bill with policies that are “fully offset” relative to current policy, the national debt as a percent of gross domestic product would increase by nearly twice as much compared to if they did nothing.

Aside from helping Republicans justify their budget-busting plans to themselves and the public, adopting a current policy baseline could potentially clear some legislative procedural hurdles. Budget reconciliation bills, which can be passed by a simple majority in the Senate without being subject to a filibuster, are not allowed to increase deficits over 10 years by more than the amount permitted in a previously-passed budget resolution. These constraints are the reason Republicans scheduled many tax cuts to expire at the end of this year when they passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.

By using a current policy baseline – instead of the current law baseline used in 2017 and for every other piece of legislation – Republicans are hoping to hide the true cost of extension so they can bypass reconciliation constraints and clear the path for their legislative agenda. Most experts believe budget rules do not allow lawmakers to subjectively select their preferred baseline like this. But if Republicans are somehow able to do so, either by exploiting legal loopholes or overruling the Senate parliamentarian, the results could annihilate any fiscal guardrails in future legislative debates.

Consider this scenario: After enacting the American Rescue Plan in 2021, which cost $1.9 trillion compared to a current law baseline, Democrats could have said that not extending the law’s one-time spending provisions would “save” up to nearly $20 trillion over the following decade compared to a current policy baseline. They could then have used these phony savings as an “offset” for a bill four times as expensive as Joe Biden’s original “Build Back Better” plan. Effectively, Republicans would be setting a precedent that enables far-left Democrats to enact prohibitively expensive proposals like the Green New Deal or Medicare-for-All and claim they cost virtually nothing, even as the national debt would balloon.

Some Republicans have argued that making tax cuts permanent is so important for economic growth that the benefits of extending them should outweigh any potential consequences. But according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, extending the tax cuts without offsets would be unlikely to generate any long-term economic growth at all – and could even reduce it, as higher borrowing costs outweigh any positive economic impact. Moreover, when the federal budget is on such an obviously unsustainable trajectory, no fiscal policy can be considered permanent. At some point in the not-too-distant future, some combination of tax and spending policies that currently have no expiration date will have to change to prevent, or react to, an economic crisis caused by exploding debt. If Republicans really wanted their tax cuts to be permanent, they would figure out how to pay for them.

Deeper Dive

Johnson open to zeroing out the cost of extending Trump’s tax cuts, by Politico
Republicans may try budget math that doesn’t count Trump tax cuts, by the Washington Post
“Current Policy Baseline” Gimmick Could Explode the Debt, by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Republican Tax Legislators’ Potential Framework for Extending Trump’s Tax Cuts Is a Gimmick That Would Cost More Than Advertised, by the Center for American Progress
How the Expiring Individual Income Tax Provisions in the 2017 Tax Act Affect CBO’s Economic Forecast, by the Congressional Budget Office

Fiscal Fact

Under a current policy baseline, the national debt will increase by more than $26 trillion over the next 10 years.

Isolationism and appeasement are dangerous

Posted on March 5, 2025March 5, 2025 by Alex Terr

FACT: Isolationism and appeasement are dangerous.

**THE NUMBERS: Ukraine economic indicators, 2022 and 2025* –**

	2022	2025
GDP	$161 billion	$189 billion
Growth rate	-29.7%	2.5%
Inflation	20.2%	9.2%
Unemployment	24.5%	12.7%

* International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook database October 2024

WHAT THEY MEAN:

As President Zelenskyy returns to Kyiv, some thoughts on Russia’s war, the Ukrainian cause, the White House’s revival of isolationism and appeasement, and the dangers it poses for America and America’s friends:

Three years ago this week, we noted that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was one of very few attempts since World War II — arguably only the second, together with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 — by one UN member to attack another and attempt to wipe it off the map. From this point of departure, we made three points about the event and the appropriate American and Allied response to it. Here they are, shortened a bit for space:

(1) The post-World War II ban on wars of conquest is the foundation of international order, whether one’s point of reference is international law and the UN Charter, or the logic of peace and security. Respect for it is essential to international achievement in any field, from peaceful settlement of disputes among countries, to scientific and medical progress, environmental protection, economic policy, and international security.

(2) Russia’s violation of this ban in the attack on Ukraine was then, and remains now, especially dangerous as the action not of the rogue dictator of an isolated minor power, but of a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Should it succeed, we can expect more such events and a much more dangerous world. Should it fail, conversely, the taboo on wars of conquest will be stronger and future imitators more effectively deterred.

(3) The Biden administration and allies from Australia, Korea, and Japan to Canada, the EU, and the UK were right to respond with economic and military aid for Ukraine, and extensive sanctions on Russia. Hindsight from 2025 can dispute some of their specific choices, especially on weapons provision. But whether from the moral or the national-interest perspective, their decision to stand with Ukraine was correct.

It remains so now. Ukraine has used its support well. Its army defeated Russia’s initial attack on Kyiv in 2022 and holds the line in the east. Its very modest navy — mainly a collection of small boats armed with ingenious home-built naval drones — defeated Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in 2023, sinking a third of its capital ships and forcing the rest to shelter in port ever since. And on the home front, as the IMF data above show, Ukraine’s economy has grown by about 20% since the low of 2022, with unemployment and inflation both cut by half; its start-up tech community has created ex nihilo an internationally competitive high-tech defense industry; and its Black Sea victory has reconnected Ukraine’s agricultural heartland to customers in Europe and the United States. More basically, Ukraine’s public is not about to buckle, its government is stable, and its defense is a just cause. Americans have no reason to reassess our commitment.

The Trump administration, to our great dismay, has taken a different approach, vividly displayed in Friday’s White House meeting. In the past month it has refused to condemn Russia’s invasion, opened direct talks with Russia without the presence of Ukrainians or European allies, and now has made an open attempt — including stopping military aid — to coerce Ukraine itself. This is full of risk — above all for Ukrainians, next for U.S. allies such as the Baltic states and Poland, and finally for Americans too.

The administration’s recycling of the term “America First” for its approach is evocative and instructive. The first group to use this name, the “America First Committee,” was an organization created in September 1940 – that is, during the Battle of Britain — with a specific goal: to prevent Franklin Roosevelt from aiding the U.K. with ships, planes, industrial supplies, and food through the “Lend-Lease” program. Its roughly 800,000 members varied — some were sincere pacifists, others convinced isolationists and worried college students, and some admired dictators as “strong” and “decisive” personalities and considered fascism the energetic “wave of the future.” All of them were wrong, and some of them were bad. Their failure in 1940 was good for the world and America alike.

Eight decades later, Friday’s White House meeting – as well as the administration’s extraordinary decision to oppose the UN’s February resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of its neighbor – recall the ugliest part of this earlier America First movement. The February meeting by the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia — likely about Ukrainian land among other things and, we repeat, without Ukrainians present — echoes the naivete of the Committee’s pacifist/isolationist members: won’t a few concessions appease an aggressive power? Could it hurt to try? The obvious point of reference is the 1938 Munich Agreement, where the leaders of the two big European democracies — the U.K.’s Chamberlain and France’s Daladier — conceded Czech land to an aggressor in the hope of avoiding conflict. Here’s the classic in-the-moment verdict from an opposition MP:

“[Our people] should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: ‘Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.’

“And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

Churchill was speaking of a fait accompli. By contrast, Mr. Trump’s venture has so far not succeeded. Americans of both parties who have a greater sense of realism, who appreciate the danger of appeasement and isolationism, and who are more willing to be guided by right and wrong, may be able to prevent a second such outcome. They need to try.

ABOUT ED

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

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

Kahlenberg for The Liberal Patriot: Time to Ditch DEI in Favor of Something Better

Posted on March 5, 2025March 5, 2025 by Max Sherrill

For almost a half century, Republican presidents consistently attacked racial preference programs rhetorically but did little to roll them back. That was true of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and even Donald Trump in his first term. Trump’s second term is different. The new administration has unleashed a flurry of executive orders and a “Dear Colleague Letter” upending racial preferences and associated trainings and bureaucracies that constitute modern diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

How should Democrats respond? Championing existing DEI programs, some of which are completely indefensible, is a political trap that must be avoided. At the same time, Donald Trump has overreached by attacking not only racial preferences (which are unpopular) but also race-neutral efforts, such as class-based affirmative action programs to promote racial diversity (which are broadly supported).

To thread the needle, Democrats would be smart to jettison unpopular and divisive DEI programs in favor of something better—a policy of “integration, equal opportunity, and belonging” that restores the original values of the civil rights movement including judging people based on merit, not race, emphasizing what we have common across racial divides, and championing free speech and dialogue rather than indoctrination.

Such a policy would embrace racial integration without racial preferences—which is precisely what the public wants.

Keep reading in The Liberal Patriot.

PPI Statement on President Trump’s Continued Reckless Tariffs Campaign

Posted on March 4, 2025 by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — Today, Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), issued the following statement in response to President Trump imposing a 25% tariff on goods from Mexico and Canada, and an additional 10% tariff on Chinese goods:

“Mr. Trump has compiled a remarkable record over the past month: bad-faith economic assaults on America’s neighbors, deference to international aggressors, and escalating harm to the U.S., North American, and world economies. Signs of the effects are already evident in the U.S. economy, with warning lights flashing red in GDP, consumer confidence, and financial markets. Should today’s attempt to impose tariffs by decree stand, Americans can expect worse: where a few months ago Mr. Trump promised to bring costs down, families will in reality get higher costs for everything from home and auto repair to groceries, OTC medicines, and spring clothes. Meanwhile, American manufacturers, home-builders, and farmers will see production costs spike, and exporters will lose markets with Canada and China already retaliating. The national security costs are yet to be seen, but will be large.

“As harmful as these effects are, the lasting harm to American governance is likely to be even worse. One-man creation of a new tariff system is an open invitation to future corruption, as — aware they can create new tariff systems by themselves — all future presidents will face the temptation to use tariffs to punish critics and rivals and to reward supporters and cronies. And it is a grave harm to the separation of powers, as a usurpation of Congress’ Constitutional power over ‘Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises,’ and substituting illegitimate rule by personal decree for actual legislation.

“House Speaker Mike Johnson, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, and their Senate counterparts, Majority Leader John Thune and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, must oppose this power grab and, per the Congressional oath of office, support and defend the Constitution by overturning Mr. Trump’s decision today.”

PPI recently outlined four key principles for responding to tariff-driven economic isolationism. Additionally, PPI has warned of the economic risks posed by Trump’s tariff policies in a recent report and detailed these concerns in testimony before Congress and in PPI’s own coverage. For further context on the Constitution over tariffs and taxation and how the legislative, not executive branch, has the authority, see the full text of the U.S. Constitution.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Energy Costs Come First: Data by State

Posted on March 4, 2025March 26, 2025 by Alyssa Brown

In the scatter plots for each state, every panel reflects the relationship between Black population and energy burdens in one Congressional District in that state. Within each district’s panel, one dot represents each census tract in that district. The slope of each panel’s light blue line reflects the correlation between higher black population and higher energy burdens for that district, with its confidence interval shown in gray (so a wider gray shading represents a looser fit for that panel’s blue line). Then, each Congressional District in the states included in PPI’s report “Energy Costs Come First: a New Approach to Environmental Justice” is mapped such that the fill color of each census tract scales according to the energy burden as a percent of area median income or the proportion of Black households as share of the tract’s population.

This appendix uses data from the Department of Energy’s Low-income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) tool collected through the Census Bureau. Importantly, these estimations are not causal and only reflect the statistical level of similarity between the two characteristics across the range of census tracts in each district. Additionally, the underlying data report values for energy burden calculated from area median income and average annual energy costs and so do not capture varying levels of energy burden within each tract or microdata like individual household burden. Even though this correlation does not allow for direct causal claims, the simplicity of this comparison provides significant insight when paired with the entire PPI report.

Each state listed below links to a PDF with this data:

Read the full report.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Trump’s Moral Blindness Should Disqualify Him as a Peacemaker

Posted on March 3, 2025 by Alex Terr

It reminded me of a certain kind of unpleasant talk show. The guest shows up, a little nervous but earnest, looking forward to a serious discussion of the issues. But the host lies in wait, spoiling for a fight and ready with ammunition—in this case, complaints about the guest’s supposed lack of gratitude and a poorly planned visit last fall to an arms plant in Pennsylvania, a state thought at the time to be leaning Democratic.

So began last week’s meeting in the Oval Office, Volodymyr Zelensky vs. Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. “Much was learned,” Trump posted on Truth Social shortly after the fracas, “that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion.” Sadly, he’s right, but the truth revealed wasn’t about Zelensky. It was about Trump and his unprincipled approach to American foreign policy.

It was 10 excruciating minutes of classic Trump: bullying, lies, and utter indifference to American values.

Kahlenberg for the New York Post: Here’s why real diversity should focus on class — not race

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

Further Reading

FACT: 69% of Americans want their next car to cost less than $50,000.

THE NUMBERS: Steel use per $1 billion of U.S. “real GDP,” 2017 and 2024* –

FURTHER READING

ABOUT ED

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

Further Reading

FACT: Isolationism and appeasement are dangerous.

THE NUMBERS: Ukraine economic indicators, 2022 and 2025* –

FURTHER READING

ABOUT ED

**THE NUMBERS: Steel use per $1 billion of U.S. “real GDP,” 2017 and 2024* –**

**THE NUMBERS: Ukraine economic indicators, 2022 and 2025* –**