Category: Uncategorized

New Research Report Confirms: For Universal Broadband, Take the Most Direct Path

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In an op-ed recently published in USA Today, I urged Congress and the Biden administration to take the simplest, most direct path to universal broadband connectivity by moving past the Far Left’s obsession with government-owned networks and misguided “future proofing” symmetric speed mandates:

There are two paths Congress can take: a relatively simple, direct approach that builds on the strengths of our current broadband ecosystem and closes the digital divide in rural and urban areas with targeted, laser focused subsidies.

Then there is the speculative, over-regulatory approach pushed by some beltway zealots and special interests — unnecessarily overcomplicating this challenge with far-left shibboleths that have failed miserably in the past.

This isn’t that complicated; the shortest distance between two points is a direct line. To get the job done, we should focus on the most direct path and be willing to take yes for an answer.

A new analyst report recently issued by New Street Research, a top independent research firm, provides additional quantitative backup for this argument.

In a detailed analysis, New Street’s Jonathan Chaplin, who focuses on the tech and communications sector, explains how efficiently and competitively distributing funds to proven, capable providers could wire every unserved home across rural America well within the $100 billion budget President Joe Biden has put on the table — and even within the $65 billion compromise number.

But the price tag balloons massively if the targeted goal of universal access is replaced with scatter shot programs to subsidize new networks, give preference to government-owned broadband networks (GONs) and nonprofit providers, and impose price controls.

Chaplin concludes:

1) We can close the broadband gap with a subsidy of $35 billion to $75 billion;

2) We can close the gap and have two future-proof providers in 90% of the country with a subsidy of $99 billion to $227 billion;

3) Those costs would increase to $53 billion to $90 billion and $158 billion to $298 billion if subsidies go to new entrants (municipalities; co-ops);

4) The cost goes up considerably from there if the administration also mandates lower prices.

Based on the above, the administration should absolutely fund closing the gap; it is far better to fund existing carriers than new entrants. Funding competition would be economically, politically and legally challenging. All objectives are less achievable if coupled with price regulation.

These findings shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has followed broadband policy debates over the past decade.

It’s clear that closing the deployment gap is well within reach given the budgets on the table. If the money is spent well and targeted at truly unserved areas, universal deployment can, finally, be achieved.

But New Street’s modeling confirms that $65 billion won’t be nearly enough funding if Congress decides to redefine “unserved” homes to include any not currently reached by symmetric 100/100 Mbps networks. Under that definition, almost 60% of all homes nationwide would be considered “unserved.” And funds would flow to places like Aspen and Palm Beach rather than unconnected rural families. There is simply no empirical evidence to support an eligibility standard of 100/100. To the contrary, all evidence is that broadband use is and will remain asymmetrical. Downstream-to-upstream ratios steadily increased from 3:1 in 2010 to 14:1 in 2019 before dipping slightly to 12:1 during the pandemic. Setting a symmetrical 100/100 Mbps eligibility standard would result in truly unserved areas being left out again.

In addition, GONs are not the panacea advocates like to pretend. Many cities have tried — and failed — to make a go of municipal broadband. University of Pennsylvania Professor Christopher Yoo surveyed every municipal fiber project that publicly reports its financial results, and found that over half could not cover their operating costs. Provo, Utah, taxpayers lost almost $40 million when it sold its failing municipal broadband network for just $1. Burlington, Vermont, saw its credit rating downgraded to junk bond status after spending $33.5 million on a municipal network that failed to keep up with its debt. Accordingly, New Street recognizes that new providers that have little if any experience will require even greater subsidies, thus ballooning the costs further.

These data points ultimately validate the simpler, more direct approach to broadband infrastructure buildouts represented in the Manchin-Cornyn framework. There is broad, bipartisan support for a rural broadband package targeting taxpayer dollars to unserved areas in an accountable manner that encourages every broadband provider to compete on equal footing to close broadband gaps as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.

Now, it’s up to Congress and the administration to take “yes” for an answer.

States Got A Windfall From COVID Relief – Now They Should Chip In For Infrastructure

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Negotiations over how to fund President Biden’s infrastructure plan have been complicated by the excesses of his first signature initiative, the American Rescue Plan Act. The law included $525 billion in assistance to state and local governments, many of which are now experiencing large budget surpluses. Republicans have proposed those funds be rescinded or repurposed to finance infrastructure but doing so would likely be impractical because most of the money is already being allocated. Fortunately, there is a better alternative: Congress should design its infrastructure bill around matching grants that require state and local governments to chip in some portion of the funding for projects that serve their constituents. Not only would this approach reduce unnecessary spending on states already swimming in cash, but it would also target federal dollars to infrastructure projects that provide the greatest benefits.

Most federal spending on infrastructure is currently distributed through matching grants to state and local governments. It makes sense for these governments to administer funds and oversee projects built in their jurisdictions to serve their constituents. But more importantly, requiring state and local governments to contribute some funding can incentivize them to pursue only useful projects. Otherwise, local leaders would generally want to spend as much of the federal government’s money on their constituents as possible if it came with no strings attached. Federal grants typically cover about 80 percent of a project’s cost and must be used for building new infrastructure rather than maintaining or repairing existing systems.

The case for having state and local governments contribute a similar or greater portion of the funds for the big infrastructure bill is strengthened by their fiscal position following the passage of the Rescue Plan Act. Early in the pandemic, many economists (including us at PPI) were concerned that state and local governments would see their revenues collapse during the resulting recession like they did after the 2008 financial crisis. Those sharp revenue losses led to cuts in state and local government workers, who joined the ranks of the unemployed and lengthened that recession.

But the covid recession proved to be different. Although states that depend heavily on hospitality for their revenues still faced significant budget crunches, other states actually saw their revenues rise relative to pre-pandemic levels thanks to rising home prices that increased property tax revenues and a booming stock market increased taxable capital gains. Furthermore, because job losses were concentrated among low-income folks, the impact of the recession on income tax revenue was muted. States also benefited from federal stimulus last year that boosted their economies and gave constituents money to spend, which generated both income and sales tax revenue.

As a result, state and local government revenues were 7 percent above pre-pandemic levels even before the Rescue Plan Act offered them over half a trillion more with few strings attached. California alone is anticipating a $76 billion budget surplus over the next two years, much of which is being spent mailing checks to residents instead of making meaningful long-term investments. Several Republican governors are spending the funds on alternative forms of compensation, such as “return to work” bonuses, that are serving as cover to prematurely end the Rescue Plan’s expansion of unemployment benefits in their states. It’s clear that this aid far exceeded what was necessary to support many governments.

 

For these reasons, Republican senators recently proposed rescinding or repurposing $700 billion in “unspent” Rescue Plan funds to finance the infrastructure bill in lieu of tax increases. They have a point: with many states enjoying flush budgets – and the federal government incurring unprecedented levels of debt – it makes sense that they be asked to chip in for the infrastructure projects from which they benefit. But the Republican proposal greatly overstates the funds available for repurposing: states that currently have unemployment rates more than two percentage points above pre-pandemic levels are already receiving the entirety of their Rescue Plan funds, while states with lower unemployment rates are set to receive half this year. By the time an infrastructure bill makes its way through Congress, there will likely be less than $40 billion of the $195 billion appropriated for direct aid to state governments remaining. Most of the remaining funds are for cities, counties, and other local governments, which are receiving half their money now and half next year.

Rather than break promises it has already made, Washington should use the fiscal strength of state and local governments as an opportunity to leverage the power of matching funds for steering taxpayer dollars from all levels of government towards the most productive projects. State and local governments that have the cash should be required to make some contribution to unlock federal funds for projects in their districts. The federal government should incentivize them to prioritize maintenance and repair efforts, which are more cost-effective than building new structures, by matching funds spent on those projects at a higher rate.

The administration should also encourage state and local governments to use their unspent Rescue Plan funds on the water, sewer, and broadband projects Congress already authorized. Schools should use their leftover funds on investments in eligible technology and building upgrades that will continue benefiting students even after the pandemic is over. Every dollar spent on these purposes now is a dollar that doesn’t have to be spent in subsequent legislation to achieve the President’s infrastructure vision. Lawmakers could further incentivize this responsible stewardship of relief dollars by allowing state and local governments to credit Rescue Plan funds spent on infrastructure as contributions towards matching funds included in the next bill.

These measures would not obviate the need for meaningful revenue increases to fund a significant infrastructure bill, but they could bring the two sides closer by reducing costs and improving the quality of projects. A more-targeted approach would also avoid exacerbating concerns about inflation and overheating the economy. The president and Congress would be wise to consider it.

Forbes: Amazon’s Big Pandemic Investment Spending Helped Set the Stage for Economic Recovery, Report Argues

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Sarah Hansen

TOPLINE

While other companies cut back on spending as the coronavirus pandemic took hold last year, e-commerce giant Amazon boosted its domestic capital investments by 75% to nearly $34 billion—and helped set the stage for a robust economic recovery, according to a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute.

KEY FACTS

 

Capital investment by Amazon and its peers in the e-commerce, broadband and tech industries helps spur job creation, boosts production and distribution capacity and combats inflation by shoring up supply, the report’s authors argue.

In Amazon’s case, the extra investment on property and equipment last year was driven by the need to meet an enormous surge of demand during the pandemic, the report notes.

Those investments put the firm in PPI’s top slot on its list of “Investment Heroes.”

Verizon was second on PPI’s list with $16.1 billion in domestic capital investment last year, AT&T was third on the list with $15.6 billion invested, and Alphabet and Intel rounded out the top five with $14 billion and $12.5 billion invested, respectively.

BIG NUMBER

500,000. That’s how many workers Amazon added in 2020, according to the report.

CRUCIAL QUOTE

“The willingness of these companies to keep spending essentially made it possible for large chunks of the economy to move forward, despite the pandemic,” the report states.

KEY BACKGROUND

Despite its major investments in the U.S. economy last year, Amazon’s business practices have also been the target of criticism. The firm was recently sued by the attorney general of the District of Columbia over allegations that it engaged in anticompetitive practices that “have raised prices for consumers and stifled innovation and choice across the entire online retail market.” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said Amazon’s recent purchase of film studio MGM is a sign that the company is “laser-focused on expanding and entrenching their monopoly power.” And that’s not to mention criticism over the way the company handled safety protocols for workers and drivers during the pandemic.

 

Read the full piece here. 

Bloomberg Businessweek: Amazon’s $34 Billion Makes it an ‘Investment Hero,’ Study Says

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Amazon’s $34 Billion Makes It an ‘Investment Hero,’ Study Says

The e-commerce giant was far and away the leader in U.S. capital spending in 2020, according to a Progressive Policy Institute analysis.

By Peter Coy

Democratic and Republican politicians alike are dumping on Amazon.com Inc. over its ceaseless expansion—marked most recently by its agreement to buy the movie studio with the roaring lion logo, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Representative David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat, says “they are laser-focused on expanding and entrenching their monopoly power,” while Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, tweets that Amazon “shouldn’t be able to buy anything else. Period.”

But not everybody is mad at Amazon. A new study from the Progressive Policy Institute, which was founded in 1989 as a centrist Democratic think tank and promises “radically pragmatic thinking,” calls Amazon its No. 1 “investment hero.” It estimates that Amazon boosted its U.S. capital spending by 75% in 2020, to $33.8 billion, from the year earlier, which was more than twice that of any other company.

The study names 25 investment heroes based on their U.S. capital spending. The rest of the top five for 2020 are Verizon Communications, $16.1 billion; AT&T, $15.6 billion; Google’s parent Alphabet, $14 billion; and Intel, $12.5 billion.

“The willingness of these companies to keep spending essentially made it possible for large chunks of the economy to move forward despite the pandemic,” says the report. “Investment by broadband and tech companies kept people connected at home during the shock of the lockdown; and the investment by e-commerce firms helped keep essential goods flowing while many Americans could not go out shopping.”

The report is by Michael Mandel, the institute’s chief economic strategist, and Elliott Long, a senior economic policy analyst. Mandel was chief economist of BusinessWeek, the predecessor to Bloomberg Businessweek (making him my former boss). He is also a senior fellow at the Mack Institute for Innovation Management of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

Critics of Amazon say it costs jobs by putting smaller retailers out of business. But in an email exchange, Mandel wrote that “the number of workers added by e-commerce exceeds jobs lost by brick and mortar.” The main reason, he wrote, is that e-commerce customers are creating jobs for drivers, warehouse workers, and others, who are freeing them from having to shop in person. “Investment in e-commerce is job-creating because it replaces unpaid household shopping hours, which have fallen dramatically,” Mandel wrote.

This is the 10th annual edition of the investment heroes report by the Progressive Policy Institute. It’s based on gross investment—i.e., before accounting for the effects of depreciation. The numbers come from company reports. The authors made estimates when the companies didn’t break out U.S. investment separately. Most financial companies, excluding health insurance companies, were excluded. For Amazon, which relies heavily on finance leases, the report included principal repayment on those leases as a form of investment.

The report takes a shot at critics in the camp of Cicilline and Hawley, without naming names. “It seems odd that Congress seems more interested in sharply questioning companies that are investing heavily in America, rather than those that have reduced investment or actually disinvested in this country,” it says.

The Progressive Policy Institute gets general funding from some of the companies on the heroes list, Mandel wrote in an email. But he says “the methodology only uses publicly available data and a consistent procedure that can be replicated.”

The MGM deal was announced after the report was completed. (Acquisitions don’t count toward companies’ capital spending numbers in the report.) In an email, Mandel wrote, “This deal potentially increases the level of competition in the growing market for streaming content. The key is to watch Amazon’s investment behavior. If Amazon invests in producing more content based on MGM intellectual property, as seems likely, that means lower prices for consumers and more content production jobs.”

In announcing the deal on May 26, the company stated, “Amazon will help preserve MGM’s heritage and catalog of films, and provide customers with greater access to these existing works.” Amazon didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on this story.

The PPI report is lukewarm on President Joe Biden’s American Jobs Plan. The authors praise its provisions for investment in infrastructure, research and development, and manufacturing. But they write that the corporate income tax increases in the plan “could discourage business investment at a time when capital spending is already weak.”

Not every economist agrees with that. Thomas Philippon, a finance professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, argues that for many companies, a higher tax on their profits would not induce them to decrease investment significantly because a substantial share of their profits are “excess”—meaning they’re above what companies require to justify investment for growth. (Excess profits, an economic concept rather than an accounting one, are generated by companies with monopolies or near-monopolies in their market sectors.)

Mandel wrote, “The weight of the evidence shows that corporate tax rates adversely affect investment.”

Read the story here.

PPI’s 2020 Investment Heroes Report Finds Unprecedented Gains in Capital Spending During the Pandemic

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Amazon invested nearly $34 billion in the U.S. in 2020

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute released it’s annual Investment Heroes report, which highlights the strong capital spending performance by major tech-broadband-ecommerce capital companies in 2020. Amazon, the top Investment Hero, invested a stunning $33.8 billion in the United States in 2020, which is a record for the 10 years that PPI has published the annual report.

“Our Investment Heroes report shows stunning and unprecedented investment by these major American companies – despite the coronavirus pandemic and the economic crisis it caused last year. Without this investment, our economy would be worse off, and even more Americans would be out of jobs.

“This report shows how the tech-broadband-ecommerce sector is driving economic growth and jobs. This isn’t the time to limit the productivity and success of these companies – this is the time to applaud them. They are our true investment heroes,” said report author Dr. Michael Mandel.

Amazon’s capital investment performance illustrates just how critical the tech-broadband-ecommerce sector has been to keeping Americans on the payroll and propping up the economy. Eight out of the top 10 companies in the Investment Heroes ranking —Amazon, Verizon, AT&T, Alphabet, Intel, Facebook, Microsoft and Comcast—are in the tech, ecommerce, and broadband sectors. The willingness of these companies to keep spending essentially made it possible for large chunks of the economy to move forward despite the pandemic.

Capital investment is critical because it enables the creation of high-productivity, well-paying jobs. According to our count, the top 10 companies in the Investment Heroes list collectively added 483,000 jobs globally in 2020. The industries represented by the top 10 Investment Heroes added 234,000 American jobs between the start of the pandemic in February 2020 and April 2021, while the rest of the private sector lost more than 6 million jobs.

The Investment Heroes report was first reported in Bloomberg Businessweek. Read the exclusive reporting here.

Read the full report here:

–

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

Investment Heroes 2021: Capital Spending During the Pandemic

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

INTRODUCTION

In 2020 U.S. businesses cut back domestic capital investment by seven percent, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, lockdowns and recession. The decline was broad-based, from transportation equipment to industrial equipment to energy investment.

But amidst this slowdown, Amazon boosted its domestic capital expenditures by 75 percent in 2020, according to new estimates by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). The ecommerce giant invested a stunning $33.8 billion in the United States last year, a record for the 10 years that PPI has been doing the Investment Heroes report.

Amazon’s capital investment performance illustrates just how critical the tech-broadband- ecommerce sector has been to keeping people working and propping up the economy. The second company on our list, Verizon, invested $16.1 billion in the U.S. in 2020, AT&T $15.6 billion, Alphabet $14 billion, and Intel $12.5 billion. Eight out of the top 10 companies in our list—Amazon, Verizon, AT&T, Alphabet, Intel, Facebook, Microsoft and Comcast—are in the tech, ecommerce, and broadband sectors.

The willingness of these companies to keep spending essentially made it possible for large chunks of the economy to move forward despite the pandemic.

Capital investment is critical because it enables the creation of high-productivity, well-paying jobs. Collectively the top 10 companies in the Investment Heroes list added 483,000 jobs in 2020, led by Amazon’s dramatic leap from 798,000 workers in 2019 to 1,298,000 workers in 2020. Just looking domestically, the industries represented by the top 10 Investment Heroes added 234,000 jobs between the start of the pandemic in February 2020 and April 2021, while the rest of the private sector lost more than 6 million jobs.1

Capital investment is also essential for creating more production, communications and distribution capacity. This was essential during the pandemic, when investment by broadband and tech companies kept people connected at home during the shock of the lockdown; and the investment by ecommerce firms helped keep essential goods flowing while many Americans could not go out shopping.

As the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group wrote in an April 2021 report, “available data suggests that the Internet has performed well during the pandemic…. and is a testament to the importance of continued investment in robust Internet infrastructure in all parts of the ecosystem.”2 The report went on to note that “ISPs reacted to the sudden demand increase by rapidly adding extraordinary amounts of new capacity and pledging to Keep Americans Connected.”

Capital investment also helps hold down prices by creating more supply—and the lack of investment creates the conditions for overall price inflation. Prices in the tech-broadband-ecommerce sector were mostly flat or down in 2020, as investments in new capacity helped meet soaring demand. For example, the surge of new broadband capacity meant that the price of telecommunications services to consumers fell by 2 percent in 2020, and the price of Internet access fell by 1 percent, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Similarly, one big reason for the recent return of inflation in 2021 has been production and supply bottlenecks caused by a lack of investment during 2020. Net domestic business investment totaled an anemic 1.9 percent of net domestic product in 2020.3 To put this in perspective, that was a sharp fall-off from 2.8 percent, which was net domestic business investment’s average share of net domestic product from 2008 to 2019. And that in turn was down from the business cycles running from 1991 to 2000 and 2001 to 2007, when net domestic business investment’s share of net domestic product averaged 4.5 and 3.5 percent, respectively (Figure 1).

THE REPORT

Which companies are fighting this downward trend? Since 2012 PPI has provided unique estimates of domestic capital spending for individual major U.S. companies. Currently, accounting rules do not require companies to report their U.S. capital spending separately. To fill this gap in the data, we created a methodology using publicly-available financial statements from non-financial Fortune 150 companies to identify the top companies that were investing in the United States.

We call these companies “Investment Heroes” because their capital spending is helping create good jobs and boost capacity across the country. In 2020, the 25 companies on our list invested $216 billion in the U.S. This year’s list includes 11 tech, broadband and ecommerce companies; six energy production and distribution companies; three transportation companies; two automotive companies; two retail companies; and one entertainment company.

In terms of government policy, U.S. regulators and policymakers have an ambivalent attitude towards corporate capital investment. On the one hand, companies that don’t invest are decried as suffering from “short-termism,” being more concerned about current profits than long-term growth.4

On the other hand, the tech, broadband, and ecommerce companies that do make long- term investments in American workers and the American economy are often accused of unfair competition and monopolistic business practices, precisely because of their large capital expenditures. It seems odd that Congress seems more interested in sharply questioning companies that are investing heavily in America, rather than those that have reduced investment or actually disinvested in this country.

President Biden’s American Jobs Plan shows the same ambivalence towards business investment leaders. The plan would spend $2 trillion over the next decade on infrastructure, research and development, and manufacturing among other public investments.5 The avowed goal is to stimulate productivity-enhancing investments in the U.S., which is a goal that PPI favors.

On the other hand, the plan would pay for these proposals by raising the federal corporate income tax rate from 21 to 28 percent and imposing a 21 percent minimum tax on overseas corporate profits among other tax changes. While the package would generate $2.1 trillion over a decade, these tax increases could discourage business investment at a time when capital spending is already weak.

U.S. INVESTMENT HEROES: THE 2020 LIST

Using the methodology described in the appendix, we estimate domestic capital spending for large U.S. non-financial companies based on publicly available data. We then rank the companies to give us the top 25 Investment Heroes.

The top 25 Investment Heroes invested $216 billion in the U.S. in 2020, according to our estimates (which are based on companies’ most recent fiscal year through January 31, 2021). That’s a decrease of 11 percent compared to last year. 18 of our 25 Investment Heroes posted a decrease in U.S. capital expenditures relative to our 2019 estimates, with an average decline of 21 percent.

Amazon by far leads our Investment Heroes this year, spending an estimated $33.8 billion on domestic capital expenditures in 2020. Second is Verizon Communications, investing an estimated $16.1 billion on capital expenditures in the U.S. on the basis of increased broadband spending. AT&T came in third, spending an estimated $15.6 billion on domestic capital expenditures. Alphabet and Intel are fourth and fifth, respectively, investing $14 billion and $12.5 billion.

Four “newcomers” made our list this year. We estimate that Lumen Technologies (formerly CenturyLink) spent $3.7 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020, a three percent increase compared to our estimates for CenturyLink’s 2019 domestic capital spending. Disney returns to the top 25 this year for the first time since our 2013 report. Kroger makes our list this year, investing an estimated $3 billion on domestic capital expenditures in 2020. And Union Pacific cracks the top 25 after making our non-energy list the last two years.

Four companies from our 2019 list didn’t make our 2020 list. Southern Company fell out of the Fortune 150 and thus out of the purview of our analysis. Marathon Petroleum cut its U.S. capital expenditures by more than $2 billion in 2020 compared to 2019 by our estimates. Delta Air Lines decreased its domestic capital expenditures by more than 60 percent according to our estimates as fears of Covid ravaged the travel industry. And ConocoPhillips missed our top 25 list by $8 million.

At the sector-level, our 11 tech, broadband and ecommerce companies invested an estimated $141.4 billion in domestic capital expenditures (Table 2). This category comprises six tech and ecommerce companies (Amazon, Alphabet, Intel, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple) and five broadband companies (Verizon Communications, AT&T, Comcast, Charter Communications, and “newcomer” Lumen Technologies).

The next category includes six energy production and distribution companies, with total estimated domestic capital expenditures of $42.2 billion. This category is made up of Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Duke Energy, Exelon, Energy Transfer, and Enterprise Product Partners.

Coming in third is transportation, spending a total of $11.2 billion on U.S. capital expenditures by our estimates. This category consists of FedEx, UPS, and “newcomer” Union Pacific.
The retail sector, which included Walmart and “newcomer” Kroger, came in fourth. These retailers invested a combined $10.8 billion by our estimates, a 37 percent increase compared to 2019 as a result of Kroger making our list.

The last two categories were automotive and entertainment. Our automotive category was made up of General Motors and Ford Motor, investing an estimated $3.8 billion and $3.2 billion respectively. The lone entertainment company to make our list was Disney, investing $3.3 billion by our estimates.

COMPANIES

Next we delve deeper into each of our Investment Heroes’ capital spending.

Amazon spent an estimated $33.8 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020, a 75 percent increase compared to 2019 as
the ecommerce company sought to meet increased demand from Covid protocols like social distancing and work from home. We note that Amazon turned in a historically high investment performance. The company’s global capital expenditure of $45.7 billion (the sum of purchases of property and equipment, net of proceeds from sales and incentives, plus principal repayments of finance leases) exceeds the peak capital spending by such industrial giants as General Motors, General Electric, and IBM, even after adjusting for inflation.6

Verizon Communications spent an estimated $16.1 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020, up slightly relative to our 2019 estimates. Verizon continued to invest in expanding its 4G LTE network and deploying its 5G and Intelligent Edge networks, despite the pandemic.

Third was AT&T, spending an estimated $15.6 billion in 2020. AT&T continues to invest in expanding its networks.

Alphabet invested $14 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020 by our estimates. “We continue to make significant R&D investments in areas of strategic focus such as advertising, cloud, machine learning, and search, as well as in new products and services. In addition, we expect to continue to invest in land and buildings for data centers and offices, and information technology assets, which includes servers and network equipment, to support the long-term growth of our business,” the company writes in its 10-K.

Coming in fifth was Intel, spending an estimated $12.5 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020, a decrease of 7 percent relative to our 2019 estimates.

Facebook spent an estimated $11.8 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020, a decrease of 6 percent from our 2019 estimates. The social media company continues to invest in data center capacity, servers, network infrastructure, and office facilities.

Seventh was Exxon Mobil, investing $11.2 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020 by our estimates. That’s a decrease of 33 percent compared to our 2019 estimates. The energy company cut its upstream capital investment in the U.S. by nearly $5 billion in 2020 according to its 10-K.

Microsoft spent an estimated $11.1 billion on U.S. capital expenditures during the fiscal year ending June 2020, the mostrecent 10-K available. The software company continues to invest in new facilities, data centers, computer systems for research and development, and its cloud offerings. We note that this estimate has not been updated from our previous Investment Heroes report, because we moved up the timing of the report.

Duke Energy invested $9.9 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020 by our estimates, a decrease of 11 percent compared to 2019. The energy company decreased capital investment in its electric utilities, gas utilities, and commercial renewables segments.

Comcast invested $9.6 billion on U.S. capital expenditures by our estimates. Comcast continued to spend on customer premise equipment, scalable infrastructure, line extensions, and support capital.

Exelon spent an estimated $8 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020, an increase of 11 percent relative to our 2019 estimates. The utility company increased capital investment in every segment except Exelon Generation.

Walmart spent an estimated $7.8 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020. The retailer’s capital investments were relatively flat compared to our 2019 estimates.

Charter Communications invested $7.4 billion in domestic capital expenditures in 2020, a slight increase of 3 percent compared to 2019. The broadband company spent on line extensions and support capital according to its 10-K.

Chevron spent an estimated $6.1 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020. That’s a 40 percent decline compared to 2019. The energy company spent about $3 billion dollars less in its upstream segment and about $800 million less in its downstream segment in 2020 compared to 2019.

Apple invested an estimated $5.9 billion on domestic capital expenditures in 2020. Apple’s figures are based on its latest 10-K for its fiscal year ending September 2020.

FedEx invested $4.6 billion in domestic capital expenditures by our estimates. The shipping company continued to spend on aircraft, equipment, vehicles, information technology, and facilities. We note that this estimate has not been updated from our previous report, as FedEx’s fiscal year ends on May 31st and thus their FY 2021 10-K was not published at the time of this writing.

General Motors spent an estimated $3.8 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020, a 22 percent decline relative to our 2019 estimates.

Energy Transfer spent an estimated $3.8 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020. Energy Transfer continued to invest in natural gas transportation and storage.

Lumen Technologies, formerly known as CenturyLink, invested $3.7 billion on domestic capital expenditures in 2020
by our estimates. That’s an increase of 3 percent compared to our 2019 estimates for CenturyLink. The broadband company continued to spend on enhancing network efficiencies and supporting new service developments.

UPS invested an estimated $3.6 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020. UPS continued to spend on buildings, equipment, aircraft, vehicles, and information technology.

Enterprise Product Partners spent $3.3 billion on domestic capital expenditures in 2020 by our estimates, a 27 percent decline compared to our 2019 estimates. Enterprise Product Partners continued to invest in facilities and projects to gather, transport, and store natural gas and crude oil.

Disney invested an estimated $3.3 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020, a decrease of 19 percent relative to our
2019 estimates. The entertainment company decreased spending in every segment except its direct-to-consumer and corporate segments.

Ford Motor invested $3.2 billion on domestic capital expenditures in 2020 according to our estimates, a decline of 50 percent compared to our 2019 estimates.

Kroger spent an estimated $3 billion on U.S. capital expenditures, a slight decline of 5 percent compared to 2019.

Union Pacific invested an estimated $2.9 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020. Union Pacific continued to invest in new locomotives and freight cars, maintenance, and safety improvements.

INVESTMENT-RELATED POLICY

President Biden has proposed the American Jobs Plan, which includes $621 billion for transportation infrastructure, $300 billion to bolster manufacturing, $180 billion for research and development, and $100 billion for broadband among other proposals.7 Each of these areas has been an important source of economic growth historically. For example, manufacturing employment peaked in 1979 at nearly 20 million but has been on the decline since, employing about 12 million people
today.8 President Biden’s plan would restore manufacturing supply chains and provide capital to revitalize manufacturing.

Similarly, R&D investment is key to commercializing new technologies and fueling growth of industries. A few key innovations that were made possible by federal R&D funding include the internet, smartphone technologies, global positioning systems, the human genome project, and hydraulic fracturing.9 Unfortunately, federally sponsored R&D has declined from its peak of 1.8 percent of GDP in 1965 to .74 percent in 2020.10, 11 The American Jobs Plan’s $180 billion investment would provide additional funding for the National Science Foundation, the development of technology to address the climate crisis, and R&D that spurs innovation and job creation.

These increases in infrastructure and other public spending are highly desirable for growth. However, the plan would pay for these proposals by raising the federal corporate income tax rate from 21 to 28 percent and imposing a 21 percent minimum tax on overseas corporate profits among other tax changes.12 While the plan would generate $2.1 trillion over a decade, policymakers should be mindful of potentially discouraging business investment, which would prolong the economic recovery. Raising the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent would create a federal-state combined corporate income tax rate of 32.8 percent, returning the U.S. to the highest combined rate in the OECD.13

We also note that policymakers often misunderstand the link between strong corporate investment and creation of good jobs. True, in some cases, companies have invested in automation that reduces employment. But more recently, we have seen that companies making the biggest capital investments, like Amazon, may also be the biggest job creators. In particular, Amazon’s spending on fulfillment center automation has boosted productivity, enabling the company to pay a minimum wage of $15 per hour that is comparable with advertised entry-level manufacturing hourly wages of $15-$17 in many parts of the country.14 Indeed, a recent PPI analysis shows that most Americans live in states where the tech-ecommerce ecosystem, including all positions and skill levels from fulfillment center and delivery workers to website designers, pays better than manufacturing.15

The bottom line: As the U.S. struggles out of recession, and faces the worries of inflation, we should be lauding companies that invest in America during the pandemic, rather than denigrating them.

APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY

Our U.S. Investment Heroes ranking for 2020 follows the same methodology as our most recent report in 2019. We started with the top 150 companies of the 2020 Fortune 500 list as our universe of companies. We removed all financial companies and all insurance companies except health insurance companies. We also omitted the financing operations of non- finance companies when possible.

Except as noted, we use the global capital expenditure reported on the most recent 10-K through January 31, 2021, as the starting point for the analysis. In this report, we refer to all estimates as “2020,” even if the fiscal year ended in 2021. Capital expenditures generally cover plant, equipment, and capitalized software costs. For energy production companies, capital expenditures can include exploration as well.

For broadband companies, we did not include their often sizable spending on purchases of wireless spectrum as part of capital expenditures, since that category is not counted as investment spending by the economists at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Companies purchasing spectrum in 2020 include Verizon ($2.1 billion); AT&T ($1.6 billion); Comcast ($459 million); and Charter ($464 million).

The companies in these rankings are all based in the United States. Non-U.S. based companies were not included in this list because of data comparability issues, although there are many non-U.S. companies that invest in America.

For transportation companies our report estimates the booked location of spending on capital expenditures for the company’s most recent fiscal year, rather than how much of those acquired assets are actually being used within the U.S.

Most multinational companies do not provide a breakdown of capital expenditures by country in their financial reports. However, PPI has developed a methodology for estimating U.S. capital expenditures based on the information provided in the companies’ annual 10-K statements and other financial documents. After developing our internal estimate, we contact the companies on our top 25 list to ask them to point us to any additional public information that might be relevant. Notwithstanding these queries, we acknowledge that the figures in this report are estimates based on limited information.

Our estimation procedure goes as follows:

  • If a company has no foreign operations, we allocated all capital spending to the United States.
  • If a company reported U.S. capital spending separately, we used that figure.
  • If a company did not report U.S. capital spending separately, but did report changes in global and U.S. long-lived assets or plant and equipment, we used that information plus depreciation to estimate domestic capital spending. As appropriate, we adjust for large acquisitions.
  • If a company has small foreign operations that were not reported separately, we allocated capital spending proportionally to domestic versus foreign assets, revenues, or employees.Some adjustments of note:
  • For Amazon, the methodological issue was their extensive use of finance leases. We chose to specify global capital expenditures as purchases of property and equipment (net of proceeds from sales and incentives) plus principal repayments of finance leases. We then used reported changes in U.S. and non-U.S. property and equipment, net and operating leases to allocate global capital expenditures, taking into account depreciation and removing the effect of operating leases.
  • Verizon does not report long-lived assets by geographic region. As a result, we used the most recent available data for Verizon’s domestic employment as a share of global employment to allocate Verizon’s capital spending between the United States and internationally (https://www.verizon.com/ about/sites/default/files/esg-report/2019/ social/human-capital/v-team.html)
  • As noted in the report, our estimates for Microsoft and FedEx remain the same as our 2019 estimates because their fiscal years end June 30th and May 31st, respectively, and thus updated 10-Ks were not available at the time of this writing. For Microsoft, we used the capital expenditures data found online at https://www.microsoft.com/ en-us/Investor/earnings/trended/capital- expenditure.aspx
  • In the case of Comcast, we allocated all of its cable operation and corporate capital expenditures, including cash paid for intangible assets such as software, to the U.S. For NBC Universal’s capital expenditures, including cash paid for intangible assets such as software, we assumed the same domestic vs. foreign revenue share from our 2019 estimate for 2020 to allocate capital spending as Comcast did not report updated revenue information for FY 2020.
  • As part of our calculations for Facebook, UPS, and Kroger, we included principal repayments on finance leases reported onthe company’s 10K or estimated principal repayments on finance leases based on 10K data.
  • For consistency, we omitted capital spending by the finance arm of companies such as General Motors and Ford, which reflects the financing of leased equipment rather than actual direct investment.

NON-ENERGY U.S. INVESTMENT HEROES

As a supplement to our complete U.S. Investment Heroes rankings, we also present a non-energy list for 2020 (Table 3). This list ranks the top U.S. companies investing domestically, according to our estimates, that are both non- financial and non-energy. The energy sector is one of the most capital intensive sectors of the economy and thus can heavily influence the top 25 results. The non-energy ranking includes the non-energy companies from our complete ranking but has also made room for other companies. For example, PepsiCo spent $2.8 billion on domestic capital expenditures by our estimates in 2020, a 26 percent increase compared to 2019.

Merck invested an estimated $2.7 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020, a 42 percent increase compared to 2019. The pharmaceutical company spent on new capital projects focused primarily on increasing manufacturing capacity for its products.

Target invested $2.6 billion on domestic capital expenditures in 2020 by our estimates. The retailer increased its investments in information technology and new stores, while decreasing its spending on existing stores.

CVS Health spent an estimated $2.4 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020, a relatively flat amount compared to our 2019 estimates for the company. Technology made up the majority of the health retailer’s capital expenditures, while store and fulfillment expansion and improvements and new store construction made up a minority share.

Home Depot invested $2.3 billion on domestic capital expenditures in 2020 by our estimates, a slight decrease of 5 percent relative to our 2019 estimates for the company.

Rounding out our top 25 non-energy list is Johnson & Johnson, spending an estimated $2.3 billion on U.S. capital expenditures in 2020. Johnson & Johnson continues to invest in its consumer health, pharmaceutical, and medical device segments, and of course vaccine production.

page8image7338624 page8image7337856 page8image7326144 page8image7339776 page8image7339008 page8image7327104 page8image7326528 page8image7327296 page8image7327680 page8image7327872page8image7328256 page8image7326912 page8image7328064 page8image7328640 page8image7329024 page8image7328448 page8image7329408 page8image7329600 page8image7329216page8image7330176 page8image7330560 page8image7329792 page8image7330752 page8image7330368

PPI Statement on David Osborne’s Retirement from the Reinventing America’s Schools Project

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Famed “Reinventing Government” author led PPI’s school reform work

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today announced the retirement of David Osborne, who has directed PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools (RAS) project since 2014.

“David Osborne has long been one of America’s preeminent thinkers about how to modernize and strengthen progressive governance,” said PPI President Will Marshall. “Under his visionary leadership, PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools project has documented the emergence of a new way of organizing public education in the 21st Century.”

As reported in his seminal 2017 book, “Reinventing America’s Schools,” the new model has evolved from the most successful public charter and “innovation” schools that are delivering high-quality learning to children in disadvantaged and minority communities in New Orleans, Washington, D.C., Indianapolis, Denver and other U.S. cities. Its hallmarks are school autonomy, customized rather than standardized learning programs, and strong public accountability for results.

Osborne is the author or co-author of many influential books, notably “Reinventing Government”, the 1992 best-seller that inspired the Clinton-Gore administration’s “rego” initiative to create higher performing public agencies.

“I’ve known David since the early 1990s, when we worked together to craft new themes and ideas that defined the “New Democrat” movement of progressive policy, “ said Marshall. “David has a rare talent for combining analytical rigor with compelling story-telling that enables him to reach a wider audience.”

David Osborne provided the following statement on his retirement from the Reinventing America’s Schools project:

“I’m going to miss my colleagues at the Progressive Policy Institute, but I plan to stay involved even as I retire. I will chair our Advisory Council, I’m sure I will continue to write, if less often, and I will continue to work on a documentary on New Orleans’ remarkable education reforms of the past 15 years, which produced the fastest improvement in the nation for a decade. But as I turn 70, I will not miss the eight-hour days at the computer.

“I want to thank PPI President Will Marshall for all his support over the years. Though I only started working at PPI in 2014, our collaboration goes back more than 30 years, and it has been not only a joy but a source of inspiration. I like to think we have nudged the country in the right direction.

“I also want to thank my Reinventing America’s Schools team, which has done yeoman’s work these past years. I have full confidence that they will continue their great work, and I promise to be there to help when needed. Finally, I am deeply grateful to our two largest funders, the Walton Family Foundation and The City Fund. They have done so much over the years to create real opportunity for low-income children, and without them we would never have been able to get this project off the ground.”

Following David’s June 1 retirement, the Reinventing America’s Schools Project will be co-led by Curtis Valentine and Tressa Pankovits. They will be supported by Veronica Goodman, who is adding a new focus on career pathways and school-to-work transitions, as well as Sloane Hurst. Will Marshall will continue to serve in an advisory role.

If you would like to send David your well wishes for his retirement, please send an email by clicking here. You can also tweet out your message and tag @RAS_Education.

About PPI:

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.

Follow the Reinventing America’s Schools Project.

###

Innovation, Free Apps, and the App Store

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Tech platforms should be judged on how well they foster consumer welfare, innovation, investment, productivity and job creation.  Sometimes these values will conflict with each other, but they provide a good framework for thinking about the benefits and costs of platforms that go beyond the usual antitrust issues.

From that perspective, a recent opinion piece in Wired levies a criticism of the current design of Apple’s App Store that is important, if true. The authors, the legal director of Public Knowledge and then executive director of the Coalition for App Fairness, argue that when “Apple demands 30 percent of developers’ revenue, it limits their freedom to offer novel and innovative customer experiences.” They go on to say that the “biggest loss” from the App Store “has nothing to do with developers and users who have to work around Apple’s restrictions—it’s those apps and services that don’t exist at all because app store rules make them impossible.”

However, this criticism—that the pricing structure of the App Store results in too little app innovation and too few apps–is an odd one. As of the end of 2020, the App Store stocked 1.8 million apps. According to marketing research firm Sensor Tower, 85 percent of those apps were “free” to users, in the sense developers did not charge for downloads or  collect in-app charges.

But note that these apps are “free” to developers as well, in the sense that Apple receives no other revenue other than the fee for the developer account ($99 per year for an individual account, with a waiver for nonprofits, accredited educational institutions and government entities that will distribute only free apps ). This pricing structure creates very low barriers to entry for new apps, spurring both innovation and competition.

Free apps are responsible for much of the consumer welfare, innovation, investment and job creation enabled by the App Store. For example, consider the banking apps which are offered by virtually every large and small bank today. Despite the large amounts of financial transactions flowing through these apps, they fall into the “free” category to both consumers and the banks. Banking apps were absolutely essential during the pandemic, enabling customers to do banking transactions including depositing checks, without having to go into branches.  Indeed, banks compete to see what new functions can be added to their apps to make them more useful for their customers.

Another growing category of free apps are designed to control and interact with connected devices–the “internet of things.”  These connected devices can be anything from electric bikes to power tools to automobiles to smart homes to agricultural sensors. The variety is nearly infinite, but one common characteristic is that their associated apps are directed toward innovation and making the connected device more useful.  These apps are often a key selling point for the product, with the customer getting them as part of the purchase rather than paying to download separately.

Free apps also run the gamut of nonprofit organizations, from innovative educational organizations such as Khan Academy to nonprofit health service providers such as Kaiser Permanente to churches and other religious organizations.  Donations can be made through these apps as well.

In an era of rampant ransomware and supply chain attacks, a free or nearly-free distribution channel that is carefully vetted for malware would seem to be a plus for innovative apps. Especially as the internet of things becomes more important, apps associated with connected devices will become the leading edge of innovation.  Despite what the authors of the Wired piece argue, the pricing structure of the App Store fosters rather than impedes innovation and creativity.

 

 

Benefits and Flexibility for Workers in the Gig Economy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The gig economy has provided opportunities for workers who aren’t able to find or aren’t interested in full-time regular employment. Traditional jobs require workers to show up at a particular location and work a predetermined schedule set by the company. Ride-hailing and delivery gigs allow workers to set their own schedules and work as much or as little as they like. This flexibility is a key component of why independent workers choose to participate in the gig economy. But that doesn’t mean the current arrangement is perfect.

Gig workers often aren’t able to access the benefits that regular employees tend to receive in addition to their wages. Health insurance, retirement plans, vacation days, and other benefits are highly valuable pieces of total compensation for full-time employees. If gig companies were to provide independent workers with benefits, they would be forced to reclassify them as employees, which brings a host of onerous rules and regulations that are incompatible with the dynamic and flexible nature of the gig economy.

Fortunately, it seems there is another way forward to improve the lives of gig workers by securing them benefits while maintaining the flexibility they desire. As Michael Mandel and I detailed in a paper last year for the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), Congress should allow gig companies to opt into an alternative model. Under our proposal, workers would be able to accrue benefits in proportion to the hours they work across a wide array of platforms and then select which benefits they want from a cafeteria style plan (the ability to choose is critical because sometimes workers already receive benefits such as health insurance from a spouse or other family member).

Voters seem to like this approach of offering more benefits to gig workers while letting them keep their flexibility. Last year, California voters approved Prop 22, which overturned AB-5, a controversial state bill that reclassified a broad array of independent contractors as employees. The results of this ballot proposition were not particularly close: 59% voted in favor, 41% voted against. According to the Los Angeles Times, Prop 22 found its highest support in low-income and minority communities:

A Times examination of precinct-level data in Los Angeles County shows the companies’ argument held sway in its dense core, finding support in lower income areas including plurality-Black neighborhoods such as Inglewood and Compton, and majority-Latino East Los Angeles. It also won suburbs in the San Fernando Valley, affluent communities such as La Cañada Flintridge, and rare Los Angeles precincts where President Trump was victorious in Beverly Hills and Santa Clarita.

A band of wealthy or increasingly affluent liberal-leaning neighborhoods stretching from Santa Monica and Venice, across to Los Feliz, Highland Park and South Pasadena mounted the strongest opposition, decisively voting down the measure.

So, what did drivers get in exchange for maintaining their classification as independent contractors? According to Quartz, Prop 22 “guarantees gig workers new, limited healthcare subsidies and accident insurance, some reimbursement to account for gas and other vehicle costs, and a ‘minimum earnings guarantee’ equal to 120% of the minimum wage applied to the drivers’ ‘engaged’ time.” Not only do voters approve of this model, but drivers do too. According to one survey of Uber and Lyft drivers, around 70 to 80% of respondents prefer being independent contractors to employees.

A broader survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that “Independent contractors overwhelmingly favored their alternative employment arrangement (79 percent) to a traditional one (9 percent) in May 2017.” In total, these data points show that worker benefits and flexibility are a winning combination for the gig economy.

E&E News: ‘Free-For-All’ Used Car Export Threatens Climate Goals

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

E&E News -- The essential news for energy & environment professionals

By Arianna Skibell, E&E News reporter

Replacing gasoline cars with electric vehicles is a pillar of President Biden’s strategy for tackling climate change. But even if the administration sets a deadline to sunset sales of gas-powered passenger vehicles, the export of used cars abroad could stall the global reductions needed to stave off catastrophic warming.

Every year, the United States ships hundreds of thousands of its oldest and dirtiest cars overseas to predominantly poor countries in a trade that is largely unregulated. In other words, cars that would fail safety, fuel economy and emissions standards in the United States or Europe are dominating the roads in countries that rely on imported vehicles.

In Kenya and Nigeria, for example, more than 90% of vehicles are foreign imports.

“The pollution and gas guzzling continue on even after the vehicle is removed from America’s roads,” said Dan Becker, head of the safe climate transport campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s essentially a Cheshire cat issue.”

Worldwide, there are about 1.4 billion cars on the road. That figure is expected to more than double by 2050, with 90% of growth coming from the sale of used vehicles in lower-income countries. That means emissions from the global transportation fleet — which currently account for a quarter of total carbon dioxide emissions worldwide — also could double.

If left unchecked, the global trade in secondhand cars could have bleak consequences for climate change, air quality and, by extension, public health, according to a pioneering U.N. report released last year.

The study found that between 2015 and 2018, the United States, Japan and the European Union exported 14 million used passenger cars, with 70% winding up in developing countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. Two-thirds of countries surveyed in the study lacked adequate policies to regulate the quality of imported cars. Consequently, the majority of used vehicles imported were inefficient, unsafe and old.

In Uganda, for example, the average age of a used diesel import in 2017 was more than 20 years.

“The majority of the vehicles being exported do not have a valid road worthiness certificate,” said Rob de Jong, head of the U.N. Environment Programme’s Sustainable Mobility Unit and an author of the report. “The trade in used vehicles is not a bad thing per se, but in the total absence of standards, it’s a free-for-all.”

A few countries have started cracking down on dirty, unsafe imports. Some countries, such as Egypt, India and Brazil, have outright banned the import of used vehicles. Others, like Iran and Iraq, have implemented age limits, while still others, such as Singapore and Morocco, have issued vehicle emissions standards.

Mauritius, a small island nation in the Indian Ocean, banned used vehicles over 3 years old and issued a vehicle carbon tax. As a result, the country has seen a major increase in the import of used electric and hybrid cars.

Still, there is no regional or global standard to regulate the flow of used vehicles as a climate mitigation or air pollution control mechanism. De Jong of the U.N. said there needs to be a streamlined approach to curbing the sale of unsafe and inefficient vehicles.

“The risk of not doing this,” he said, “is not meeting the Paris climate agreement,” which aims to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

Roger Gorham, a transport economist and urban development specialist with the World Bank, said there is an emerging consensus that regulating the secondhand vehicle trade should be a joint responsibility between exporting and importing countries.

“Exporters need to be able to distinguish between legitimate exports of vehicles that can actually be used safely, reliably and in line with environmental and climate objectives in their destination countries, as opposed to cars and trucks that do not meet even the most basic safety and environmental standards,” he said in an email. “But importer countries also have an obligation to be clear about the acceptable performance thresholds of cars (and fuels) they will allow to be imported into their country.”

In the United States, the export of used cars and trucks accounts for a small fraction of the domestic used vehicle market. In 2019, more than 40 million used vehicles — and 17 million new ones — were sold, according to Edmunds. Of those 40 million, less than 1 million were exported overseas, according to Commerce Department data.

Still, the United States is the third-largest exporter of used vehicles, behind the European Union and Japan. Additionally, dramatic action is required in the next decade if humanity is to stave off catastrophic warming, according to an International Energy Agency report released this week (Climatewire, May 18).

Electric vehicles currently make up 5% of global automobile sales. That number will need to increase to 60% by 2030, IEA said, and the sale of traditional gasoline- and diesel-powered cars will need to end by 2035.

Ray LaHood, who served as Transportation secretary under former President Obama, said the Biden administration should try to regulate the export of dirty vehicles.

“Part of our responsibility is to clean up the environment in whatever ways we can, not only for our own country but for the world,” he said in an interview. “That has to be a priority.”

Biden administration officials “are going to have to think about whether they take these cars in as trade-ins,” added LaHood, who now serves as co-chair of the Building America’s Future Educational Fund, a bipartisan infrastructure coalition.

Under the Obama administration, LaHood oversaw a federal program called the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) program — also known as Cash for Clunkers — which provided financial incentives for car owners to trade in their vehicles for new, more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. The program, which was intended to stimulate the post-recession economy and promote the sale of cleaner cars, was enormously popular.

Consumers who traded in their older automobiles and purchased new ones received cash rebates on the spot. Within six weeks of authorizing a $1 billion disbursement, Congress appropriated an additional $2 billion for rebates.

According to a Congressional Research Service report, more than 677,000 rebates were processed, increasing the U.S. gross domestic product by billions of dollars, creating or saving thousands of jobs, reducing fuel consumption by millions of gallons, and significantly slashing carbon emissions.

Traded-in vehicles were supposed to be smashed or otherwise destroyed, but a 2010 Transportation Department Office of Inspector General report found disposal hard to verify. Of the disposal facilities surveyed, the report found that 32% were not in compliance with DOT standards, which required facilities to report the disposal to the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS).

But at the time of the OIG report’s release in 2010, only 15 states fully participated in the NMVTIS database, which was created to deter vehicle theft and fraud. After Hurricane Katrina, for example, cars that had been declared total losses to be scrapped were resold in other states with forged titles, a process known as title washing. Today, 48 states participate in the program, according to its website. Hawaii, Kansas and the District of Columbia are listed as “in development.”

“[O]ne facility, which received 357 CARS vehicles at the time of our audit, was not aware of NMVTIS and therefore, had not reported any information on the status of those vehicles,” the investigation found. “In addition, one facility we visited did not sign or date the disposal certification forms for the 27 trade-in vehicles it handled.”

Paul Bledsoe, who served as a Department of Energy consultant under Obama and worked on climate change in the Clinton administration, said he worries that many Cash for Clunkers vehicles may have ended up being exported.

“They were shipped overseas to Africa or South America,” Bledsoe, now a strategic adviser for the Progressive Policy Institute, said in an interview last month. “So the Biden team has to make sure [retired vehicles] are permanently retired.”

Read the full article here

How to Protect Incarcerated Women from Covid

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Editor’s note: Throughout this piece, “prison” is used to represent places of detention, including county and regional jails, federal and state prisons, and juvenile detention facilities. Data from The New York Times includes immigration detention centers as well.

 

Women Behind Bars: Violence and Neglect During the Pandemic 

Despite accounting for only four percent of the world’s female population, the United States houses more than 30 percent of the world’s incarcerated women. This rate has increased nearly 800 percent since the 1970’s. These inmates face a harsh and restrictive prison environment designed for violence-prone men, and the emergence of the pandemic has only further opened the doors for inhumane treatment. Prisons are among the primary hotspots for the coronavirus, with infection rates three times that of the general public. As the virus surges through correctional facilities, inmates are not able to social distance, quarantine, or benefit from adequate medical treatment. Depleted resources and insufficient space, combined with a vulnerable population, created the perfect storm for Covid-19 to spread quickly.

Inside the Danbury Federal Correction Institution in Connecticut, dozens of women tested positive with no space to quarantine. To prevent the virus from spreading, they were housed in the inmates’ waiting room with no beds, only rudimentary restrooms, and no place to bathe (although showers were eventually installed.) During months when nighttime temperatures still dipped below freezing, the women were instructed to assemble and to sleep on metal beds, with limited mattress availability. They lacked substantial food and were generally not granted over-the-counter medication except Tylenol. One sick inmate was hospitalized for dehydration, and many were left in the locked visiting room without attention to their severe symptoms. Despite these worsening conditions during the pandemic, the Connecticut Department of Correction claimed that Covid positive inmates were “provided medical care in accordance with CDC guidelines.” Stacy Spagnardi, an inmate at Danbury currently in home confinement, recalls something very different: “We were all thinking we would die in there, and nobody would know until count.”

If there is any silver lining to the misery inflicted by the pandemic, it is that the virus turned a spotlight on the lack of adequate healthcare in our country’s prisons, especially for women.  

This is particularly true, for example, in the case of prenatal care. Roughly four percent of all newly incarcerated women arrive to serve their sentences while carrying a baby. On average, 2,000 children are born behind prison walls every year. While in prison, only 58 percent of pregnant women report receiving any prenatal care. The Prison Policy Institute found that 31 states lack any nutritional plan or dietary supplements for incarcerated pregnant women, a key component to delivering a healthy child. As a result, many expecting mothers in jail suffer from malnutrition. 

Female inmates, many of whom were physically abused or addicted to drugs before their arrests, need better health care. This is especially true for women experiencing high-risk pregnancies because of their struggles with substance abuse. 

Women in jail often give birth alone in their cells with no medical aid or assistance. Prisons also have been known to shackle or otherwise restrain inmates during labor. This increases risk by limiting the women’s movement, increasing pain, and obstructing the diagnosis of complications during birth. 

After an often-precarious delivery process, most women are separated from their children within 24 hours. Their babies are placed with a relative, adoption family, or into foster care. Maternal separation, of course, can be highly traumatic to both mother and child. For the mother, it’s an additional harsh punishment over and above their sentence. For the newborn, separation can cause emotional and behavioral problems that can last a lifetime. 

Research suggests that children born to imprisoned parents experience psychological and educational problems, such as higher rates of depression and suicide, antisocial behavior, learning disabilities, and behavioral issues that result in suspension or expulsion from school. On average, children with incarcerated parents are six times more likely to become incarcerated themselves. 

Covid-19 has made prison even more perilous for pregnant women. Consider the case of Andrea Circle Bear, who was pregnant and serving a two-year sentence for selling drugs on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation. Circle Bear contracted Covid-19 in the overcrowded prison in Fort Worth, Texas. She was on a ventilator when the time came to give birth. Three weeks later, she was the first federal female prisoner to die from Covid-19. “Not every prison death is avoidable, but Andrea Circle Bear’s certainly seems to have been — she simply should not have been in a federal prison under these circumstances,” contends Kevin Ring of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. 

For Circle-Bear and other non-violent offenders, early release or home-confinement policies could have prevented unnecessary sickness and death behind bars, but many states made few efforts to reduce their prison populations amidst the pandemic. In states that did try to halt Covid-19’s spread in their prisons, the response was uneven. Some states enacted limited early-release programs. A handful of governors have issued executive orders to grant early release for certain inmates, while the Federal Bureau of Prisons transferred some into home-confinement.

For example, Kentucky’s public defenders, prosecutors, Supreme Court, county jails, and Gov. Andy Beshear worked together to reduce Kentucky’s prison population. Those who were medically vulnerable, low-risk, or near the end of their sentences received priority in early release policies. 

Of the 152,124 prisoners currently under federal jurisdiction, 7,314 have been placed in home confinement. The Attorney General released a memo in March of 2020 instructing the Federal Bureau of Prisons to allow inmates to serve out their sentences at home when appropriate. Since then, 24,668 inmates have been granted home confinement.

In April of 2020, Pennsylvania’s Governor Tom Wolf began the Temporary Program to Reprieve Sentences of Incarceration. Although the plan originally estimated that 1,800 inmates would qualify for reprieve, only 159 individuals were released through this program. 

In an effort to reduce Covid-19 transmission, some states also have restricted the number of security guards on staff. Unfortunately, this has had the unintended consequence of making women more vulnerable to sexual assault and abuse. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 42 percent of sexual abuse in prisons is perpetrated by staff, while 58 percent is perpetrated by other inmates. However, this data reflects only substantiated sexual assault claims, which amounted to 5,187 of the 67,169 allegations from 2012-2015, or just eight percent of all claims. While it would seem that having less prison guards would reduce the number of potential abusers, a lack of security can empower predatory staff or inmates to commit sexual assault without supervision.

Sexual abuse is a notorious aspect of prison life for men and women. But it’s a special problem for women, a majority of whom previously have been victims of physical and/or sexual assault. The cycle of abuse continues in prison. The Department of Justice found widespread rape and sexual harassment inside the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in Alabama and the Edna Mahan Correction Facility for Women in New Jersey. Along with suffering severe mental and physical trauma, several women became pregnant after being raped by guards. The DOJ argued that these conditions violated women’s eighth amendment rights against “cruel and unusual punishment.” But under Covid protocols that limit personnel and surveillance, more women are at risk in understaffed facilities like Edna Mahan and Tutwiler. 

Covid-19 also has created new stresses on female inmates’ social and emotional well-being. In addition to the life-threatening physical conditions during the pandemic, incarcerated women also are subject to the misuse of punitive policies like solitary confinement and terminated phone and visitor access that can impair their mental health. The use of solitary confinement as a blunt instrument for enforcing social distancing during the pandemic has increased 500 percent. Yet solitary confinement is known to increase anxiety and suicidal thoughts, particularly in women who have suffered sexual abuse and feelings of low self-worth. Prisons need to be more careful in calculating the trade-off between protecting inmates from Covid and endangering their mental health.

Covid-related policies preventing communication between incarcerated mothers and their children also have strained family relationships. As the general population has relied on technology to stay in touch with our loved ones, many prisons have restricted access to the phone and eliminated visitation. An overwhelming majority of female inmates are mothers, and these policies can degrade their mental health by cutting off communication with their children.

What Should be Done? 

Even as Covid cases plateau nationwide, Covid-19 infections continue to rise in jails and prisons. Moreover, new variants found in Michigan, Colorado, and other states pose fresh dangers of contagion, since prison staff can carry the virus in and out of prison from these hotspots. 

The task of mitigating the pandemic inside our jails and prisons is complicated by the fact that a multiplicity of federal and state jurisdictions cut across the U.S. criminal justice system. States decide their own policies, whether for early release programs, vaccine rollout, or correctional institution budgeting. As a result, prisoners across the country experience a variety of conditions and Covid-19 protocols. 

“If there was clearly a right strategy, we all would have done it,” said Dr. Owen Murray, a physician in charge of correctional healthcare at dozens of Texas prisons. Nonetheless, America’s correctional facilities have a myriad of ways to create more humane and safe conditions for inmates: 

  • Increase testing and dedicate spaces for quarantine. The first step is better measurement of the challenge. Correctional facilities should test all staff and inmates routinely and release results publicly. To limit transmission of the virus, symptomatic inmates should be placed in a separate space from other prisoners while they wait for their results. These areas should be adequately climate controlled and fully equipped with food, water, sanitary and medical resources, books or other sources of entertainment, and working phones for communication with loved ones during this short isolation period. 
  • Prioritize inmates in vaccine distribution. The CDC and the American Medical Association have recommended that vulnerable populations, including incarcerated individuals, be given priority for receiving vaccines. Overcrowding, lack of medical care, and an at-risk population has made Covid-19 an even deadlier threat inside prisons. The federal prison system has administered at least the first vaccine dose to about 146,972 of its approximately 152,124 federal prisoners. However, vaccine distribution inside state correctional facilities is controlled by the state government and varies widely across the country. In Florida, no inmates in state correctional institutions have received the vaccine. Contrastingly, Kansas has vaccinated about two-thirds of its 8,700 inmates. Kansas Governor Laura Kelly faced intense political resistance to prioritizing inmates in vaccine efforts, but as John Carney, a member of the Kansas Coronavirus Vaccine Advisory Council explains, “All of us kind of came around to this notion that the most vulnerable is the most vulnerable.” Inmates should be considered high priority in state and federal vaccination efforts, especially now that the national vaccine supply has increased and shots are more readily available. 
  • Adopt alternate forms of sentencing. When possible, courts and lawmakers should seek alternatives to incarceration, especially for non-violent offenders, to decrease the number of people in prisons nationwide. Fewer people entering correctional facilities means more room for social distancing, resources for other prisoners, and fewer Covid cases. Drug courts, fines, restitution, community service, probation, house arrest, psychiatric treatment, and work release are other plausible avenues to explore.
  • Increase and improve medical care for inmates. Correctional facilities should be given the resources to hire more medical staff trained to recognize inmates‘ Covid-19 symptoms and treat them appropriately, move prisoners to the hospital if their conditions become serious or require more equipment than on hand, and frequently monitor inmates’ health.
  • End solitary confinement for at-risk prisoners and as a method for social distancing. State and federal jails and prisons should be prohibited from using solitary confinement as a means of quarantining inmates. The practice can particularly harm pregnant women or those with underlying health conditions. New York recently ended long-term solitary confinement and banned the practice entirely for minors and pregnant women; correctional facilities should follow this lead to protect vulnerable inmates from the severe mental health ramifications caused by this isolation.
  • Reopen libraries and educational programs. In keeping with CDC guidelines, prisons should reinstate these crucial educational spaces and programs. Inmates who participate in educational programs have a lower rate of recidivism, higher rate of literacy, increased employment opportunities upon release, and receive fewer disciplinary infractions. The Utah State Prison houses five libraries with an array of books to keep inmates engaged and busy. Camille Randles, an inmate who regularly uses the women’s prison library, explains how books are a “safety net” that allow inmates an escape from reality. The prison also offers programs on substance abuse and sex-offender treatment that can help inmates gain parole upon graduation. The largest meta-analysis on correctional educational studies found that inmates participating in educational programs are 43 percent less likely to return to prison than those who do not. These programs are also cost-effective, reducing incarceration costs by $4-5 for every dollar invested in correctional education programs. If all safety precautions and social distancing measures are enforced, the benefits of these programs towards limiting future incarceration and reducing costs far outweigh the risk of transmission.
  • Allow for greater virtual communication. To connect prisoners with their families and attorneys, prisons should end restrictive communication policies and install video conferencing, increase access to phones, and expand computer usage. These shared tools and spaces should follow CDC guidelines and be thoroughly cleaned between prisoner use. They will allow incarcerated individuals to better communicate with their loved ones, which also has been shown to reduce recidivism by strengthening family support before the re-entry experience.  
  • Institute job training programs. One of the largest obstacles for people re-entering society is securing a well-paying job. Job training programs equip inmates with the skills and confidence they need to be successful in the workforce and increase odds of employment by 28 percent. Some programs, like Trades Related Apprentice Coaching, partner with local businesses or labor unions to place women in jobs once their training is complete. Crystal Lansdale, an inmate at Washington Corrections Center for Women, explains, “The construction trades is something like a way out of the box for me. I need a career that is going to give me retirement, that’s going to give me benefits, that’s going to give me an opportunity to take care of my kids.” Many people like Crystal need legitimate work to support themselves and their families once they are out of prison. Furthermore, certain programs should be tailored specifically to youth workforce development, so that juvenile offenders can form connections with professionals and mentors that can influence them during their developmental years as well assist them in entering the workforce. The DOJ’s National Institute of Corrections highlights how building “employable skills” for incarcerated youth increases safety in the community and advances employment opportunities for juvenile offenders.

Improving Conditions for Women 

In addition to these general reforms, policymakers should adopt specific strategies for creating more safe and humane conditions for incarcerated women vulnerable to ill-health, neglect and abuse:  

  • Report accurate, disaggregated data. Providing disaggregated data will help to gauge the pandemic’s effect on incarcerated women and minorities. Only then can policies be designed to better encompass their needs. Congress should pass the Covid-19 in Corrections Data Transparency Act introduced by Representative Clarke, Garcia, and Pressley alongside Senators Warren, Murray, Booker, and Kelly. The legislation would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshall Service, and state and local governments to report disaggregated Covid data for federal, state, and local correctional facilities. 
  • Prioritize women in early release policies. According to The New York Times, only about 5 percent of prisoners currently serving federal sentences have been granted home confinement. Some governors have implemented early release policies, but not at the rate that various prosecutors, judges, and interest groups have called for. Pregnant women, women in prison for non-violent offenses, and women with pre-existing conditions should be prioritized for early release. A two-year stint for selling drugs should not be a death sentence. Women also have a lower rate of recidivism than males, indicating that early release plans would not encourage future crime.
  • Increase and improve prenatal care. Comprehensive prenatal care should be extended to all pregnant inmates to decrease the risk of serious complications if they contract Covid-19. The House in October 2020 passed the Protecting the Health and Wellbeing of Babies and Pregnant Women in Custody Act, which dictates that the Bureau of Justice reports annual data on the demographics and health needs of pregnant women in custody, prohibits the use of restraints on pregnant inmates, and provides appropriate services, health care, and nutrition for pregnant women. The Senate should act quickly to pass this bipartisan bill.
  • Train, recruit, and oversee more qualified guards and officials. Improving the quality of prison staff is a key step toward increasing safety for female prisoners. Monitoring guards on duty, hiring more female officers, and educating personnel around the specific challenges incarcerated women face can decrease sexual assault and violence in prisons. 
  • Provide enhanced nutritional options for female prisoners, especially pregnant women. According to national guidelines, women generally need more nutrients than men, especially for a healthy pregnancy. A balanced diet including folic acid, iron, calcium, zinc, and Vitamin D will help strengthen prisoners’ immune systems to fend off the virus and deliver healthier babies. 
  • Supply adequate cleaning supplies and feminine hygiene products. Many states are not required to provide incarcerated women with menstrual products. In Alabama’s Tutwiler Prison for Women, the Department of Justice found that male guards withheld menstrual items unless prisoners would have sex with them. Correctional facilities should provide feminine hygiene products to all incarcerated women to ensure their basic needs are met. In addition, correctional facilities should be equipped with various cleaning supplies to limit transmission of the virus. 

Conclusion

Prisons are dangerous places for everyone, especially women. The pandemic introduced a new threat to incarcerated women’s existing conditions of violence, sexual assault, and neglect. To make prisons safer for women, legislation must address the structural issues plaguing the criminal justice system. As the country works to rebuild itself, women in prison continue to struggle against mass incarceration, gender discrimination, and punitive methods. The pandemic magnified many of these issues and crafting a gendered response to the virus is the first step toward treating incarcerated individuals with respect and human dignity. 

Download the full report: 

VIDEO: PPI Senior Fellow Joel Berg Interviewed on C-SPAN on Hunger in America

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Senior Fellow Joel Berg Interviewed on C-SPAN on Hunger in America

PPI Senior Fellow Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN to discuss the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on food insecurity and the success of the Biden administration’s response to curbing hunger in America. Berg underscored that the federal government plays a critical role in providing food assistance to families and that the hunger crisis is still not over and requires a concerted, national effort.

“It’s vital to understand that we were facing a hunger and food insecurity epidemic before the pandemic. In 2019, when the economy was theoretically in great shape, tens of millions of Americans couldn’t afford enough food primarily because they did not earn enough to meet their basic expenses. Even in 2019, more than 10 million American children lived in homes that couldn’t afford enough food.
By December 2020, we had a new methodology from the federal government that measured how much food people had on the weekly level and that spiked to 30 million Americans in one week that didn’t have enough food…that was reduced substantially over the last few months because of policies that put people back to work and policies that put cash in their pocket and food in their grocery carts. But still in April, about 17 million American still can’t afford enough food and they are still missing meals so we are still in the midst of a very serious hunger crisis,” said PPI Senior Fellow Joel Berg in the interview.
The full interview is available here.

PODCAST: UK Unrest – A Frank Conversation About the State of Politics in the United Kingdom and Around the World

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On this week’s Radically Pragmatic Podcast, Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute sat down with Matt Goodwin, Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent, a researcher and a published author. They discussed the dynamic political atmosphere across Europe and how it relates to the US political stage, among a host of other topics and issues.

Matthew Goodwin is an academic, bestseller writer and speaker known for his work on political volatility, risk, populism, British politics, Europe, elections and Brexit. He is Professor of Politics at Rutherford College, University of Kent, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House and previously Senior Fellow with the UK In a Changing Europe.

Listen on Anchor.

Listen on Spotify.

Listen on Apple Podcasts.

 

And don’t miss PPI President Will Marshall’s new opinion piece in the New York Daily News: What the UK can teach the U.S. (again)

Marshall for New York Daily News: What the UK can teach the U.S. (again)

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Political trends in the United States and Great Britain often seem to move in parallel, and last week’s local elections across the United Kingdom yield some pertinent lessons for U.S. political parties.

For Republicans, the main takeaway is that competent governance matters. One big reason Britain’s Conservatives scored major gains on “Super Thursday” is that voters credit Prime Minister Boris Johnson with having done a good job of rolling out COVID vaccines.

In contrast, Donald Trump bungled the pandemic from start to finish in a clownish performance that his own pollster has cited as the number one reason U.S. voters denied him reelection in 2020.

For Democrats, the sad state of Britain’s Labour Party is a cautionary tale against what can happen to progressives when they abandon electoral pragmatism and indulge left-wing purists. The party seems unable to exorcise the ghost of ex-leader Jeremy Corbyn, the doctrinaire socialist who led the party two years ago to its worst drubbing since the 1930s.

 

Read the full piece in the New York Daily News

LA Times: How many high school students will come back in the fall? Dismal return rate raises alarms

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Howard Blume, LA Times Staff Writer

Only 7% of high school students and 12% of middle school students have returned to reopened campuses in the Los Angeles school district, sounding alarms about what these figures portend for next fall and highlighting the need for intense intervention when more traditional in-person schooling resumes.

As the school year winds down with the vast majority of students at home online, an uncertain summer and fall back-to-school future is emerging: How soon will families be ready to return children to campus? Will many demand an online option? Will students attend summer school to stem learning loss?

For state Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell (D-Long Beach), the return data denote a crisis.

“It’s tragic for the future of those students and tragic for the future of California,” said O’Donnell, who chairs the Assembly Education Committee. “It means students are not receiving in-classroom instruction — where they learn best. What does this mean for the fall?”

Although officials insist they will act aggressively to help students, the low return rate could intensify pressure on the school district.

Even after L.A. Unified instituted some of the most extensive safety measures in the nation, it was not enough for many families still fearful of the pandemic. Others, especially high school students, rejected the strict limitations on movement, instruction, enrichment activities and socializing and opted to stay with distance learning. For many, the gradual reopenings from mid- to late April were too little, too late — and families chose not to disrupt schedules and obligations so late in the school year, which ends June 11.

The L.A. Unified reopening plan offers both middle and high school students a half-time, on-campus academic schedule that includes no in-person instruction. Instead, students must remain in one classroom, from which they log into their classes. The teacher in the room is instructing other students online in various places. Twice a day for 30 minutes, that teacher will engage directly with the students in the room for an activity to support their social and emotional needs.

The district adopted this approach to limit the mixing of students as they move from class to class, something that many other districts have allowed.

This format was a miscalculation, said Tressa Pankovits, associate director for Reinventing America’s Schools at Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

“If a kid is miserable doing Zoom lessons, why force them to do it in an unfamiliar classroom with a teacher whose attention is on students in another class? It’s a ridiculous proposition, really,” Pankovits said. “It’s inarguable that LAUSD tried too hard to balance the demands from the adults, clearly at the expense of its students.”

Read the rest here.

UK Unrest – A Frank Conversation About the State of Politics in the United Kingdom and Around the World

Posted on by dcadmin

On this week’s Radically Pragmatic Podcast, Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute sat down with Matt Goodwin, Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent, a researcher and a published author. They discussed the dynamic political atmosphere across Europe and how it relates to the US political stage, among a host of other topics and issues.

Matthew Goodwin is an academic, bestseller writer and speaker known for his work on political volatility, risk, populism, British politics, Europe, elections and Brexit. He is Professor of Politics at Rutherford College, University of Kent, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House and previously Senior Fellow with the UK In a Changing Europe.