Today, a bipartisan group of Senators, led by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), announced the imminent introduction of an antitrust bill aimed at a handful of America’s most successful technology companies. The bill, mirroring similarly misguided proposals in the House, would do irreparable damage to the digital ecosystem that has put America in the vanguard of high-tech innovation and entrepreneurship.
Lindsay Mark Lewis, Executive Director of the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement:
“The antitrust legislation sponsored by Senator Klobuchar will do more harm than good to American families who rely on digital shopping, commerce, and communication every day. Though this bill is trumpeted as bipartisan, the reality is that it is just as radical and far-reaching as the House Judiciary Committee bills led by extremists like Rep. Matt Gaetz and lobbied for by Fox News’s parent company News Corp.
“If passed, this bill would weaken America’s ability to compete with China and undercut what has been robust job creation in the high-growth tech and e-commerce industries. Technology and e-commerce companies are major investors in communities and local economies throughout the United States, and as PPI has documented, have provided the most substantial job growth in recent years – including during the pandemic.
“In polling battleground voters across America, we found no public groundswell for breaking up or drastically regulating U.S. technology companies. In fact, just three percent of voters identified changing the way tech companies operate as a top economic priority. When asked about the impact these proposals could have on our everyday relationship with products like Amazon Prime and Marketplace or Google Maps and other Google apps, a strong majority opposed the potential impact of these bills.
“Since 1996, Congress has mostly taken a pragmatic approach to regulating the digital economy, with the result that America is the world’s leader in high tech innovation. This bill reaches for the extreme remedy of breaking up companies whose products are highly valued by U.S. and global consumers, without solid evidence of consumer harm.
“As made evident by last week’s hearing focused on Facebook, there are clear threats to our democracy and the online marketplace posed by certain bad actors to address. These abuses should – and can be – targeted with smart regulation tailored carefully to specific problems. The bills introduced in Congress would not do this, nor would they tackle concentration and competition issues in the U.S. economy. Instead, they are designed to score points with far-left and far-right activists and go to the extreme.”
American psychologist Abraham Maslow famously said, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” For state attorneys general, lawsuits are their hammers, and they are constantly searching for additional, bigger hammers.
Right now, state attorneys general, led by New York’s Letitia James, are urging Congress to give them a shiny, Thor-sized hammer for antitrust litigation. The State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021, which is currently under consideration in Congress, would categorically eliminate State antitrust actions from the federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL) system.
For decades, MDLs have centralized pretrial proceedings when large numbers of similar cases, including state antitrust claims, are filed against the same business involving the same set of allegations. Although not perfect, this system provides the parties and courts with a useful tool for resolving disputes.
In politics, success tends to beget success. That truism apparently eluded leftwing Democrats on Sept. 30 when they refused to vote for President Biden’s $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.
Instead of basking in accolades for having passed a second landmark achievement to go with Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, Democrats are treating the public to an extended exhibition of their inability to forge the internal consensus necessary to govern.
Even as clogged U.S. ports and long delays in delivering goods of all kinds underscore the urgent need for upgrading the nation’s economic infrastructure, the Congressional Progressive Caucus vows to persist in blocking the bill if they don’t get their way on a follow-on reconciliation bill that would spend trillions more on new social entitlements and climate protection.
That’s sewn anger and mistrust among moderate House Democrats, who were promised a vote and stood ready to pass the infrastructure bill last month. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) set a new deadline for a vote — Halloween, fittingly enough. To arrest the administration’s faltering momentum, Democrats need a big political win, and soon.
President Biden is trying to build consensus around a $1.9 trillion to $2.3 trillion reconciliation bill, after several lawmakers in his own party made clear they could not support the full $3.5 trillion proposal working its way through Congress. Although some on the left are understandably disappointed, this package would still be an enormous accomplishment: Combined with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, it would represent the third pillar of the largest and most progressive public investment since the Great Society over 50 years ago. But to get this transformative win across the finish line, Democrats must agree to spend smarter, not bigger and coalesce around a plan to pay for it.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) recently published a report detailing what such a package could entail. Our blueprint includes $925 billion for a permanently expanded Child Tax Credit, universal preschool and a more robust system for non-college-educated workers to acquire marketable skills. To combat climate change, we propose $600 billion for tax credits and other incentives that would encourage the adoption of affordable electric vehicles and technologies such as carbon capture, hydrogen and geothermal energy and advanced nuclear power. Finally, we propose $425 billion to strengthen the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by giving coverage to working families who don’t already have it and pairing that with other measures to control health-care costs.
Buried deep in the massive $600 billion “minibus” appropriations package the House passed last month are two discriminatory provisions against 3.3 million school children who attend charter schools. As both Chambers consider this spending bill and other related spending measures this fall, Senators should do away with these provisions.
Democrats on the House Appropriation Committee’s subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies cut $40 million from the federal Charter School Program (CSP), which exists to increase high quality public education options for students whose needs are not being met in traditional public schools. Most public charter school students are minorities and more live in low income households than traditional public school students.
Data is, logically enough, one of the pillars supporting the modern digital economy. It is, however, not terribly useful on its own. Only once it has been collected, analyzed, combined, and deployed in novel ways does data obtain its highest utility. This is to say, a large part of the value of data is its ability to flow throughout the global connected economy in real time, permitting individuals and firms to develop novel insights that would not otherwise be possible, and to operate at a higher level of efficiency and safety.
Although the global transmission of data is critical to every industry and scientific endeavor, those data flows increasingly run into barriers of various sorts when they seek to cross national borders. Most typically, these barriers take the form of data-localization requirements.
Data localization is an umbrella term that refers to a variety of requirements that nations set to govern how data is created, stored, and transmitted within their jurisdiction. The aim of data-localization policies is to restrict the flow of data across a nation’s borders, often justified on grounds of protecting national security interests and/or sensitive information about citizens.
Data-localization requirements have in recent years been at the center of a series of legal disputes between the United States and the European Union (EU) that potentially threaten the future of transatlantic data flows. In October 2015, in a decision known as Schrems I, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) overturned the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, which had for the prior 15 years governed customer data transmitted between the United States and the EU. The principles were replaced in February 2016 by a new framework agreement known as the EU–US Privacy Shield, until the CJEU declared that, too, to be invalid in a July 2020 decision known as Schrems II. (Both complaints were brought by Austrian privacy advocate Max Schrems).
The current threatened disruption to transatlantic data flows highlights the size of the problem caused by data-localization policies. According to one estimate, transatlantic trade generates upward of $5.6 trillion in annual commercial sales, of which at least $333 billion is related to digitally enabled services. Some estimates suggest that moderate increases in data-localization requirements would result in a €116 billion reduction in exports from the EU.
One difficulty in precisely quantifying the full impact of strict data-localization practices is that the list of industries engaged in digitally enabled trade extends well beyond those that explicitly trade in data. This is because “it is increasingly difficult to separate services and goods with the rise of the ‘Internet of Things’ and the greater bundling of goods and services. At the same time, goods are being substituted by services … further shifting the regulatory boundaries between what is treated as goods and services.” Thus, there is reason to believe that the true value of digitally enabled trade to the global economy is underestimated.
Moreover, as we discuss infra, there is reason to suspect that data flows and digitally enabled trade have contributed a good deal of unmeasured economic activity that partially offsets the lower-than- expected measured productivity growth seen in the both the European Union and the United States over the last decade and a half. In particular, heavy investment in research and development by firms globally has facilitated substituting the relatively more efficient work of employees at firms for unpaid labor by individuals. And global data flows have facilitated the creation of larger, more efficient worldwide networks that optimize time use by firms and individuals, and the development of resilient networks that can withstand shocks to the system like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Recently, the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future released a focused blueprint for delivering on President Biden’s promise to Build Back Better while addressing the concerns of moderates who cannot support $3.5 trillion of new spending. The report is titled, “Reconciling with Reality: The top priorities for building back better,” and is authored by Ben Ritz, Director of the Center for Funding America’s Future. Ben Ritz joined the Radically Pragmatic podcast to give listeners a walk through of the current state of play in Congress, top priorities for building back better, and how PPI’s must-read blueprint offers a bold and pragmatic solution to the current stalemate. Jeremiah Johnson, Policy Director for the Center for New Liberalism, also joined the conversation and offered his insight into the fast-changing situation.
Some background on what’s going on: The bipartisan infrastructure bill passed by the U.S. Senate in August remains snagged by internal disagreements among Congressional Democrats about the size and cost of the follow-on social investment package party leaders hope to pass with reconciliation riles that are not subject to a Republican filibuster. Democrats will likely need to reach a compromise on the reconciliation package by October 31st so they can pass the infrastructure bill before funding for the nation’s highway program expires.
Even as Congressional Democrats on both the left and center continue to bargain over the scope of President Biden’s “Build Back Better” economic, climate, and social funding plans, North Carolina’s Democratic Governor Roy Cooper has forged an agreement on a major climate change bill with Republicans in the state legislature. The legislation will likely be considered by both the North Carolina Senate and House later this week.
Gov. Cooper was able to achieve significant climate improvements in the legislation supported by Republicans through tough negotiations, including increasing the greenhouse gas emissions reductions under the bill from 64% to a remarkable 70% by the end of this decade. The legislation will shut down five high-polluting major coal-fired power plants, grow renewable energy substantially by least 4,700 megawatts over the next decade (enough to power millions of homes), and fund planning for a possible new advanced nuclear power plant within the state.
Importantly, Gov. Cooper was able to retain the regulatory authority of the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission while also guaranteeing that they follow least cost guidelines in setting consumer rates. In particular, the governor insisted on stripping out mandates limiting the Commission’s options regarding what kind of generation would replace the retired coal plants, allowing the Commission to determine which new sources of power can best keep costs down, cut emissions, and ensure consumer electricity reliability. The legislation is expected to create thousands of new jobs over the next decade, while also including assistance for low-income households.
It is worth remembering that President Biden also gained bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate for his major infrastructure bill, that contains a series of major climate change measures. And it is notable that many of the 19 Senate Republicans who voted for the infrastructure bill have lobbied their House Republican colleagues to support the measure over the objections of the House Republican leadership. Congressional negotiations now hinge on getting agreement among moderates and liberals on the scope of the climate, economic, and social legislation using the budget reconciliation process.
President Biden has indicated that the scope of the reconciliation legislation may include between $1.9 and $2.3 trillion in overall funding. The Progressive Policy Institute has issued a detailed budget proposal which includes $600 billion in climate change funding as well as other key economic and social priorities for a total about $2 trillion, written by PPI budget expert Ben Ritz and PPI President Will Marshall. It is a principled compromise emphasizing inclusion of key programs that will be most helpful to the American people, and one that Congressional Democrats on both left and center should consult closely as they attempt to rapidly conclude their own negotiations. And they should also take inspiration from the important and ambitious climate change work of Governor Cooper and his colleagues in North Carolina.
Rather than cutting corners and using gimmicks to cram the entire progressive wish list into a smaller bill, PPI believes the party’s goal should be a more focused and disciplined reconciliation bill that sets clear priorities and accomplishes a few big objectives well. Specifically, this report outlines a bold plan to deliver on three urgent priorities of the Democratic party within the confines of a roughly $2 trillion bill: supporting working families, combating climate change, and expanding access to affordable health care for those in need.
“Despite the drama last week, President Biden and Democrats in Congress can still deliver the historic economic and social investments they promised during the campaign — but they need to spend smarter, not just bigger. Our blueprint is a reality-based approach to crafting the reconciliation bill, which will allow for an enormous advance of progressive government. Now is the time for the party to come together and show America they can govern,” said Ben Ritz, Director of the Center for Funding America’s Future.
“We urge Democrats to compromise around a set of urgent priorities the American people can understand, develop a consensus plan to fully pay for it, and work in a radically pragmatic spirit to get this big progressive win across the finish line. That’s the best way to help President Biden and their party deliver for the American people,” said Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill passed by the U.S. Senate in August remains snagged by internal disagreements among Congressional Democrats about the size and cost of the follow-on social investment package party leaders hope to pass with reconciliation rules that are not subject to a Republican filibuster. Democrats will likely need to reach a compromise on the reconciliation package by October 31st so they can pass the infrastructure bill before funding for the nation’s highway program expires.
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.
Launched in 2018, PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Futureworks to promote a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth. We tackle issues of public finance in the United States and offer innovative proposals to strengthen the foundation of our economy and build shared prosperity.
The White House and Congressional Democrats are at a pivotal moment in their long-running effort to turn President Biden’s ambitious “Build Back Better” vision into law. The bipartisan infrastructure bill passed by the U.S. Senate in August remains snagged by internal disagreements among Congressional Democrats about the size and cost of the follow-on social investment package party leaders hope to pass with reconciliation rules that are not subject to a Republican filibuster. Democrats will likely need to reach a compromise on the reconciliation package by October 31st so they can pass the infrastructure bill before funding for the nation’s highway program expires.
Though cast as a power struggle between the progressive left and the pragmatic center, what’s happening on Capitol Hill is actually a reconciliation with legislative reality. Democrats can only afford to lose three votes in the House of Representatives and have no margin of error in the Senate, where at least two Members, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., already have made it clear they won’t support a $3.5 trillion bill. Many Democrats in the House have concerns as well. Accordingly, President Biden says negotiators are now aiming for a final package that will likely cost between $1.9 trillion and $2.3 trillion.
Some progressives are trying to make their whole wish list fit within this budget constraint by setting arbitrary dates for programs to expire, as Republicans did to disguise the true cost of their 2001, 2003, and 2017 tax cut bills. For example, rather than spend $225 billion every year in the 10-year window, the package envisioned by the left might spend $450 billion each year for five years before abruptly expiring.
But this approach would be deeply problematic. As Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wisc., noted in a recent op-ed, “funding programs for two to three years at a time only creates uncertainty and unnecessary fiscal cliffs.” In the worst-case scenario, a Republican Congress could allow programs to expire, which would upend the Biden legacy while pulling the rug out from people who planned their lives around new benefits.
Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wa., chair of the moderate New Democrat Coalition in the House, further explained why such a package wouldn’t alleviate the fiscal concerns of many pragmatic Democrats: “If you assume that you’re going to do something short term just to make it look like it’s going to fit in a particular budget window, for a particular piece of legislation, but you assume it’s going to be renewed later, then you aren’t really being honest about what your long-term budget goals are.”
Fortunately, Democrats can still deliver historic economic and social investments that the country needs by spending smarter, not just bigger. The goal should be a more focused and disciplined reconciliation bill that sets clear priorities and accomplishes a few big objectives well instead of haphazardly trying to do everything at once. Specifically, PPI believes that lawmakers should focus on delivering three urgent priorities effectively: supporting working families, combating climate change, and expanding access to affordable health care for those in need. As President Biden has promised, the package should also be fully paid-for with credible offsets.
There can be no doubt that a bill along these lines would constitute an enormous advance for progressive government. When combined with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill, this package would represent the third pillar of the largest and most progressive public investment since the Great Society over 50 years ago. These landmark legislative accomplishments would constitute a clear and indisputable victory for President Biden’s vision and a win for Democrats of all stripes.
Here’s what a roughly $2 trillion package should include:
Supporting Working Families ($975 billion)
The American Rescue Plan increased the value of the Child Tax Credit and made the full value of the credit available to low-income families for the first time ever. This policy change has helped cut child poverty in half for 2021 and directly empowered parents to support their children without having to rely on siloed and difficult-to-access welfare bureaucracies. PPI has previously proposed a framework for making the full expansion permanent that would cost just over $800 billion. However, Congress could adopt a smaller expansion of the CTC and redirect the funds for other programs that support working families. This approach is sensible because making the CTC fully available to low-income families both does more to reduce poverty and costs less than increasing the CTC’s total value.
In addition to permanently expanding the CTC, Democrats should invest in our children’s education by making preschool, which is shown to dramatically increase a child’s lifetime earnings, universally available to three- and four-year olds. The cost of universal preschool should be reduced by either means-testing it or requiring high-income school districts to help cover the cost of this program.
PPI also believes Washington should stop underinvesting in non-college workers by creating multiple pathways to middle-class jobs, including new investments in apprenticeships and “last mile” job training initiatives. Finally, lawmakers could offer new parents a flat paid parental leave benefit that future Congresses could expand into a full paid family and medical leave program if they are willing to consider a broader menu of offsets to pay for it.
Combating the Climate Crisis ($600 billion)
The bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed the Senate in August offered a strong down payment on tackling the climate crisis, including funding for public transit, energy grid modernization, and carbon capture demonstration projects, but far more needs to be done. The follow-up bill should include a package of well-designed tax credits similar to the one produced by the Senate Finance Committee that would encourage the adoption of affordable electric vehicles and other green technologies. It should also fund meaningful climate resilience projects and additional investments in breakthrough technologies such as carbon capture, hydrogen energy, geothermal energy, and advanced nuclear power.
Another top priority is the Clean Energy Payment Program (CEPP) that would provide subsidies for electric utilities that increase the share of clean energy they produce by 4% each year while charging smaller penalties for those that do not. These provisions could be responsible for almost two-thirds of the emissions reductions sought by President Biden. However, the CEPP has run into concerns from Sen. Manchin and it may run afoul of the Byrd rule that governs what policies can be passed through the reconciliation process that allows Democrats to circumvent a Republican filibuster.
Climate change poses a large and growing threat to our economy, so even if the CEPP cannot be included in the package, it must be replaced by another policy to accomplish the same objective. PPI has long advocated for a carbon tax, possibly paired with rebates to mitigate the burden on low- and middle-income families. Some portion of the revenue could also be earmarked for funding additional investments in research and development to promote innovation and technology growth.
Strengthening the Affordable Care Act ($425 billion)
Some progressives in Congress, led by Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.), insist that America’s top health care priority should be expanding Medicare to cover dental, hearing, and vision benefits, which would cost more than $800 billion in the 10-year period after being fully phased-in. But it hardly seems “progressive” to provide more generous coverage for Medicare beneficiaries when millions of Americans have no health coverage at all — especially considering that the majority of seniors already have coverage for these services through Medicare Advantage or supplemental Medigap plans.
Instead, PPI believes Democrats should back Speaker Pelosi’s call for building on the Affordable Care Act by making some share of the American Rescue Plan’s expansion of insurance subsidies for middle-income households permanent and by providing coverage to the more than 2.2 million uninsured people who should be eligible for Medicaid in the 12 states that have yet to expand the program. These provisions to expand coverage should also be paired with policies to address the out-of-control growth of health care costs, such as price caps or a national public option, to both reduce the net cost of these provisions and make health care more affordable for all Americans. Any expansion of Medicare should be fully financed by income-based premiums or dropped altogether so it does not draw critical resources away from the other priorities in this package.
Conclusion
In addition to the Sanders Medicare expansion, PPI’s reconciliation framework omits some major elements of Biden’s original Build Back Better blueprint, including more public support for child and elder care, community colleges, and more. Their absence here doesn’t necessarily mean these priorities are unworthy of Democrats’ support, but rather reflects the political imperative of fashioning a compromise package that can unite the party’s diverse coalition. It is also critical that lawmakers avoid the temptation to waste limited funds on other parochial priorities, such as cutting taxes for their rich constituents by weakening or repealing the SALT cap, when so many more-worthy priorities are left unfulfilled.
Passing both the infrastructure and social investment bills has become a critical test of Democrats’ ability to govern. We urge Democrats to compromise around a set of urgent priorities the American people can understand, develop a consensus plan to pay for it, and work in a radically pragmatic spirit to get this big progressive win across the finish line. That’s the best way to help President Biden and their party deliver for the American people.
Ben Ritz is the Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future. He previously staffed the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Economic Policy Project and served as Legislative Outreach Director for The Concord Coalition. Ben earned his Master’s of Public Policy Analysis and a Graduate Certificate of Public Finance from American University, where he also previously completed his undergraduate education. Follow him on Twitter: @BudgetBen
About the PPI Center for Funding America’s Future:
The PPI Center for Funding America’s Future works to promote a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth. We tackle issues of public finance in the United States and offer innovative proposals to strengthen the foundation of our economy and build shared prosperity.
On this segment of Talk Policy, Director of Social Policy Veronica Goodman sits down with Stephanie Malia-Krauss, educator, social worker, researcher and writer, to discuss her new book, “Making It: What Today’s Kids Need for Tomorrow’s World,” and what young people need in the first quarter of life to succeed. Stephanie also talks about how her early educational experiences led her to an unexpected field of study and expertise.
Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here.
Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) announced that Edward “Ed” Gresser will join PPI as the Vice President of Trade and Global Markets policy. Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.
“PPI is thrilled to welcome our erstwhile colleague Ed Gresser back after his years of distinguished service with the United States Trade Representative,” said Will Marshall, President of PPI. “Ed is one of America’s most trenchant analysts and writers on trade and global markets. Ed’s expertise and understanding of the vital role trade plays in ensuring a dynamic and competitive U.S. economy can help President Biden and pragmatic progressives in the administration undo the damage done by his predecessor’s detour into protectionism.”
Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.
Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: The Global Economy and American Liberalism (2007), and has been published in a variety of publications including the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, and U.S. News and World Report. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.
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.
The COVID-19 virus is endemic — meaning it’s here to stay. Getting to a 70% or 80% vaccination rate will not stop breakthrough cases, hot spots, and vulnerable people from getting ill. As such, the United States needs to pivot its COVID-19 response strategy to focus on harm reduction to prevent unnecessary deaths without forcing people to live another year in lockdown limbo.
To do that, the U.S. can learn from other countries with fewer cases and deaths.
We need to vaccinate as many people as possible.
The United States needs to continue to vaccinate as many people as possible, including eligible children, hard to reach and underserved populations, and the vaccine hesitant. The federal worker vaccine mandate should push more people to get vaccinated, but rollout efforts should not stop there. Music venues, sporting arenas, and schools can all encourage more people to get vaccinated by requiring proof of vaccination for entry. Having vaccines available during large events could also help reach some people.
We need more testing.
The United States has roughly the same vaccination rate as Germany and France and yet they have far fewer cases. A big reason is because they have prolific, and subsidized, COVID-19 testing — though Germany just recently stopped offering free COVID-19 tests to unvaccinated adults. In the U.S., rapid tests should be readily available for people with cold symptoms, people in schools, people who work in congregant settings, and people who want to travel. In the U.K., France, and Germany, rapid testing is widely available and inexpensive. People should get tested before gathering and traveling, which helps keep transmission down.
In general, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been slow to approve rapid, at-home tests because they are less accurate than PCR tests. Because it has only approved a handful of rapid tests, they are expensive and often sold out at local pharmacies. If getting a PCR test requires an appointment and has a 2-5 day turn around, people aren’t going to use them as a mitigation strategy. The government should approve more rapid tests — even if they aren’t as effective as PCR tests — so that widespread use is easy and affordable.
Kids need to be in school as much as possible.
After a year and a half of closures and remote learning of uneven quality for many children, it is paramount that they stay in school. Children who are exposed to infected people should not be forced to stay home if they are vaccinated. Exposed unvaccinated children should be tested and stay in school unless they test positive. As vaccines become available for school-aged children, they should get vaccinated against COVID-19 as they are against other diseases. Local policymakers should work on appropriate vaccine mandates for school and school-related activities.
We need early access to treatments.
When someone tests positive, they should know where they can get treatments as quickly as possible to reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, particularly if they are more vulnerable. Research from Baylor University Medical Center found that monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalizations among high-risk COVID-19 patients if they received the therapy early in the course of their illness. This means that doctors need to be aware of and prescribe the treatment and patients need access to infusion facilities since the drugs are delivered intravenously within the first 10 days of symptoms. But many primary care providers don’t know where to direct people to receive treatment. The federal government has announced that it will work on more equitably distributing the limited supply of monoclonal antibody treatments. But they should work with local governments and state medical boards to better reach vulnerable patients who test positive.
Everyone needs insurance coverage.
While the uninsured rate largely remained unchanged during the pandemic, where people were getting their coverage from changed. As people lost their jobs, more people enrolled in Medicaid. This prevented a huge loss of coverage. But in Republican-dominated states that haven’t yet expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the rate of uninsured remains much higher than the national average. The data shows that access to health insurance coverage improves health outcomes, because covered people are more likely to get preventive care and earlier interventions when they need acute care. One study found that COVID cases and deaths are higher in non-expansion states, suggesting that Medicaid improves access to health care system and limits both the rates of transmission and death.
In the reconciliation negotiations, lawmakers should prioritize covering the roughly 2.2 million Americans would be eligible for Medicaid save for the fact that they live in one of the 12 states that have elected to forgo Medicaid expansion under the ACA. Congress should work to plug that hole in a cost-effective manner that does not disadvantage the states that elected to expand Medicaid. Medicaid expansion has been linked to fewer bankruptcies and better health outcomes.
We need good paid leave policies.
To limit the spread of infection, the expectation is that people stay home from work when they test positive. This means that people shouldn’t fear losing their job or being unable to pay the bills if they get COVID. To protect workers, we need better sick leave policies. In the U.S., 95% of the highest earning 10% of private employees have paid sick leave, while only 33% of the lowest earning 10% of private employees had paid sick time leave. Given that the virus disproportionately affects low-income people, the U.S. needs to standardize sick leave policies to protect all Americans.
We need to reduce poverty.
Compared to other high-income countries, the U.S. has the worst health outcomes. And while there are many problems with the health care system that make it expensive, difficult to navigate, and otherwise dissuade people from getting needed care, the main reason the U.S. has poor outcomes is because we underinvest in other social determinants of health. If the U.S. invested more in social services for children and working-age adults, it is likely it could close the gap between the U.S. and other high-income countries. More equitable access to good nutrition, education, child care, housing, transportation, and worker benefits helps people live healthier lives that can mitigate the impacts of COVID-19. Poverty rates fell during the early stages of the pandemic because of generous unemployment benefits and stimulus payments. The U.S. should continue efforts to reduce poverty and improve social determinants of health.
With vaccinations, naturally acquired immunity, and other mitigation efforts, COVID-19 is morphing from an acute pandemic to an endemic condition like seasonal flu. But the U.S. can do a much better job reducing infection and death rates. These commonsense steps will protect vulnerable Americans without the need for lockdowns, school closures, and extensive social distancing which made life so difficult over the last 1.5 years.
“In this post-COVID world, those students who were treading water before are in jeopardy of drowning without the right interventions. ” said Curtis Valentine, RAS Co-Director and moderator for the event. “Empowering teachers means equipping them with what they need — to meet students where they are and address critical gaps in learning and academic achievement. With the right guidance, policymakers can craft literacy programs that are available, accessible, and equitable for all learners.”
The webinar’s panelists included Dr. Kymyona Burk of ExcelinEd, Mary Clayman of the DC Reading Clinic, Cassandra Gentry of DC Pave, Dr. Michael Durant of the Academy of Hope Adult Charter School, Representative Allister Chang of the DC State Board of Education, and Washington DC State Superintendent Christina Grant.
The Reinventing America’s Schools Project inspires a 21st century model of public education geared to the knowledge economy. Two models, public charter schools and public innovation schools, are showing the way by providing autonomy for schools, accountability for results, and parental choice among schools tailored to the diverse learning styles of children. The project is co-led by Curtis Valentine and Tressa Pankovits.
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.
A new poll from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) on technology, competition, and the economy finds most voters in battleground congressional districts and states take pride in U.S. technology companies, which they see as providing good jobs, leading the world in innovation and e-commerce, and making major contributions to American dynamism.
At the same time, voters have significant concerns about how big tech firms handle data privacy and security, as well as whether they pay their fair share in taxes. They express lower levels of concern about competition in the tech/e-commerce sector, and seem torn over whether the large size of big tech firms is a sign of their success or of undue market power that demands public action.
“In taking the pulse of battleground voters, we found no public groundswell for breaking up or drastically regulating big tech,” said PPI President Will Marshall. “Instead, the pressure to eviscerate America’s most innovative and competitive firms seems to be coming mainly from left- and right-wing ideologues.”
Commissioned by the Progressive Policy Institute and conducted by Expedition Strategies, the poll gauges voter attitudes in 44 battleground House Districts and eight states likely to have competitive Senate races in next year’s midterm elections. This portion of the poll also oversampled in California. Sections of the poll examining the Biden Administration’s Build Back Better plan and voters views on the economy were released earlier this month. Here are a few key takeaways:
A few key takeaways include:
Changing the way tech companies do business is a low economic priority for battleground voters. Asked which economic issues worry them most, only 3% chose “the actions of tech companies.”
When asked which industries provide “good American jobs,” 27% of battleground voters chose manufacturing, followed by 24% who named technology.
When asked to rank their concerns about big tech companies such as Apple, Facebook, Google, and Amazon, voters put privacy and data security first. Among battleground voters, 42% say they are very worried about their “ability to know how companies use your personal data and if they are protecting your privacy” (85% total worried) and 38% say they are very worried about “the security of your data stored in computers, such as financial transactions” (82% total worried).
While they aren’t as concerned about competition and market concentration, many voters do see the big tech companies as monopolies that have too much power.
Two-thirds (66%) of battleground voters say the size of technology companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook is a good thing for U.S. workers and the U.S. economy, while 34% say it is a bad thing.
By a 52-48 margin, more battleground voters say Americans can be proud that U.S. companies lead the world in digital innovation and e-commerce than say they are worried that U.S. tech companies have become too powerful and need to be reined in by Washington.
Voters are more interested in making sure technology companies can compete with China and Europe (65% of battleground voters say this should be a bigger priority) than they are in making sure small American companies can compete (35%).
Battleground voters are evenly divided on concerns about breaking up large American technology companies. Half (50%) say they are more concerned that if we do not break up large technology companies, it will be harmful to American consumers and the economy, while an equal number say they are more concerned that if we do break them up, it might cause them to fail, which would harm American workers and consumers.
Changing the way tech companies do business is a low economic priority for battleground voters. Asked which economic issues worry them most, only 3% choose “the actions of big tech companies.”
When we asked about concrete proposals that Congress or the President could consider regarding large technology companies (proposals that would affect consumers’ everyday relationship with such companies), support for change is much lower. Battleground voters oppose ideas like banning Amazon Prime from offering free shipping (63% strongly oppose, 85% total oppose) or requiring Google to shut down YouTube, Google Maps, and other apps it offers (42% strongly oppose, 73% total oppose).
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.
When teachers unions forced public schools to close indefinitely in spring 2020, the void they created showed how ill-suited traditional public schools are to the 21st century. Though the pandemic stressed most public institutions, public charter schools proved remarkably resilient.
According to a new report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), during the pandemic, public charter school enrollment increased in 39 of the 42 states with charter schools, adding 237,311 students from the 2019–20 school year to 2020–21. During the same period, traditional public schools lost 1.4 million students. While some of the traditional public schools’ losses can be attributed to homeschooling, learning pods, and other alternatives, the Center for Reinventing Public Education learned that flight to virtual schools only accounted for roughly 40 percent of traditional districts’ enrollment declines.
That tracks with the NAPCS findings. Though enrollment in virtual public charters spiked in a few states—Oklahoma, Utah, and Pennsylvania—in other states like Texas, which had an enrollment surge of almost 30,000 students, those new charter school students are not attending virtual schools. Over the last decade, brick-and-mortar charter schools did very well, and would have likely done even better were enrollment not arbitrarily capped by law in many blue states like New York and Washington. Even in places where public charters are not legislatively capped, union contracts have scotched their growth.
