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.
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.”
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.
Last week, the White House unveiled President Biden’s American Families Plan, which includes $109 billion for two years of free community college with the aim that more Americans have access to a degree or certification. Americans generally support making public colleges and universities tuition free, with the bulk of support coming from women, young people, and Black and Hispanic adults. Already, there are reports from states like Michigan, which launched a free community college program last year, and was inundated with applications and interest. However, policymakers need to ensure that we do not just increase the quantity of degrees, but their quality and how schools help match students with high-value, in-demand credentials linked to the labor market.
The package recognizes that access alone will not improve low completion rates, and alongside the community college expansion, it calls for a $62 billion investment in “evidence-based strategies to strengthen completion and retention rates at community colleges and institutions that serve students” who have historically been unlikely to complete a postsecondary degree. Many community college students do not complete their degrees or end up with credentials with “low labor market value” that can leave students with significant debt and set up to default on their loans.
For decades, community colleges have educated a significant portion of low- and middle-income Americans, yet have historically been underfunded and overlooked compared to public and private four-year colleges. For millions, community colleges have served as their pathway to the middle class and this proposal by the Administration is fulfilling President Biden’s campaign promise to expand economic opportunity for Americans across the distribution. Experts have suggested that with extra funding, community colleges could spur economic mobility if investments go toward career counselors, mental health resources, and academic coaching which would increase enrollment and completion of degrees.
Yet, completion rates alone should not be the measure of success. A key goal of community colleges, and postsecondary education generally, should be the labor market outcomes of their graduating classes. If there is to be an education expansion in community colleges, it should be paired with accountability systems that track outcomes and link funding to programs that are seeing results. Additionally, there needs to be more communication across the network of community colleges as to what practices are working so that evidence can be shared and disseminated widely.
Community colleges in particular are well-poised to build robust partnerships with local employers to place students in high-demand industries with good wages, such as healthcare and information technology. Programs that have apprenticeships, job training, or work-based learning as part of the curriculum have been shown to better set up students for economic success. The American Jobs Plan also proposes a $100 billion investment in workforce development to help connect workers to jobs in the ongoing post-pandemic recovery. These efforts should be coordinated to ensure that U.S. job training and placement programs work much more effectively and reach dislocated workers and those who stand to benefit the most, such as women and Black and Hispanic workers.
Lastly, schools and policymakers should also be thinking outside of the box for how to meet students where they are and community colleges are not always the answer for every student. Many students face challenges at home or at work that make it difficult for them to complete their degrees. New initiatives, such as Degrees of Freedom in Vermont, are experimenting with innovative models to reach low-income and first-generation college students with hybrid late high school, early college experiences. These capitalize on lessons learned from the pandemic, such as virtual learning experiences, to pioneer new approaches.
A college degree will also not be the path to a successful career for every American. In fact, among recent high school graduates ages 16 to 24, 30 percent do not enroll in any postsecondary education, and only 60 percent of students in two- or four-year programs graduate within six years. To that end, President Biden has repeatedly stated that 90 percent of the opportunities created by the American Jobs Plan, a major public investment in expanding apprenticeships and job training programs, do not require a college degree. These are proven non-college career pathways that give more students a path to the middle class. Policymakers will need to consider these in tandem with free community college if we are to offer options to a vast majority of America’s workers.
The Biden administration is right to call for major national investment in educating and training young workers, many of whom have lost a year of their lives to the pandemic. But now it’s time for the administration and Congress to think harder about how to maximize the impact of whatever lawmakers eventually pass. The kind of transformative change that the President is prioritizing requires that we think beyond the old systems of workforce development and education to a more diverse set of career pathways. The focus should be on effective, evidence-based approaches paired with innovation and accountability for results.
Today, the Innovation Frontier Project (IFP), a project of the Progressive Policy Institute, released a new report from James Bessen, an economist and Executive Director of the Technology & Policy Research Initiative at Boston University School of Law.
In the report, Bessen argues that new information technology has delivered more and unprecedented convenience for consumers, and good-paying jobs that contribute to overall economic growth. However, limited access to the technology is also contributing to the major economic and social issues of the day: the growing dominance of large firms and the struggle to increase the flow of knowledge, slow productivity growth, rising economic inequality, and the failure of regulation. The challenge for policymakers is to mitigate these negative effects while preserving as many of the benefits as possible to consumers, to workers, and to the economy.
“James Bessen provides a policy framework for thinking about the diffusion of these important digital technologies. The productivity gains that have resulted from proprietary IT investments are vitally important, but now we need to make sure the whole economy can benefit from these advancements.” said Caleb Watney and Alec Stapp, co-leads of the Innovation Frontier Project.
The report draws from his forthcoming book, “Superstar Capitalism”, to be published by Yale University Press.
Based in Washington, D.C. and housed in the Progressive Policy Institute, the Innovation Frontier Project explores the role of public policy in science, technology and innovation. The project is co-led by Caleb Watney and Alec Stapp.
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.
Today, PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future hosted a webinar on reinvesting in our infrastructure and potential options to pay for the Biden Administration’s American Jobs Plan, with opening remarks provided by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV).
“President Biden has offered an ambitious vision for reinvesting in America’s infrastructure. As lawmakers begin debate on how to best turn that vision into reality, we thank Senator Manchin for opening this important discussion today and for pursuing practical policies to finance critical public investments without adding to our national debt,” said Ben Ritz, Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future.
The panel discussion included Ben Ritz of PPI, William G. Gale, Co-Director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, and Samantha Jacoby, Senior Tax Legal Analyst for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Earlier this spring, Ben Ritz and PPI President Will Marshall wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer urging Congress to consider a wider array of tax changes to offset the costs of the America Jobs Plan, the Biden Administration’s landmark infrastructure overhaul proposal. The tax reforms proposed in the letter include:
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.
For many people, information technology has significantly helped sustain their quality of life during the pandemic. We are able to visit friends and relatives over video chat, to shop online, and to stream movies. Many people are able to work from home thanks to new technology. This should come as no surprise. Information technology has been creating new benefits for consumers, new well-paying jobs, and improved productivity growth for some time now. Large firms across the economy have been making huge investments in new information technologies that have delivered major social benefits.
These investments in software and hardware have accelerated in recent years, especially outside the tech sector. To just give a couple of examples, from 2015 to 2019, software and tech hardware investment in the waste management industry rose by 75 percent and 57 percent, respectively, as leading waste management companies built out digital platforms to deal with the increasingly complex flows of electronic and other types of waste. Over the same period, hotel chains and other accommodation companies boosted software and tech hardware investment by 71 percent and 37 percent, respectively, to manage costs and revenues. Pharmaceutical benefit managers invested in sophisticated information technology systems to handle the complex prescription and pricing policies that are at the heart of today’s drug distribution systems. And electric grid companies need complex monitoring and pricing systems to handle the new mix of renewable and non-renewable energy sources, and the flexible pricing models that come along with them.
The expectation is that these investments will eventually lead to broad gains in productivity in these industries, translating into a more prosperous society. Nevertheless, some large firm investments in technology have serious social consequences. Everyone is aware, for example, how social media platforms have helped misinformation to spread widely, misleading people about public health measures, vaccines, and political processes.
Yet, while misinformation is an important policy issue, it is not purely about digital technology — traditional media have also played an important role. Furthermore, only a few companies provide social media and there are deeper and broader problems raised by new generations of information technology.
More generally, recent economic research shows that increasing use of information technology has helped increase the dominance of large firms across the economy. This competitive advantage, in turn, has made it harder for new entrants and smaller firms, undercut innovation, exacerbated income inequality, and undermined government regulators.
These changes pose substantial challenges for policymakers. While we want to encourage firms to invest in new technology and to innovate — especially firms in those parts of the economy where productivity and use of technology has lagged — policy also needs to ensure that the knowledge of new technology and the benefits spread throughout society by opening up competition and increasing the flow of knowledge.
The problem is not “bigness” per se. Only large, complex systems can deliver these benefits, so we need large firms to innovate and invest in them. But policy can play a role in prompting or encouraging large firms to provide greater access to their technology and that can go a long way toward ameliorating the problems created by these new systems.
Based in Washington, DC and housed in The Progressive Policy Institute, The Innovation Frontier Project explores the role of public policy in science, technology, and innovation.
The future can be a better, more vibrant place, but we will need significant technological breakthroughs to get there. To solve climate change, cure diseases, prevent future pandemics, and improve living standards across the globe we need continued scientific advancement and technological improvements. The United States is particularly well- positioned to drive these advancements because we are on the frontier of knowledge ourselves. Even small changes to the way we govern and incentivize science and technology can have long-run consequences for the US and for the world.
To achieve the progressive goals we have for the future we need to fundamentally evaluate how policy impacts the rate of progress. The Innovation Frontier Project commissions research from talented academics and regulatory experts around the world to bring new ideas and ambitious policy proposals to these debates.
In a Star Wars Day-themed Radically Pragmatic podcast episode, Caleb Watney, Director of Innovation Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, sits down with Rep. Derek Kilmer (WA-06) – Congress’s top Star Wars super-fan – for Star Wars trivia, and an exciting conversation on the future of technology innovation in America.
Caleb and Rep. Kilmer dig deep into their shared love of Sci-Fi, and talk about how fiction helps inspire technology improvements and innovations that can become a reality. Representative Kilmer also calls for more Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education and apprenticeship opportunities and a reinvestment in research and development funding.
In a Star Wars Day-themed Radically Pragmatic podcast episode, Caleb Watney, Director of Innovation Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, sits down with Rep. Derek Kilmer (WA-06) – Congress’s top Star Wars super-fan – for Star Wars trivia, and an exciting conversation on the future of technology innovation in America.
Caleb and Rep. Kilmer dig deep into their shared love of Sci-Fi, and talk about how fiction helps inspire technology improvements and innovations that can become a reality. Representative Kilmer also calls for more Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education and apprenticeship opportunities and a reinvestment in research and development funding.
“We need to dedicate more funding to research and development. Period. My background is working in economic development. When I worked for the Economic Development Board of Takoma, we had a sign up in our office that said ‘We are competing with everyone, everywhere, every day, forever.’ Which I confess, kind of freaked me out a little bit. But I think it’s a pretty good ethic – not just for folks who work in local economic development, but it’s a pretty good ethic for our country, too.
“The reality is, we’re competing in a global marketplace and we’re not keeping up. We used to dedicate far more of our federal budget to R&D spending. We’ve seen a gradual decrease and now it’s at the lowest it’s been in 60 years. And I think that’s a problem. And we’ve been in this position before. We’ve seen this play out before in a different era. Congress rose to the challenge in a bipartisan fashion. Back in 1957, you had a satellite the size of a beach ball launched by the Solviet Union and Congress responded by doubling research and development spending, by tripling support for basic research, and put science education efforts on steroids. And that’s how we got to the moon first.
“We’re still seeing the benefits of those investments today – every time we use a touchscreen on a smartphone or a tablet, we’re using technology that was pioneered by NASA research. The question before us now is will we continue to allow those Sputnik moments to happen everyday without our nation stepping up?” said Rep. Derek Kilmer on the podcast.
Representative Kilmer serves on the House Appropriations Committee where he is as a member of the Subcommittees on Defense, Energy & Water, and Interior & Environment. He is also Chair of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. In addition, Rep. Kilmer serves as chair emeritus of the New Democrat Coalition.
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.
Congress responded to the pandemic recession with bold aid and stimulus programs that are fueling the economy’s impressive recovery. Yet lawmakers also set arbitrary expiration dates for many of those programs, such as the expanded unemployment insurance (UI) benefits that expire in September and the $350 billion aid program that state and local governments can use until 2024. These arbitrary dates risk ending aid well before — or after — the economy stops needing it.
To avoid these risks during future recessions, federal lawmakers should replace most ad hoc stimulus with stronger “automatic stabilizers,” stimulus programs that naturally adjust in size to the economy’s needs and can pay for their spending in downturns with savings during expansions.
Automatic stabilizers are government programs that benefit more people when incomes fall — such as UI and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — or those that grow more generous during downturns, such as the Extended Benefits program within UI that lengthens benefits by 13–20 weeks in states with high unemployment. Economic stimulus from automatic stabilizers is well-timed to ramp up at the start of downturns and wind down at the end because it responds directly to changes in peoples’ incomes or the unemployment rate. Timely stimulus can forestall layoffs early in a downturn without overheating the economy once it has recovered. As a result, automatic stabilizers dampened the severity of economic swings roughly as much as discretionary stimulus bills did between 1980 and 2018, according to experts at the Brookings Institution.
The enhanced stabilizers should include:
Adjusting the size and duration of UI benefits when the unemployment rate changes, as President Biden has proposed, as well as expanding UI eligibility and paying for the costs across the business cycle by taxing higher incomes than UI does today.
Increasing the federal share of Medicaid funding during recessions and reducing it during expansions.
Providing matching funds for state and local infrastructure maintenance projects with a higher matching rate during downturns.
Giving state and local governments direct aid during downturns, which could be paid for by making the cap on the regressive deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) permanent.
Lawmakers can always vote to spend more or less than automatic stabilizers prescribe, but strong stabilizers would mitigate changes in economic demand even if Congress failed to change aid policy quickly, as they often have during recent downturns. For example, Congress did not expand UI until six months after the Great Recession began, and Republicans let that expansion expire in 2013 even though nearly 4 million people were long-term unemployed.
As the pandemic lockdowns took hold last May, Congress passed the CARES Act more quickly, but interrupted that aid by creating and then missing self-imposed deadlines to extend the bill’s programs. Republicans let a $600/week UI benefit increase expire in July after claiming it discouraged work, even though few jobs existed for unemployed people to fill even if they wanted to. President Trump then let expansions of UI’s duration and eligibility lapse briefly in December 2020 when he temporarily refused to sign a bill extending the provisions into 2021.
Republicans also opposed sending federal aid to state and local governments to cover income and sales tax revenue shortfalls, even though those shortfalls forced cuts to essential services such as education. Congressional squabbles such as these would be less likely to undercut the recovery if automatic stabilizers were more robust.
Expand Unemployment Insurance
As part of his new American Families Plan, President Biden proposed making UI a stronger economic stabilizer by extending benefits for longer and making benefits larger during downturns but offered few specifics for doing so. PPI recently recommended increasing the share of a worker’s lost wages replaced by UI when a state’s 3-month average unemployment rate is both above 5 percent and rises by more than 1 percentage point in a year. This proposal would have provided roughly $190 billion in stimulus during the Great Recession and ensured that unemployment benefits never deterred work by exceeding the jobseeker’s lost income. Unemployment benefits would also be extended by 14 weeks in states with unemployment rates above 9 percent and 13 more weeks where rates surpass 10 percent.
State UI programs should use $2 billion made available by the American Relief Plan Act that President Biden signed in March to ensure their computer systems can quickly calculate and deliver these benefits. The federal government should support state modernization efforts further if this aid proves insufficient, possibly by creating their own computer systems that states can use.
PPI also proposes to provide unemployment benefits to more workers. For example, although self-employed workers are hard to insure through traditional UI because they often set their own schedules, lawmakers could let them defer taxes on savings for periods when they cannot work. Congress should also expand work-sharing programs, which give prorated benefits to workers who temporarily lose hours instead of their jobs. Only 26 states currently have work-sharing programs and employers often underutilize them. UI should pay for all these expansions across the economic cycle by taxing higher incomes than it does today.
Use Medicaid Matching Dollars to Moderate Fluctuations in State Revenues
Automatically ramping up direct federal aid to state and local governments should prove simpler than these UI reforms because Washington already has pre-existing channels to give states money through pre-existing federal-state partnerships, such as Medicaid. The federal government sent states $103 billion in aid during the Great Recession and $70 billion so far in the pandemic recession by increasing its share of the cost of Medicaid. That money not only freed up state funds for other spending priorities without creating a new bureaucracy, but also helped Medicaid cover laid-off workers who lost job-based health insurance. It makes sense to use the federal government’s ability to borrow at favorable rates to cover more of a state’s Medicaid costs when its unemployment rate rises, and less as its unemployment rate falls.
Provide Variable Matching Funds for Infrastructure Maintenance Projects
Since state and local governments may sometimes need more support than Medicaid can deliver, federal lawmakers should also pick up a greater share of intergovernmental infrastructure projects during downturns. President Biden recently proposed the federal government commit $1.3 trillion to rebuilding the nation’s physical infrastructure as part of his American Jobs Plan. Such an investment is badly needed, as the McKinsey Global Institute found in 2017 that the United States must raise infrastructure spending by 0.5 percent of GDP through 2035 — about $2.6 trillion — just to keep economic growth from slowing. Downturns exacerbate underinvestment because state and local governments often deal with budget crunches by pulling back their spending on infrastructure.
PPI recommends that federal lawmakers structure some of the President’s infrastructure investment as permanent new federal grants that match spending by state and local governments on infrastructure projects of national importance. Whereas local leaders will generally want to spend as much of the federal government’s money on their constituents as possible if it comes with no strings attached, requiring state and local governments to contribute some funding incentivizes them to pursue only useful projects. The matching rates for these grants should rise during recessions so state and local governments are encouraged to undertake deferred maintenance efforts when it is more cost-effective to do so and discouraged from discontinuing worthwhile long-term projects just because of temporary revenue losses.
These infrastructure grants could not only make the nation more productive in the long run but could also stimulate the economy in the short-term by creating well-paying construction jobs at times when the economy needs them most. Funding maintenance work would be especially stimulative, as such work can often begin more quickly than new capital projects can. Routinely maintaining infrastructure can also reduce the cost of future repairs and replacements. Yet despite these benefits, almost three-fourths of federal investment in water and transportation infrastructure went to new capital projects in 2017, leaving maintenance work to state and local governments. The federal government should focus more of its spending on maintenance at all times, but especially during downturns.
Cover Remaining State and Local Revenue Losses Directly
Finally, if state and local governments need more aid than these channels provide, the federal government should make up the difference through direct aid. Experts at the Tax Policy Center recently proposed creating a “State Macroeconomic Insurance Fund” that would automatically give state and local governments aid based on factors those governments cannot control, such as the unemployment rate. Unlike aid through federal-state partnerships, which states would need to pass through to local governments themselves, such a fund could also give to local governments directly.
TPC would encourage fiscal responsibility among state and local governments by letting them pay into the fund with any surpluses they run in good times in exchange for larger benefits during downturns. TPC would finance the rest of the fund’s benefits by making the $10,000 cap on federal income tax deductions for state and local taxes (SALT) permanent instead of allowing it to expire in 2025 as it would under current law. Although many Democrats from high-tax states want to repeal the cap, their efforts are deeply misguided: 56 percent of the benefit of ending it would go to the highest-earning one percent. Keeping the cap and using its revenues to give state and local governments direct aid would prevent regressive budget cuts during contractions instead of giving the rich a lavish tax cut.
These and other automatic stabilizers would make timely, proportional aid the default policy when Congress is too inflexible to act quickly. Ensuring the federal government automatically mitigates swings in economic demand will lessen the pain of downturns, spread the cost of stimulus across the business cycle, and free Congress to focus on addressing the unique issues each downturn presents.
President Joe Biden has surprised his critics across the political spectrum with an audacious $6 trillion blueprint for national reconstruction. His resolve to “go big” reflects a palpable public desire for bold action after the enormous losses in lives, jobs and small businesses that America has suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic.
But whether the country at large is eager to welcome “big government” back from political exile—as some progressive politicians and reporters hopefully claim—is far from clear. In fact, surveys show most Americans remain deeply skeptical about Washington’s capabilities.
Fortunately, Biden has other problem-solving tools at his disposal. Specifically, he should look to local governments, which have emerged as American federalism’s star performers. Instead of concentrating more power in Washington, the White House should work to decentralize decisions and resources to creative city and county leaders.
This strategy—call it “metro federalism”—relies on three facts. First, economic innovation and job creation are concentrated in metropolitan regions. Second, citizens have more confidence in their local governments than they do in Washington. Third, the progressive outlook of most metro areas makes them natural allies for the Biden administration.
In a Star Wars Day-themed Radically Pragmatic podcast episode, Caleb Watney, Director of Innovation Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, sits down with Rep. Derek Kilmer (WA-06) – Congress’ top Star Wars super-fan – for Star Wars trivia, and an exciting conversation on the future of technology innovation in America.
Caleb and Rep. Kilmer dig deep into their shared love of Sci-Fi, and talk about how fiction helps inspire technology improvements and innovations that can become a reality. Representative Kilmer also calls for more Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education and apprenticeship opportunities and a reinvestment in research and development funding.
When I think about climate change, I think about my brother-in-law Tillman.
Tillman spent his career with Big Oil. He travelled the world finding places to drill, baby, drill. He’s now comfortably retired in Dallas, Texas. And he’s a Republican.
You may suspect he’s a climate-change denier.
Wrong.
Tillman has a PhD in geology from UNC. He’s smart and studious. Some years back, he delved into a study of climate change.
Like most geologists, he concluded it’s real – so real he tells his eight grandchildren that the family’s vacation home on North Carolina’s Outer Banks may be gone when they’re his age. “Act now,” he writes, “to slow the change and preserve this wonderful place.”
The question is whether we – the world, the nation and North Carolina – will get real about fighting climate change.
In North Carolina, environmentalists want Governor Roy Cooper to join Virginia and 10 other states to our north in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, like “Reggie”). The other states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Under RGGI, a power plant has to buy an allowance for each ton of carbon dioxide pollution it emits into the atmosphere. Allowances can be bought and sold in a regional auction, which helps to keep costs down. The number of available allowances is reduced over time to reduce pollution.
Duke Energy’s Roxboro plant
The goal: reducing carbon emissions from power plants 70% from 2005 levels by 2030.
Advocates say RGGI is North Carolina’s least expensive and most efficient option – and the only action the Governor can take without the legislature. They fear the legislature will let Duke Energy adopt a less ambitious carbon-reduction plan.
The Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of Clean Air Carolina and the North Carolina Coastal Federation, has petitioned the state Environmental Management Commission to adopt rules so North Carolina can join RGGI:
“The threat to North Carolina from global climate change is real, it is present, and it is getting worse…. Sea levels have risen and continue to rise. Extreme precipitation has become more common and will be even more common in the future. The intensity of hurricanes and the frequency of other severe storms will increase. Flooding will increase, but so too will droughts and wildfires. Each of these changes will hit our most vulnerable residents hardest. Unabated, climate change will exact substantial costs on our environment, our economy, and the lives of all North Carolinians.”
President Biden has set an ambitious national goal: an overall 50% reduction in emissions from power plants and transportation by 2030. Joining RGGI would jibe with Biden’s goal and allow North Carolina to do our part, environmentalists say.
The New York Times said Biden’s plan “would require rapid and sweeping changes to virtually every corner of the nation’s economy, transforming the way Americans drive to work, heat their homes and operate their factories.”
Polls show that Americans, especially young people, believe climate change is real and that real action is needed. Yet, there is a stubborn resistance, much like the resistance to masks and Covid vaccines.
Climate-change deniers rely on scare tactics, not science. They claimed Biden’s climate plan cuts “90% of red meat from our diets by 2030.”
No, it doesn’t.
Biden framed his plan not as cutbacks and restrictions, but as an economic engine. He said it would create “millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs” – building a resilient electrical grid, cleaning up abandoned oil and gas wells and abandoned coal mines, building electric vehicles, installing charging stations and building clean-power plants.
In his first joint address to Congress, President Biden made it clear that he plans to go big on many health care issues including expanding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), reforming drug pricing, and even “ending cancer as we know it.” But he was scant on details and Democrats in Congress are nervous that if he doesn’t act soon, the window for health reform will close with the 2022 midterms.
Everyone agrees that passing health care reforms won’t be easy with paper-thin Democratic majorities in the House and Senate – especially when Democrats themselves disagree over the course Biden should take.
Last week, the pragmatic New Democrat Coalition urged the president to include in his American Families Plan several policies that would “strengthen and expand on the ACA:”
Making the American Rescue Plan’s increase and expansion of ACA subsidies permanent
Giving holdout states 100 percent federal match if they expand Medicaid (meaning the federal government would cover the entirety of the cost)
Automatically enrolling those eligible for Medicaid and fully subsidized ACA plans
Meanwhile, a group of left-leaning and moderate Democrats led by Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Conor Lamb – are encouraging the president to:
Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices
Lower the age for Medicare eligibility
Expand Medicare coverage of dental, hearing and vision benefits
Senator Sanders and 17 other Senators also signed a letter encouraging President Biden to push for these expansions saying that, “the time is long overdue for us to expand and improve this program so that millions of older Americans can receive the health care they need, including eyeglasses, hearing aids and dental care.”
Rep. Frank Pallone and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have re-introduced the late Rep. Elijah Cummings’s bill HR 3, which seeks to cap Medicare beneficiary out of pocket drug spending and overhaul how Medicare pays for drugs.
Democrats aren’t just debating the contents of the President’s health proposals, they also disagree about legislative tactics: Some want the president to include his larger health care priorities in the next reconciliation package, which requires only a simple majority to pass. Others worry that if only one Democratic Senator breaks ranks, that tactic will fail and leave them empty-handed.
One thing is clear: Other than on drug pricing, Democrats are not pushing for policies that would rein in health care costs. Adding benefits is easy; controlling costs is hard.
The health care industry will always push back against measures that seek to limit health care spending.
But there is widespread support among corporate leaders and voters for more government action on health care costs. A new survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation and Purchaser Business Group found that corporate leaders think that the cost of health insurance will reach a breaking point in the next decade. To mitigate high health care spending, 83 percent said that a greater government role health care would be “better for business.” Specifically, the survey found support for:
Lowering Medicare eligibility age
Creating a public insurance option
Capping hospital prices caps
Drug price negotiation
A broader federal role in health insurance coverage
There is also bipartisan support for Medicare drug negotiation: KFF found that 89 percent of survey respondents support allowing the federal government to negotiate with drug companies to get a lower price on medications.
But how does President Biden balance public demands with the political pressures of a divided Congress and strong health care industry lobby?
Given that the cost of health care is a top concern of the public and employers, President Biden should pursue pragmatic policies that would rein in spending which would allow his administration to pursue more ambitious coverage expansions.
Creating an early Medicare buy-in: A Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that health spending for 60- to 64-year-olds would be lower under Medicare than under large employer plans. Allowing this group to buy into Medicare earlier at a premium that fully covers the cost of their coverage is a politically popular idea that would reduce health care expenditures for both employers and the federal government because of the employer sponsored health insurance tax exclusion.
Encouraging states to expand Medicaid: Medicaid expansion has been passed by voter referendum in even the most conservative states, such as Idaho. The Biden Administration should push hold out states and provide additional financial incentives for states to expand Medicaid. It is a cost-efficient way of providing health coverage to low-income people.
Expanding ACA subsidies only with other cost controls in health care spending: Expanding the ACA subsidies, while an important step in getting more people insurance coverage, is the most expensive way to do so. The per capita cost for subsidizing ACA plans is more expensive than the per capita costs of Medicare and Medicaid. Making the enhanced subsidies permanent would cost $200 billion, roughly one-fifth the cost of the entire 2010 Affordable Care Act.
The health care industry supports making permanent the ACA subsidy expansions included in the American Rescue Act. When more people have access to affordable health insurance, hospitals, doctors, and drug companies are more likely to get reimbursed for the services they provide. However, these subsides should only be made permanent with some tradeoffs to rein in costs – these could include Medicare drug negotiation, price caps or a public option to compete alongside private health plans, but the administration should not authorize $200 billion in new health care spending without finding ways to curb the health care cost growth curve.
In general, it seems that most Democrats are tempering their expectations and pursuing realistic policy goals that can make it through a starkly divided Congress. But given the uncertainty of when the Democrats will have the trifecta of the White House, Senate and House again, they should use this time to pursue health care policies that will both expand coverage and reduce costs, making a real difference in people’s lives.
On a bonus Radically Pragmatic Podcast episode, Paul Weinstein, Jr., Senior Policy Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, sits down with Rep. Seth Moulton (MA-06), for a special conversation about infrastructure development and high-speed rail. Congressman Moulton serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as the House Budget and Armed Services Committees.
They discuss the need for more high-speed rail funding in the American Jobs Plan, the history of public and private investment in high-speed rail, and the potential for growth of high-speed rail projects across the country. Representative Moulton recently introduced a new bill, the American High-Speed Rail Act, which would invest $205 billion federal dollars into high-speed rail and create at least 2.6 million direct American jobs over five years.
On Friday, April 23rd, PPI Director of Social Policy Veronica Goodman spoke with Professor Maya Rossin-Slater, a paid leave expert at Stanford University about her latest paper, The Impact of Paid Family Leave on Employers: Evidence from New York, co-authored with Ann P. Bartel, Christopher J. Ruhm, Meredith Slopen, and Jane Waldfogel. Watch the full interview below.
