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

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

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

Learn more about the Center for New Liberalism here.

Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here.

Kane for Bloomberg: Medicare Can Cover Dental Care Inexpensively

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

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

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

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

Read the full piece in Bloomberg. 

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

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

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

Read the full piece in Forbes.

Tech-ecommerce drives job growth in most states

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full piece in The Hill. 

PPI Statement on Senate Anti-Tech Bill  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

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

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

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

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

Read the full piece in New York Law Journal

Marshall for The Hill: Democrats need a win — now

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

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

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

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

Read the full piece in The Hill. 

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

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

 

Read the full piece in the Washington Post.

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

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

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

Read the full piece in RealClearPolicy

The Great Transatlantic Data Disruption

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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.

 

Read the full report here. 

Reconciling with Reality: An Audio Guide to PPI’s Build Back Better Blueprint

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.

Read PPI’s blueprint here.

Learn more about the Center for Funding America’s Future here.

Learn more about the Center for New Liberalism here.

Gov. Cooper’s Ambitious Climate Deal in North Carolina Should Inspire Democrats in Congress

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.

PPI Unveils Radically Pragmatic Blueprint for Reconciliation

Today, 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.

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.

Read the blueprint 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.

Launched in 2018, PPI’s 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.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

Reconciling With Reality: The top priorities for building back better

Introduction

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.

Download the Report: 

 

About the Author:

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.

TALK POLICY: What Young People Need to Succeed with Stephanie Malia Krauss

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.