Goodman for Newsweek: The Reconciliation Bill Should Invest in America’s Kids

Category: Uncategorized

Goodman for Newsweek: The Reconciliation Bill Should Invest in America’s Kids

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As Congress makes progress on a bipartisan infrastructure deal, Democrats turn their attention to the sizable $3.5 trillion reconciliation package. The bill includes major pieces of President Biden’s Build Back Better platform and the American Families and Jobs Plans. Some moderate Democrats have voiced concerns about the size and scope of the package—foretelling of difficult negotiations ahead.

As lawmakers begin those discussions, however, we should not forget about a group that doesn’t get a seat at the table for policy debates: the United States’ more than 73 million children. The reconciliation package should prioritize investments in kids, not just to equalize our relatively low rates of spending on youth, but because doing so has huge shared benefits and among the highest rates of return for any social investment.

Read the full piece in Newsweek.

Ritz for The Hill: The bipartisan infrastructure bill gives taxpayers a good bang for their buck

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As senators prepare to vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill they negotiated with President Biden, they should be applauded for incorporating several provisions that would help control costs and give taxpayers the most bang for their buck.

One of the reasons infrastructure projects cost significantly more in the United States than similar ones in other countries is our byzantine permitting process. The bill directs permitting agencies to cut average approval times to less than two years for major projects and includes several provisions to help make that happen without sacrificing important social and environmental protections.

Read the full piece. 

America’s Public Schools Must Open in the Fall — Safely

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As the delta variant drives up infection rates in every state in the nation, Americans face an urgent national imperative: Making sure our public schools open and operate safely this fall. We can’t allow our children to suffer another round of large-scale learning losses as they did the previous two school years.

Learning loss is real — and it exacerbates existing inequities in our public education systems. Using the imperfect but best data available, McKinsey & Company translated 2021’s spring in-school test scores of more than 1.6 million elementary school students across 40 states into “months of lost learning.” It found, compared to similar students in previous years, students on average were five months behind in math and four months behind in reading. Students in majority-Black and predominantly low-income schools were even further behind their higher-income and suburban peers, as were younger students. When considering the huge strides first and second graders usually make in learning to read, and the importance of literacy to future school work, recent reports putting those 2021 students’ average two grade levels or more behind schedule are alarming.

To avoid compounding such losses, schools must safely reopen their classrooms for in-person instruction for students of all ages. At the onset of the pandemic, in their haste to slow the spread of the virus, state and local governments too frequently closed public schools for prolonged periods as a first resort, rather than as a last measure. The second back-to-school under COVID must be different.

Read the full post here.

New Report by PPI Finds U.S. Spending on Broadband and Telecom Declining as Share of Economy, With Better High-Speed Internet Coverage than Europe

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A new report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) finds that the telecom and broadband industry is providing increased coverage and speeds while absorbing a smaller share of consumer and business expenditures. Meanwhile, Americans enjoy better access to high-speed internet than their European counterparts. The report, titled “The State of U.S. and European Broadband Prices and Deployment” is authored by Dr. Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at PPI and Elliott Long, Senior Economic Policy Analyst at PPI.

“The data is clear: America is actually doing much better in deploying broadband to urban and rural areas, compared to our European counterparts. We live in an increasingly digital age, yet the broadband and telecom industry revenues are a smaller share of the economy, which suggests these providers are giving consumers and businesses more services for less money,” said report authors Dr. Michael Mandel and Elliott Long.

While some in the United States claim the broadband industry is performing poorly compared with the other side of the Atlantic, the European Commission’s International Digital Economy and Society Connectivity Score, which measures fixed and mobile broadband deployment and adoption, fixed broadband speed, and fixed broadband price, found the U.S. to rank very close to the top EU countries in 2018, and well above the EU average.

Read the report here:

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

The State of U.S. and European Broadband Prices and Deployment

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

INTRODUCTION

It’s common for critics to unfavorably compare broadband prices in the U.S. to Europe. The Open Technology Institute’s (OTI) Cost of Connectivity 2020 study reported that “people can still expect to pay more for internet service in the United States than in Asia or Europe.”1 There is often talk of a “broadband affordability crisis,” which presumably Europe is not suffering from.

Indicators of an “affordability crisis” would typically involve consumers getting less for more. An affordability crisis involves price increases outpacing other parts of the economy and the access to the good or service being less attainable to more and more people.

In this paper, we consider a wide range of evidence available and provide our own new analysis to evaluate claims of a “broadband affordability crisis.” First, we review several international comparisons of broadband prices alongside the data on differing deployment. Any consideration of how U.S. broadband prices stack up must take into account such deployment differences as well. Second, we provide a new analysis showing how broadband and telecom industry revenues have significantly declined as a share of the overall economy. This suggests that in an important sense, the broadband and telecom industry is providing far more services to consumers and businesses while absorbing a smaller share of spending.

While some in the United States claim the broadband industry is performing poorly compared with the other side of the Atlantic, Europeans are not so sure that they are leading the broadband race. The European Commission’s International Digital Economy and Society Connectivity Index, which measures fixed and mobile broadband deployment and adoption, fixed broadband speed, and fixed broadband price, found the U.S. to rank very close to the top EU countries in 2018, and well above the EU average (Table 1).2

 

In particular, data shows U.S. broadband providers provide much better coverage than their European counterparts. Consider France, for example. The typical price for broadband in France — when you can get it — is relatively cheap, both compared to the United States and other European countries. However, as of 2019, 50% of French households did not have access
to broadband speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) or more.3 In the same year, only 8% of the U.S. population did not have access to wired broadband speeds of 100 Mbps or more, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).4 Similarly, as of 2019, 38% of French households did not have access to broadband with download speeds of 30 Mbps
or more. The comparable share of the U.S. population was 4%. Even if the U.S. figures overstate the availability of broadband, as some argue, the gap is enormous.

Indeed, the distribution of broadband service at various speeds is extremely uneven in European countries compared to the U.S. For example, Lyon, France, has 98% coverage at the 100 and 30 Mbps speed tiers.5 Yet in the commune of Dagneux, just 15 miles outside Lyon — with a population of roughly 5,000 — only 4% of residences and businesses were eligible for 100 Mbps speeds and only 13% were connectable at 30 Mbps speeds.

Similarly, Bonn, Germany, enjoys 99% coverage at the 100 Mbps speed tier and 100% coverage at the 30 Mbps speed tier.6 But in the Grafschaft municipality, approximately 15 miles outside Bonn — with a population of roughly 11,000 — speeds of 100 Mbps were available to only 29% of the population and 30 Mbps was available to 71%. By contrast, in Columbia, Illinois, 15 miles outside St. Louis, with a population of roughly 11,000, 95% and 100% of the population had access to 100 and 25 Mbps speeds with two or more providers, respectively.7

The link between low prices and weak deployment shouldn’t be a surprise. European broadband providers have been underspending their U.S. counterparts for years, focusing on dense cities rather than the more-expensive-to cover, low-density areas. A network that serves lower-density areas will inevitably be more expensive for everyone, even if an attempt is
made to keep costs segregated.

Our second piece of analysis is a different but complementary way to see if the cost of broadband is increasing or decreasing. Instead of studying individual prices, which are difficult to track given various fees and differing plans,
we look at total revenues from operation booked by broadband and telecom providers as a share of the overall economy. This measure accounts for all charges and fees being collected from consumers and businesses.

Since 2000, total broadband and telecom revenues have grown much slower than the economy as a whole. As a result, broadband and telecom revenues have shrunk more or less steadily from 2.7% of the economy in 2000 to 2.1% in 2019, imposing less of a burden on consumers and businesses even as they use much more data. By contrast, the revenues
being collected by sectors such as healthcare,

Read the full report here:

 

 

HELP IS HERE: The Child Tax Credit and How It’s Helping Working Families, with Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX)

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On this week’s Radically Pragmatic Podcast, Veronica Goodman, Director of Social Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), sits down with Representative Veronica Escobar (TX-16), to discuss the Child Tax Credit.

For context, The American Rescue Plan Act, crafted by the Biden Administration and passed by Congressional Democrats, included a historic expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). Qualifying families will see an increased tax credit of $3,000 for each child between the ages of six and 17 years old and $3,600 for each child under the age of six. The increased credit funds — $250 for children between six and 17, and $300 for each child under six — will be provided monthly, giving over 36 million eligible families relief as we recover from the pandemic. The expansion of the Child Tax Credit could lift one-half of all children in America out of poverty.

Families who are eligible for the CTC but have not received their monthly payment should visit IRS.gov or whitehouse.gov/child-tax-credit.

Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here.

Dental insurance: Plans without protections

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute
INTRODUCTION

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) instituted new regulations on health insurance plans. One of the biggest changes was that large health plans are now required to spend 85% of health insurance premiums on health care services and smaller and individual health plans are required to spend 80%. The remaining 15% – 20% of premium revenues can be used for administrative costs and profits. These so-called Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rules require that plans return excess premium revenues as rebates to beneficiaries.

In a year like we just had, where consumption changed dramatically from what health insurance actuaries predicted, MLR rebates protect consumers. Health insurers are returning $2.1 billion in MLR rebates in 2021 because people used fewer health care services in 2020 than had been anticipated and priced into premiums.1

But dental insurance plans were exempt from ACA reforms and are not subject to these MLR rules. Some dental health plans have spent as little as 4% of premiums on actual dental care.2 Additionally, they typically have annual maximum benefit limitations and high cost-sharing. All and all, patients often get a bad deal on dental health plans.

Last year, spending on dental services dropped 20%.3 But most consumers and employers won’t see that money returned to them through rebates. Instead, it will line the pockets of dental insurance companies as a nice windfall.

But if we wouldn’t let health plans keep the excess premiums, why do we continue to let dental health plans go unchecked? This brief
outlines why it’s important to subject dental health plans to the same regulations as medical health insurance.

BACKGROUND

It’s an accident of history that oral health is treated separately from our medical system. When early dentists wanted to join the Medical College at the University of Maryland, the physicians refused them entry. Dentists set up their own line of study and that divide lives on. Fewer than 1% of health plans include dental benefits — usually dental health plans are purchased separately, often from a different company — to fill in what health plans leave out.4

Roughly 80% of Americans have some form of dental coverage.5 Of those with coverage, roughly two-thirds have private dental coverage, usually offered by an employer, though about 7% of Americans buy stand-alone dental plans through or outside of the ACA exchanges.6 Of those with private coverage, 77 million are in self-insured plans that are governed by the federal government and 88 million are in plans that are regulated by the states7. The remaining third have publicly funded coverage through Medicaid, CHIP, TriCare, or Medicare Advantage.

But even those who have employer-sponsored dental coverage often don’t get a great deal. A typical dental insurance plan offers what is known as”100-80-50″ coverage. This means the plan will pay 100% of the cost of routine preventive cleanings. Then it will cover 80% of the cost of basic services such as fillings or root canals, and 50% of the cost of major procedures such as crowns and bridges. Usually, there is a maximum benefit of $1,000-$2,000 per year. While only 6% of people exceed their maximum benefit per year, requiring one crown can cost over $2,000 — blowing through the maximum benefit.8

Dental costs have been increasing for decades. Between 1996 and 2016, per capita dental care expenditures increased 27%.9 Expenditures for dental services increased from $43 billion in 1996 to $96 billion in 2015 — a 200% increase.10 In 1996, the mean annual expense for a dental visit was $374, or $564 when adjusted for inflation, but by 2015, that had increased to $696. But the average dental plan benefit has not changed in 50 years. In 1970, a $1,000 benefit was worth about $6,909 in 2021 dollars.11 Yet, some plans still have a $1,000 maximum benefit in 2021 which no longer provides the same level of coverage because of inflation.

Download and Read the Full Report Here

 

PPI Statement on the Senate’s Infrastructure Breakthrough

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Governing Breaks Out in Washington

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released the following statement by PPI President Will Marshall in reaction to the announcement of a deal on the bipartisan infrastructure framework:

“Bravo to President Biden and the bipartisan group of U.S. Senators who after weeks of hard bargaining reached a deal today on a $550 billion investment in modernizing America’s economic infrastructure.

“Special kudos to Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Rob Portman, who persevered in the face of skepticism and harsh criticism from obdurate partisans in their own parties to forge the agreement. The first-term Senator from Arizona and retiring veteran from Ohio showed our fractured country what real leadership and patriotism look like.

“We hope Democrats and pragmatic progressives will rally behind the agreement, which is worth supporting for three solid reasons:

“First, America urgently needs to repair and upgrade our country’s foundations for vibrant economic growth, innovation and competitiveness. The bill is not perfect – no legislative compromise ever is – but it’s what we need to get our country moving again and outcompete China for economic and technological leadership.

“Second, the deal fulfills President Biden’s pledge to govern for the good of all Americans, not just those who voted for him. He’s stood firm not only against the usual right-wing obstructionists, but also left-wing naysayers who confuse the search for political common ground with an abandonment of principle.

“Third, if Congress approves the agreement, it will send a powerful signal at home and abroad about the resilience of American democracy. For more than a decade, both parties have talked about going big on infrastructure to no result. Donald Trump, who fancied himself a master negotiator, got precisely nowhere on the issue over four chaotic years in office. In only six months, Biden and the Senate group have set the stage for bipartisan action to advance a critically important national interest.

“Now it’s up to the Senate and House to show that our democracy can deliver tangible benefits to the American people. We don’t underestimate the political obstacle course that must still be run to turn a promising legislative deal into reality. But that’s no reason not to cheer a long overdue outbreak of governing competence in Washington.”

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

McDermott for The Hill: Lawmakers can’t reconcile weakening the SALT cap with progressive goals

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

While President Biden has called for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations to finance a $3.5 trillion budget agreement, some Democrats in Congress are undermining this agenda by demanding that the agreement cut taxes on their affluent constituents. These lawmakers argue that the $10,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction created by the GOP’s 2017 tax law undermines their states’ ability to raise revenue through progressive tax policy.

But in reality, any effort to weaken or repeal the cap would simply be a pointless giveaway to the rich. Democrats should reject this regressive tax cut that would draw critical resources away from needed public investments.

Read the full piece. 

Rep. Joe Courtney and Hon Ed Husic MP of the Australian Labor Party Join Joint PPI and McKell Institute Event on Tech, Civic Integrity, and Democracy 

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Last night, the Progressive Policy Institute, based in Washington, D.C., and the McKell Institute, based in Sydney, Australia, hosted an event focused on global technology and democracy, featuring U.S. Representative Joe Courtney (CT-02), and the Hon. Ed Husic MP (Australian Labor Party).

The event, titled “Global Tech, Global Democracy: How Has Tech Broken Down International Boundaries?” focused on how the U.S., Australia, and their international partners can develop international solutions to ensure that we benefit from technology’s promise while avoiding its dangers. The lawmakers and an expert panel discussed civic integrity, the importance of combating online misinformation, protecting freedom of speech, and the role tech has played in elections.

Watch the twitter livestream here:

Representative Joe Courtney is a Democrat representing Connecticut’s 2nd Congressional District, and is the Co-Chair of the Friends of Australia Caucus. He serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the Education and the Workforce Committee.

The Honorable Ed Husic is a member of the Australian House of Representatives for Chifley and a member of the Australian Labor Party. He is the Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation.

They were joined by an expert international panel on technology innovation, including Sunita Bose, Managing Director of DIGI, Damian Kassabgi, Executive Vice President, Public Policy and Communications, of Afterpay, and Mike Masnick, Editor of TechDirt. The event was moderated by Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at PPI and Michael Buckland, President of the McKell Institute, and featured welcoming remarks by Alec Stapp, Director of Technology Policy at PPI.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

The McKell Institute is a progressive research institute based in Sydney, Australia, dedicated to providing practical and innovative solutions to contemporary policy challenges. Since its establishment in 2011, the Institute has played an important role in shaping the public policy agenda at both state and federal level. Learn more about the McKell Institute by visiting mckellinstitute.org.au.

Follow the McKell Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

Marshall for American Purpose: Can the Democrats Save our Democracy?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Democratic Party must fend off extremes and hold on to responsible, center-left politics.

Ideologues of all stripes are perennially frustrated with America’s two-party “duopoly.” They say it stifles voices of radical reform, fails to offer voters meaningful choices, and delivers only tepid incrementalism. Many yearn for the doctrinal coherence and discipline shown by parties in Europe, where multiparty systems are the rule.

Whatever the merits of these complaints, it’s true that America’s two-party system seems immutably entrenched. Third parties come and go; but except for the Republicans in the 1850s, none has succeeded in supplanting either of the two major parties—and it took the Civil War to make that happen.

Most U.S. voters reasonably figure that if they want their vote to count, they’d better line up with Democrats or Republicans. As duopoly critics note, that arrangement doesn’t give the public an ideological choice, since both parties normally offer variations on America’s classically liberal creed. But party allegiance isn’t strictly a matter of intellectual conviction; it’s also influenced by sectional, family, ethnic, class, and religious ties.

Historically, the two major parties have been broad, loose, and shifting coalitions. That feature has given them a pragmatic bent, since today’s political foe could become tomorrow’s convert. It’s reinforced by a presidential system designed to diffuse and share power rather than alternate one-party rule.

To prevent untrammeled majority rule, the Founders created structural incentives for compromise so that minority interests get taken into account. But heterogeneous and pragmatic parties don’t suit Americans with more dogmatic dispositions. These Americans demand adherence to fixed principles, typically expressed as moral absolutes. Not for them the tedious drilling of hard boards; they want the romance of revolution.

Read the full piece in American Purpose. 

Lewis for The Hill: Price Controls For Broadband Won’t Work

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute
This piece first ran in The Hill. Read it here. 

 

There is good news inside the beltway — for a pleasant change. Lawmakers are close to a deal on “hard” infrastructure, including a $65 billion commitment to closing our digital divide.
The emerging consensus is to build world-class broadband networks where they don’t already exist, and invest in a low-income broadband subsidy — an extension of the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) launched in May that has already signed up more than 3.5 million households. Its annual cost would be roughly $5 billion.
This is a big deal for several reasons.
First, the broadband sections of the massive infrastructure deal are well crafted to avoid the waste and mismanagement that doomed earlier efforts to close the digital divide. This time around, drafters created smart targeting and clear safeguards should ensure we build new networks only where they are most needed. That is enough reason to cheer.
Second, this compromise — should it survive the procedural squabble this week — also reminds us that bipartisan governance is alive and that the two parties can put aside their polemics and social media sanctimony and come together to serve the voters that elected them to office in the first place. That’s also reason for celebration.
But third — and all Democrats should take note — this bipartisan deal actually commits Republicans to its success. And that may be the single most important aspect. Republican support will make it hard to grandstand and whine about the project from the partisan sidelines, and hard for successive Republican administrations to repeal.
Instead, the GOP now is on record supporting this compromise with skin in the game to make it work. That dynamic, coupled with the bill’s smart design, bodes well for success.
But every good party brings a skunk who wants to upset it. And in this case, leftist ideologues that are finding audience within the administration are pushing for price controls on mobile and broadband connection fees that would very likely sabotage the bipartisan deal.
That would be a shame, since price controls aren’t necessary to ensure that low-income Americans can connect at low subscription rates. Almost all major broadband providers already offer low-income households a discounted tier around $10-20 a month — and these remarkably successful programs have already connected more than 14 million low-income Americans. So, it’s hard to see what this rear-guard action actually accomplishes.
Worse, price controls have a long and sorrowful history of not working, failing to anticipate technological advances, and sidelining infrastructure investment. Applied to the U.S. broadband marketplace, price controls could upend the investment engine that has already delivered faster speeds, more reliable and resilient networks, and more widespread deployment in rural areas than we see in Europe. It’s the big reason why speeds continue to accelerate each year even as prices at any given speed level keep falling.
To understand this risk, it’s worth considering a paper authored last year by Jonathan Nuechterlein (formerly general counsel at the FTC under President Obama and deputy general counsel at the FCC under President Clinton) and Howard Shelanski (formerly administrator of OIRA and head of the FTC’s Bureau of Economics under President Obama). No conservatives are they.
They make a pretty persuasive case on the problems with price controls and counterproductive, virtue-signaling regulatory diktats: “In many respects, the [2010 National] Broadband Plan was a case study in regulatory humility. It recognized that broadband progress was ‘[f]ueled primarily by private sector investment and innovation’; that ‘government cannot predict the future’; that ‘the role of government is and should remain limited’; and that policymakers should thus focus not on imposing price controls or behavioral restrictions, but on ‘encourag[ing] more private innovation and investment.’ This advice, which the FCC has generally followed, has fared well under the test of time.”
This successful light-touch approach stands in sharp contrast with Europe’s experience with heavier-handed price regulation and forced line-sharing. Networks investment has suffered as a result — Europe’s per capita broadband investment is less than one-third that of the U.S.
Lawmakers would be wise to take note before taking the bait on bringing European-style, blunt-instrument price regulations to the U.S. The White House should also not give the regulation-addled, far left voices an ear.
The emerging bipartisan framework offers a much smarter (and cost-effective) approach to closing digital divides in both rural and urban communities. Success is at their fingertips, if they are only willing to say yes.
Lindsay Lewis is executive director of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Weinstein and Marshall for USA Today: We need COVID-19 mandates to reach herd immunity. Start by requiring vaccine proof to fly.

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

This piece first appeared in USA Today. Read it here.

America is at a COVID-19 crossroads. For the first time since the highly effective vaccines became widely available in the spring, the new case rate is back on the rise due to the spread of the more contagious delta variant and the stalled effort to vaccinate people in many parts of the country. 

According to medical experts, reaching herd immunity will require that 70% to 90% of the U.S. population be fully vaccinated. But despite having enough vaccines available to inoculate every eligible American age 12 and up, just under 50% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated.

Worse, at the current vaccination rate of roughly 500,000 per day, it will take nine more months to cover just 75% of the population. This would give dangerous and more contagious COVID variants a chance to gain a foothold and perpetuate the pandemic.

Contain COVID at transportation hubs

President Joe Biden and COVID czar Jeff Zients deserve tremendous credit for making the COVID-19 vaccines widely available and bringing focus and discipline to the White House pandemic dysfunction they inherited from former President Donald Trump. But a reliance on incentives and awareness can only get us so far, especially when some irresponsible politicians have been stoking vaccine skepticism and outright hostility.

To get to herd immunity within a reasonable time frame, the Biden administration is going to need to add to its arsenal some targeted vaccine mandates— and the obvious first step is to require proof of vaccination when embarking on an airplane.

According to a number of legal experts, the president has the authority – from laws establishing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Aviation Administration, as well as the Commerce Clause of the Constitution – to require all airlines to ask ticket holders to provide proof of full vaccination.

By disrupting the spread of COVID-19 at transportation hubs where individuals gather and connect to other geographic regions, and by creating another incentive for adult vaccination, an airline vaccine requirement would help bring the pandemic to an end.

No doubt even a targeted mandate for airline passengers will stoke the outrage machine at Fox News and other right-wing propaganda outlets. Republicans eager for Trump’s favor and anti-vaxxers can be expected to decry any vaccine requirement as an attack on Americans’ basic “freedoms.”

Nowhere in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights will conservatives find a right to infect others with a deadly disease. In addition to defending our civil liberties, government is responsible for promoting the general welfare and protecting citizens from harm. No rational person considers requiring a license to drive a car or fly a plane a form of tyranny.

Citizens have responsibilities, too – to each other, their communities and their country. In times of war and other national emergencies, Americans have always proved willing to sacrifice their private interests and pursuits for the common good. Amid a resurgence of COVID-19 and pervasive vaccine hesitancy, we face just such an emergency today.

Treading cautiously isn’t working

That’s why it is deeply unpatriotic for anti-vaxxers to feed the public misinformation about the efficacy and safety of vaccines. It’s also reckless. More than 99% of people dying from COVID-19 are unvaccinated, according to Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.

President Biden would be on solid ground in invoking the principle of mutual responsibility as a counter to the right’s strangely anti-social conception of freedom. A vaccine requirement for air passengers wouldn’t force anyone to get vaccinated; it would leave them to choose whether refusing the vaccine is more important to them than being able to fly.

In purely legal terms, the Biden administration is well within its authority to protect the health and safety of passengers and citizens. Politically, the president and the COVID-19 vaccines are already under attack by extremists, and this will only get worse should cases rise again and we see the return of mask mandates, such as the one just reinstated in Los Angeles County.

The debate over vaccinations is polarized, and the Biden administration has been right to tread cautiously. But if the best we can do under our current strategy is less than what we need for herd immunity, then reasonable, targeted mandates will be needed in order to end the pandemic and ensure the health and safety of all Americans.

Paul Weinstein Jr. is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and directs the M.A. program in public management at Johns Hopkins University. Will Marshall (@Will_PPI) is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Congresswoman Veronica Escobar Joins PPI’s Podcast to Discuss the Child Tax Credit

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On this week’s Radically Pragmatic Podcast, Veronica Goodman, Director of Social Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), sits down with Representative Veronica Escobar (TX-16), to discuss the Child Tax Credit.

“We learned very early on when we passed the Child Tax Credit, just what a resounding, powerful impact it would make in our effort to combat child poverty,” said Rep. Escobar on the podcast. “Something that should be the utmost priority for every lawmaker is to ensure that children don’t go hungry, that children are not homeless, that children have every opportunity possible to live prosperous, wonderful lives.”

Congresswoman Escobar is a member of the New Democrat Coalition. She is a Vice Chair for the Democratic Women’s Caucus and serves on the prestigious House Judiciary Committee, House Armed Services Committee, House Ethics Committee, and the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. In addition, she serves as Vice Chair of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

The American Rescue Plan Act, crafted by the Biden Administration and passed by Congressional Democrats, included a historic expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). Qualifying families will see an increased tax credit of $3,000 for each child between the ages of six and 17 years old and $3,600 for each child under the age of six. The increased credit funds — $250 for children between six and 17, and $300 for each child under six — will be provided monthly, giving over 36 million eligible families relief as we recover from the pandemic. The expansion of the Child Tax Credit could lift one-half of all children in America out of poverty.

Families who are eligible for the CTC but have not received their monthly payment should visit IRS.gov or whitehouse.gov/child-tax-credit.

Listen here and subscribe:

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

Goodman for The Hill: As talks on infrastructure continue, Congress must invest in the workers who will build it

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As talks on a bipartisan infrastructure deal continue, it’s critical to our country’s ongoing economic recovery that workforce development funding – specifically the $100 billion set aside in the American Jobs Plan – not be sidelined. To ensure a labor market recovery for all American workers, including those who have been left behind in the past, we need to invest in employment opportunities for those who have struggled during the pandemic and those who face challenges, no matter the economic conditions.

Many signs point to a labor market in recovery. The current unemployment rate is 5.9 percent, down considerably from historic highs in 2020 but still above pre-pandemic levels. Last week, initial unemployment claims were at the lowest level since March 2020 — welcome progress thanks to the success of the administration’s American Rescue Plan and aggressive vaccination campaign.

But the recovery has remained uneven across education levels and for certain groups. The unemployment rate for Black, Hispanic and non-college educated workers follows past trends and is elevated compared to those with a Bachelor’s degree or higher. In June 2021, the unemployment rate for those with a high school degree and no college was double (7 percent) that of workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher (3.5 percent).

Long spells of unemployment and becoming disconnected from the labor market have profoundly negative effects on families’ overall economic security, including the children of those workers, and can stunt local economies. It is in everyone’s economic interest not just to provide opportunities for workers across the economic distribution but to ensure that our workforce development infrastructure prioritizes good outcomes. The pandemic recovery is an opportunity to make workforce development more inclusive.

Read the full piece in The Hill. 

Ritz for Forbes: The Challenge Of Paying For Senate Budget Bills

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

This article also appeared in Forbes

Senate Democrats have promised that both the $579 billion Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework and the $3.5 trillion budget blueprint they are advancing this week will be “fully paid for.” While there’s a case for borrowing to finance the most pro-growth infrastructure investments when interest rates are low, lawmakers’ commitment to fiscal discipline is reassuring at a time when the national debt is at record levels and inflation concerns are heating up. But signs are emerging that lawmakers will struggle to keep that promise as they flesh out the details. The upcoming budget resolution is an important opportunity to begin developing clearer financing plans and safeguards to uphold the agreements.

 

President Joe Biden initially proposed tax increases on corporations and wealthy households that would raise roughly $3.3 trillion in new revenue over the next 10 years to finance his American Jobs and Families Plans. That revenue would almost be enough to pay for the $3.5 trillion in new spending agreed to by Senate Democratic leadership last week, but several key lawmakers have already called for reducing the scope of those tax hikes.

 

Meanwhile, on the spending side, the budget agreement incorporates provisions — such as a costly Medicare expansion — that weren’t included in either the Jobs or Families Plan. Negotiators have said they will keep the bill’s sticker price under $3.5 trillion by setting the duration of some programs, including an expansion of the Child Tax Credit, to arbitrarily expire after a few years. But this move would be nothing more than a gimmick: The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the package could cost up to $5.5 trillion over the coming decade if lawmakers allowed all the policies slated for inclusion in the budget blueprint to become permanent (as is clearly their ultimate intention).

 

Similar problems with fuzzy accounting plague the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework. For example, negotiators have said they will pay for $70 billion of spending by cutting fraud from unemployment benefits even though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that overpayments over the next decade will be less than half that amount. The framework also counts offsets such as selling the strategic petroleum reserve, which may need to be bought back at a higher price, and sales of spectrum that have already occurred or would occur under current law. The situation worsened over the weekend when Republicans demanded that increased funding to help the IRS collect unpaid taxes — one of the few legitimate sources of real revenue included in the bipartisan deal — be dropped from the package.                                                                                                           .

Some economists and politicians would argue that the policies in these packages don’t need to be paid for because they are public investments in the future. On the one hand, it makes sense to borrow from future generations to pay for investments they will benefit from, particularly when interest rates are low. But on the other, the federal government is currently on track to spend roughly $8 trillion more on ­programs that aren’t public investment than it will collect in taxes over the next decade, and some of the policies under discussion would further add to that category of spending. Interest rates are also likely to rise between now and when the money in these bills is actually spent. Even if lawmakers are content to borrow $4 trillion for public investment, they should pair it with $4 trillion of revenue to reduce the “consumption deficit” that no responsible leader can defend.

Deficit spending, even for worthwhile long-term investments, could also have negative short- and medium-term consequences if it occurs at a time when the economy is overheating. Much of the $2 trillion spent on the American Rescue Plan earlier this year was necessary to help our economy recover from the pandemic recession, but it has also likely contributed to higher-than-expected inflation. Although most economists believe these recent spikes are likely transitory, nobody can know for sure until later this year or early next. Lawmakers should therefore be wary of committing to a massive new spending bill in the near future before having a plausible plan for how to pay for it.

The Senate will soon vote on a budget resolution that includes instructions telling Congressional committees how much their policies can add to the deficit in a reconciliation bill (the legislative vehicle that will allow Democrats to pass their $3.5 trillion agreement without any Republican votes). Even though lawmakers could pass a reconciliation bill that increases the deficit by less than the amount allowed by the budget resolution, neither the American Rescue Plan nor the 2017 Trump tax cuts left anything on the table.

 

Therefore, if Congress is serious about paying for the upcoming spending bills, it should safeguard the agreement by passing a budget resolution that instructs the reconciliation process not to increase total budget deficits at all (there could still be some modest deficit-spending in a bipartisan infrastructure bill). Lawmakers must also eschew timing gimmicks that hide the true cost of the policies they are enacting and create uncertainty for working families who may plan their lives around new programs. A broader menu of revenue options, such as a carbon tax, inheritance tax, or progressive consumption tax, should be on the table to cover the costs of these policies. And if lawmakers cannot get consensus on a revenue package big enough to cover their spending ambitions, they should prioritize the most pro-growth public investments and cut what they are unwilling to pay for.